Oh heck Gran, I suspect that may be the fault of ID and myself in our role as apprentice moderators! You double posted at one point and, flushed with unaccustomed power, we tried to delete one of the posts but it didn't seem to work. Now we may have buggered it up well and truly and deleted all your posts there. Try again but if it doesn't show up or stay visible then I'm afraid it may need to wait until Nordmann gets back or looks in and clears up our doo doos.
Sorry but I did warn him he was taking a big risk in letting me have control of any of the buttons of power.

Ok Ferval, just as long as you dont think I am sulking!!! I n the meantime I will just read your words of wisdom and drink myself quietly under the table.

Just lost a stupidly long post (softly sob) will try to be less boring. But have loved the History Plays. Henry IV is the usurper under discussion NOT Richard III. Interesting. Do you think so?
Cheers, Minette.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173848/French-demand-Crown-Jewels-Queen-1499-murder-Edward-Plantagenet.html











I can cope with le taunting, but not with the Daily Mail's version of history. Whoever wrote this article seems to be muddling up the unfortunate Edward Earl of Warwick with Perkin Warbeck *and* Henry VI (and possibly the Princes in the Tower?).

"Last pretender"? - "murdered in the Tower"? - "henchmen"? This is all nonsense.

Edward Plantagenet, son of the Duke of Clarence, was not a pretender; he was most definitely not the last of the Plantagenets; he was not murdered. The young earl was given a perfectly fair Tudor trial (November 21st 1499 in the Great Hall at Westminster before twenty-two peers presided over by the Earl of Oxford), was found guilty of treason and was beheaded on Tower Hill a week later. His body (which was reunited with his head) was taken to Bisham, "a place of religion, and there, by his ancestors, interred and buried." (The Chronicles of London)

An unfortunate business, true, but all conducted in a perfectly proper manner, and with none of the unpleasant skulduggery one has come to associate with Richard III. Henry VII was clearly trying to behave with as much decency as possible in the circumstances.

It's funny in a very, very sad sort of way. The Mail has recruited a history graduate - how they churn them out - with no idea of history and he has used Wickapedia for dates! It's a he, attack mode and style. Rubbish reporter too! For this he should be sacked.

The story is about France sueing England for lost gems. So many given and returned in wedding presents. Where on earth this comes from who knows? At the time I thought well they (queen and co) have the Black Prince's Ruby...George IV had to hire all his diamonds for the coronation and give them back! It wasn't until the mid c19th that people had real diamonds en masse to show off, like Nioami do da the model, Blood Diamonds!

Even if this person had a bye-line I wouldn't contact him to complain. He's thick and what would be the point? Hurst said, no one ever got poor underestimating the intelligence of the masses. But I have no real wish to be wealthy, I am odd.
I want to pull Danny Alexander's head off when ever I see him and others too but I care about the truth dreadful bad! Why are so many people so stupid? Having missed the entire real story, what does this say about the sub-ed? I'm watching foreign TV, Danish etc at the moment, it hurts less. Try it.
Cheers. M.

This may be the winter of my liberty made glorious summer by seeing Weir and Starkey laid low in the wet, cold mud....The Dean and Chapter are under increasing pressure to give up the Wren Urn and accompanying bones to be carbon dated and DNA'd....Why are they worried? Why haven't they done it years ago? Peace and Truth! Bah humbug! I promise to use what ever influence I have with my Welsh AB Canters before he retires to make him pressure them. An oath! The Dean and Chapter of Westminster are nothing more than Beefeaters.

BUT....The Leicester university Archeaology Dept are going to dig up the municipal social sercives department car park too! WOW! It's all happening at Greyfriars this summer! Richard III's body was eventually given a meagre black marble tomb by Henry VII, thought to have been thrown into the river Soar during the Reformation OR buried under Greyfriars....somewhere. I actually worked at Leicester univ archeaology dept and ate sandwhiches in Greyfriars without a thought in my head! Someone from the past while I was doing scrabble on facebook, contacted me and said just think, Eliz Woodville probably rode through your garden and she knows nothing about me now! My dad could have married them Ed IV and Liz W if we'd been there 400 years earlier. Quite a shock to think I didn't care then.
BUT....
I think the Lion is on the move....Richard III is about to be rehabilitated! Shakespeare's hold is thawing and truth will out. It usually does! Unless people become scared. Of course I'd like to be proven "right" but I'd prefer the truth and know what is in that urn. I could cope with Richard III killing the princes BUT character is fate said Hardy, too many lies for too long, let us allow Richard III in death the liberty we all want in life! To be judged by what we DO not what Shakespeare and the Tudors and constipated Historians tell us that we have done and are! What does Neill Fergusson know about how pleasant it is to be a slave for the enlightened British Empire! Are these Historians for real? They know nothing about LIFE!
I'm writing for publication and so want to name names. Any thoughts please! Should I?

For those eagerly awaiting the discovery of Dicky's final resting place

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/09/2012/breakthrough-in-the-search-for-richard-iii

Wouldn't it be a laugh if they found a coffin with a hump in the middle...

And on opening the lumpy coffin found a skeleton with a deformed arm....

Have we been too dismissive of W S's description? Was R3 really a bit twisted after all?

Quote :

A university spokesperson said "strong circumstantial evidence" including signs of a peri-mortem (near-death) trauma to the skull and abnormalities on the spine - severe scoliosis - were found after an initial examination of the skeleton.

Although not as pronounced as Shakespeare's portrayal of the king as a hunchback, the condition would have given the adult male the appearance of having one shoulder higher than the other.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19561018
http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2012/september/richard-iii-press-conference-2013-live-updates-from-11.00am

It is all so exciting.

I don't care if it turns out Richard had a hump, a withered arm and two heads - as long as the boffins really can ascertain whether or not these remains are his. Seems we must wait about twelve weeks for the DNA results.

If the skeleton *is* Richard's I wonder where he will eventually be interred. They certainly won't want him at Westminster Abbey - such an embarrassment. I rather hope he gets taken back to Middleham.

I wonder what Minette is thinking and feeling at the moment?

Those two archaeologists wandering around the car park in full armour must be very hot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/12/richard-iii-dig-bones-leicester-car-park_n_1876082.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

And those knee pads look damned uncomfortable.

Where is Minette? In a car park in Leicester with a bunch of flowers?
She left a post on Historum a while back and I replied saying we were here but she hasn't reappeared. I do hope she pops up.

I think it is far too early in the proceedings for the archaeologists to be making public assumptions over this. Are they looking for further permission or even a grant to continue the excavation possibly?

Bones in a friary and in the church are to be expected and is where all the important people from the area would have been buried. I would be more surprised if they hadn't found any remains to tell the truth. Plus the site has obviously been disturbed many times over the years, the bones could belong to anyone or be from a different time altogether.

At least with a properly conducted excavation it will be possible to examine in detail the evidence as to the process and the context in which the bones were found and I've no doubt that there are plenty of other archaeologists lining up to do just that. Since the Leicester team are well aware they will have to justify to their peers any conclusions they reach, it must be assumed that their recording and procedures are rigorous and sufficient to make them feel secure in making the qualified statements that they have. If they haven't, heaven help them.

I find it odd also that there has been no mention of dating the bones before they were sent off for DNA analysis. DNA is a lengthy, expensive (and not always conslusive) proceedure, the bones could very well be contaminated and extracting DNA may not be possible. So wouldn't finding the approximate age of the person and when the skeleton dates from be the first priority?

Merely basing conclusions on a slight curvature of the spine and a dunt on the head is taking an awfully big leap.

I think they're just being understandably cagey in not going beyond saying it's 'an articulated, adult male' but they must have a damn good idea of the date and age to go public before publication of the excavation report. The osteologists will have been all over it but that's not an exact science, the ages of mature skeletons are notoriously difficult to pin down.

Since it's still articulated they must have a largely undisturbed burial so it should be not impossible to get the terminus post quem and maybe ante quem as well.

Who ever he was, he didn't die in his bed with an arrow in him and a bashed in skull and the spinal condition is described as 'severe'. However, we'll just have to wait until all the post excavation work is done and subject to peer review before we really know.

We had one of the archeologists on the radio this morning - he talked of lots of details that made them feel fairly confident this was Richard III. A fairly young adult male, curvature of the spine, injuries consistent with a battle wound and lots of other bits I have forgotten about the place.

They spoke of where the remains would go if it was shown to be Richard III's and it was expected Leicester would want to keep them, and Leicester Cathedral was close by. I gather it will be done by female micochondrial DNA; I am not sure how DNA testing works, but there seem a lot of opportunities between 1485 and now for the wrong fathers to be named, or babies not being who they are supposed to be. Is that sort of problem diminished using female micochondrial tissue?

Mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from the mother so a match will indicate a common female ancestor. It was used to prove that the Romanov bodies were indeed they, using, if I remember correctly, Prince Philip's to trace them back to Queen Victoria. The problem would be in determining just how far back that female ancestor was using the degree of difference that has accumulated from mutations over the years between the proposed Richard bones and the control. As you say, a warming pan baby on either side would mess everything up rather badly.

Perhaps some of you more learned folk could enlighten me. I had once always believed the stories of R111 as hunch-backed, but have read several articles in the past few years suggesting that this was a fabrication by later monarchs who wished to discredit him and his dynasty - to the extent of retouching original portraits to give him the hump.
If historians give any credence to this, why should a stray hunchback in a cemetery suddenly restore the myth (or not) of his deformity?

I've been wondering that too Bren. Plus the many arguments over Tricky Dicky on the Beeb over the years, and Minette's insistance that he was 'practically perfect in every way'.

If there is a DNA match, and this skeleton does turn out to be Richard (or as close as they can be sure anyway, I think there will always be questions) there will be a lot of mud on a lot of faces over that particular theory. It will also put into doubt some of the other newer theories surrounding him, and back to the drawing board we go, I suppose.

PS And the 'Traditionalists' will have one over the 'Richardians', that'll make things interesting!

Breaking news: Two strangely clad gentlemen armed with swords, mace and very pointy halbards turn up at the Leicester car park where archaeologists believe that a skeleton found there may possibly be that of Richard III. When asked what they were doing one replied darkly and in a poorly disguised Welsh accent, "Just want to be sure, you understand."

Does anyone know if the families marked their arrows in any certain way? it would be interesting to know who shot him in the back!! Also that arrow could have been what made him charge at Henry the way he did in desperation.

Islanddawn wrote:

I've been wondering that too Bren. Plus the many arguments over Tricky Dicky on the Beeb over the years, and Minette's insistance that he was 'practically perfect in every way'.

If there is a DNA match, and this skeleton does turn out to be Richard (or as close as they can be sure anyway, I think there will always be questions) there will be a lot of mud on a lot of faces over that particular theory. It will also put into doubt some of the other newer theories surrounding him, and back to the drawing board we go, I suppose.

PS And the 'Traditionalists' will have one over the 'Richardians', that'll make things interesting!

Now, now, ID, I do hope I don't detect a hint of malicious glee in your comments. (Tried to post a picture of an Umble Pie here, but it won't "take".)

But before you all start chanting "Na na na na na!" please note that "severe scoliosis" (a form of spinal curvature) is not the same as kyphosis (hunchback).

*If* the skeleton is that of R3 and if he did suffer from this possibly congenital condition - and of course we do have reports that he suffered a difficult and unusual birth - it makes Richard's determination to train - and prove his worth as a warrior (which he certainly did) - all the more admirable. Richard was obviously our first great Paralympian!

Gran wrote:

Does anyone know if the families marked their arrows in any certain way?

Ah -what a good question.

Where is the Beastly-Horrid Catigern when you need him? How he must be smirking up there in Oxford. But he does know a lot about arrows and things.

It's a skeleton. I imagine that unless the arrowhead is embeded in the bone or the corpse was put in the grave upside down it would naturally end up in the dorsal region regardless of where it had once lodged in the fleshy bits when they were there.

Malicious glee? Nah Temp, but I think a lot of people who felt the sharp edge of Minette's tongue for daring to disagree with her pet theory will be positively dancing on a positive DNA match!

We may be able to split hairs between scoliosis and kyphosis today but I doubt whether your average person back then would have known the difference. The term hunchback could have been used for many deformities of the spine, back and shoulders.

The arrowhead is described as being 'between the vertebrae' so there should be marks on the bone if it was originally embedded there. Assuming it was excavated with proper care and 'anthropologie du terrain' techniques, it may well be possible to reconstruct the condition of the copse at burial.

I'm frustrated by the lack of detail about the other material conditions of the interment: any coffin remains, type and construction of the grave, clothing or shroud remnants, etc. We'll just have to wait impatiently.

If anything though, I'm most intrigued by why R3 generates such passion in supporters and detractors, is it just the 'who done it element or is there more to it?'

I blame Peter Sellers ...



... he brought a whole new generation into the fan club who are now all old fuddy-duddies reliving their swinging sixties youthhood. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

That's another puzzling aspect ferval, and wasn't Richard supposed to have been placed in a stone sarcophagus when he was re-buried at Greyfriars? If so where is it?

Yes, the most intriguing thing of the whole debate is the passion it generates for me too. Certainly not Richard himself, who imo, was probably the most boring and inept King in English history. But I do enjoy watching a good bun fight.........

As ferv waits fervently - daft laughter for a mo - for proper results on all the bits and pieces about the bones, I assume they are proper people doing it and not local car park builders.

I know very little of Richard 3 but the Daily Mail went into overdrive today - our Last English King...... with distant French relations.... Plantagenets?

For his rule of two years he sure made an impact in that time - on History boards if nowhere else. Apparently - according to the DM which I d not count as a reliable source - he brought in bail..... mm- that was good thinking fellar considering your reputation. Was he our last King to die in battle? I think he was.

Interesting! Typical of course that the stratigraphy of the burial is messed up by the Victorian foundations so that does mean that the bones are going to be the critical data.
No mention of the body dimensions yet I notice, odd since that's the easiest data to collect and be sure of. If R3 was a bit of a titch as reported, I'd have thought that might have come up as either supporting or undermining the possible identification.

ferval wrote:

If anything though, I'm most intrigued by why R3 generates such passion in supporters and detractors, is it just the 'who done it element or is there more to it?'

Oh, far more, ferval, but it's impossible to explain to you cool, rational, *scientific* people.

Old conflict, Realists v. Romantics maybe?

That said, it is infuriating that Richard's concern (and work) for justice for the common man is usually ignored - all the emphasis on the kiddiethrottler stuff gets very tedious after a bit.

PS *I* posted the Peter Sellars clip first, over on the BBC. I love his hat with the badge.

PPS They must have measured him - will try and find out.

Old conflict, Realists v. Romantics maybe?[/quote]

So who is which,Temps?.... confused of Res Hist.Asylum

Realists would assume that the Tudors and their supporters had been up to no good indepth planning for a regal foothold and Romantics wouldn't have a king promoting justice for 'Everyman' hard hearted enough to do away with children.

Regards, P. ...aka Ever confused of just about everywhere.

Quote :

Oh, far more, ferval, but it's impossible to explain to you cool, rational, *scientific* people.

But I thought that I'd consistently argued that history and archaeology are at least as much art as science. Remember Perry's definition - craft + imagination? There is even a recognised term, the 'archaeological imagination'.
History, archaeology and art all comprise selection and arrangement, in the first two it's data that are selected and arranged but without imagination, all you have is cold, dead taxonomy. You might as well take up stamp collecting or train spotting.

Anyway, I'm not clear why it's thought to be so impossible for Richard to be both a seeker after justice and a child murderer, after all there's hardly a leader of any time who, however beneficent in some ways, could not be utterly heartless in pursuit of his own ends or what he saw as his nation's best interests.

Is Obama a thoroughly bad lot because there's dead Afghan children following his decisions? Or Churchill or all the rest? I believe it's possible to be a realist and applaud the good without being blind to the infinite complexity of people and their fallibility and still romantically hope that those one admires turn out to be at least reasonably decent.

That being said, I still don't get the emotional attachment to a long dead king that allows such personal investment in his deeds. Then again, I don't get football supporters either!

Here is the Daily Mail article Priscilla mentioned:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2202352/Richard-III-Yes-killed-princes-Tower-ENGLISH-king-decent-burial.html

PS Wasn't Gran talking about identifying marks on the actual arrow itself - it would be interesting to identify whose mob shot it - was it a Stanley arrow, I wonder? But I suppose arrows were just arrows - no identifying marks. Had there been some means of identifying it, that would have been mentioned by now.

Those who are on Englistory will probably have seen this statement on the remains found from the University of Leicester, but I'll post the link here for those who aren't

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ucdndp9zxc9t22r/University%20of%20Leicester%20statement,%2012%20September.pdf

Weren't identifing marks/colours on the shaft or the fletching of arrows, rather than the arrow head? Where is Catigern when you need him?

That may be so, ID, but I believe it was also common practice to gather up spent arrows and fire them back... so whoever's mark might be on the arrow it doesn't necessarily mean they fired the fatal, or near fatal, shot.

I'm speculating here but it might be possible to identify the arrow and its place of origin either by its metallurgical content or by its characteristics in comparison with other arrows of known provenance. I'm assuming that the manufacture of arrowheads was not completely uniform from forge to forge or smith to smith so, if there's a large enough sample to compare it against, it's conceivable that its origin might be traced. If there have been many arrowheads retrieved from Bosworth Field (where ever it was) and their recovery plotted sufficiently well against any known positions of the two sides then it could be identified as belonging to one or other of the parties.
That's a lot of 'ifs' I know and MM's point is very telling but even if it's not possible now, future metal detecting surveys and recovery - proper ones - could shed some light on who shot cock Richard.

Especially for Minette...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19474848

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19561018

Cheers, Paul.

Have a look in the Princes In The Tower thread Paul, all the discussion on the latest findings has been in there. Although we haven't seen Minette yet.

Actually it's probably for the better that Paul has started this new thread specifically about the Leicester dig.... it's not really relevant to the Two Princes and I get the feeling this Dicky 3 story is gonna run and run.

In that case everything we've discussed on the subject (from Sat 8 Sept) on the Tower thread should be moved over here so it is all together? Is it even possible to do that Nordmann?

Islanddawn wrote:

We may be able to split hairs between scoliosis and kyphosis today but I doubt whether your average person back then would have known the difference. The term hunchback could have been used for many deformities of the spine, back and shoulders.

Apparently scoliosis is not always obvious when a person is fully clothed.

Usain Bolt, of all people, suffers from (is that the PC expression?) - has - this condition.

In this article it says (scroll down just past the pictures): "He has scoliosis, as photos of him shirtless make abundantly clear..."



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/sports/olympics/11iht-olybolt11.html?pagewanted=all

Oh I can see where this is going, the argument is already shifting from 'everyone lied, he wasn't a hunchback' to 'ok he had scoliosis, but no-one could tell with his clothes on'?

Sorry Temp, but it is beyond me why it matters what the man looked like. He was what he was.

Here is what the head archaeologist has to say on the skeleton

5. The skeleton found in the Choir area has spinal abnormalities. We believe the individual would have had severe scoliosis – which is a form of spinal curvature. This would have made his right shoulder appear visibly higher than the left shoulder. This is consistent with contemporary accounts of Richard’s appearance. The skeleton does not have kyphosis – a different form of spinal curvature. The skeleton was not a hunchback. There appears to be no evidence of a “withered arm”.

I think it's worth remembering that we are dealing with a time when physical deformity was seen as more than just a corporeal abnormality but an indication of moral deficiency on the part of the sufferer or (usually) the mother. What he looked like or what he was rumoured to have looked like did matter.

Is nobody else suspicious about the fact that the entire things is being fimed for a forthcoming Channel 4 documentary? It would appear to me that it is not in anyone's interests involved in the project to do anything other than invite speculation and excitement. I thought immediately that the mention of "scoliosis" and a "belief" that it was severe without mention of Cobb angles or suchlike seemed designed to satisfy both aspirations - to prolong faith in the integrity of the archaeologists while still dangling a titbit out for prospective viewers of the documentary to get excited about. It smacks a bit of that "time capsule" opening in Norway some weeks back where the actual event belied the nature of the hype preceding it.

Just a feeling.

I didn't know about the Channel 4 connection, that could explain a lot, particularly if the TV folk are partly funding the dig. There's something very old fashioned about the whole project, it's in a way really not much more than treasure hunting. Had it been a full, open area excavation of the site rather than those narrow trenches focussing on finding the body it would have been a more credible exercise.

The composition of the search team is interesting and unusual.


http://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/greyfriars/the-search-team

Islanddawn wrote:

Oh I can see where this is going, the argument is already shifting from 'everyone lied, he wasn't a hunchback' to 'ok he had scoliosis, but no-one could tell with his clothes on'?

Sorry Temp, but it is beyond me why it matters what the man looked like. He was what he was.

Calm yourself, ID , that is not what I was suggesting at all.

Actually I had been wondering whether a person who had such "severe" scoliosis could really be Richard - who was after all known to be a superb "professional" soldier (even his enemies admit as much). Richard, like other young warriors, had had to undergo a ruthless and rigorous training. But, as we have witnessed in recent weeks, physical disability does not preclude athletic prowess. But I was staggered that Bolt has the same condtion (perhaps a milder form?) as the mysterious skeleton.*

Ferval's point about the mother of a deformed infant being seen as morally defective is interesting. As far as I know, Proud Cis was never accused of *witchcraft* (unlike the White Queen and her mother), but certainly nasty tales (about her sexual morals) were spread.

Richard cashed in on these rumours of course, but don't tell Minette I mentioned that.

I may be naive, but I do think it's all very exciting.

I wonder if they'll uncover bits of the cheapskate monument Henry Tudor eventually had erected for Richard. I don't think it was ever finished - £10 didn't go very far even in 1495 ( I think it was 1495 when it was started - will check.)

It *was* 1495 - a marble and alabaster job - never completed. But Henry allowed £50, not £10 which does sound quite generous until you remember he splashed out £20,000 on his own tomb in Westminster Abbey.

I suppose any marble and alabaster monument would have been stolen during or after the Reformation.

Probably ended up on Cromwell's patio.

nordmann wrote:

Is nobody else suspicious about the fact that the entire things is being fimed for a forthcoming Channel 4 documentary? It would appear to me that it is not in anyone's interests involved in the project to do anything other than invite speculation and excitement. I thought immediately that the mention of "scoliosis" and a "belief" that it was severe without mention of Cobb angles or suchlike seemed designed to satisfy both aspirations - to prolong faith in the integrity of the archaeologists while still dangling a titbit out for prospective viewers of the documentary to get excited about. It smacks a bit of that "time capsule" opening in Norway some weeks back where the actual event belied the nature of the hype preceding it.

Just a feeling.

I didn't know that. It explains a few things that I've found odd about this whole episode, in particular, the unusual hype around this dig and why the finding of a skeleton has been released to the public before any proper findings, reports and test results are complete.

I remain skeptical, and now, to an even greater degree.