Why is anyone actually surprised by this whiff of infidelity? 

I thought it was fairly well established that, whilst it has always been fairly clear who the mother of a child was, the exact biological father is much more uncertain. Before the days of DNA testing, and perhaps looking at the world with a Victorian moral squint, it was generally assumed, not the least for inheritance purposes, that parental infidelity amongst "the better classes" was rare, or at least if it did ever occur it eventually became known through admission of the participants.

But I seem to recall (and I apologise for not being able to lay my hands on the references) a series of DNA studies conducted in several countries involving people would had been conceived as long ago as the very beginning of the  20th century, that suggested something like 1 in 20 fathers (I cannot recall the exact ratio - it might even be as much as 1 in 10) were not actually the biological fathers of their proclaimed offspring. As I recall the studies were actually incidental ...  primary study was attempting to trace a common inherited medical condition - and so all the relationships, whether declared or subsequently shown (or not!) by DNA, were completely anonymous and so no-one deliberately lied. Again I apologise for not having the data to hand but it was recorded in the Journal of the Society of Genealogists.

That article further discussed this DNA data by examining a few specific studies involving children - or rather their ancestors' DNA - who had been conceived up to something like 200 years ago ... and again, although rather limited (being from some years ago it was before DNA testing was so readiliy available) the results still seemed to be fairly consistent in that about 1 in 20 births didn't biologically have the father that was generally accepted as such. Matriarchal infidelity was obviously rarer but was by no means unknown, again as revealed anonymously by DNA testing for inherited disease.

So yet again I say: quelle surprise!

Good point. And of course this rather basic and self-evident pattern of paternity/non-paternity/incorrectly-assumed-paternity made the "findings" based on the mitochondrial snippet's alleged overlap with the modern samples almost laughably pointless from day one when they were held up in triumph at the Leicester press conference.

But then, what killjoy was going to burst the Ricardians' bubbles at that point? Oh, wait a minute - me, for one.

(And also no one has even hinted at the widely held practice of informal "adoption" of children that went on right up to very recently and for which no public acknowledgement or record was ever made or kept, or even expected to be. Acceptance of such practices was precisely what led to the accusation that Mary of Modena had slipped a son and heir into her childbirth bed concealed in a bed-pan gaining credibility so rapidly. No one was above - or beneath - such practices for various reasons, including dynastic ones)

El Nord wrote:

But then, what killjoy was going to burst the Ricardians' bubbles at that point? Oh, wait a minute - me, for one.

Squashed again.

Pooh - see if we care.

PS Just trying to raise the academic tone for the silent viewing hordes out there.

So am I correct in reading this as either (a) this is not Richard III or (b) if it is him he had no blood right to take the crown from his nephews who he had declared illegitimate.  Do you think the Richard III Society may just have been hoisted by their own petard?

Not necessarily. Depends. John of Gaunt is the suspect at the moment, so, if there is a problem, it's the Tudors and their descendants who need to worry - using the word "worry" loosely. The House of York was descended from Edmund of Langley (fourth son of Edward III), not John of Gaunt.

Of course some do say Edward IV was illegitimate - that old story we've aired here before...

What, nothing about Ricky-doo-dum-dah for over a week?  I still haven't started Philippa's book (that's PL by the way), so can't report whether the book has my spine-tingling (or has me shaking all over as per Johnny Kidd and the Pirates cited by Temperance (albeit tongue in cheek) some while ago in the thread.  Perhaps I should post the Naughty Sween's Ricardian Grumpy Cat (or at least the link) for everybody to see, but it does have a naughty word in it.

New book out by John Ashdown-Hill which claims to "shed new light on the Princes in the Tower". I'm a sucker for anything on this, as you all know, so have just ordered it. Will report back when I've read it.

Interview here with the author:

http://nerdalicious.com.au/history/the-dublin-king-with-john-ashdown-hill/

Note the following from the interview:


Do you have any new projects you would like to tell us about?

My work on the Dublin King’s story and also on the Clarence story is ongoing, and I hope to make further progress in due course.
Meanwhile I was asked to write a book on The Mythology of Richard III which is due out soon after Richard’s reburial. On the basis of the point I made in answer to your fifth question, this book explores (and I hope busts) all the traditional mythology about Richard III. But a worrying feature of the discovery of his remains by the Looking for Richard Project (led by Philippa Langley, and of which I was and am a founder member) is that a lot of new mythology now appears to have surfaced. Inter alia, this includes stories of Richard as a potential alcoholic and as a proto-Protestant; stories that he was discovered by the University of Leicester, and the suggestion that the remains found in the Greyfriars car park in August 2012 might actually be someone else ! I have also tried to deal with all that new mythology.

I was already aware of "nerdalicious", Temperance; but the publication of this book is something quite new to me so I followed the link. Interesting.  I will be pleased to read your report on this work in due course. There are a lot of odd jobs that need doing about the house which restricts my spending on books at present though I guess I can try the library loan route.  I used to read a lot - I still read a certain amount but the volume has declined latterly

And still working from the assumption that the skeleton is indeed Richard himself, but I suppose it is too late for them to back down now without losing reputation.

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/02/2015/forensic-pathologist-discovers-trauma-evidence-for-killer-blow-to-richard-iii

That's interesting ID, going from the premise that it is the named monarch.  I mentioned a few months ago that I had borrowed a book about the dig from the library (not the book Temperance mentioned above) and that I would report back on it in due course.  I regret to say that I had run out of times I could renew the book (a book can be renewed up to three times consecutively in my area and then it has to be returned though of course it could always be borrowed again some time in the future).  I have returned the book so as to avoid a fine but I never read it.........

I can't remember if anyone has posted this or not. It's a BBC Great Lives Podcast - Matthew Parris talks to Philippa R-is-For-Richard Langley who explains why Richard III is her choice.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/greatlives


It is the grand reburial later this month - 25/26th March. As Minette - sadly - is no longer around, I intend to go as the official Res Hiss representative (if that is all right). Let me have any messages to attach to our Res His Will Never Forget You, Richard teddy bear/candle/floral tribute before the 23rd, please.

Surely it should be

It seems our lad (if etc.....) had plenty of female company in his resting place. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/02/richard-iii-buried-among-women-sea-fish-archaeologist-mathew-morris-leicester

Looks like it's all going to be quite a show. Some nice dry comments from Jon Snow here (sorry it's from the Daily    Mail again...):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2982859/The-bizarre-royal-burial-Britain-s-seen-Troops-lining-streets-21-gun-salutes-king-died-500-years-ago.html



All in all, when it comes to laying a legend to rest we are in uncharted waters. And in Leicester, to boot – territory of the House of Lancaster. The saga of how we got here, from the car park to a courtroom tussle over who should ‘own’ Richard’s bones – York or Leicester – has all been a bit bonkers, let’s face it.

‘It is. You couldn’t make it up,’ says veteran newscaster Jon Snow, who’ll head the coverage of the reburial for Channel 4 – acres of it – starting with the funeral procession on 22 March and the reinterment service four days later.

‘I mean, this is a king who was dug up in a car park, under the letter R for “Reserved parking”. It’s a Catholic king being buried in an Anglican cathedral [though it was originally a Catholic cathedral, as all English churches were before the Reformation]. Now there’ll be a procession in Leicester, with troops and crowds on the streets. It’s very eccentrically English. I’m not sure it could happen anywhere else.’

Channel 4 are certainly going to town over the replanting.  
http://kingrichardinleicester.com/channel-4-announces-reburial-coverage-plans/

I'll be pouring a glass and opening the popcorn to watch this segment.

The channel will also be showing a new drama-documentary: ‘Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?’ in which key figures including David Starkey and Philippa Gregory debate one of English history’s darkest murder mysteries” and creating extensive online coverage.

There was a little piece on BBC Breakfast this morning about the service - they showed preparations being made in Leicester Cathedral - for the music and the flowers. I was very interested in what the flower lady had to say: she explained how they are intending to use only flowers and greenery that would have been available back in 1485. The lady said that servants would have "gone into the woods to gather boughs and branches". Got me thinking about the whole history of flowers in churches, and the introduction of so-called "floral tributes".  Why "floral tributes" and not just simply "flowers"? And of course more and more people  now request "No flowers, please" - and suggest a donation to charity instead. When did that start?

Would there have been flowers as decoration in churches in medieval/Elizabethan times? Did the Puritans stop that? And when did the tradition of flowers left on graves start? Elaborate wreaths and such like strike me as very Victorian, but certainly strewing graves - and, ironically, bridal beds - with flowers is Elizabethan:

Sweets to the sweet. Farewell! (scatters flowers)

I hoped thou shouldst have been my Hamlet’s wife.

I thought thy bride-bed to have decked, sweet maid,

And not have strewed thy grave.

Hamlet Act V sc I.

A Flower Thread would be nice, but a bit girly, perhaps.

ferval wrote:

Channel 4 are certainly going to town over the replanting.

Indeed but I think it'd be much more fun if they borrowed a trick or two from Channel 4's usual 'reality TV' output and, well here's an idea ... why not have David Snarkey and Pippa Gregory, ... fight the issue out dressed in period armour, à la droit de puissance?
 

No? But surely that idea isn't any more tacky that all the other guff they're proposing!

And I bet it'd draw the viewers, no?.



PS : Sorry I'm being flippant while Temp raises a serious point ... And actually I have much to say about 'the language of flowers', which is still taken very seriously in France.

I'll stop mocking and sniggering ... and try to compose a sensible response.

As long as the ref is dressed as uncrowned Edward V, ring it on. There ought also be an empty tomb memprial to that monarch  put somewhere. The Tower Chapel? Tower Hamlets? York Cathedral - Offers?

And when did the tradition of flowers left on graves start?

Well, it could just be that we are imposing our sentimental view on the past but the Neanderthal grave in the Shanidar caves in Iraq seems to have been lined with flowers and vegetation. Recently, however, there have been suggestions that the pollen etc was introduced by animal action.


                                                                         


In the Forteviot Bronze Age burial there were meadowsweet flowers in the grave, placed near the head of the body.

                                                                           

Gosh - really interesting. Thanks, ferval.

I don't think the actual service is going to be "tacky", MM: it'll all be very dignified - yer proper, old-fashioned C of E ritual that we do rather well. But I agree the coverage and all the added bits could be dreadful.

How I wish Our Blessed Hilary would come up with a decent novel about Richard III and the Princes. She'd do it brilliantly.

Why is a Catholic being given an "old-fashioned C of E ritual that we do rather well"? Seems a tad disrespectful to me.

Poor nun.

However the notion of going "all authentic 1485" for the ceremony certainly appeals. About twenty years prior to the nun's death the Sheriff of Warwickshire threatened to fine the clerics running St Martin's when he found they were skimming a percentage of prostitutes' income (they were operating out of the cellar) to pay - the priests said - for the new chancel. At the time of the reformation it was noted that certain unsavoury pursuits were still being conducted down in the crypt so it seems the Sheriff's threats went ignored. If there are some quiet moments during the ceremony they should maybe fill them with "all authentic 1485" grunts, moans and ejaculations of ecstacy from the depths.

Richard III as an Emo ...

And now the Spanish have started digging up bodies too .... they reckon to have found Cervantes' body, lost for the past 400 years:

BBC News : Spain finds Cervantes' body in Madrid

nordmann wrote:

However the notion of going "all authentic 1485" for the ceremony certainly appeals. About twenty years prior to the nun's death the Sheriff of Warwickshire threatened to fine the clerics running St Martin's when he found they were skimming a percentage of prostitutes' income (they were operating out of the cellar) to pay - the priests said - for the new chancel. At the time of the reformation it was noted that certain unsavoury pursuits were still being conducted down in the crypt so it seems the Sheriff's threats went ignored. If there are some quiet moments during the ceremony they should maybe fill them with "all authentic 1485" grunts, moans and ejaculations of ecstacy from the depths.

Ah, as Lord Chancellor Audley would say, calmly and with great dignity (see Wolf Hall Episode 5, near the end - the Privy Council meeting): "Thank you for that, my Lord of Norfolk."

Seriously, the Church has often had profitable links with the sex industry. The Bishop of Winchester received rents from the brothel premises on the South Bank (his London residence was there - you can still see the ruins) and the ladies of the area were named the Winchester Geese in his honour.

The Telegraph a day or two ago said that Richard will be laid to rest "with all the rites of tourism". It's a fair point. Both the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster (the Nun should be chuffed to bits over that) and the Archbishop of Canterbury are involved - see article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11475578/Richard-III-will-be-buried-with-the-rites-of-tourism.html


There won’t be a funeral, but the service of compline, one of the monastic hours, will be sung, and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster will preach. This is strange. Of course Richard was a “Roman Catholic”. Everyone in England was in those days. But at the actual re-interment of the king, on March 26, after three days’ lying in state, the Most Rev Justin Welby will be in action, and as 105th Archbishop of Canterbury he must see himself as the successor of Cardinal Bourchier, the Archbishop of Canterbury in King Richard’s day. No matter.

I didn't know that the ancient office of Compline is to be used during one part of the - er- events. I thought we threw that out with the Reformation, but no, the C of E does have such a service:

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/principal-services/word/nighttrad.aspx


It's a beautiful service, but anyone who knows the history will possibly wriggle a bit at certain parts - all that about enemies prowling about in the dark and such.

There is indeed a time of silence  "for reflection" - let's hope there are no embarrassing or inappropriate noises from the crypt or anywhere else. There may be sounds during the service, not of sexual ecstasy, but of serious protest. It is thought there may be Lancastrian supporters present who will try to cause trouble. Typical.

The " thrilling drama" of all this history stuff continues...thanks to Channel 4.

Compline is what one is advised to take if put on a Diet of Worms.

Thanks for the link, Temp, but surely Leicester is just following in that fine old tradition of milking the martyr for every penny? Exploiting the pilgrim on an industrial scale is hardly new, the tomb of 4th c. martyr St. Menas in Egypt had it down to fine art with holy oil machines which dribbled oil or water in quantity over relics of the saint before filling dinky little flasks for sale.

                                                                       

What might make an appropriate souvenir for a visit to Dicky, do you think?

The article mention the heart of Henry II (or perhaps HenryIII) being in Edinburgh, that's a new one on me and I can't find anything up to date on it so far. There's this from the Society of Antiquaries, http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_051/51_016_023.pdf, but nothing on the RCHAMS site record. I must investigate further.

This programme is on this Saturday on Channel 4 at 9pm;

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/richard-iii-the-princes-in-the-tower

ferval wrote:

What might make an appropriate souvenir for a visit to Dicky, do you think?

Oh, I expect I'll come back with a trinket or two from Leicester Cathedral, ferval   .  I want a Holy Medal, like the one Norfolk gave to Crum.

Here is the Office of Compline, sung, not drunk, by the choir of Clare College, Cambridge. It is a Tudor setting: Robert White's Christe qui lux es et dies. Takes ages for the lads to get going, but it is utterly beautiful when they do.

This is proper Church - no dreadful guitars or tambourines.

EDIT: Forgot the link!!

ferval wrote:

....  but surely Leicester is just following in that fine old tradition of milking the martyr for every penny? Exploiting the pilgrim on an industrial scale is hardly new, the tomb of 4th c. martyr St. Menas in Egypt had it down to fine art with holy oil machines which dribbled oil or water in quantity over relics of the saint before filling dinky little flasks for sale.
   

The "business" is still widespread and very profitable even in modern secular France. Just down the road from me at Arles-sur-Tech in the ancient Abbey is the sacrohagus containing the relics of Saints Abdon and Sennan. The stone tomb has a little hole in the back connected by some more modern plumbing to a brass tap which "miraculously" delivers a continuous trickle of Holy water into a trough. The Benedictines who founded the Abbey in the 10th century of course made sure the site was well-provided with water and so they built around a cluster of springs. No-one suggests the little fountain in the Abbey cloister garden is miraculous, but the adjacent Sainte Tombe apparently is. To visit the Abbey costs 4€ and one is allowed to dip a finger or handkerchief into the trickling water, but there is always a stern matron on hand to ensure nobody takes so much as a thimble-full. But if you want you can readily buy a tiny bottle of the stuff, 12€ I think, from the gift shop.

The Abbey church is still consecrated and in use, and the enclosed cloister garden is a lovely gem of early Romanesque architecture, but the rest of the walled complex has been given over to secular use. The office de tourisme occupies the Abbot's palace, but most of the other buildings are now private homes and appartments. As I say, you have to pay to visit the place, but for the residents there is a back gate, locked but with a keycode. I quite often give the secret number (it's just the local post-code) to guests as, other than the cloister and the smallish church, there isn't anything else there. And if they feel they should then make a contribution they can always splash out on a tiny bottle of miraculous tapwater.

Four Euros?!?!?! You should compline!!!!

A few years ago I had the misfortune to visit Fatima - possibly, apart from Dubai, the most depressing, ugly and dispiriting place I have ever seen. Crappy architecture, a vast, windswept piazza crossed by pilgrims on hands and knees and overwhelming tacky commercialism, it was the quintessence of soulless exploitation.
Many of the innumerable tat stalls sold large wax effigies of babies which were then placed onto what appeared to be an enormous, blazing  barbecue pit - really disturbing.

                                                                   


                                                                         

                                                                               

Maybe Leicester could do a line in wax humps?

ferval wrote:

A few years ago I had the misfortune to visit Fatima - possibly, apart from Dubai, the most depressing, ugly and dispiriting place I have ever seen. Crappy architecture, a vast, windswept piazza crossed by pilgrims on hands and knees and overwhelming tacky commercialism, it was the quintessence of soulless exploitation.
Many of the innumerable tat stalls sold large wax effigies of babies which were then placed onto what appeared to be an enormous, blazing  barbecue pit - really disturbing.

Ah, but as John Foxe said in one of his glosses: "Mark the apish pageants of these popelings."

But we'll have none of this nonsense here - this is England - and the Church of England. I hope that Cardinal bloke behaves himself and doesn't get carried away, imagining himself at the Vatican or somewhere. I've never seen a real live Cardinal before - I'm quite excited. I hope he wears his big red hat.

This is the Leicester Cathedral website, Temp.


http://leicestercathedral.org/

ferval wrote:

Many of the innumerable tat stalls sold large wax effigies of babies which were then placed onto what appeared to be an enormous, blazing barbecue pit - really disturbing.

Oooo...  that is a bit disturbing, and it's not so much "apeing popish ritual" as tapping into something much older and darker methinks ... with echoes of propitiatory child sacrifice to the Phoenician/Carthaginian God, Ba'al-Hamon/Cronus:

Diodorus Siculus, Lib XX, xiv:
 "There was in their city [Carthage] a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire."

I remember writing a mini-script for Blackadder on the old BBC  History site: Baldrick was commissioned to do the Hump Portrait, but he messed it up, putting the hump on the wrong shoulder. He then offered to paint another hump on the other side to balance everything up - and make Richard look doubly villainous.The irate Blackadder replied that Henry T. did not want to offer a Bactrian Richard III to the world - yet.

I glowed with pride when TwinProbe and Andrew Spencer said they thought it was funny. Minette wasn't amused one little bit, though. Ah - happy days.

You should re-post it here Temp, we could all do with a chuckle...

Meles meles wrote:

You should re-post it here Temp, we could all do with a chuckle...

We could, couldn't we?

Can't remember it all now, MM, and it wasn't that funny: TwinProbe and Andrew were just being kind. It was during a heated argument about Richard not having a hump, so it would have to be re-done - updated - now.

But yes, we must try to keep chuckling here at least.

Back into my garden now - it is a glorious day, and there is much to be done. There will be a frost tonight though. If it's this sunny tomorrow, we'll get a good eclipse. (87% in Plymouth, so should be much the same here...)

Couldn't resist;

Nah, this is much better! We've had it lots of times before, but let's have it again:





And don't forget my "Egrets, I've had a few" joke...


Going now.

Brilliant!!!! I can't remember ever having seen that before.

Soil from the village where Richard III was born will be placed in his coffin when he is reburied.

The last Plantagenet king was born at Fotheringhay Castle, Northamptonshire, and members of his family were buried at the local parish church.

Soil from the castle grounds will be placed inside his coffin by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby during a reinterment ceremony on 26 March.


All together now:

"And they'll lay me 'neath the brown, brown soil of home".

And there's more!

The Fotheringhay soil is one of three samples taken from sites significant in the former king's life.

'Brimming with history'
They will be blessed by Bishop of Leicester Tim Stevens at a private ceremony on Sunday.

Soil from Fotheringhay will be put into the former king's coffin at Leicester Cathedral, while the other samples will be put into a wooden casket to be displayed at the Battle of Bosworth Field Centre.



Get yer genuine R III compost here to grow your R III rose bush.

Beyond ridicule and just a shade pagan.

Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

The University of Leicester (with support from the Wellcome and the Leverhulme Trusts) take great pains on the link in their website to point out that the following document has been "peer reviewed";

Identification Of The Remains Of King Richard III

This is the same info with a three to one ratio between the words "possibility" and "probability" as was released at the initial press conference (all those years ago). I have been valiantly attempting to find a review by a peer given that more than three months have now elapsed since the document's publication but have so far floundered.

The poor nun, does nobody take her side in all this?

Nope. Because she's boring.

So is the "real world".

Putting the real world into inverted commas is a first sign of madness I have heard (when talking to myself of course).

However I was pleased to see that the Wellcome Trust have got involved in the production - their website - a sort of internet library cum museum - is truly fascinating (if you ignore the pharmaceutical end of things).

Wellcome Collection

I have a particular affection for inverted commas. Wouldn't be without them, in this, the next, or, indeed, any other world. Does that make me mad? Always a possibility.

And what exactly is "the real world"? Others before me have wondered about that. And what is "madness"? Answers on a postcard, please (no tweets).

Alternatively, you could read a bit of Shakespeare...

EDIT: And, observing what passes for sanity in this world, to be called mad is no insult.

ferval wrote:

Soil from the village where Richard III was born will be placed in his coffin when he is reburied.

The last Plantagenet king was born at Fotheringhay Castle, Northamptonshire, and members of his family were buried at the local parish church.

Soil from the castle grounds will be placed inside his coffin by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby during a reinterment ceremony on 26 March.


All together now:

"And they'll lay me 'neath the brown, brown soil of home".

And there's more!

The Fotheringhay soil is one of three samples taken from sites significant in the former king's life.

'Brimming with history'
They will be blessed by Bishop of Leicester Tim Stevens at a private ceremony on Sunday.

Soil from Fotheringhay will be put into the former king's coffin at Leicester Cathedral, while the other samples will be put into a wooden casket to be displayed at the Battle of Bosworth Field Centre.



Get yer genuine R III compost here to grow your R III rose bush.

Beyond ridicule and just a shade pagan.

Beyond ridicule? But is it, and, if it is, why should that be so?


This Guardian article mentions other famous reburials, including those of soldiers who died during WW1 and even earlier:


The urge to bring a life to full circle with a dignified ceremony when a lost person is found is a deep one. In the modern era, military reburials are frequent. Only last year, British soldiers whose bodies were discovered on the western front where they died in battle in 1914 were still being buried with honours, their identities established by DNA sampling. Similar reburials have taken place when mass graves of Napoleonic-era soldiers have been unearthed.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/guardian-view-king-richard-reburied-dignity


Had the relatives of those unfortunate men placed English earth ("dust to dust"?) in their coffins, would that too have been worthy of "ridicule"? Would that have counted - for those of us who spend a great deal of time gazing at computer screens - as "unreal" or even, God help us, "mad"? Sentimental perhaps, I give you that, even pagan. But so what? Isn't it simply - like all the flower "nonsense" - something that human beings feel compelled to do when faced with the mystery and the horror of death, even, or perhaps especially, the death of an anointed king? Should we once again sling this man, with little ceremony, into an unmarked grave, or leave his mortal remains in a box somewhere in the bowels of a University of Leicester department (history or science, not sure which) having labelled him with "cold exactitude" as "Possibly Richard Plantagenet", no more than a heap of bones, an interesting, if puzzling, scientific specimen? I wouldn't want to do that even to the Unkown Nun: I wouldn't deny her a fistful of sanctified (whatever that word means) earth, let alone the last King of England to have died in battle.


Richard, of course, has no grieving relatives, but he is remembered. He - or rather his story - continues to fascinate. Why should that be? Could it be because he is the perfect tragic hero in the old sense of that term? I think he is: that's why I wish Shakespeare had waited ten years before writing his Richard III. That play, written in 1603 rather than 1593, would have been very different; and we might have had the five great tragedies, rather than the four. And that's why I wish Hilary Mantel would take up her pen and write about Richard: it's time for a different look at him. The man, like her Cromwell, is neither villain nor (ordinary) hero - he is something far, far more interesting:


Tragedie is to sayn a certeyn storie,
As olde bokes maken us memorie,
Of him that stood in greet prosperitee
And is y-fallen out of high degree
Into miserie, and endeth wretchedly.

Chaucer Prologue to The Monk's Tale.


Murder be proud, and Tragedy laugh on,
I'll seek a stage for thee to jet upon.

Anonymous - Lust's Dominion or The Lascivious Queen, acted around 1599-1600.

Well, it will certainly prove to have been ridiculous when the nun's relatives finally come forward with their own clods for inclusion.

Here's what you lot have all been waiting for: an "is it, isn't it?" poll in the Daily Telegraph.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/11484859/Richard-III-Were-burying-the-wrong-body.html


Oh, it won't appear.


I have just voted, but I am keeping my vote secret. 67% of Telegraph readers ( ) say "Yes", 33% say "No". Surprisingly large number of "no it's not" folk out there then...


I do like the expression: "the skeleton's fish-adjusted date".


However, to be serious, the comment about eye colour is very worrying.

PS One of the posts after the Telegraph article is rather interesting:

In the study, there were 19 father/son nodes at which the paternal line could have been broken. Two of these, in the history of the Beaufort/Somerset family (who provided the present-day samples), are known illegitimate births, later legitimised. Another, in Richard III's own ancestry, was a case in which a father (Edmund of Langley, fourth son of Edward III) failed to leave land in his will to his son (Richard of Conisburgh, Richard III and Edward IV's paternal grandfather), whose mother was rumoured to have had a long-term affair with another man.

"Then there is the fact his DNA codes are for blond hair and blue eyes, when we know Richard almost certainly had black hair and brown eyes."

As far as I know, there is no contemporary portrait, and one early portrait shows grey-blue eyes. Further, DNA "codes" for eye colour are simply predictions. The genetic basis for eye colour is very complex.


Will try to find out more about this Richard of Conisburgh - and his mother.


Are the poster's comments about DNA "codes" for eye colour accurate?