Richard III's remains: Leicester car park dug up

waylander

Who's going for a beer?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
8,276
Reaction score
1,566
Age
65
Location
London, UK
That was very interesting, great facial reconstruction.
Could have done with more science and rather less of the lady from the Richard III Society getting weepy over the bones.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,874
Reaction score
5,189
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
Josephine Tey's classic mystery The Daughter Of Time, (published in 1951) was dedicated to the proposition that Richard III was not a bad guy at all, just a victim of Tudor propaganda and their chief propagandist, one William Shakespeare.

It's a clever and delightful book.

I loved that book, loved loved loved it.

About when I was in college there was a "Jonny Quest" comic book series where Jonny was thrown back in time and met Richard III and learned all about him. It was a hoot.
 

thothguard51

A Gentleman of a refined age...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
9,316
Reaction score
1,064
Age
72
Location
Out side the beltway...
Just ordered, The Sunne in Splendor for my Kindle. Looked more like what I was looking for.

Ye gads, I have been hooked on Historical Fiction for the past year and a half and this author looks very promising...
 

Komnena

In Honor of Peter Tomich,USS Utah
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
13,917
Reaction score
2,071
Location
King Louie's town
Her Here Be Dragons is also good but it's not about Richard. Concerning Richard I think Rosemary Hawley Jarman is a good author.
 

thothguard51

A Gentleman of a refined age...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
9,316
Reaction score
1,064
Age
72
Location
Out side the beltway...
I saw that book as well and it goes on my to be read list. I read a lot of good reviews about this author so I am looking forward to reading her work...
 

Ambrosia

Grand Duchess
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
26,893
Reaction score
7,269
Location
In the Castle, of course.
Facial reconstruction is revealed!

SAvp701.jpg
My problem with this is that the artist's rendition is not the face of a man in his early 30's. He died before his 33rd birthday.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,874
Reaction score
5,189
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
My problem with this is that the artist's rendition is not the face of a man in his early 30's. He died before his 33rd birthday.

Er . . . I think that is a visual joke.

Is that not Prince Phillip's aged face pasted onto a fifteenth century or so painting of Richard III?
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
I thought it was Prince Charles, and almost asked who gave him the keys to the time machine.
 

Shakesbear

knows a hawk from a handsaw
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
3,628
Reaction score
463
Location
Elsinore
That was very interesting, great facial reconstruction.
Could have done with more science and rather less of the lady from the Richard III Society getting weepy over the bones.

Yes!
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
I thought it was Prince Charles, and almost asked who gave him the keys to the time machine.

Yes, it is Prince Charles. It is especially funny because Prince Charles is also not well liked by the British and the folks in the Commonwealth. There is a fear that he will be like all the other Charles named king.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,874
Reaction score
5,189
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
Yes, it is Prince Charles. It is especially funny because Prince Charles is also not well liked by the British and the folks in the Commonwealth. There is a fear that he will be like all the other Charles named king.

Oh, is that fair? Charles the First was ... um ... well ...

Oh, but he --

Er.

Hmm.

Charles the Second was ... er ...

more beloved than James the Second. And he ... er ... reigned when some interesting plays were written. And he wore a wig.

...


It was a really impressive wig.

...

Okay, back to the Plantagenets!
 

Paperback Writer

Learning the craft
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
431
Reaction score
46
Location
It's like I went back in a time machine to the 60'
Last edited:

firedrake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
7,297
Her Here Be Dragons is also good but it's not about Richard. Concerning Richard I think Rosemary Hawley Jarman is a good author.

She wrote a wonderful book about Richard III - We Speak No Treason. It was that book that made me a Ricardian. Much less 'distant' than Sunne in Splendour.

I agree that the documentary was more about Philippa and less about the science, I found it a little irritating and a wasted opportunity.
I do admit to feeling a little teary when I saw the reconstructed face. He was quite a bonny lad.

Puffin - Have you been sniffing Shakespeare? It seems more than a little inflammatory to wade into this thread on your first post and make such a simplistic statement without back-up.
 

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
Er . . . I think that is a visual joke.

Is that not Prince Phillip's aged face pasted onto a fifteenth century or so painting of Richard III?

It's Charles Windsor, not Phillip Mountbatten. Not that either of them have any more than a remote relationship to the Plantagenets. The current royal family are minor German aristocracy imported because they were reliably Protestant.
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
I'm glad they've found him, and established that although he wasn't hunchbacked, he was in fact "crookbacked", the original epithet, being severely afflicted with scoliosis.

He didn't look like a monster, did he? Not at all. Rather a pleasant-looking chap, really.

But he was a usurper and a multiple murderer, beyond reasonable doubt. Tyrant? Well, no, but only because he never was able to command sufficient loyalty for that. Some, it is true, served him willingly for material rewards - but nobody ever liked him. Almost nobody fought for him, when it came to the clinch. And most people, then as now, thought him vile, and promptly deserted as soon as a (barely) viable alternative presented itself.

By all means, let his remains be decently buried according to the rites of the faith he professed, and let his evil be interred with his bones.

Ha, you're going to get a few Yorkists disagreeing vehemently with that you know!
 

Stacia Kane

Girl Detective
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
8,142
Reaction score
2,668
Location
In cahoots with the other boo-birds
Website
www.staciakane.com
I'm glad they've found him, and established that although he wasn't hunchbacked, he was in fact "crookbacked", the original epithet, being severely afflicted with scoliosis.

He didn't look like a monster, did he? Not at all. Rather a pleasant-looking chap, really.

But he was a usurper and a multiple murderer, beyond reasonable doubt. Tyrant? Well, no, but only because he never was able to command sufficient loyalty for that. Some, it is true, served him willingly for material rewards - but nobody ever liked him. Almost nobody fought for him, when it came to the clinch. And most people, then as now, thought him vile, and promptly deserted as soon as a (barely) viable alternative presented itself.

By all means, let his remains be decently buried according to the rites of the faith he professed, and let his evil be interred with his bones.


Bullshit.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,874
Reaction score
5,189
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
I'm glad they've found him, and established that although he wasn't hunchbacked, he was in fact "crookbacked", the original epithet, being severely afflicted with scoliosis.

He didn't look like a monster, did he? Not at all. Rather a pleasant-looking chap, really.

But he was a usurper and a multiple murderer, beyond reasonable doubt. Tyrant? Well, no, but only because he never was able to command sufficient loyalty for that. Some, it is true, served him willingly for material rewards - but nobody ever liked him. Almost nobody fought for him, when it came to the clinch. And most people, then as now, thought him vile, and promptly deserted as soon as a (barely) viable alternative presented itself.

By all means, let his remains be decently buried according to the rites of the faith he professed, and let his evil be interred with his bones.

No doubt many will disagree. But I have been interested in Richard III for thirty years or more, and have slowly evolved to this view of him. I read Josephine Tey's novel a long time ago, and thought it charming, but no closer to the truth than Shakespeare's play.

To Thomas More, on the other hand, I give some credit, simply for the manner of his testimony to the truth as he saw it. That's no time-server, no court flatterer; and when what he says is confirmed by contemporaries such as Dominic Mancini (who is completely independent), the second continuation to the chronicle of the monks of Croyland Abbey, (which emanates from John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln, an eyewitness) the Great Chronicle of London and Philippe De Commynes, it's difficult to deny that Richard was already painted very black in his own time, long before the "Tudor propagandists" got to work.

In the specific matter of the murder of the Princes, only Richard had both opportunity and motive; further, it is imposing very great strains on credulity to think that the boys could have been murdered without his involvement, approval and instigation, and even more to suppose that it was done without it, but that Richard never said a word.

What is to be said about the deaths of Hastings, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan? What about that of Henry VI? You can say that they, or some of them, had it coming. But these were certainly judicial murders, and only "judicial" by colour of the fact that they were ordered by <i>raison d'etat</i>.

What of the behaviour of all parties at Bosworth? The Stanleys took their chance that their son and nephew, respectively, would be murdered, and came in on Henry's side. Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, refused to fight at all. Richard's main battle, under his own eye, engaged with no enthusiasm. They were pushed back and their leader, Norfolk, slain, despite a far superior position and a numerical advantage. It was probably that which triggered Richard's last charge. If he didn't charge, he was gone anyway. But the men who went with him were his own household only - about a hundred, it appears - and they were men who knew that their fortunes rose and would fall with his.

So who actually fought for the last Plantagenet King? Precious few, it would appear. Henry Tudor was no prize, and his claim to the throne laughably exiguous. He could be just as ruthless as Richard, too. But nevertheless, he was universally preferred.

Why is it that we have "Tudor propagandists" - anyone, apparently, who wrote anything ill of Richard - but no "Yorkist propagandists" until Horace Walpole? Why did England settle so quickly and so irrevocably into Tudor rule, despite the shortcomings of Henry VII and his son? The two attempts by pretenders, despite foreign support, were put down with laughable ease. Nobody sighed for the days of the Yorkists, it seems. Not then, anyway.

And now? I must confess I don't understand the allure.

Hello, Puffin, and welcome to Absolute Write. Please read the Newbies Guide, which will go a long way towards introducing you to the etiquette and protocols of the boards.All are welcome.

On the Politics and Current Events board (which this is), members are expected to back up their assertions with verifiable citations.

While this thread is basically an informal historical celebration, you are certainly welcome to bring up hard facts, if you like, provided you can back them up with reliable sources. Readers of these posts may not be as intimately familiar as you are with your information, and may wish to examine the sources of your assertions.

Online links are preferred.
 

firedrake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
7,297
No doubt many will disagree. But I have been interested in Richard III for thirty years or more, and have slowly evolved to this view of him. I read Josephine Tey's novel a long time ago, and thought it charming, but no closer to the truth than Shakespeare's play.

To Thomas More, on the other hand, I give some credit, simply for the manner of his testimony to the truth as he saw it. That's no time-server, no court flatterer; and when what he says is confirmed by contemporaries such as Dominic Mancini (who is completely independent), the second continuation to the chronicle of the monks of Croyland Abbey, (which emanates from John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln, an eyewitness) the Great Chronicle of London and Philippe De Commynes, it's difficult to deny that Richard was already painted very black in his own time, long before the "Tudor propagandists" got to work.

In the specific matter of the murder of the Princes, only Richard had both opportunity and motive; further, it is imposing very great strains on credulity to think that the boys could have been murdered without his involvement, approval and instigation, and even more to suppose that it was done without it, but that Richard never said a word.

What is to be said about the deaths of Hastings, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan? What about that of Henry VI? You can say that they, or some of them, had it coming. But these were certainly judicial murders, and only "judicial" by colour of the fact that they were ordered by <i>raison d'etat</i>.

What of the behaviour of all parties at Bosworth? The Stanleys took their chance that their son and nephew, respectively, would be murdered, and came in on Henry's side. Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, refused to fight at all. Richard's main battle, under his own eye, engaged with no enthusiasm. They were pushed back and their leader, Norfolk, slain, despite a far superior position and a numerical advantage. It was probably that which triggered Richard's last charge. If he didn't charge, he was gone anyway. But the men who went with him were his own household only - about a hundred, it appears - and they were men who knew that their fortunes rose and would fall with his.

So who actually fought for the last Plantagenet King? Precious few, it would appear. Henry Tudor was no prize, and his claim to the throne laughably exiguous. He could be just as ruthless as Richard, too. But nevertheless, he was universally preferred.

Why is it that we have "Tudor propagandists" - anyone, apparently, who wrote anything ill of Richard - but no "Yorkist propagandists" until Horace Walpole? Why did England settle so quickly and so irrevocably into Tudor rule, despite the shortcomings of Henry VII and his son? The two attempts by pretenders, despite foreign support, were put down with laughable ease. Nobody sighed for the days of the Yorkists, it seems. Not then, anyway.

And now? I must confess I don't understand the allure.

This is all your opinion. I asked for 'back up' before. I'm repeating my request.

I look forward to seeing the factual information with interest.