Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Body of Richard III found  (Read 57980 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Emily
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 308

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 889





Ignore
« on: September 15, 2012, 02:27:11 AM »

It's over 500 years since his death, but Richard III's skeleton has at last been found. He died on teh battlefield, and was buried in Grey Friars Church (rather than York Minster as he wanted and was due as a King). Then the church got trashed by Henry VIII's thugs.

They finally found the site at the bottom of a council car park in Leicester and have been carefully excavating.  The skeleton shows that he had scoliosis (which would have made one shoulder higher than the other), and also shows trauma to the head where a sword has cut away the back of his skull (indicating he was killed from the back?). He also had an arrow head in the vertebrae of the upper back (again indicating he was attacked from behind).

University of Leicester is trying to extract DNA from the skeleton and have found a relative to compare it to - a direct descendant of the king's sister, Michael Ibsen, 55, a Canadian furniture maker who lives in London.

More here:

http://www.telegraph.co.u...veals-hunchback-king.html

Naturally there is much excitement with lots of visitors going to the site to see the dig, and calls for a State Funeral. However, Buckingham Palace have indicated they are unwilling for him to be buried in Westminster Abbey (probably because they are loosely descended from Richard's usurpers).

Richard himself wanted to be buried in York Minster, and we shall see if he is laid to rest there.

Richard III was the last of the Plantagenets - people don't really understand today how important the Plantagenets were, but pretty much everything we consider important in English law was given to us by the Plantagenets - such as presumption of innocence, trial by jury, habeas corpus (the right not to be unlawfully detained, which first shows up in the reign of Henry II in the 12th century) and Richard III's innovation, bail. And of course these innovations then went into American, Canadian, Australian, Indian and Caribbean law too). Richard was also behind lifting restrictions on the publication of books, so it's a pretty good legacy given he only reigned for two years.

Once the Plantagenets are removed from the throne, later governments try to remove these precious protections for individuals - for example in the 18th c there was a movement in Parliament to remove presumption of innocence that only got stopped by a Whig MP William Garrow. In recent times we've see the types of cases which are tried by juries restricted and habeas corpus being abolished for some crimes (and habeas corpus got suspended in the 19thC too).

The usurper, Henry Tudor had a very tenuous link to the throne through an illegitimate branch of the Beaufort family (though the Beauforts had been banned from ever holding the throne). Henry then marries Elizabeth of York (who is the daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville), and as we know Edward the IV was the son of the Queen's fling with her groom, so he was not a Plantagenet (and he didn't behave like a Plantagenet either, drinking womanising etc).

So, IMO Richard III was our last true king and he deserves a proper State Funeral.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2012, 02:38:09 AM by Emily » Logged
PeDe
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 5194

Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 27586





Ignore
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2012, 02:58:34 AM »


Very interesting Emily  Star

I would like to see what EII and the government will do. And I agree with you under those circumstances there should be an official funeral, and because it's known where he wanted to be laid to rest, it should be observed.
Logged

Emily
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 308

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 889





Ignore
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2012, 03:27:39 AM »

Well I don't see how he can be denied a proper reburial.

He was a legitimate King of England - Parliament had petitioned him to become king (while his nephews were still alive) thanks to the evidence from Cecily Neville (the mother of both Edward IV and Richard III) that she'd had a fling with a groom and Edward IV was not a Plantagenet. Of course the other HUGE thing motivating Parliament was that the Woodville family (a coarse upstart medieval equivalent of teh Middletons today) were trying to control the nephews and grab as much money and power for themselves (Elizabeth Woodville had married Edward IV).

Anyway, Richard III was loved in York and considered to be a good king - but the Woodvilles wanted their revenge (and of course the Woodvilles won in the end by marrying Elizabeth of York to Henry Tudor).

The problem with teh state funeral thing is how it reflects on the position of the usurpers. Henry VIII for example knew full well that Richard III was buried at Greyfriars Church when he ordered it to be razed to the ground in the Dissolution of the Monastries - a disgraceful thing to happen in any circumstances. It's like war graves, where both sides respect the graves of the other side, and they are sacred ground. Richard III wasn't just a warrior, he was a King, but he's been under a car park all this time.

And then there was all that lying propaganda put about regarding the Princes in the Tower. Richard III had no reason to kill them, Parliament has already passed a bill recognising his right to rule.

After the battle of Bosworth, Henry Tudor then ordered his men to destroy the Titulus Regius and all copies (it had set out why Parliament had thought Richard to be the King not Edward V).

However, by destroying the Titulus Regius, suddenly the nephews become legitimate again - which means they had more right to be on the throne than Henry Tudor. So I think Henry Tudor killed them.

So the usurpers and their descendants got there through killing the rightful king, murdering two boys, destroying Parliamentary evidence, and conducting a campaign of propaganda and smears, plus trashing the burial place of a dead warrior. A State Funeral will bring all these things to the fore. Is there any good reason to keep the Usurper's descendants on the throne now (apart from that they entertain us with nude pictures from time to time)? By having the fneral they'll be afraid of people asking the question.
Logged
freethespoon

Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2850

Offline Offline

Posts: 11476


BooHoo Sugars




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2012, 04:17:51 AM »

Emily, I have nothing to add but a big fat  Star for you.

Your posts are always so interesting, full of history and you explain it in a way that makes it compelling and logical.
Logged


Ain't nobody got time for Mary's sh*t.
Lady Alice

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1086

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3559





Ignore
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2012, 10:09:06 AM »

The catch is that it MAY-MIGHT-POSSIBLY BE Richard, not definitively. Yes, the skeleton fits the man's description and comes from the right era, and appears to have died in battle. It even was buried in a place described in one of the more reliable annals of that era. There was even elation when the skeleton appeared to have scoliosis. But read the archaeologists' words - there's a lot of caution, a lot of qualifiers.

Without the modern genetic testing we have, the safe bet would be yes, it is most likely that controversial king.

I'm just surprised that the leading candidate for mtDNA testing is a sixteenth-generation descendant from... what, Richard's sister? Aunt? Sixteen generations is putting a lot of faith that everyone in that line were sleeping with the people they should have. Why don't they exhume his mother, Cecily Neville, at Fotheringhay? Can't do his maternal grandmother, Joan Beaufort, her tomb was desecrated. Katherine Swynford's was also destroyed.  Richard's sister, Elizabeth (Duchess of Suffolk), in Wingfield church in Suffolk, maybe? Any of her sons would also possess the mtDNA, assuming their burial sites weren't desecrated. Unfortunately, since the Plantagenets were excellent at killing each other (as well as living in an era with high infant and infectious illness mortality rates), there aren't many options. But depending on 16 generations is a bit risky when trying to confirm something like this, IMO.

But this is interesting, obviously written before this latest discovery: http://plantagenetdna.webs.com/richardiiisdna.htm

Do I personally think it is Richard III? Based on the information released, I really really really do hope so. King Richard, while no angel, has been maligned by history. I'd love to see a revival of interest in him, especially as there is currently a Richard, Duke of Gloucester in our midst, who more relevantly is involved in the Ricardian society dedicated to clearing that poor man's reputation.

Here's what I'd love: for the remains to be positively identified as Richard III, then to have Baldy & Boring's firstborn son to be named Richard. That would be twenty kinds of awesome. I just don't believe that they're not in awe of their own history like that. QEII would have done something like that, she respects her ancestry and such things intrigue her. I know I would if I were in their shoes, in a heartbeat. Smiley
Logged

Emily
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 308

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 889





Ignore
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2012, 02:32:07 PM »


I'm just surprised that the leading candidate for mtDNA testing is a sixteenth-generation descendant from... what, Richard's sister? Aunt? Sixteen generations is putting a lot of faith that everyone in that line were sleeping with the people they should have. Why don't they exhume his mother, Cecily Neville, at Fotheringhay? Can't do his maternal grandmother, Joan Beaufort, her tomb was desecrated. Katherine Swynford's was also destroyed.  Richard's sister, Elizabeth (Duchess of Suffolk), in Wingfield church in Suffolk, maybe? Any of her sons would also possess the mtDNA, assuming their burial sites weren't desecrated. Unfortunately, since the Plantagenets were excellent at killing each other (as well as living in an era with high infant and infectious illness mortality rates), there aren't many options. But depending on 16 generations is a bit risky when trying to confirm something like this, IMO.

Hi Lady Alice - they are using DNA from a descendant of Richard's sister. And they are using Mitochondrial DNA, which survives unchanged down the maternal line (which means if they are related the mitochondrial DNA of Richard III and this descendant should be identical).

Here's what I'd love: for the remains to be positively identified as Richard III, then to have Baldy & Boring's firstborn son to be named Richard. That would be twenty kinds of awesome. I just don't believe that they're not in awe of their own history like that. QEII would have done something like that, she respects her ancestry and such things intrigue her. I know I would if I were in their shoes, in a heartbeat.


That's just the thing. QEII is not descended from the Plantagenets, she's descended from the usurpers. That's why the Palace has already put out that they don't want Richard III in Westminster Abbey. It's because this is not her ancestry. A great crime was committed in 1485, and QEII's side was the villains, and they know it.
Logged
Countess of Cows

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 704

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3845





Ignore
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2012, 05:53:03 PM »

 Star  i find all this terribly facinating  Thumb up and Emily THANK you so  much for all the history background.  i'm really interested in the princes in the tower and always wondered why he would kill them, if he was already declared king.   one of the best historical mysteries IMO

i'm looking forward to more information as it comes out
Logged

"I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies." Pietro Aretino

I would rather be hated for something I am, than loved for something I am not. -Bob Marley
Bunnyluv

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 165

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 714





Ignore
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2012, 09:36:13 PM »

 Jumping   Grin.  Yes thank you for the great history lessons, this is my favorite part of the RoyalDish experience.

I also wondering about the two princes in the tower. Also waiting to see how the current crop of royals handle this situation.  can the goverment declare a state fureal or in is up to QEII?

Please keep up the goood work, us history buffs love this stuff.
Logged
sleepyvalentina

Large Member
******

Reputation: 346

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1448





Ignore
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2012, 11:19:36 PM »

Star  i find all this terribly facinating  Thumb up and Emily THANK you so  much for all the history background.  i'm really interested in the princes in the tower and always wondered why he would kill them, if he was already declared king.   one of the best historical mysteries IMO

i'm looking forward to more information as it comes out


Same here.

And thanks again, Emily. Your posts were amazing.
Logged

Miss Hathaway
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 210

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1029





Ignore
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2012, 11:30:05 PM »

I love Josephine Tye's "Daughter of Time".    If you all haven't read it, you must!      Thumb up

Logged
KittyHeaven

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 588

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 4435





Ignore
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2012, 04:54:47 AM »

God, I didn't even know old Richard's remains were ever lost in the first place! I need to keep up.  Tongue

Anyway this is huge...so exciting. Thanks for the info Emily!  Thumb up Smiley
Logged
julygal

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 288

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 979





Ignore
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2012, 07:53:36 PM »

Quote
thanks to the evidence from Cecily Neville (the mother of both Edward IV and Richard III) that she'd had a fling with a groom and Edward IV was not a Plantagenet.

I must here protest that it is by no means proved that Cecily Neville ( a very pious lady) gave evidence that she had a fling with a groom.  Some people believe this, but it is by no means accepted by all historians.  If Edward was her son by her husband then the marriage of her granddaughter, Elizabeth of York, to Henry Tudor insured that the present Queen is the descendent of the Plantagenets.

http://www.richardiii.net/r3_mother.htm

There is no way to prove it now at any rate. 

Logged
Cloaked

Muted
Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 748

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5388





Ignore
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2012, 08:03:51 PM »

How long does it take for the DNA testing?

I have been watching about this exhumation and the whole dig is fascinating.
To have found the historical Greyfriars is brilliant.
WELL DONE!!!
Logged
TLLK

Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 1299

Offline Offline

Pitcairn Pitcairn

Posts: 11193


"The gauntlet is definitely thrown down. Stay safe




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2012, 08:15:30 PM »

Quote
thanks to the evidence from Cecily Neville (the mother of both Edward IV and Richard III) that she'd had a fling with a groom and Edward IV was not a Plantagenet.

I must here protest that it is by no means proved that Cecily Neville ( a very pious lady) gave evidence that she had a fling with a groom.  Some people believe this, but it is by no means accepted by all historians.  If Edward was her son by her husband then the marriage of her granddaughter, Elizabeth of York, to Henry Tudor insured that the present Queen is the descendent of the Plantagenets.

http://www.richardiii.net/r3_mother.htm

There is no way to prove it now at any rate. Good to see you posting julygal!


Logged
julygal

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 288

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 979





Ignore
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2012, 08:20:08 PM »

Quote
thanks to the evidence from Cecily Neville (the mother of both Edward IV and Richard III) that she'd had a fling with a groom and Edward IV was not a Plantagenet.

I must here protest that it is by no means proved that Cecily Neville ( a very pious lady) gave evidence that she had a fling with a groom.  Some people believe this, but it is by no means accepted by all historians.  If Edward was her son by her husband then the marriage of her granddaughter, Elizabeth of York, to Henry Tudor insured that the present Queen is the descendent of the Plantagenets.

http://www.richardiii.net/r3_mother.htm

There is no way to prove it now at any rate. Good to see you posting julygal!


Thanks TLLK - I had not realized that the British board was back!   Grin

Since I'm one of the rare folks who actually likes Henry VII, I always try to make sure that there is at least some balance.  There seem to be many more Ricardians (as is their right of course!)  There were so many accusations and counter-accusations at that time that figuring out the truth is probably impossible.  Myself - I think Richard III had the two boys killed in the tower.  It was simply not a smart move to leave deposed kings floating around.  The Wars of the Roses had taught all the players that by 1483. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: