RussianJet From Kyrgyzstan, joined Jul 2007, 7311 posts, RR: 23 Posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1563 times:
Apparently the skeleton of King Richard III, who was killed at the Battle of Bosworth, has been found. The skeleton was discovered in a Leicester car park archaeological excavation. DNA evidence seems to have positively identified the remains as being those of the King.
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 591 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1538 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter): I have to say that when they first found the remains, I thought it unlikely that confirmation of identity would follow.
This is a massively significant find, however. The nature of his injures also seems to suggest that the popular story of his death - knocked from his horse and killed, on foot, in the midst of the battle - is true, followed by his body being stripped, paraded and abused...
Wonder if they'll exhume the bodies of the Princes in the Tower now that there's renewed interest in this area, to see if it is actually them.
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5866 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1502 times:
Sounds like they got lucky on the DNA side of things, apparently that line is close to dying out! I guess they can now start the fight over where the remains will be reburied. Apparently Leicester was the least likely place Richard III would've wanted to be buried, having supposedly preferred York instead.
I wonder if we could borrow their "King-finding" luck, as we're still trying to locate Harald Bluetooth in Roskilde. He's supposed to be buried in a pillar in Roskilde Cathedral, but there aren't any bones there. And to make matters worse, there's been three new churches built on the site of the church he was originally buried in, so they could be anywhere
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2728 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1475 times:
They almost didn't find him. The woman who did all the legwork to find a possible burial site is a screenwriter not an archeologist. They almost ran out of money before the dig started. Interesting find, although not nearly as important as the dig at Sutton Hoo.
Quoting CPH-R (Reply 3): I guess they can now start the fight over where the remains will be reburied. Apparently Leicester was the least likely place Richard III would've wanted to be buried, having supposedly preferred York instead.
The city of Leicester has bought a building next to the parking lot to serve as a visitor center and museum. I think they at least would like his remains to stay there.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9746 posts, RR: 37 Reply 8, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1300 times:
Must admit that I'm seldom 'transfixed' by the odd news event any more.
But this is genuinely 'special.' Having both studied and taught history in my time, I can't readily recall any sort of previous historical 'scoop' on anything like this scale. Heartiest congratulations to the people who planned it, somehow managed to finance it, and carried it through.
This video (which shows some actual shots of the excavations, the skull, and some of the bones) only seems to have been published in Australia so far. Hope it's of interest:-
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12166 posts, RR: 35 Reply 10, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1217 times:
I agree that it is a very significant find. However, I am a little disappointed that the television series "Time Team" was not involved (well, to the best of my knowledge). I think Tony Robinson would have recognised the irony!
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2728 posts, RR: 12 Reply 20, posted (10 months 1 week ago) and read 886 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5):
I believe the plan is to have the remains interred in the Cathedral.
I think Leicester is trying to get the leg up on York. They opened an exhibition about Richard III at the guildhall yesterday. The BBC reported that his decedents are claiming they want him buried there because, "York and the county of Yorkshire was, and remains, the physical and spiritual home of King Richard III".
I have to say, 16 generations from now my descendants really shouldn't be able to say where my body should interned.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 826 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 1): Wonder if they'll exhume the bodies of the Princes in the Tower
Apparently there have been previous requests to disinter the Princes but the Dean of Westminster Abbey and the Queen have opposed this. Partly it was out of concern for setting a precedent - they argued that you allow one exhumation to satisfy historical curiosity then you "open the flood-gates" for further requests.
There was a further issue: what if the bones were shown not to be those of the Princes? Would you simply shove them back into the vault or bury them somewhere else?
Either way, it was claimed that even if the bones were those of the Princes, as the exact date of their deaths could not be established it could not be shown whether they were murdered under orders from Richard III or Henry VII. Both may have had a motive.
I mean, he was one, wasn’t he? The Reformation had not yet taken place. He’s already suffered various indignities – Shakespeare’s Tudor propaganda, stigmatized for scoliosis, then having his skull split open with an ax. He now has to be buried in a church he didn’t belong to? Maybe the parking lot wasn’t so bad, after all."
There was a similar debate about the remains (the skeletons) recovered from the Tudor warship, the Mary Rose - they lived and died as Catholics - although Henry VIII was never a Protestant, but rather an English Pope.
In the great scheme of things I don't think it matters, but it is important to some and it might be a nice act of reconciliation.
Then again, Edward the Confessor is buried at Westminster Abbey - C of E - which he wasn't.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2645 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (10 months 23 hours ago) and read 693 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 22): Either way, it was claimed that even if the bones were those of the Princes, as the exact date of their deaths could not be established it could not be shown whether they were murdered under orders from Richard III or Henry VII. Both may have had a motive.
I just finished reading a book on Richard III -- he wasn't quite the monster that Shakespeare made him out to be. At the very least he was no more heinous than the rest of those medieval monarchs. Apparently historians are still divided on whether it was Richard or Henry who ordered the princes snuffed -- lots of motive and evidence for both. Very few people died peacefully in those days.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
25 venus6971: I think back then at the misery of what was called life and short one would have been more merciful than a long one. I imagine back then over 40 was
26 gemuser: Neither was Westminster when he was buried! Gemuser
27 mariner: Indeed. The point being that they didn't move him. mariner