His Late Majesty King Richard III

[unloadonme]

I've posted about this already in the "If You Were An Archaeologist" thread, but I can't resist starting a dedicated thread in view of the latest developments.



Richard III was the last Yorkist King of England. His reign only lasted two years (1483-85) and his death at the Battle of Bosworth Field marked the end of the Wars of the Roses and the end of the medieval period of English history.

Over 500 years later, Richard is still considered controversial because of his supposed complicity in the deaths of his nephews King Edward V and Richard, Duke of York (aka the Princes in the Tower). There's no historical evidence about the truth of those claims one way or the other. Much of the speculation is based on William Shakespeare's play Richard III, but Shakespeare was writing during the Tudor period when criticising the earlier Yorkists was politically expected.

Anyway, Richard III was buried beneath the choir in Greyfriars Friary, Leicester which was later demolished during Henry VIII's reformation and its precise whereabouts lost. There's currently an archaeological excavation in a car park in Leicester which has located the church and, it's been announced today, found human remains. Not only that, but a curvature of the spine, a skull injury and an embedded arrowhead are all consistent with what's known about Richard and his death. The archaeologists have DNA from a living descendant of Richard's sister and will be testing the bones hoping for a match.

For history buffs like me, this is very exciting stuff. Richard III is the only English monarch since 1066 to have no known grave. If the tests show that the remains are Richard's, he'll apparently be reburied in Leicester Cathedral although personally I feel there would be more suitable places, one being York Minster.

Some links for anyone I haven't bored into submission:

BBC News - Richard III dig: 'Strong evidence' bones are lost king

Richard III of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Princes in the Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[palbert]

Battle-Bruised Skeleton May Be King Richard III - Yahoo! News

UPDATE

[pat grimshaw]

My newspaper says the DNA analysis will take up to 12 weeks. I wonder how much of the skeleton they have?

Why do you feel he should be reburied in York Minster rather than Leicester Cathedral?

[unloadonme]

My newspaper says the DNA analysis will take up to 12 weeks. I wonder how much of the skeleton they have?

Why do you feel he should be reburied in York Minster rather than Leicester Cathedral?

The report refers to the skull and spine and I'm guessing that they have a complete skeleton.

Why York? Well Richard was a Yorkist King, the son of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and he spent much of his life at Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.

[pat grimshaw]

^ I'm showing my ignorance here. Are both York Minster and Leicester Cathedral important provincial religious buildings? Why not at Westminster Cathedral in London?

[Benvolio]

It is not a complete skeleton but includes some bones and a tooth likely to have useable DNA. The evidence related to the Princes is circumstantial and is compatible with 6 or more different theories of who did it or caused it to be done: Richard3d, Henry 7th, Buckingham, Stanley, infectious disease, or perhaps they survived.

[unloadonme]

^ I'm showing my ignorance here. Are both York Minster and Leicester Cathedral important provincial religious buildings? Why not at Westminster Cathedral in London?

York Minster is far more important than Leicester Cathedral for a number of reasons. Leicester only became a cathedral in the 20th century, whereas York has been a cathedral, seat of an Archbishopric and ecclesiastical centre of northern England for well over 1,000 years.

Why not Westminster Cathedral? Because it's a modern Roman Catholic monstrosity. I think you mean Westminster Abbey. That, in my view, is another possibility. Many medieval and later kings are buried there.

[Benvolio]

^ I'm showing my ignorance here. Are both York Minster and Leicester Cathedral important provincial religious buildings? Why not at Westminster Cathedral in London?

It would be hard to find suitable space in Westminster Abbey without disruption. Westminster Cathederal is a different building, 1800s an Catholic.
He has been in Leicester all this time, so he is not likely to be moved, and they will fight tooth and nail to keep him. Tourists you know. The Queen will make the final decision, as his closest relative, and head of the COE. She is descended from Elizabeth of York, Richard 's niece, who married Henry 7th. Richard had no legitimate issue surviving.

[goldenmoth]

How interesting! I visited the Tower of London a few years ago and I found the paintings of the Little Princes to be fasinating.

Thanks for starting this thread. It's quite interesting isn't it?

[Hard-up1]

I think we should start some sort of pool to see who will be right in the end.

I'm willing to rush in where angels fear to tread, and predict the Crown will decide to leave him in Leicester, and for the reasons already mentioned, namely to boost tourism there as well as to avoid making too much of him at Westminster Abbey in light of his tarnished reign. The princes speak loudly yet.

For the great unwashed, history will once again remind them of the founding of the Tudor line, and the wisdom of Henry VII who enabled Henry VIII to become so powerful.

[Benvolio]

Are you serious? Henry VIII was one of the worst rulers in all of history. It is estimated that on a percentage basis, he executed as many of his own people as Hitler or Stalin.

[palbert]

I think we should start some sort of pool to see who will be right in the end.

I'm willing to rush in where angels fear to tread, and predict the Crown will decide to leave him in Leicester, and for the reasons already mentioned, namely to boost tourism there as well as to avoid making too much of him at Westminster Abbey in light of his tarnished reign. The princes speak loudly yet.

For the great unwashed, history will once again remind them of the founding of the Tudor line, and the wisdom of Henry VII who enabled Henry VIII to become so powerful.

Lady Margaret Beaufort was the wise one. Do not underestimate her influence.

[unloadonme]

I think we should start some sort of pool to see who will be right in the end. I'm willing to rush in where angels fear to tread, and predict the Crown will decide to leave him in Leicester ...

That's almost certainly wht will happen. I won't be betting against you!

... his tarnished reign ...

Richard's reign was tarnished because he lost at Bosworth and the victors subsequently used propaganda to tarnish it. There was actually much to recommend Richard III in terms of good government.

[HoodedRat]

He was the last English King, wasn't he?

Weren't all the subsequent claimants to the throne either Welsh, Scottish, or German?

[Benvolio]

That's almost certainly wht will happen. I won't be betting against you!



Richard's reign was tarnished because he lost at Bosworth and the victors subsequently used propaganda to tarnish it. There was actually much to recommend Richard III in terms of good government.

I agree, except for the problem of the Princes. As i said, there are at least 6 theories of what happened, but Richard cannot be absolved.

[pat grimshaw]

...There was actually much to recommend Richard III in terms of good government.

I bet most of us are unaware of that aspect to his reign just as I bet most of us are unduly influenced by the glamour of Laurence Olivier's portrayal of him

[unloadonme]

He was the last English King, wasn't he?

Weren't all the subsequent claimants to the throne either Welsh, Scottish, or German?

If one were to follow the spirit of that post, one might say that King Harold II was the last English king as all subsequent monarchs were either Norman, Welsh, Scottish or German. The problem is that Harold was Anglo-Saxon so was of German stock too. Where should we draw the line? King Arthur?

[unloadonme]

It is not a complete skeleton but includes some bones and a tooth likely to have useable DNA.

According to a report on the Leicester University site, they've found a "fully articulated skeleton".

Search for Richard III enters new phase:

[JockBoy87]

The curvature suggests scoliosis and not the hunchback he was known for. Burial under the choir is pretty strong, however. The Tudors are unlikely to be mistaken as Richard would have been in living memory well into the 1500s, but, certainly not by Shakespeare's time.

If one were to follow the spirit of that post, one might say that King Harold II was the last English king as all subsequent monarchs were either Norman, Welsh, Scottish or German. The problem is that Harold was Anglo-Saxon so was of German stock too. Where should we draw the line? King Arthur?

Vortigern?

[pat grimshaw]

I loved Larry in the role



He was handsome, charming and funny!

[LatimerRd]

York Minster is far more important than Leicester Cathedral for a number of reasons. Leicester only became a cathedral in the 20th century, whereas York has been a cathedral, seat of an Archbishopric and ecclesiastical centre of northern England for well over 1,000 years.

Why not Westminster Cathedral? Because it's a modern Roman Catholic monstrosity. I think you mean Westminster Abbey. That, in my view, is another possibility. Many medieval and later kings are buried there.

The Byzantine Revival Westminister Cathedral is one of the great public monuments of the capital, and one of the most beautiful. The vaulted and domed interior particularly so--think how spectacular it would be with mosaics as originally intended. Architecturally I believe it superior to the Abbey, which fails to sing. Other English Gothic is vastly superior--York Minster and King's College Chapel, for example. Not fond of the development surrounding the cathedral, however.

Too bad about the decades of thoroughly awful modernist building that has followed WWII, and continues unabated. I don't much like the Prince of Wales, but he's certainly right in this regard. Good for him that he managed to stop the perfectly mediocre Richard Rogers Chelsea Stables project. (Or was it Norman Foster?--Why is the former a lord, and the latter only a knight? Transitory politics, I guess.)

Watching the Olympics, it was particularly sad to see the ugly modern London skyline looming behind the Queen's House at Greenwich.

Next time you're in London, you might profitably visit the Westminister Cathedral interior. Perhaps you will discover a deeply moving contemplative space, and change your opinion about its worth.

[Benvolio]

No contemporaneous source describes Richard as hunchback, and I don't believe and modern historian believes it. Part of the Tudor propaganda. He was an active warrior in many battles and is unlikely to have had a deformity that serious.
It would be hard to find room in Westminster Abbey without disrupting historical things. Not likely.
The exterior of Westminster Cathedral (Catholic as I previously pointed out) is not attractive, in my opinion. Those stripes are ugly, I think. Leicester has as superior historical claim to the remains, and I predict will keep them.

[unloadonme]

No contemporaneous source describes Richard as hunchback, and I don't believe and modern historian believes it. Part of the Tudor propaganda. He was an active warrior in many battles and is unlikely to have had a deformity that serious.

No surviving contemporaneous source describes him as such. As to whether the Tudors made it up or whether the story had a grain of truth which they exaggerated, I think we'll let the DNA test decide.

The exterior of Westminster Cathedral ... is not attractive, in my opinion. Those stripes are ugly, I think.

It's not just me then!

Next time you're in London, you might profitably visit the Westminster Cathedral interior. Perhaps you will discover a deeply moving contemplative space, and change your opinion about its worth.

Been there and done that already. Didn't find it in the least moving. Sorry.

[Benvolio]

I understand the bone evidences scoliosis curvature consistent with one shoulder being higher, but not kyphosis-- hunchback
I seem to remember reading prior to this that one shoulder was described as being lower, but I forget where.

[Benvolio]

I read it in Royal Blood, by Bertram Fields, Regan Books 1998, p.277: "[Sir Thomas] More, who had no direct personal knowledge, reported that Richard's left shoulder was higher than his right. [John] Rous reported just the opposite." This seems to be consistent with the spinal bones found.

[pat grimshaw]

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.

Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums chang'd to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.

Grim-visag'd war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front;
And now,--instead of mounting barbed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,--
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.

But I,--that am not shap'd for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;

I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deform'd, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world scarce half made up,

And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;--
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,

Unless to spy my shadow in the sun,
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore,--since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,--

I am determined to prove a villain

[unloadonme]

Yes Pat, that's good Shakespeare, but not necessarily good history.

[pat grimshaw]

^

fair enough, but it's excellent poetry and a great introduction to the play!

[JockBoy87]

Re: Westminster Cathedral. It looks as though there was a little Byzantine revival with the white stripes. I think it would look worse without them.

[pat grimshaw]

…the white stripes…

The stripes in all of the 'Blood 'n' Bandages' buildings in this link look kind of weird to me

Banded Brick: Blood 'n' Bandages - a gallery on Flickr

[Lestatnj]

For a decidedly anti Tudor/Shakespeare, pro Yorkist/Richard take on the end of The War of The Roses/the Princes in the tower, I enjoyed [I]Daughter of Time[I] by Josephine Tey, the golden age mystery writer. She has her detective, who is laid up with a broken leg, dig thru books, etc (with his romantic interest to help) to see if they can ferret out some truth as to whether he was the monster portrayed by Shakespeare. They both conclude he wasn't, & Tey hints that Henry Tudor (VII) could well have had the princes killed, which would have made his soon to be wife Elizabeth of York (Edward IV's daughter, Richard's niece) the heiress to the throne, thus giving his usurption some legality. I'm sure this is old news to most folks, especially across the pond, LOL

I've always been an Anglophile, loving English History (it IS the US's early history too), literature (from Arthur to Harry Potter, LOL), mysteries (frome Dame Agatha to the 2 Baronesses (Rendell & James).

I got hold of Churchill's WWI & WWI books in my teens, was hooked. I

[unloadonme]

I read and enjoyed the Josephine Tey book years ago. In this part of the country, Richard III is still very popular.

[pat grimshaw]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...it-for-a-king/

This person talks about a burial place and says an inscription for the tomb has already been written—



I, here, whom the earth encloses under ostentatious marble,

Was justly called Richard the Third.

I was Protector of my country, an uncle ruling on behalf of his nephew.

I held the British kingdoms in trust, although they were disunited.

Then for just sixty days less two,

And two summers, I held my sceptres.

Fighting bravely in war, deserted by the English,

I succumbed to you, King Henry VII.

But you yourself, piteously, at your expense, thus honoured my bones

And caused a former king to be revered with the honour of a king

When in twice five years less four

Three hundred five-year periods of our salvation had passed.

And eleven days before the Kalends of September

I surrendered to the red rose the power it desired.

Whoever you are, pray for my offences,

That my punishment may be lessened by your prayers.

[unloadonme]

^ Yes, that was the inscription Henry VII apparently had inscribed on the original tomb in Leicester.

[palbert]

For "proof" that Richard III had the boys killed, see New York Times, December 1, 1933, quoting London sources November 30,1933. Found at NYT -> Science -> King Richard III -> "Royal Bones Convict Richard III." Copyrighted; not in quotable format.

Adobe ddownload. Fascinating.

Note also that while a Act denied the Tudors' the lineage, the Act was never signed, and thus null. Henry VII had every right to succeed.

[palbert]

Sir Thomas More (History of King Richard The Third, pp.88-89, recounts the death of th Princes See,, Desmond Seward, The Wars of the Roses, Carroll & Graf, 1995/2007, quoting More, at Seward pp. 364-365.

Note that 1674 excavations on a stairwell in the White Castle revealed a box with the bodies of two young boys of age approximating the Princes. Seward at p. 365, The bodies are as yet unidentified.

Perhaps DNA will address this murky period.

[unloadonme]

Henry VII obtained the throne by right of conquest rather than inheritance. He tried to make it legitimate by marrying Richard III's niece.

[palbert]

So long as Henry VI remained childless the Beaufort/Tudors had a claim of right. Richard II legitimized the Beaufort bastardy and his successor, Henry IV, excluded them from the succession but Parliament NEVER approved the exclusionary language, which Henry V and Henry VI thus refused to honor. Seward at 39.

Thus, Henry VII, through Lady Margaret Beaufort, his mother, had an enforceable claim of right. (Lord Stanley provided the arms.)

[palbert]

Headline from Post 35 - Copyright NYT - Full article available on request

Royal Bones Convict Richard III of Murders in the Tower in 1483
Exhumation from Urn at Westminster Abbey Yields Anatomical Evidence of Ages of Edward V and Brother,
Refuting Theory that Henry VII was the Slayer


(Now have Adobe ExportPDF program)

[DanikShade]

So if it is Richard will he get a royal funeral when he's buried again?

[palbert]

That decision is undecided; but kings killed with impunity back then.

[palbert]

It appears the DNA analysis will not be completed until approximately Christmas.

Calls are being made for Richard to receive a Catholic - which he was - State Funeral, possibly ccombining Church of England participation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-19799936

Silence still befalls plans for the remains of the murdered minor King Edward V and his brother Richard, the Duke of York.

[palbert]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-nor...nline-petition

A global effort is being mounted to have King Richard III translated to York for reinterrment, rather than London or Leicester, where he died.

(Again people overlook that Richard violated his guardianship and usurped the throne.)

[bankside]

It appears the DNA analysis will not be completed until approximately Christmas.

Calls are being made for Richard to receive a Catholic - which he was - State Funeral, possibly ccombining Church of England participation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-19799936

Silence still befalls plans for the remains of the murdered minor King Edward V and his brother Richard, the Duke of York.

He was only Catholic because Henry VIII had not yet changed the state religion to Anglicanism.

And no, it doesn't matter that Henry VIII came later; once the change had been made, there would undoubtedly be a certain kind of amnesia about the royal line having ever been anything other than Anglican. It wouldn't surprise me if they'd have done something almost Mormon in its disregard for time itself, like rebaptising all the previous dead monarchs so they could get into Anglican Heaven.

[pat grimshaw]

I love Sellers as Larry as Richard_

[palbert]

Your point is well taken and argued but I'm not sure where it leaves us. Henry VIII started the "conversion;" Mary was vehemently Catholic; Edward was at best equivocal; Elizabeth I was indifferent ("There is but one God - all the rest is triffles") until the Pope called for her murder. James VI of Scotland/I 0f England was Catholic., as was Charles I; it is said Charles II died with Catholic rites. Were this conversion the solid edifice so certain Oliver Cromwell, Jr. would have not undertaken Drogheda. See, Purkiss, The English Civil War, Basic Books, 2006.

In short I cannot accept that Richard III as well as previous kings were not "truly" Catholic. Logically you argue that as far back as Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine were false Catholics. I find your suppostion overreacing.

[Benvolio]

Wrong. Neither James VI/I not Charles I was Roman Catholic. Both spent much of their careers attempting to enforce the COE Book of Common Prayer on the Scots and Puritans. During their reigns, the Great Migration of Puritans 40,000 came to to US New England, forming the basis for the Northern Population. More than half the Presidents have been descended from Great Migration Puritans, including Obama and the next, Romney.

[bankside]

The next Romney? Is there another? I'm sure he'll be as bright a spark as "the next Bush" was, and that didn't turn out very well.

[Benvolio]

Note the comma. The next President, Romney.

[ashonfire]

I love Sellers as Larry as Richard_

That's one of my favourite pieces of comedy ever. I came across it last year when studying Shakespeare's Richard III and writing an essay on film adaptations of the text. It still makes me giggle.

I have nothing to say on the actually topic though. Let's pretend this whole post never happened...