Breaking News!!!! Richard III's Body Found!

http://news.sky.com/story/983984/richard-iii-dig-strong-chance-body-is-king

Richard III Dig: 'Strong Chance' Body Is King
A skeleton showing signs of what could be battle wounds is uncovered in the hunt for the grave of Richard III under a car park.



Richard III is thought to have been buried in Leicester in the 15th Century

Archaeologists digging beneath a car park for the remains of Richard III believe a skeleton of a man who had been shot with an arrow could be that of the dead king.

The skull shows signs of trauma consistent with wounds incurred in battle, and the man also had a curved spine - matching contemporary descriptions of the king as being a "crookback" who had one shoulder higher than the other.

Bones unearthed during the dig have been sent for DNA testing and experts believe the skeleton is "a very strong candidate" to be that of the medieval monarch.

Richard III is thought to have been buried in Leicester after his defeat in the Battle of Bosworth by Henry Tudor in 1485.

A team from the University of Leicester has been excavating the car park behind council offices in the city for three weeks.

Revealing more details about the remains at a news conference in the city, Richard Buckley, from the University of Leicester, said: "The skeleton was buried in a grave without a coffin. It was probably a shrouded burial, just buried in a shroud, with no grave goods.

"The head shows sign of trauma consistent with wounds incurred in battle.

"Between two of the vertebrae was an iron arrowhead, possibly with barbs and also the individual has curvature of the spine and it's a male."

When asked whether he believed it was the remains of the king, Mr Buckley said: "He's a very strong candidate indeed, but it's going to take a few weeks for the DNA analysis to come through."

The DNA samples from the skeleton will be analysed and compared with those of Michael Ibsen, a descendant of the king.

Mr Ibsen, 55, lives in London but was born in Canada to Joy Ibsen, a direct descendant of the king's eldest sister Anne of York.

The dig has already unearthed the Franciscan Friary which contained the church known as Grey Friars, under which the medieval monarch is believed to have been buried.

Archaeologists have also found paving stones which they believe were part of a garden which belonged to a mayor of Leicester, Robert Herrick, where it is recorded that there was a memorial to Richard III.

Research at the site, which is owned by Leicester City Council, began on August 24 with ground-penetrating radar equipment finding the best areas to begin the search.

Mr Taylor described the find as "truly remarkable" and said the search had taken "a dramatic new turn".

DNA testing will take between eight and 12 weeks, he said.

Other medieval finds from the dig include inlaid floor tiles from the cloister walk of the friary, elements of the stained glass windows of the church and a stone frieze believed to be from its choir stalls.

Mr Soulsby said: "This discovery adds a whole new dimension to a search which has already far exceeded our expectations. This is exciting news and I know that people across the world will be waiting to hear more about the university's find."

The dig is being filmed for a documentary to be broadcast later in the year.

-------------

I am even more amazed that there is a living relative to compare DNA to....

I am even more amazed that there is a living relative to compare DNA to....

Isn't that something? This will be really interesting when they get the results?

It will indeed, Lily. I wonder what they will do with him, if it is him? Is he sufficiently acceptable now Shakespeare's Tudor propaganda has been disproven to get a Royal burial?

I bet no-one expected to have to sort out Richard III's funeral arrangements in the 21st century....

Should he be buried in Westminster Abbey?

Well, if it is him, I suppose he really should be, as he has been cleared of a good few crimes with the passage of time...but if he hadn't been killed at Bosworth, who would now be on the throne?

I have absolutely no idea; maybe whoever decides will just do that British thing and pretend none of that nasty stuff ever happened?

Reading this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England

I think he has to be interred at Westminster?

They certainly can't leave him under a council car park...

Bonny, he was an anointed and crowned king of England so quite rightly should be buried in Westminster Abbey?

When Ramesses II was flown to Paris, he was given a passport and military guard of honour:

In 1974 Egyptologists visiting his tomb noticed that the mummy's condition was rapidly deteriorating and flew it to Paris for examination.[59] Ramesses II was issued an Egyptian passport that listed his occupation as "King (deceased)".[60] The mummy was received at Le Bourget airport, just outside Paris, with the full military honours befitting a king.[61]

And the remains of the Russian Imperial family were interred in St Petersburg....

So I think, if it is him, he has be interred as a king? York Minster is the only alternative I can think of....

This one will be causing a stir amongst assorted heralds, archers and pursuivants, I should think.

Now jousting is becoming popular again, they may want to make a big ceremony of it. It could be very good for tourism.

lily wrote:Bonny, he was an anointed and crowned king of England so quite rightly should be buried in Westminster Abbey?

Yes, I think he has to be, Lily. This could be most interesting.

I didn't know that about Rameses II, thank you for posting that, Bonny.

Yep, he will have to be buried there and I agree that it will be most interesting as to what kind of ceremony it will be.

Aha! His wife is at Westminster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Neville

Anne died on 16 March 1485 of tuberculosis, at Westminster. The day she died, there was an eclipse, which some took to be an omen of Richard's fall from heavenly grace. She was buried in Westminster Abbey, in an unmarked grave to the right of the High Altar, next to the door to the Confessor's Chapel. Richard openly wept at her funeral. There was no memorial to her until the late 20th century, when a bronze tablet was erected on a wall near her grave by the Richard III Society in 1960.

All very interesting! I suspect the candles will be burning, and the quills racing, at Herald HQ over this; I don't think there is actually a precedent for a long-lost King of England's remains turning up under a council car park...

DNA confirmation could come from a number of sources, not necessarily living.

For example Richard's brother, Edward IV (buried in Windsor Castle), or his great grandfather, Edmund, Duke of York (buried in the parish church in Kings Langley) or his sister, Elizabeth (buried in Wingfield in Suffolk). I would guess there are other candidates who either pre-date or post-date Richard whose remains could be used. If mtDNA is needed there are probably female ancestors of his whose resting place is known.

But there has been some more contemporary DNA work done on the Royal Family in relation to the Romanovs. In fact I think it was done here in the UK by Home Office experts on behalf of the Russians. Some samples of (publically) unidentified Royals were taken for that work.

If it does turn out to be Richard III, then perhaps his face can be reconstructed? It's the most bizarre thing to happen, to get a completely new insight on such an important part of history.

Look at the comments:

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

Who would have thought so many people would still be arguing about him? Are we going to see 'pro' and 'anti' Richard forums if it is indeed him?

The Plantagenets were French you know.

Oui, Sabot.

The Plantagenets are the only ones I know anything about, Lily. Due to reading a lot of Brother Caedphile. Although I'm reading a book at the moment called Virgin Earth which is about Charles the First. His fiasco is a lot more convoluted than first I thought.
Oh, and it's about Virginia and The Powhatans, and a bit about Pocahontas.

What a very strange American Spell Check . It doesn't like Native American Indian names.

Oh that's one of Philippa Gregory's books isn't it, Sabot?

I've read her other ones and am currently re-reading The Lady of the Rivers about the mother of Elizabeth Woodville who married King Edward IV. I say re-reading because my books are in storage in L.A. and this is one that I bought en route to here.

So am thrilled to read that you like that book. I also see she has a new one out which I might be able to find in Dubai if I am lucky as I won't find it here.

Yes, it is Philippa Gregory, Lily. The first of hers I have read. Really good. And reading novels is a good way to learn about history.
I now have quite a collection of books that I read again and again. And always something new to find in all of them.

Ah well, I am very weak on Plantagenets, Sabot, as they didn't figure all that much in Scots history. Except when England was invading us and vice versa.

I won't bore you with the details, Bonny, but Henry the 2nd was the first of The Plantagenets, Married Eleanor of Aquitaine. Richard the 1st, The Lionheart was the second Plantagenet King.

As usual, there will be misinformation and downright lies re Richard; bennett et all don't have a monopoly on outright lying - for a master of the game, try Henry V11. I can, if anyone is interested, shoot down any untruths re this most maligned king. LL

I would be fascinated, LL. The Lion in Winter is about as far as I go Plantaganet-wise; I knew the Tudor anti-Richard propaganda had been pretty much debunked, but not much more.

ETA, And I watched the BBC production of The Hollow Crown recently; which was excellent, but once again, Tudor propaganda.

In Blackadder, Richard was the good guy, and was killed by accident by Blackadder aka Mr Bean.

Okay, some info re Edward IV, whose sexual arrangements were the trigger for what woild ensue - the removal of his sons from the throne line. When Edward died, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later Richard 111, was made lord protector of the then under age king Edward V. However, the Bishop of Bath and Welles,apparently conscious stricken, went to Parliament and told them that he had pre-contracted Edward to another lady; as the pre-contract had never been annulled, his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was null and void and therefore his sons had no claim to the throne. Parliament accepted his word on the matter and, as Edward IV's next brother George had been attained for treason, thus making his children debarred from the throne, the next in line was Richard. His title was ratified in a document "In Titulo Regio" and he was duly crowned as king.

I will have to do this in bits, so the next will be the reasons why Henry VII had no claim to the throne and why the death of the Princes in the Tower benefitted him and not Richard. LL

Thanks, LL

I am hoping it does turn out to be Richard; what happens next will be fascinating. I've been reading round, and I think he has to have a State funeral, as a king of England. Which is something none of us ever expected to see.....

I am pretty sure that The Tudors had no right to The Throne of England, but then I am not entirely sure that The Plantagenets did either.
Who was Henry the Ist, and where did he come from?
In fact, I have long wonder if England has ever had an English King. Apart from Arthur, if he existed, and there are rumours about him being French.

I remain an unapologetic Charlie fan. No one had the right to say that a Catholic couldn't be King. But don't confuse me with his genetics. I am also an incurable romantic. I still pass my hand over a glass of whisky on the rare occasion that I drink it.
Yes. I'm pretentious as well.