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.

Temperance wrote:

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.

Now you are thinking Temp.

I thought it had been assumed for a long time that Richard would have had some form of lesser disability that was exaggerated.

Islanddawn wrote:

Now you are thinking Temp.

My personal target is to have one deep thought per day, ID. Sadly these days I don't always manage it.

Here comes my attempt at a thought for Saturday September 15th:

I've often wondered why Henry Tudor allowed Richard's body to be paraded about after Bosworth. This has been described as "a particularly distasteful desecration of the late king's body." Richard was flung "naked and despoiled" across the back of a horse, a felon's halter about his neck, and he was "exhibited uncovered, without mark of dignity, for two days in the city of Leicester."

Henry VII must have ordered this. It cannot be claimed as an outrage unauthorized by the new king and perpetrated by his unruly troops, for this was a body that was clearly identifiable and no common foot-soldier would have dared to have laid disrespectful hands on an anointed king without permission.

If Edward Hall's account is to be believed, somebody who knew what he was doing sought out one of Richard's heralds after the battle and forced him to ride the horse that carried "the disparaged corpse":

"His bodye was naked and despoyled to the skyne, and nothynge left about hym not so muche as a clowte to couer hys pryue members, and was trussed behind a pursiuaunt of armes called blaunche senglier or whyte bore, lyke a hogge or calfe, the hed and armes hangynge on the one syde of the horse, and the legges on the other syde, and all by spryncled with myre and bloude."

A bad business. Even today, used as we are to disrespect and careless mockery, disrespect for the *dead* still has the power to shock - and disgust.

So why was this allowed to happen? Henry Tudor after all did nothing without careful calculation, and he must have been quite aware that allowing such disrespect to an anointed Plantagenet king, the brother of Edward IV, and a warrior who had died honourably in battle, could well invite criticism. Not an obviously sensible thing to do at the beginning of your reign. Did the Tudor nevertheless order the public display of Richard's *naked* body so that some severe spinal deformity - that perhaps had always been (in public at least) carefully hidden or minimised by clothing or armour - could be clearly seen and gasped at?

Did that superb propaganda line, "Behold the foul monster from whom you have been delivered - by the grace of God and Henry Tudor?" begin here?

But then again, why did Edward Hall not mention any deformity - he comments on Richard's "pryue members" being displayed for all to see and laugh at - had there been some gross physical abnormality, surely that would have been noted by the chronicler?

Displaying the corpse of the defeated opponent would have been essential in a situation where very rapid dissemination of the news of his demise as irrefutable fact was required. The tendency to use such occasions to further diminish the reputation of the dead man is one which is mirrored throughout history - Mussolini's corpse being hung upside down with that of his mistress, the humiliation of Gadaffi filmed on mobile phones just before and then after his execution, are recent examples. The display in the Roman Forum by Marcus Antonius of Cicero's head and hands could probably also be included as a variant.

Quote :

Behold the foul monster from whom you have been delivered

Could not the use of the word 'monster' be enough to imply this Temp? Would using that word in the medieval context not have meant deformed physically, a monstrosity, rather than our more general usage as denoting an evil person as in tabloid murderers?

nordmann wrote:

Displaying the corpse of the defeated opponent would have been essential in a situation where very rapid dissemination of the news of his demise as irrefutable fact was required. The tendency to use such occasions to further diminish the reputation of the dead man is one which is mirrored throughout history - Mussolini's corpse being hung upside down with that of his mistress, the humiliation of Gadaffi filmed on mobile phones just before and then after his execution, are recent examples. The display in the Roman Forum by Marcus Antonius of Cicero's head and hands could probably also be included as a variant.

It is not the *display* of the body that I am puzzled by - I know that was accepted practice. The corpse of Henry VI was put on display to confirm to all that he really was dead. But he was decently clothed, only his face clearly visible.

No, it was "uncovering" of Richard's entire body that I cannot understand. It was distasteful, crude and shocking, especially in a Christian country where the rituals of death and burial were surely so important. Contempt for the man could have been shown quite adequately by simply flinging over the horse - but why strip him naked too?

Had this ever happened before to a dead medieval king or aristocrat? (Not usually a good idea to give the lower orders a chance to jeer and mock at members of the elite - even defeated ones. Wasn't this an unspoken rule, observed even by the Tudors - hence beheading rather than other less dignified methods of execution for posh traitors?)

Ferval - I made that line up just to make my point. Sorry - been reading too much Paul Murray Kendall.

Can I suggest, in all earnestness, that Richard could have been stripped of his clothing to display a disfigurement? Thus re-inforcing the propoganda that he was indeed a monster (in the Medieval sense, not the contemporary).

But that's what I've just suggested, ID - see post before Nordmann's!!

Gosh Temp, you do give an authentic ring to your inventions, enough to fool the likes me of anyway.

Could it be a combination of both your and Nordmann's propositions? The body was displayed to prove that he was well and truly dead and stripped naked so as to confirm that the corpse on display was indeed him by his physical deformity, particularly so if he had facial injuries, as well as underlining his physical and so moral imperfections.

ferval wrote:

Gosh Temp, you do give an authentic ring to your inventions, enough to fool the likes me of anyway.

Could it be a combination of both your and Nordmann's propositions? The body was displayed to prove that he was well and truly dead and stripped naked so as to confirm that the corpse on display was indeed him by his physical deformity, particularly so if he had facial injuries, as well as underlining his physical and so moral imperfections.

Yes - and your point about possible facial injuries is a good one.

But then again, the skeleton may not be that of our Richard!

PS The arrow still puzzles me. Was full (and presumably the finest available) body armour often pierced by arrows?

Maybe people took pot shots at it as it was paraded naked around the district?

Best I heard so far was a talking head on BBC Radio 4 who speculated on what - besides spinal deformity - could lead to one shoulder appearing higher than the other. He reckoned they ought to measure the legs pronto.

At any moment now an elephant will come rolling in on a giant ball. I just know it.

What's this?

I'd click on the link if I could catch it ferval.

Sorry, that took a bit of messing about to get to work.

This is Michael Ibsen - who is a possible relative of the skeleton - doing his DNA swab.The lady is Dr Turi King from Leicester University. Mr Ibsen says that his life has been "manic" in the past few days: "It's like a cross between Harry Potter and Indiana Jones..." he told the Leicester Herald or some such publication.

Mmm.

The results of the forensic tests are not, as I had imagined, to be published in some academic/history journal, but "will be revealed in the documentary to be aired later this year."

That "revealed" is a revealing word. Later this year - twelve weeks - that gets us to Christmas. Are we going to have a Channel 4 Richard III Christmas Special I wonder? Oh well, "The Wrong Skeleton" will be better than a repeat of "The Wrong Trousers", I suppose.

Just listen to me. I'm getting as cynical as the rest of you.

And I was all excited and happy before.

PS I do wish Minette would show up - I really want to know what she thinks about it all. She used to work at Leicester University - in the archaeology department too. I might send her a PM.

Why have I got a red cross-in-a-box roaming across my screen?

It's not the Earl of Southampton's cat again, is it?

No Temp, no one's cat, something rather larger and definitely not anything you would want to jump up on your lap.

The broadcast must surely be followed up by proper publication otherwise the whole exercise will be a total waste of time. Channel 4 must be forking out a load of cash for the archaeologists to risk getting the kind of 'comradely' abuse that I've no doubt they're getting already from the rest of the academy.

Where is Minette, if she is around, this is for her.

How do they know this guy is a direct descendant of Richard's sister? I suppose it has been thoroughly researched by experts and they are not going on the word of mere family oral history?

Oh, this is all beginning to be just a little too staged.

Sorry Temp, I know you think it is being cynical but I can't help questioning everything. Used to get me in terrible trouble at school, not to mention, it probably drove my parents up the wall.

Well lots of Plantagenet movies and R3 specials will be a change from all that Tudor stuff we have been watching lately. Lovely pic Ferval, I have to admit I am a fan of Richard. Was it Richard Armitage you said was going to play R3, Temp? I'm a fan of his too.

http://www.richardiii.net/

Click on What's New and scroll down the page to Grey Friars Dig and the University press release. The first half is going over old stuff but the second half is an explanation of how all this came about and why. And further on there are more details on the condition of the skeleton.

"It was evident during the process of excavation that the skeleton exhibited several pathological features. The skull had a minimum of two injuries. The first was a small penetrating wound to the top of the head that had dislodged two small flaps of bone on the skull interior. The second was a much larger wound to the occipital bone (or base of the skull): a slice had been cut off the skull at the side and back. This is consistent with a bladed implement of some sort, but further laboratory-based analysis of the bones once clean will be needed to fully understand the nature of this injury. It should be noted that this did not cut through the neck and that the skull was still in its correct anatomical position when excavated. In addition to the injuries to the skull, there was evidence of an abnormality of the spinal column. This took the form of scoliosis, or a major sideways ‘kink’ in the area of the ribcage. A small piece of iron (as yet unidentified) was recovered behind and between two vertebrae towards the top of the ribcage.

The skeleton itself was mostly complete, although the feet had been destroyed at an unknown point in the past. The condition of the bone is moderately good. From the position of the bones on excavation it is possible to see that the body has not been moved, and it appears that it was originally buried in a shroud, although no physical traces of this remain."

Here's a nice picture of King Richard Armitage, Gran! I can't make the actual image appear (sadly), but perhaps that's just as well. We could well be inviting ribald mockery by showing too much obvious admiration.

And it must be admitted that anything with www.fanpop-Richard-III is somewhat embarrassing, is't it? Ruins one's reputation as a serious intellectual.

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/richard-armitage/images/30930703/title/richard-iii-armitage-fanart

Thank you for the link to the "What's New" stuff, ID. Am I allowed to be just a *little* bit excited and happy again?

Wikileaks have just released this graphic produced internally by the Channel 4 Audience Survey Department which analyses public reaction to the managed media manipulation of the programme content and deduces their potential audience for their forthcoming "Richard III - Car Park Attendant?" scoop. Apparently it will not be aired until at least four more of the lads on the left have joined the one on the right:

I'm enjoying the fun over all this stuff as much as anyone else and far be it from me to decry something which engages the public interest in things archaeological but, what exactly can we hope to learn from it?
Either it will turn out that the skeleton might be KR3 or it definitely isn't and even if it's the former, we already know he's dead, we have no reason to question the place or manner of his death as reported so what's left to find out? Only whether or not he was a bit lop sided and how far does that advance our understanding of anything important about either the historical narrative or the society at the time?
This is archaeological Downton Abbey I'm afraid.

Who's the disarticulated lady that they found? Now she might have a story worth telling.

Richard apparently had a disarticulated mistress (I've heard they're the best kind) who no one outside of the "Cold Shoulder Club" knew about. The Little Princes, for example, found out about her and so they had to die. However her gallantry and courage are alluded to in Shakespeare (Richard's official biographer). Allegedly at the height of the battle when the king pleaded for a mount she was the only one to oblige. This distraction led to his downfall - which occurred at a slightly different rate on each side of his body. Henry Tudor, who by all accounts wasn't so articulate himself, recognised a fellow traveller when she turned up in the Lost & Found mortuary afterwards and apparently gave leave for her to be interred in the car park too.

How can DNA be used as a reliable test of anything after so long? Does it assume that there is an unbroken chain of virtuous ladies in such families?

I know someone with a wonderfully researched family tree - and meetings with distant relatives and so on. I also happen to know who his real father was.... probably the only person alive who does. I could not destroy an entire fiction and family by revealing it though. Once I nearly did but am so glad that I didn't. It would have served no purpose whatsoever.

It's the mitochondrial DNA, which is transmitted largely unchanged from mother to child, that they're testing for so, at best, it can trace the female line back to Cecily Neville. Daddies don't enter into it, so to speak.

If the injuries are to the top and back of the head - could he have been running away rather than charging forward......

Or it could be just poor John Doe a private who got slaughtered at some battle in history. If so this will one of the biggest let downs after all the hype, perhaps they should have waited for some results before holding press conferences.

Heavens Temp, of course you can be excited! Everyone is entitled to their own pov, besides it would be too boring if we all agreed on everything...

The mt DNA still works on the assumption that every female in the line is a natural daughter. No room for adoptions et al. So even if there is a match, imo we can never be 100% certain.

I agree with your post above ferval, this discovery (if proved to be himself) doesn't shed any new light on the era nor does it increase to our understanding.

ferval wrote:

I'm enjoying the fun over all this stuff as much as anyone else and far be it from me to decry something which engages the public interest in things archaeological but, what exactly can we hope to learn from it?
Either it will turn out that the skeleton might be KR3 or it definitely isn't and even if it's the former, we already know he's dead, we have no reason to question the place or manner of his death as reported so what's left to find out? Only whether or not he was a bit lop sided and how far does that advance our understanding of anything important about either the historical narrative or the society at the time?
This is archaeological Downton Abbey I'm afraid.

Crikey, ferval - that has really shocked me.

I was feeling unutterably depressed by all this a couple of hours or so ago, and that's not because I had too much to drink at lunch time. I sat in the pub, refusing to talk, gazing miserably into my glass of bitter lemon and thinking very bitter thoughts about Channel 4 Audience Survey Department, my own foolishness and my obvious pathetic credulity. What was the point of reading and being enthusiastic about *anything*, let alone history, I thought.

But I've cheered up a bit now.

But this getting excited business. It just won't do, will it? You history boys - and girls - don't like it one little bit. But is it fair to despise (is that too strong a word?) those of us who *do* get excited? Is enthusiam - even about dead kings in car parks - such a bad thing?

I wonder if Hayden White (not a popular chap with most historians, I believe) was right when he wrote: "The so-called 'historical method' implies the avoidance of imaginative excess (i.e. enthusiam) at any price."

White has noted how in our own time respectable historians must be seen at all times to repudiate emotion. Giving way to passion, excitement and enthusiam is simply not *done*: it is unseemly and it implies a lack of academic rigour. Perhaps it is and perhaps it does.

But can this Baconian insistence that human understanding needs to have its imaginative wings clipped and "hung with weights, to keep it from leaping and flying" have a potentially debilitating effect? White suggests it can - and he uses the example of Casaubon from George Eliot's Middlemarch to illustrate his point - how in this novel "artistic insight and historical learning are opposed, and the qualities of the response to life which they respectively evoke are mutually exclusive."

That's going a bit far, but it's an interesting point nevertheless.

I think the dig is more than archaeological Downton Abbey, ferval - I do hope it is anyway.

This is a good article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/13/richard-iii-discovery-remains

PS I suppose "excess" is the key word in all this. My doctor's always going on about "no excess" and I suppose he's right.

The first stab at facial reconstruction is showing encouraging results according to today's "Observer" newspaper.

Leicester Council, huh Temp. Richard was parked there first!

Oh Temp, now I feel as if I've told my granddaughter that there's no Santa.
I'm not condemning emotion or enthusiasm, least of all yours, I'm probably being too precious and proprietorial about it but I'm disappointed to see archaeology being sexed up like this. It just seems to underline the belief that the past is only interesting when it's about kings and toffs, particularly deformed and murderous ones with dubious sexual proclivities, and that that's the only kind of thing that merits such blanket press coverage.

Of course I want to see the DNA results and I realise that the deformities of the body, if it does turn out to be likely to be him, will provoke much interesting reappraisal of past scholarship, historical and literary, but in terms of the probability of substantive information recovery, it seems to me to be being overhyped.

ferval wrote:

Oh Temp, now I feel as if I've told my granddaughter that there's no Santa.

But why on earth would you do that, ferval?

It's probably a little premature to mention this, but these things do need careful planning - should we be considering giving the skeleton a no-holds-barred State Funeral? Now the Olympics are over, we really need something to get the tourists back in London. Dan Hodges suggests that giving Richard a lavish funeral at the Abbey - the complete works, like they did for the QM - could be just the thing.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100181096/damn-it-lets-give-richard-iii-one-last-glorious-summer/

His comment that "either the guy who faked the Hitler Diaries has really surpassed himself, or surely this is one of the most amazing discoveries in British archaeological history" made me laugh.

But everyone *is* talking about Richard - you've got to admit that the lad really is a celebrity.

PS Can't find the monkey picture anywhere in the Observer and we've all looked and looked.

Sorry, it was the Gruaniad - they share the same website and had this beside the Richard story. A case of juxtaposition error on their front page.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/13/new-monkey-species-congo-lesula

Anyway, his hair is wrong. Should have noticed that.

Plans are under way to capitalise on the enormous potential of the story of Richard III.

Scientists have not yet confirmed that the skeleton found beneath the Greyfriars car park is that of the last Plantagenet king, but University of Leicester archaeologists have said they are quietly confident it is.

Excitement about the find has spread across the county and tourism bosses have already started organising exhibitions and trips.

City mayor Sir Peter Soulsby said he was hoping the discovery would boost the city's economy – and has spoken of the need for a permanent visitor centre at the dig site in New Street, in the city centre.
(Leicester Mercury, Saturday September 15)


No pressure on the archaeologists now ...

No need for embarrassment, Nordmann; the error was understandable. Another article in the Guardian says this about the monkey:

"It is impossible not to fall for this face – but why?

The photograph captures a sensitivity and intelligence that makes this monkey look like it is sitting for its portrait by Rembrandt. It reveals a staggeringly insightful, wise, and melancholy face. Like Rembrandt's son Titus in the portrait of him by his father that hangs in London's Wallace Collection, the lesula looks right back at its beholder, calm and pensive, examining you as you examine it. Its eyes have the depth and frankness of those seen in moving portraits on Roman-era mummies from the Fayoum, or in Antonello da Messina's haunting portrait of a man gazing back out of a glassy oil panel."

Richard's portraits all show that same sensitivity, intelligence, wisdom and melancholy.

But the hair *is* all wrong - especially the tuft at the end of the nose. Not even Thomas More mentioned hairy nostrils, although Rous may have done.

To be serious again - have just seen the comments from the Leicester Mercury - oh heck.

They're probably printing the tea towels as we speak.[/size]

Hi Ferval, if you think about all this in a practical way, it may attract lots of helpers to your various sites, archaeology seems to have become cool.

Archaeology became cool in the wake of the Indiana Jones films too - for about 5 minutes. (That's as long as it takes the average noveau-passionee to realise what it actually entails).

Temp, I really can't think of anything more depressing than lying back and thinking of Causabon.

The council wetting itself with glee at the influx of tourists will make a loss because once the site is gloified at great cost we will have all moved on - but shares in mugs and t.towels will rise.

Take heart. We will all survive this episode..... do you think Minnette will be in the CH4 docu?

And yes, we do want a result; if possitive where will he be reburied? More discussion with aired knowledge exposed for a tad there. Historians don't make a bundle so why not? Never leave a good story until milked to the last drop.

Priscilla wrote:

Temp, I really can't think of anything more depressing than lying back and thinking of Causabon.

Me neither. I've never understood old Dotty. She was crazy to marry Will Ladislaw too - those arty types are a dead loss.

Pity she and Lydgate never got together - they'd have had a great time doing good and designing hospitals and nice cottages for the poor.

Priscilla wrote:

Take heart. We will all survive this episode.....

I hope so, but I'm beginning to doubt it...

Priscilla wrote:

... do you think Minnette will be in the CH4 docu?

Actually that wouldn't surprise me. I really should like to know her views on all this, but if it *is* Richard, and if the spinal abnormalities are shown to be really severe, it will be difficult for her. Shouldn't be, of course. I've sent her a PM, but have had no response. I probably shouldn't have referred to him as the skellington.

Priscilla wrote:

...if possitive where will he be reburied?

I think Leicester will fight for him, but York Minster will be the Ricardians' choice.

I'd put him in the little church at Middleham myself...

I bet the chap with the DNA mouth swab fears he may have to coff up for a Royal Funeral.... These are hard times. Perhaps this is done before every funeral, though. I've been away a long time.

An interestig thought - well to me it is. Leicester claims to be the most multiculture city in the country. I just wonder how all this goes down in Primary School clip board ventures? Pity it was a white boar house......it will be soon be seen as another white bore topic, I suppose.

And another thing; I wonder what the fundamentalists view of all this 'the father's DNA doesn't count.' Shias must love that one.

Do you feel better yet, Temps?

nordmann wrote:

Excitement about the find has spread across the county and tourism bosses have already started organising exhibitions and trips.(Leicester Mercury, Saturday September 15)...

A trip to see what, a council car park?

Or are they going to put someone in a tin plate costume to limp around the car park crying 'a horse', 'a horse' until hoarse?

Edit. Priscilla, not only might the poor bugger have to cough up for a royal funeral, they may charge him with the costs of repairing the car park as well!

I see Minette in the viewing list - I hope you add your twopenneth here, Minette. We have missed you.

Way back in the BBC thread about R3 I apologetically entered the frey with this contact, I had just read Vanora Bennett's book on the subject that the two Princes survived and lived quiet lives during the Henry's times, there is even a picture of one of them.

http://www.holbeinartworks.org/

Here is some more on the subject.

http://www.thomasmorestudies.org/moreana/Moreana97pages145-152.pdf

Interesting although perhaps not true, who knows after all this time. It seems unlikely that H8 would let such rivals survive.

Priscilla wrote:

Do you feel better yet, Temps?

No, but this year's letter to Santa has been resolutely torn in pieces and has been consigned to the waste paper bin. Never too late to change, or so they say.

Gran wrote:

Way back in the BBC thread about R3 I apologetically entered the frey with this contact, I had just read Vanora Bennett's book on the subject that the two Princes survived and lived quiet lives during the Henry's times, there is even a picture of one of them.

I remember that, Gran. By coincidence I had just read the Vanora Bennett book - it's gone to Oxfam now which is a shame; I would quite like to read it again.

Article here from the Observer (no monkey business) about Jack Leslau's ideas:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/will-dna-prove-the-princes-lived-1595012.html

I always think of the Princes as golden-haired little boys - hard to visualise them as middle-aged, respectable Tudor citizens. They would have been in their fifties when Holbein painted the More family.

Edit: Independent, not Observer.

Please Temp, don't give up on Santa and keep clapping for Tinkerbell as well, it worked once for my last wee cat whose name that was.

What though would be on that wish list which you have so intemperately torn up? What would you like the investigation to reveal and what would that add to the present understanding?

I'm intrigued but also repelled by the state funeral suggestion. If the Rlll society want to pay for another pageant wallowing in the valorising of one of God's anointed then fine but haven't we had enough of that recently?

A suggested state funeral would also be glorifying a king who killed two innocent children simply to further his own ambitions. Not someone anyone should wish be proud of.

If it is Richard, just stick him in a tomb in an appropriate church and be done with it. This media manipulated over-reaction is now beyond the ridiculous.

What two inncocent children?

You're not a Tudor in disguise are you, ID?