Richard III Bones Discovered

[Guest thaiworthy]

The NY Times reports that the skeleton found last fall near the buried ruins of the Greyfriars Priory in Leicester to be none other that of King Richard III.

 

 

On Monday, confirming what many historians and archaeologists had suspected, a team of experts at the University of Leicester concluded on the basis of DNA and other evidence that the skeletal remains were those of King Richard III, for centuries the most reviled of English monarchs. But the conclusion, said to have been reached “beyond any reasonable doubt,” promised to achieve much more than an end to the oblivion that has been Richard’s fate since his death on Aug. 22, 1485, at the Battle of Bosworth Field, 20 miles from this ancient city in the sheep country of England’s East Midlands.

Among those who found this remains, there is a passionate belief that new attention drawn to Richard by the discovery will inspire a reappraisal that could rehabilitate the medieval king and show him to be a man with a strong sympathy for the rights of the common man, who was deeply wronged by his vengeful Tudor successors. Far from the villainous character memorialized in English histories, films and novels, far from Shakespeare’s damning representation of him as the limping, withered, haunted murderer of his two princely nephews, Richard III can become the subject of a new age of scholarship and popular reappraisal, these enthusiasts believe.

 

However, DNA evidence cannot explain the strange shrouded shadow that lay in the dirt beneath the bones. Further tests cannot conclusively prove it, but the lineage may be linked to one unique individual currently among us, a direct descendent of Richard III. The shadow may be of a royal crest, some obscure nobility living among us today.

 

The search is underway to find him. Clues, anyone?

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/richard-the-third-bones.html?_r=0

[Guest fountainhall]

Why would the discovery of a bunch of old bones lead to a reappraisal of Richard III’s reign after a gap of almost 640 years? I see a facial reconstruction has been done. A member of the Richard III Society is quoted as saying: “It doesn’t look like the face of a tyrant. I’m sorry but it doesn’t.” Well, I’m not sure if the chubby-faced Kim Jong Un looks much like a tyrant, either!

What revelation comes next, I wonder? That Lady Macbeth was a loving, virginal spouse whose only thoughts were to be at the beck and call of the happy, contented Scots?

[Rogie]

The  lineage may be linked to one unique individual currently among us, a direct descendent of Richard III. The shadow may be of a royal crest, some obscure nobility living among us today.

 

The search is underway to find him. Clues, anyone?

 

"Kevin Schurer, a historian and demographer, tracked down two living

descendants of Anne of York, Richard III’s sister, one of them a

London-based, Canadian-born furniture maker, Michael Ibsen, 55, and the

other a second cousin of Mr. Ibsen’s who has requested anonymity."

 

It's tricky Dicky . . .

[Guest fountainhall]

Lady Macbeth aside, an interesting question arises from the discovery of Richard III’s remains and the possibility, however unlikely, that he was not the monster Shakespeare and historians have made him out to be.

If he was indeed whiter than white, who then killed Richard’s nephews – the new King Edward IV, then aged 12, and Prince Richard Duke of York, then aged 9? After they arrived in London in 1483 for Edward’s coronation, both suddenly disappeared. It is not known if they were murdered, and if so, by whom. But it has always been assumed they were killed in the Tower of London, and suspicion has always been placed at Richard’s feet, as he was the one to gain the crown as a result.

It has further been assumed that the skeletons of two children found almost 200 years later were the remains of the two Princes. These were then buried in Westminster Abbey.
 

 

Previously confidential correspondence reveals that the Church of England, with backing from the Queen and ministers, has repeatedly refused requests to carry out similar forensic tests to those used to identify the remains of Richard III this week to see if the bones buried in Westminster Abbey are those of Richard's two nephews.

DNA testing was refused on the grounds that it could set a precedent for testing historical theories that would lead to multiple royal disinterments. The church was also uncertain what to do with the remains if the DNA tests were negative, potentially leaving the church with the dilemma of how to manage bogus bones. Authorities also resisted on the grounds the tests could not finally establish "if Richard III is to be let off the hook".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/05/princes-in-tower-staying-under

Perhaps the final quirk in this strange tale is that it is perfectly acceptable for bones found in a car park to be subjected to DNA testing, but it is unacceptable to similarly test bones of bodies of extremely questionable identity interred in Westminster Abbey.

[Guest jomtien]

I find it highly amusing that the Brits managed to lose one of their Kings.....

 

"Winnie, did ya put em in the cupboard luv?"

[Guest fountainhall]

Better for Kings to be lost in those days, I'd have thought, than to suffer the fate of a number of their queens! Heads off, ladies! 

[Rogie]

Better for Kings to be lost in those days, I'd have thought, than to suffer the fate of a number of their queens! Heads off, ladies! 

 

King Charles lost his head in 1649 for refusing to concede power to Oliver Cromwell's Parliament, but following an interregnum, his son also Charles (the second) regained the throne. 

[Guest fountainhall]

Beheading was never a simple execution in England, as it was to become in France with the guillotine. Force of gravity resulted in French heads rolling into the baskets with ease. The executioner’s axe might strike at the wrong spot, or he’d lack sufficient strength to do the deed in one fell swoop, as was the case with one of Britain’s most romantic historical figures, Mary Queen of Scots.

Not for the squeamish, this is from a contemporary account of Mary’s beheading. Mary, a staunch Catholic who had earlier been Queen of France till her young husband died, was an implacable enemy of England’s Protestant Elizabeth I. Unfortunately for Mary, she was also the next in line of succession if Elizabeth died without an heir, and thus a very real danger to those of the relatively new Protestant faith. She had to go.
 

 

. . . groping for the block, she laid down her head, putting her chin over the block with both her hands . . . Then lying upon the block most quietly, and stretching out her arms cried, In manus tuas, Domine, etc., three or four times. Then she, lying very still upon the block, one of the executioners holding her slightly with one of his hands, she endured two strokes of the other executioner with an axe, she making very small noise or none at all, and not stirring any part of her from the place where she lay: and so the executioner cut off her head, saving one little gristle, which being cut asunder, he lift up her head to the view of all the assembly and bade God save the Queen . . Her lips stirred up and a down a quarter of an hour after her head was cut off.

 

http://tudorhistory.org/primary/exmary.html

 

Mary was executed on 8 February 1587. In one sense, though, she got her own back on England. When Elizabeth died childless, Mary's son James, already King James VI of Scotland, became in addition King James I of England, best known for his commissioning of the King James bible.

 

Although he had written about the need to stamp out any form of sodomy and for judges to impose the harshest snetences, he was one of the best known gays of his day. Sir Walter Raleigh is quoted as having said: "King Elizabeth" has been succeeded by "Queen James."  

 

17th century commentators were quite open about this. One even wrote a poem -

 

Apollo with his songs

debauched young Hyacinthus,

And it is well known that the king of England

fucks the Duke of Buckingham.

 

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

[Guest fountainhall]

What revelation comes next, I wonder? That Lady Macbeth was a loving, virginal spouse whose only thoughts were to be at the beck and call of the happy, contented Scots?

 

Surprise! Surprise! You heard it here first!

 

Now that RIchard III's legacy is about to be given a good going over, the Scottish Parliament has announced that the tarnished image of that country's 11th century ruler is also to be given a make-over.

 

 

the Scottish Parliament . . . believes that the play is arguably more a reflection on the relationship between Shakespeare and his patron, King James VI, rather than an attempt at historical accuracy; deeply regrets that the perceived successful reign of King Macbeth remains, it believes, misportrayed to many on the basis of his treatment by Shakespeare

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/14/scottish-campaign-reveal-real-macbeth

 

One MP has even declared, "The reign of Macbeth, set in the context of the time, was successful and outward looking."

 

So Shakespeare clearly also had it the wrong way around in Mark Anthony's eulogy of Julius Caesar - "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is often interred with their bones." Some people just can't get anything right!

[KhorTose]

Richard III was in charge.  The two princes were in his protective custody.  They were killed and walled up.  Even if he did no do it directly, he is still responsible.  Therefore, he is a not a good king in my book ever since the bodies have been found.  Dream on Scottish Parliment and explain the Earl of Oxfords relationship to King James as he was a member of anti-catholic Elizabeth's court, and the real writer of those plays.

[Guest fountainhall]

I doubt the Scottish Parliament has any more inkling of the real Macbeth than Shakespeare/the Earl of Oxford had. Presumably it reckons it's a good PR stunt to promote the country!

[TotallyOz]

I doubt the Scottish Parliament has any more inkling of the real Macbeth than Shakespeare/the Earl of Oxford had. Presumably it reckons it's a good PR stunt to promote the country!

I have to admit that I have been to UK about 20 times and each time, I am fascinated with the history and the former royalty of the country. I have been to many of the castles and palaces and am always in awe. Being from a very new country, the old homes and churches, etc. are a great selling point for me. On my first trip there I was 16 years old. The guy I was traveling with was an antiques dealer and they showed us some great places and I bought so many antiques that I had to hold them in my lap on the plane back to USA. It was such a joy and thrill.

 

I also love the theater and no better place on earth than in London. IMHO (and Broadway too)

 

I have really enjoyed reading all about this Richard III story in the press and seeing it on TV. It is fascinating!