BBC News has just left the Press Conference and has gone to Southwark Crown Court to report on some stupid MP!!!

It's on the BBC news website - front page

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21319148

Thanks nordmann - I was going crazy here.

Well, that was a surprise! What a jolly DNA diagram

I've gone all wobbly.

Nothing compared to how Richard must have felt with all those holes in him!

Mmm, I don't like the word 'indicate' in the results, indicates that there is room for doubt. But lord what an over hype, it was like watching the final results of X Factor.

So what happens now, an over the top funeral fuss and then.........it has changed very little in the long run.

Well, there's a year of earning a few bob from the exhibition in the Guild Hall and TV rights etc first. Then there's the boost in tourism in Leicester which will be milked for as long as possible up to and after the reinterment next year. And then of course there are the books - oh my god, the books!

Philippa has hers ready now, I'd bet!

(Oh, and wait for the backlash from York - that can't be long coming. Dogs arguing over a bone won't have anything on the argument over these ones)

Indeed, thank for being n the ball - as ever- and presenting the site. So the church wants him to rise in glory without his shady route to that estate having any bearing. The means by which this conclusion was reached will be interesting. So, Temp, how do you feel about it? (Leaving out any Langly-style cold/hot flushes you might have experienced, that is.)

Did I hear correctly - that the curvature of the spine must have occurred after age ten? Can't find anything about this yet on tinternet. This is from ages ago:

The University of Leicester archaeologists have made clear that the remains...did not have a condition known as kyphosis. This is the curving of the spine that would have caused a bowing or rounding of the back, causing a hunchback appearance. Generally speaking, kyphosis is a forward curvature of the spine, whereas scoliosis is a curve from side to side and doesn’t result in a hump.

I'm looking forward to tonight's programme.

PS Re "indicates" - the expression "beyond reasonable doubt" was also used. I think you've got to accept it's our lad all right.

Scoliosis would have given him a waddle as he compensated in his gait for the exaggerated swing of his torso while retaining balance. Hence also the dropped shoulder. When he stood still he could have disguised the dropped shoulder with conscious effort, but this would never work when walking.

If he stooped in order to minimise the torso swing this would have led to his being called a hunchback. It would still do so today, I imagine.

Re Scoliosis ... whether it is apparent surely depends on how severe the condition is. It need not have been particularly apparent at all (though if known then I can well imagine all his enemies seizing on the fact as evidence of 'bad character', and striving to exaggerate its appearance etc.) but it certainly need not have affected his general muscular ability: walking, riding, sword-fighting etc. (as would tend to be borne out by all the recorded evidence - he could certainly wield a sword better than many). As someone else here has said, Usain Bolt was born with scoliosis - and it doesn't seem to have affected his performance at all, or even be the slightest bit evident.

nordmann wrote:

If he stooped in order to minimise the torso swing this would have led to his being called a hunchback. It would still do so today, I imagine.

Yes, I suppose so. This is the skeleton of a 14th century woman who was suffering from severe scoliosis - shows the "hunchback" effect very clearly. Presumably they will explain all this tonight - and also comment on the severity of Richard's condition.





If Richard's back problems did begin at age ten or later, he was suffering from what is called adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Yet he overcame this handicap and excelled in all the usual military pursuits, as was expected of a Plantagenet male. That took guts and determination. Rather like a handicapped kid today undergoing the Royal Marines training programme - and succeeding at it.

Crossed posts again, MM!

(crossed post here too, Temp but I'll send it anyway)

The arrangement of the skeleton in the images released today suggests that the lateral curvature was quite pronounced. This is why they deduced that it was adolescent scoliosis - infantile scoliosis (such as Bolt's) tends not to markeldy worsen as time progresses. That which is contracted in adolescence seems to be the most severe.

Scoliosis is an idiopathic condition and may in fact be several different conditions simply grouped together for reasons of cosmetic similarity. What is true in all cases however is that the impact on a persons's deportment is also greater the older one is when one first develops the condition, probably due to the body having to adapt and tending to over-compensate the longer one has become used to using muscles differently. In extreme cases this over-compenastion can in fact worsen the condition.

From the image as provided today I imagine this is what occurred in this individual's case.

And here is the problem again:

Since the Leicester team so desparately wanted it to be Richard III that they said even before the body was found, something along the lines of: "if we find someone with a back deformity that would be a good pointer" -I'm not quoting them but that was their gist as I recall ... then there is a great incentive for them to exaggerate the curvature of the spine:

"We believe Richard to have a curved spine, we believe this to be Richard, there is "evidence" of a curved spine, we have therefore laid him out with a curved spine, ergo Richard was indeed a hunchback. Told you so all along!"

I just hope the appearence of the skeleton thus presented, with a very clear spinal deformity, can be backed up by, both it's position as found (photos taken during the excavation etc), and by proper, anatomic principles of skeletal reconstruction. (Does a partially decomposed body, possible recovered from being dumping in a ditch, then stuffed, into a possibly too small coffin/grave ever show itself as completely straight? What about any changes post mortem, the effects of rigor, tightening or weakening of muscle tone and tendons, especially if the corpse isn't quickly laid out, but slung over a horse, and moved about while being irreverently displayed etc ?). Normally I would never doubt "experts in their field" like this, but to me it is they (Leicester archeologists) who have raised the stakes and mired their work in questions about honesty, integrity and bias etc. No?

I thought there was also a woman found in the same place. No-one seems to be mentioning her. I still don't actually see what new information we have though except for a more accurate diagnosis of his spinal anomaly.

Honestly, what a cynical bunch you lot are. You'll be suggesting next they got a body from the local morgue and "distressed" it a bit!

Re snide comments elsewhere on the net (not on this site) - could it be some academics at other institutions are green with envy at Leicester's coup?

MM - This photo apparently shows that the deformity was not only present but had existed long enough for the vertebraes' shape to have been affected in their adolescent and early adult growth.



MadNan - yes, I agree heartily! If they did discover a Grey Friars burial patch then corroborative evidence from other adjacent burials would have been vital in establishing this fact. If they did indeed find at least one other such burial then you would imagine it would have formed an integral part of the "case for the prosecution" this morning. That there was no mention of it at all is, I hope, simply down to time constraints today and not wilful deflection from other salient facts that are not being relayed.

Also it was probably not the wisest decision to announce a fully-formed "Richard: The Exhibition" exhibition as ready to open, nor indeed call today's press conference "Leicester University's Search for Richard". From a PR standpoint it all seems to smack of predetermined findings.

Temperance wrote:

Honestly, what a cynical bunch you lot are. You'll be suggesting next they got a body from the local morgue and "distressed" it a bit.

Not at all, I'm quite sure it almost certainly is Richard III. And yes it is interesting.

But now what? The finding of his body in roughly a place where it was generally assumed to be, if it was still there, is interesting but doesn't add very much to what was already known. It is all the hype and "milking the story" that I find so worrying.

nordmann wrote:

Also it was probably not the wisest decision to announce a fully-formed "Richard: The Exhibition" exhibition as ready to open, nor indeed call today's press conference "Leicester University's Search for Richard". From a PR standpoint it all seems to smack of predetermined findings.

Quite! I'm not saying they're wrong at all (though I'm sure plenty of others will carve out lucrative careers questioning all their findings) .... it just all seems too much like fait accompli.

Yes indeed, the Battle Royal between York and Leicester for the spine-twisted remains will no doubt help deflect attention away from the inherent injustices of the Work Credit system as it applies to the presently disabled.

As regards getting to the bottom of the Princes In The Tower riddle we have taken one almighty step sidewards. For a while Richard will be presented in a very revisionist light - a veritable champion of the disabled, the wrongly vilified, and indeed anyone most likely born north of Watford - and as a result the finger-pointing will swing hugely over to the Tudor camp. For a while anyway, at least long enough for Gregory to get her book out and Catigern to erupt in an unseemly disgorge of bile and apoplexy.

Then it's back to the evidence again - and as yet not even a hint of an iota of improvement on that fantastic Channel Four "trial" from all those years ago. Everything is still "as was", except for Starky being even more obnoxious these days.

nordmann wrote:

For a while Richard will be presented in a very revisionist light - a veritable champion of the disabled, the wrongly vilified, and indeed anyone most likely born north of Watford...

Quite right too.

I wish they'd got the results out of a big, golden envelope, the way they do at the Oscars. "And the results of the DNA testing show the winner is..."

A very drunk Elizabeth Taylor once had that job - she read all the nominees for Best Film off the autocue and then announced: "And the winner is...Envelope!"

She then twigged she had to actually open the envelope.

Dr Turi King did in fact pause so patently deliberately for a few seconds between "so our conclusion is ..." and then naming Tricky Dicky. If I hadn't been laughing so much by that stage I'd have been squirming.

Anyway, Richard as champion of the downtrodden? Oh, I hope not ...

Of course you know what it means for the sales of Yorkie Bars!

We'll probably even be getting back this Richard lookalike from 1976 - remember him?

nordmann wrote:

What is true in all cases however is that the impact on a persons's deportment is also greater the older one is when one first develops the condition, probably due to the body having to adapt and tending to over-compensate the longer one has become used to using muscles differently. In extreme cases this over-compenastion can in fact worsen the condition.

Not only does over compensation worsen the condition itself, but it places extra stress on other parts of the body, that would not normally be effected by the disease and adding additional problems. Daughter is a physiotherapist and much of her work is in dealing with problems caused with over compensations, rather than the original conditions themselves. I don't see how he could have been quite the brilliant warrior claimed with this condition.

'Beyond reasonable doubt' Temp, this is also a bit of contradiction to claims. 'Beyond doubt' is emphatic, but that the word reasonable has been slipped in simply leaves room for doubt yet again. I don't think we are being cynical at all, isn't it preferable to question everything rather than take any information at face value? We'd still be believing that the earth was flat if everyone did that.

He was not an invalid - his ability to wield a heavy weapon would not have been impaired, and nor would any other basic skill employed in a battle of the era been negatively affected. By all accounts he had acquired a high level of such skills anyway and there is no reason to believe otherwise.

Except of course that he would have been instantly recognisable when running away ...

So Richard III's definitely dead - who'd have thought it - and they've (probably) dug him up.

I'm just back home to catch up and I'm fascinated by some of the reactions all over the net: Yorkists weeping at the news and bickering about the re interment bursting out all over. Why does the distant past and the activities of the various violent thugs who figured in it still manage to evoke such emotion and apparently play such a part in some peoples' sense of self? It can't just be a wish to right misapprehensions and a sense of injustice surely? I believe that someone has already offered £10000 towards the reburial: more money than sense. As nordmann said, spend it on Bosworth and sort out what really happened there, that would significantly add to knowledge.

I suppose that anything which encourages interest in the past and points up that WS wrote plays and not history is welcome but there's something so disproportionate about all this fuss. 'The greatest archaeological discovery of recent times' as said on one report? I think not.

Edit - I wrote this a couple of hours ago but omitted to press 'send' before I ran out again. I see that there's more posts to read so forgive me if it doesn't fit in with the conversation.

Islanddawn wrote:

I don't see how he could have been quite the brilliant warrior claimed with this condition.

Seems he was - even his enemies conceded that. Polydore Vergil, Henry Tudor's official historian, felt compelled to admit: "King Richard alone was killed fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies."

Islanddawn wrote:

'Beyond reasonable doubt' Temp, this is also a bit of contradiction to claims. 'Beyond doubt' is emphatic, but that the word reasonable has been slipped in simply leaves room for doubt yet again. I don't think we are being cynical at all, isn't it preferable to question everything rather than take any information at face value? We'd still be believing that the earth was flat if everyone did that.

So if the Leicester team (shifty-looking lot, I must admit) are deliberately deceiving us, whose body is it? Must be a Plantagenet (surely they haven't fiddled those DNA charts?). Hope it's not that bloody Perkin Warbeck again - he'd pretend to be anyone, given half a chance.

Lord, we've been discussing this all day.

Ha!

But I didn't say he was an invalid, nor that he could not wield a weapon, nor fight in battle etc. I think it is now possible that we wasn't 'quite' the great warrior cracked up to be, rather he was more likely an ordinary one. If the Tudors could indulge in a spot of propoganda, why not the Plantagenet lot in their day also?

Ian McKellan as Richard III (1995). Horse or Yorkie needed? Probably both.

Can someone save me a bit of searching and tell me who it was that asserted the bones had been chucked in the river? Was it a Tudor source and was there, at that time, any suggestion of a faction still bearing a grudge and who might have focussed their discontent on the grave site?

Flippin' heck, every time I try to post something, there's another one in ahead of me.

If these had been any old bones, I doubt Leicester Cathedral would have been gagging to bury them within because they were dug up 'in its shadow' but these having the Royal stamp are surely entitled to a more senior place. And he was head of the House of York so there ought be no argument. Many Plantangenets were buried in France, anyway. The Ministry of Justice(and funny walks?) deems otherwise. I am surprised that anyone does what the Ministry of Justice says, to be honest. As they say in this joyful part of essex, 'There ain't no justice, not no 'ow.'

Temperance wrote:

So if the Leicester team (shifty-looking lot, I must admit) are deliberately deceiving us, whose body is it? Must be a Plantagenet (surely they haven't fiddled those DNA charts?). Hope it's not that bloody Perkin Warbeck again.

Lord, we've been discussing this all day.

Crossed posts again!

I haven't said that, no need to exaggerate Temp. What I have said is that the phrasing of certain statements is a bit odd, therefore still leaves room for doubt.

I'd like to read ALL the results myself, not get information via a media circus press conference where it is in Leicester's interest to have a positive outcome. And then I'd like to read a proper scholarly rebutal of the evidence and findings to date, and only then will I be making a decision either way. In the meantime I'll continue to question.

And I wonder why both thread discussions on the BBC Points of View site have been closed to discussion. Now they are sliding down page two; interesting.... one of them deplored the BBC's leaving the pressconference before it made the announcement. Big Beeb peeve because Ch 4 has the story, perhaps. Must be a Tory plot afoot there t be condemned - bet Beeb comes out with a prog to counter it all soon - or will press for York burial with a Dimbleby over voice.

Who cares if the economy is on its knees what with this, gay marriage and the 6 Nations to watch, Team GB 2013 is getting a better press than expected.

ferval wrote:

Can someone save me a bit of searching and tell me who it was that asserted the bones had been chucked in the river? Was it a Tudor source and was there, at that time, any suggestion of a faction still bearing a grudge and who might have focussed their discontent on the grave site?

Interesting question. I've had a google, but can't find much. This might be of interest, ferval:

In 1536, Henry VIII, famous son of the victor of Bosworth Field, decided to smash and loot the country’s monasteries in the name of his new religion. For three years, this ‘Reform­ation’ raged through a confused and frightened nation. The Greyfriars Monastery in Leicester, the likely burial site of Richard III, was despoiled in 1538, its roof taken off for the benefit of the Crown’s coffers. A legend developed, weak in its hesitance, comic in its melodrama: Richard’s bones had been dug up during the pillage and scattered by the mob into the River Soar. If you can grab a large pinch of salt, it might be best to take it now.

The ‘mob’, or ordinary law-abiding folk of Leicester, had no axe to grind with Richard. He had been no enemy of their proud and historic city. If a former king’s remains had been cast into a local river as late as 1538, surely our archives would yet yield something more substantial than a rumour. A lot of things might have been torn up during Henry VIII’s day, but a lot of things were written down, too. And the idea that Henry’s own henchmen, regardless of any mob, might have ripped up the marble and alabaster monument that had been paid for by Henry’s own father surely must take some swallowing.

Got to go back to the University of Leicester site now; I can't remember whether any details were given of any marble or alabaster being found.

The monument was ordered by Henry VII, but it was a cheapskate one. It was never completed and Henry only forked out £10 for it. Still, a tenner is a tenner, and I presume pieces of marble and alabaster would be worth flogging, so perhaps the monument was removed. But possibly the bones beneath were of no interest to anyone??

Will see if I can find out anything else.

Plenty of discussion here, P. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbarchers/NF2693943?thread=8411883
and on the university site. Is that the 'real' Alison Weir do you think?
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/history.html

Once again, another post. Thanks Temp, I'll be interested if you ferret anything out. I'm a bit tied up in Neolithic Orkney at the mo.

Just thinking when we finally get to the re-burial, the real irony is that he'll be plonked in a church belonging to a Tudor invented faith. Completely ignoring the fact that Dicky was technically Roman Catholic, his walking stick is going to be banging on the roof of that coffin in outrage for centuries to come. The RC belief will be that he is being consigned to hell, there'll be no limbo and heaven for that puppy.

Or have the RC's as well as York already staked a claim on the bones?

Ferreted a bit more:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/garden-unearthed-in-leicester-richard-iii-dig-8117515.html

In the early 1600s, Alderman Robert Herrick, a mayor of Leicester, bought the land of the Grey Friars and built a large mansion house with a garden on the site.
In 1612, Christopher Wren, father of the famous architect, was visiting Herrick and recorded seeing a handsome three foot stone pillar in Herrick's garden.
Inscribed on the pillar was: "Here lies the body of Richard III sometime King of England."

This is the last known record of the site of King Richard's grave. Richard is historically recorded as being buried in the choir of the Church of Grey Friars.

Quote :

Or have the RC's as well as York already staked a claim on the bones?

Given he was buried in a friary, we can reasonably assume that the proper rituals were conducted at the time and the appropriate masses said to hasten his transition through purgatory. On the other hand, if he hadn't left the cash for those, maybe he didn't get nearly as many as he would have expected. Good job for him then that there's no such place.

Since one, even if one is a king, can only have one funeral, anything else that happens to his remains now will be a re interment. Is there a prescribed Catholic ritual for that? I wouldn't know.

Oh bugger, I'd forgotten he was in a church already, that spoils the fun a bit! Not sure if a CofE church would still be considered consecrated ground by RCs though, I can't remember much of this gumph anymore, but a non RC interment will almost certainly raise a few hackles.

Probably is a RC ritual for re interment, there is a prescribed ritual for just about everything.

Oh for goodness sake, that Phillipa woman had 'a strange sensation' in the car park and guess what, it was right on the spot which was marked with an 'R'! It gets worse, then there was a tempest arose when they uncovered the first bones. Richard 'wanted to be found'. Someone better shut her up or the whole thing risks becoming a farce.

Fascinating, I hope someone has been designated to find out which of Richards "allies" shot him in the back. I reckon the arrow would have been what made him make such a dangerous move on his own to try to kill Henry.

It wasn't an arrow, it's a Roman nail that happened to be in the grave fill.

It's occurred to me that biological sex is normally confirmed with DNA and that has never been mentioned as far as I'm aware. The osteologist made quite a point of the markedly gracile bones and the wide pelvic notch. Is there another little bit of info to come out here? Heavens, Phillipa what's her name would have had a seizure if the masculinity of her pash had been questioned.

The programme was more interesting as a study in obsession than anything else.

Meles meles wrote:

the Leicester team so desparately wanted it to be Richard III

Even more surprising was that when they first discovered evidence of human remains (i.e. the leg bones) but hadn't yet uncovered the whole skeleton (particularly the skull) one of the excavators was nevertheless merrily swinging away with a mattock. No surprise then that the skull was struck and badly damaged. Even if it had 'just' been the bones of a medieval friar, in terms of archaeological excavation or forensic exhumation that seemed to be a very careless, hurried and amateurish incident. Quite shocking in fact.

ferval wrote:

It's occurred to me that biological sex is normally confirmed with DNA and that has never been mentioned as far as I'm aware. The osteologist made quite a point of the markedly gracile bones and the wide pelvic notch. Is there another little bit of info to come out here? Heavens, Phillipa what's her name would have had a seizure if the masculinity of her pash had been questioned.

The programme was more interesting as a study in obsession than anything else.

Yeah the sex was confirmed via DNA, I remember it mentioned at the press conference. It was the first finding read out from the DNA analysis.

The report on the skeletal remains did stress how effeminate his frame was though, so yer wobbly woman Phillipa (such an appropriate name!) would have been a bit worried initially. The archaeologists seemed to be surprised by the height at well, well taller than thought.

Before scientific data is published, isn't it normal procedure for reports to be independently peer reviewed before public announcements? Was this done? Although they did begun trumpeting that is was Richard as soon as they dug up the bones, and every step since has merely been an effort to prove that position. Not a great nor a particularly unbiased position to begin with, for any scientific study.

Well, Richard fathered a son, although he was not a particularly healthy boy aparently. here is Richards reconstructed face, quite nice I thought.

Well, the excitement all got too much for my computer last night and it threw a massive wobbly. Big black and white stripes have appeared which block out half my screen. This is the end I fear - must go to PC World today and try to cope with their bewildering array of pads and tablets and other mysteries.

I am in the library at the moment, so can't type much - a shame as I'd love to discuss last night's programme. It was not at all what I was expecting. What a clash of worlds was there, my friends: a weeping, neurotic Ricardian and that cold, clinical, quite brilliant bone specialist (Dr. Jane ??). The latter's disquiet over the covering of little cardboard coffin with the royal standard and her obvious contempt for Philippa L.'s hysterics were difficult to watch.

Much food for thought.

So - if I'm not around for a bit please do not think I'm having a wobbly, huff, miff or similar. I'm just mooching about computer-less for a while.
In haste.

Hail and farewell.

Temperance.

Well, something had to give, better the tools than the hand behind them. May we wish your computer all the best?

Of course when the bone team feel interest flagging, they might prowl about Middleham to find out where Richard's son was buried. Maybe Phillipa L. on a stick moved over car parks? Coatless, of course so that a chill might be apparent to all. Though I sneer when I should not because I have been known to have have similar experience; if I chose to reveal it, we don't follow it up with anything more than a glass of something strong and quickly talk about something else. My 'chills' are more to do with what happened at a place which a bit of research later confirms - in most cases.

And let's not forget that Richard had the depose Henry VI's body rebruired in Windsor. And that became a revered place for miracles - until all of that sort of stuff was stopped......... Miss Rowling suggests in a novel that Henry VI had a witch as an advisor, anyway.

Trying to keep the thread warm for Temps to come and uplift it to its former glory....

I haven't dared venture into this thread before, but after yesterday's events I couldn't resist!

I must admit to being fond of Dick Dastardly so I'm glad they've found him, and he does look like a nice chap (having said that, I don't, unlike Phillipa L. - an interesting lady - appeared to do, take his appearance as proof positive of his innocence).

The programme itself didn't really do the find justice - I suspect that a lot of archaeology and science was skipped in favour of filler and footage of Phillipa bursting into tears (with all due respect, if Richard was king today she'd definitely be on the watch list of the Royal Protection Squad!) Nor, I fear, did it do the Richard III Society any favours - none of the members featured came across very well.

Unfortunately last night's show doesn't seem to have been uploaded on Youtube yet (I really do want to have a look at this crazy lady with the chills!) but found these interesting videos instead, explaining the skeletal and DNA findings



And the geneaological findings