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

Fantastic news! Absolutely LOVE it.

Must confess that I have read all of Philippa Gregory's books, including the Plantagenet era. Even though they are fiction, I really like them.

It's going to be announced officially tomorrow, apparently, and tomorrow evening, C4 are showing their documentary, unromantically titled:

Richard III: The King in the Car Park

I would have hoped for something a bit more Shakespearean, personally....

Sabot wrote:
And the remains had a humped back, apparently, as history has said. The Plantagenets were French, by way.

Not a humped back, but curvature of the spine which would have made one shoulder appear higher than the other. Also he had been a soldier since a young boy and his sword arm would have been highly developed. The myth of the 'hump' came later, after he was dead - no-one dared dispute this as they would disappear very quickly into Henry VII's prisons. A visiting foreign dignitary described Richard as small of stature but comely, no mention of any deformity. LL

ETA Just watched a video about this, the speaker from the Leicester University team said that the skeleton had Scoliosis, a back condition that causes the spine to curve to the left or right side.

This is really interesting. Am miffed as to why he will not be laid to rest in Westminster Abbey where he was anointed king.

So much more fitting than Leicestershire?

lily wrote:This is really interesting. Am miffed as to why he will not be laid to rest in Westminster Abbey where he was anointed king.

So much more fitting than Leicestershire?

I know the answer to this - in his life time Richard asked to be buried in York. He knew Leicester well and it is normal practice after archaeologists have found remains that they are laid back to rest where they were found. He had a proper burial, he was not chucked into the river Soar as was claimed by one Tudor historian. In the case of the Abbey, I am nit sure whether there is room; his wife 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. Most kings and queens are now buried elsewhere, not exactly sure where, possibly Windsor Castle chapel, which is where George VI is interred. Personally I think Richard should be buried where he wanted to be, in York Minster. LL.

If that is where he wanted, LL, he should be there.

lily wrote:If that is where he wanted, LL, he should be there.

Of course, but he won't be; Leicester Council have already drawn up plans to build a museum where he was found with his grave as the centrepiece. Then they can make money from all the tourists who visit it. LL

How strange life is. Having been reviled, due to Tudor propaganda, he's going to end up getting the next best thing to a State funeral, with a worldwide audience.....

bb1 wrote:How strange life is. Having been reviled, due to Tudor propaganda, he's going to end up getting the next best thing to a State funeral, with a worldwide audience.....

What goes around, comes around. And as an ardent Ricardian, I am so pleased that this will have happened in my lifetime. LL

He's got the ultimate 21st century accolade. An e-petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/369/648/460/time-for-king-richard-iii-to-come-home-to-york/


Which appears to be more successful than Bennett's efforts.

More here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html

Plus arguments in the comments about where he should be buried, and indeed, who is the rightful occupant of Buck House....

IT IS RICHARD!!!! Just watched the press announcement!! RIP, Richard! LL And it looks like he will be buried in Leicester.

Oh, look!

http://news.sky.com/story/1047231/richard-iiis-remains-found-in-council-car-park

Remains found beneath a council car park in Leicester are believed that of King Richard III, archaeologists say.

More follows...

--------

His skeleton is almost intact!



I know it sounds silly, but I feel quite emotional, maybe because a great wrong is going to be righted, after all these centuries.

I hadn't realised he was so complete. I certainly never thought I would see his poor, twisted spine - he must have been quite a man to overcome that in the 15th century.

No withered arm, no hunch, just a spinal problem. He was considered by many to have been a great soldier; he led the right wing of his brother's (Edward IV) army at the age of 18, which has always made the stories of him being a deformed dwarf nonsense. In the press conference they said he was probably about 5'8" tall if he hadn't had the spine problem, which is acceptable as his brothers were both over 6'. I am very happy!!
LL

I am amazed, LL, I didn't think his entire skeleton had been found. Seeing that his remains are virtually intact, I think he should go to Westminster Abbey, as he was an English king.

Lamplighter wrote:No withered arm, no hunch, just a spinal problem. He was considered by many to have been a great soldier; he led the right wing of his brother's (Edward IV) army at the age of 18, which has always made the stories of him being a deformed dwarf nonsense. In the press conference they said he was probably about 5'8" tall if he hadn't had the spine problem, which is acceptable as his brothers were both over 6'. I am very happy!!
LL

Stories of deformities and such were usually peddled by their enemies.. Remember 5'8 then was considered to be tall as well as most people in those years were a lot smaller.
Spine problem, think a lot did in those days didn't they

bb1 wrote:I am amazed, LL, I didn't think his entire skeleton had been found. Seeing that his remains are virtually intact, I think he should go to Westminster Abbey, as he was an English king.

That would be wonderful but I don't think there is any room left! And he wouldn't get a nice tomb like he will in Leicester Cathedral, as they would be hard put to have a space for a tiny one let alone one befitting a king. The people in York won't be happy, but it is usual practice to re-inter remains as close as possible to where they were found. LL

That's true, LL. And he won't just get a tomb in Leicester, he will get an entire visitor centre...

Amazing how the world turns.

WOW! Wonderful news. It is quite amazing to think about this. Am stunned.

More here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2273164/Richard-III-Scientists-reveal-DNA-results-confirm-kings-body-car-park-Leicester.html#axzz2JvUeAHvJ

Reading round various news sites, today's top comment is..

A hearse! A hearse! My kingdom for a hearse!

The arguments about;

Where he should be buried.

What faith the service should be in.

Who really killed the princes in the Tower.

Who should really be on the throne of England.

Are raging nicely.

If anyone would like to read a very good bio of Richard, try and get a copy of 'Richard III' by Paul Murray Kendall. A shame he died long before he could see the results of this project.
From Wikipedia -

In 1950 Kendall was awarded a Marburgh Prize from The Johns Hopkins University for a three-act play, The Ant Village. He published both light verse and scholarly articles. In 1952 he was awarded a Ford Foundation Fellowship which assisted him in completing Richard III, which was published in 1955. It is for that work that he is best known. This work was a scholarly defence of the controversial monarch. It relied heavily on primary sources and made a significant contribution to the arguments for a favourable view of Richard. The work was critically very well received and was a runner-up for the National Book Award in 1956.

Also try 'The Daughter of Time' by Josephine Tey, a 'whodunnit' where a convalescing policeman looks into the true story behind the myths about Richard. LL

I've read Daughter of Time, LL - it was that which got me interested in Richard.

I doubt very much if he killed the princes, they weren't a threat to him, as far as I can make out.

Henry Tudor, on the other hand, seems to have been an all-round nasty bit of work.

A hearse! A hearse! My kingdom for a hearse!

Sorry, but it is funny.

A friend of mine was one of Britain's best King Richard III's.

I'm thrilled he can go visit him soon.

There's others about him being in trouble because he was in a council car park without displaying his disabled badge.....

I do hope that, somewhere in the afterlife, Richard's shade is having a long-overdue hearty mediaeval guffaw about the way things have turned out.

Henry Tudor hasn't got an e-petition, a special on Channel 4, and a visitor centre, has he?

Henry Tudor hasn't got an e-petition, a special on Channel 4, and a visitor centre, has he?

NO.

bb1 wrote:I've read Daughter of Time, LL - it was that which got me interested in Richard.

I doubt very much if he killed the princes, they weren't a threat to him, as far as I can make out.

Henry Tudor, on the other hand, seems to have been an all-round nasty bit of work.

The Princes were declared illegitimate by an Act of Parliament, Titulus Regius, which declared that, because Edward IV, their father had been secretly betrothed by the Bishop of Bath & Welles to another un-named woman and this had not been annulled when he married Elizabeth Wydvylle, the boys' mother, they were debarred from the throne and the title then passed to George of Clarence's son, but he was barred as his father had been executed for treason (attempting to dethrone his brother) so the next in line was Richard, who was offered and accepted the throne. He therefore had no reason to kill the boys, he was legitimately king.

Henry Tudor, however, claimed the throne through his mother, Margaret Beaufort, a member of the family that John of Gaunt had with his mistress, Katherine Swynford. Their children, the Beauforts, were legitimised by Henry IV, excepto regio, which means that no Beaufort could ever inherit the throne. Henry repealed Titulus Regius to marry the boys' sister Elizabeth, which made them legitimate and therefore Edward , the elder boy, King of England. He had every reason to want them dead. LL