Thread: Vivat Ricardus Rex! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024644
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
How fabulous that the human remains in Leicester have been confirmed as those of Richard III. He will be reburied in Leicester Cathedral, probably next year. I am such a happy bunny that I just want to tell the world!

[Yipee] [Yipee] [Yipee]
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
That is pretty amazing and very cool.
 
Posted by Boadicea Trott (# 9621) on :
 
But will they be burying him according to the rites he would have known in his lifetime, namely a full Latin Requiem Mass?
It just doesn't seem right to send him off with modern Common Worship rites.......... [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
Indeed! On the press conference this morning the Cathedral man (sorry, can't remember his name) said they are now going to start planning the ceremony, so I imagine that will be one of the things uppermost in their minds...
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
<=<= I feel my avatar should have a small smile on his face.

It would be really cool if they got the Archbishop of Westminster to do the Requiem.
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
<=<= I feel my avatar should have a small smile on his face.

It would be really cool if they got the Archbishop of Westminster to do the Requiem.
According to the Medieval Franciscan use?
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
Amazing news. I've been fascinated by Richard in the past, due to Shakespeare and that book -- is it The Thief of Time? I wish I could attend the ceremony . . .
 
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :
 
The book is The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey, which was a pseudonym of Elizabeth Mackintosh. She also wrote plays - notably Richard of Bordeaux - under the pseudonym of Gordon Daviot.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Why, thank you, loyal Pine Marten. You shall have at least a baronetcy when We take up Our kingdom.

We think We shall have to go about ordering a new crown, though. The current one is soiled for Us by its long association with those parvenus, the Windsors.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
<=<= I feel my avatar should have a small smile on his face.

It would be really cool if they got the Archbishop of Westminster to do the Requiem.
I think they should bring back Viv Faull to do the honours.

[Devil]
 
Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :
 
'Vivat' seems slightly inaccurate though!

For interested people who may not be aware, there's a programme following the archaeologists on Channel 4 tonight. Link (and 4oD is available in Ireland too unlike iPlayer!)
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
How fabulous that the human remains in Leicester have been confirmed as those of Richard III. He will be reburied in Leicester Cathedral, probably next year. I am such a happy bunny that I just want to tell the world!

[Yipee] [Yipee] [Yipee]
Why is this such happy-making news?

It's very interesting, but the man was a nepoticide, a usurper and by our standards perpetrator of an abounding breach of trust.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
How fabulous that the human remains in Leicester have been confirmed as those of Richard III. He will be reburied in Leicester Cathedral, probably next year. I am such a happy bunny that I just want to tell the world!

[Yipee] [Yipee] [Yipee]
Why is this such happy-making news?

It's very interesting, but the man was a nepoticide, a usurper and by our standards perpetrator of an abounding breach of trust.
Here we go...
 
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :
 
Well, I'm delighted anyway.

And now we know for a fact that the 'withered arm' legend can be added to the list of More's demonstrable falsehoods.
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
the man was a nepoticide, a usurper and by our standards perpetrator of an abounding breach of trust.
if you choose to believe the Tudor 'spin' on history
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
How fabulous that the human remains in Leicester have been confirmed as those of Richard III. He will be reburied in Leicester Cathedral, probably next year. I am such a happy bunny that I just want to tell the world!

[Yipee] [Yipee] [Yipee]
Why is this such happy-making news?

It's very interesting, but the man was a nepoticide, a usurper and by our standards perpetrator of an abounding breach of trust.
Deep breath... (the extremely short version follows) well, to be absolutely accurate there is no proof that the princes were murdered by anyone, so to call him a nepoticide is not correct; he had a legitimate claim to the crown; you can't judge somebody of the 15th century 'by our standards' - besides I think he was easily in danger of being executed himself if the Woodvilles got their way. Hindsight from 500 years on is a marvellous thing.

I am a proud member of the Richard III Society [Smile]
 
Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :
 
Richard III was very popular in York, so perhaps York Minster has a claim to be his last resting place. After his death at the battle of Bosworth Field the city fathers placed on record (very bravely, in the circumstances) that 'King Richard ... was through great treason piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this city.'
 
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's very interesting, but the man was a nepoticide, a usurper and by our standards perpetrator of an abounding breach of trust.
Given the usual modus operandi of medieval monarchs, that's a pretty clean crime sheet. Show me the medieval monarch not guilty of at least one piece of Grade A nastiness.

AG
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Tangent //
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
The book is The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey, which was a pseudonym of Elizabeth Mackintosh. She also wrote plays - notably Richard of Bordeaux - under the pseudonym of Gordon Daviot.
[Eek!] I'm gob-smacked. "Gordon Daviot" was a former pupil of my school and we had to slog through a dire play of hers - but I'm sure our teacher never mentioned she was also Josephine Tey! I think my English teacher had actually known her.
end tangent //
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boadicea Trott:
But will they be burying him according to the rites he would have known in his lifetime, namely a full Latin Requiem Mass?
It just doesn't seem right to send him off with modern Common Worship rites.......... [Ultra confused]
Well, I think he was very much a pragmatist, whatever he did or didn't do to his nephews, so any form of decent burial should do.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Is there a Society for many English monarchs?

#aColonist'sQuestion
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
I gather it won't be a funeral, whatever it is, because he already had one. I guess, like being baptized, you can only be done once.

The phrases I saw used in reports were "ecumenical" and "memorial service".

John
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's very interesting, but the man was a nepoticide, a usurper and by our standards perpetrator of an abounding breach of trust.
The book noted above, Tey's The Daughter of Time, makes a pretty good case against these claims, especially nepoticide.
 
Posted by SyNoddy (# 17009) on :
 
Richard III is my absolute favourite king of England so I too am chuffed that he will finally have an identified grave. I'm guessing that it will have to be in Leicester but for choice I'd go with York Minster, if not Westminster Abbey. But I do find the images of the skeletons curved spine very poignant.
Where ever he is buried I hope that he doesn't simply become the focus of the best efforts of that areas tourist information dept.
I was also wondering about the form of a reburial and whether or not it ought to be Catholic. After all Richard predates the reformation by at least one generation.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
By his own beliefs and the teaching of the church at the time, he presumably ought to be buried in unconsecrated ground as he died without confession ?

Either way praying for his soul in purgatory / hell would seen consonant with the beliefs of the day.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@The Riv ... not really, but those who came to sticky ends or who some believe to have been maligned do attract supporters.

Some very High Anglicans venerate King Charles I, King and Martyr as though he were a Saint.

'George III,' as the Clerihew famously has it, 'Ought never to have occurred. One can only wonder at so grotesque a blunder,' but that hasn't stopped revisionists (and Prince Charles) from claiming that he wasn't a bad old stick after all ...

Actually, the poor chap was suffering from a rather unpleasant condition and, to be fair to him, it often surprises Americans to hear that he actually paid Washington some compliments later on ...

School kids tend not to learn lists of Kings and Queens by rote as we used to ... I could probably reel off the whole post-1066 list even now and also some of the pre-Conquest kings - although it gets a lot messier the further back you go with some kings having a kingdom no bigger than your local parking lot and a few football pitches or two.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
some kings having a kingdom no bigger than your local parking lot ...
As has Richard III for a long time ...
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's very interesting, but the man was a nepoticide, a usurper and by our standards perpetrator of an abounding breach of trust.
The book noted above, Tey's The Daughter of Time, makes a pretty good case against these claims, especially nepoticide.
She did make a good case for how nasty Henry VII was, and that it would totally be in his nature to off a couple of kids in his path. But I have to wonder: if Richard III had preserved them and he had not lost to Henry Tudor, what did he plan to do with them when they grew up? It seems to me they would forever be a threat to Richard's reign. Like Mary Stuart, IMO they most likely would have been under indefinite house arrest until the inevitable plot was uncovered and the princes executed for treason.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
It was sweet how the archaeologist put a royal standard over the box with his bones in to carry it to the van [Smile]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
In some ways the documentary is more interesting as a study of the meaning made of this by Philippa Langley, rather than the archaeology - given we already know the punchline.

I do think the presenter is a bit of a useless herbert. We could have done with a little bit of concise historical analysis - after all they are padding this out to 90 minutes. I can see why they didn't give it to Starky as I think he would have eaten Philippa alive - but the commentary would probably have been more insightful.

(Watching in concert with this thread.)

[ 04. February 2013, 21:19: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
(Impressed that More4 are showing Starkey's Monarchy on Richard the third directly after C4 documentary. Slightly forgive dorky commentary on the king in the carpark.)
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

She did make a good case for how nasty Henry VII was, and that it would totally be in his nature to off a couple of kids in his path. But I have to wonder: if Richard III had preserved them and he had not lost to Henry Tudor, what did he plan to do with them when they grew up? It seems to me they would forever be a threat to Richard's reign. Like Mary Stuart, IMO they most likely would have been under indefinite house arrest until the inevitable plot was uncovered and the princes executed for treason.
I don't think anyone suggests Henry VII was a nice, Father Christmas, Bagpuss sort of chap. He seems to have been a cold fish. The difficulty with trying to shift the blame onto him though, is that the public at large were convinced the little princes were dead by late 1483, when Henry Tudor was still in Brittany.

[ 04. February 2013, 21:44: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Starkey argues that the fact that the mother of the princes conspired with the mother of Henry Tudor, to marry her daughter to Henry Tudor, suggests she was convinced by that time that her sons were dead. This conspiracy was supposed to be instrumental in Henry's decision to cross the channel.
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I can see why they didn't give it to Starky as I think he would have eaten Philippa alive
Somebody ought to have done.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
While not a member of the Richard III Society, count me as definitely in his camp. His taking of the throne was rather out of character, so there must have been something serious that happened.

He certainly wouldn't have had the Obituary from the City of York if he'd been a murderer himself.

The fact that Henry VII didn't get any bad press for the manner in which he got rid of the Yorkists (the ones he didn't marry) while Richard III became a villain and hunchback just shows how winners write history - a significant, if obvious, lesson for students.

But, yes, Richard III was the last medieval King, given his participation in the Wars of the Roses and their aftermath, while Henry opened up the possibility that the Renaissance could happen in England, as well as the not-quite-Reformation brought about by his son, so, on the whole, Henry VII was a Good Thing in the end.

But, then again, Richard showed some enlightened ideas, so he might have been a Good Thing if he had survived.

The "what-ifs" of history! But I'm happy that he is at least now recognised properly.
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
... as he died without confession ...
I'd be surprised if that were the case. He died in battle: wouldn't it have been the custom to make one's confession and hear Mass before the battle started?

By chance, I've just finished re-reading The Seventh Son by Reay Tannahill, which portrays Richard as flawed, but certainly not the hunch-backed monster portrayed by Shakespeare (who was, after all, writing under the patronage of the Tudors).

I'm coming round to the idea that the killing of his nephews was more likely to have been at the behest of Margaret Beaufort, who it seems would have stopped at nothing to promote the cause of her son (who subsequently became Henry VII).

I'm glad they've found his remains, may he rest in peace and rise in glory.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'George III,' as the Clerihew famously has it, 'Ought never to have occurred. One can only wonder at so grotesque a blunder,' but that hasn't stopped revisionists (and Prince Charles) from claiming that he wasn't a bad old stick after all ...

Actually, the poor chap was suffering from a rather unpleasant condition and, to be fair to him, it often surprises Americans to hear that he actually paid Washington some compliments later on ...

George the First was reckoned
Vile, but viler George the Second.
And which mortal ever heard
Any good of George the Third?
When from earth the Fourth descended,
Heaven be praised, the Georges ended.

Actually, there is a connection here, because while Richard III was the last king to die in battle, George II was the last king to lead his troops into battle, at Dettingen in 1743.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't think anyone suggests Henry VII was a nice, Father Christmas, Bagpuss sort of chap. He seems to have been a cold fish. The difficulty with trying to shift the blame onto him though, is that the public at large were convinced the little princes were dead by late 1483, when Henry Tudor was still in Brittany.
I think that's true (though it's not clear Tey knew of the extent of these rumors when she wrote TDOT.

However, it seems odd (as Tey notes) that there was never any mention of the boys' disappearance in the Bill of Attainder drawn up against Richard.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'George III,' as the Clerihew famously has it, 'Ought never to have occurred. One can only wonder at so grotesque a blunder,' but that hasn't stopped revisionists (and Prince Charles) from claiming that he wasn't a bad old stick after all ...

Actually, the poor chap was suffering from a rather unpleasant condition and, to be fair to him, it often surprises Americans to hear that he actually paid Washington some compliments later on ...

George the First was reckoned
Vile, but viler George the Second.
And which mortal ever heard
Any good of George the Third?
When from earth the Fourth descended,
Heaven be praised, the Georges ended.

Actually, there is a connection here, because while Richard III was the last king to die in battle, George II was the last king to lead his troops into battle, at Dettingen in 1743.
What an unspeakable libel on the character of our glorious former Sovereign George III, of late and happy memory! I live on the edge of the Loyalist Tract in a county founded in 1793 by those selfsame Loyalists. No town here is complete without any or all of the following: King Street, Queen Street, George Street or Charlotte Street.

Long may the House of Hanover continue to reign over us!
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
There is certainly no contemporary consensus that Richard III was innocent of his nephews' murders.

Peter Ackroyd, a serious though not academic historian, wrote in his popular The History Of England Volume I: Foundation (2011), "There can be little doubt that the two boys were murdered on the express or implicit order of Richard III".
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hanginginthere:
Richard III was very popular in York, so perhaps York Minster has a claim to be his last resting place. After his death at the battle of Bosworth Field the city fathers placed on record (very bravely, in the circumstances) that 'King Richard ... was through great treason piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this city.'
This came up in a predecessor to this thread - apparently Leicester Cathedral (which is walking distance from where he's been these five hundred years and more) was very keen to provide a fitting reburial place and there were no competing claims from either York Minster (probably one of Richard's own top choices) or Westminster Abbey.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I don't know much about C of E burial rites. Do they include a basic "may all his sins be forgiven and may he find light and peace" clause? Seems like that would cover all the possible truths of his life. (If he hasn't already found forgiveness and light and peace.)

Thx.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I thought the Channel 4 programme was dreadful - a really good story and an appalling programme. I don't think the osteoarchaeologist was very happy.

Boogie said:

quote:
It was sweet how the archaeologist put a royal standard over the box with his bones in to carry it to the van
If by 'sweet', you mean cloying and sickening, I'll agree.

roseofsharon said:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I can see why they didn't give it to Starky as I think he would have eaten Philippa alive
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Somebody ought to have done.
Hear hear.

I suppose I feel quite disappointed as I did an MA in archaeology with Leicester and it just feels they compromised rather. I hope it was just that the programme gave this impression.

M.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Well, anyone whose name is immortalised in Cockney Rhyming Slang deserves a good resting place.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:


Boogie said:

quote:
It was sweet how the archaeologist put a royal standard over the box with his bones in to carry it to the van
If by 'sweet', you mean cloying and sickening, I'll agree.

No, I mean touching that she had an emotional attachment to the bones, and because of this showed them such respect.

[ 05. February 2013, 07:28: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
I am a proud member of the Richard III Society [Smile]
Me too! Fabulous news isn't it.
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I thought the Channel 4 programme was dreadful - a really good story and an appalling programme. I don't think the osteoarchaeologist was very happy.

Boogie said:

quote:
It was sweet how the archaeologist put a royal standard over the box with his bones in to carry it to the van
If by 'sweet', you mean cloying and sickening, I'll agree.

As Phillipa Langley inaugurated the quest for King Richard's lost grave as part of her ongoing research for a book she is currently writing, and as members/supporters of the King Richard III Society raised much of the money to fund it, there was bound to be some involvement by her. However, I felt from very early in the programme (to be specific, when she could 'feel' Richard's presence under that "R" marked parking bay) that what could have been a serious investigative programme was going to be severely marred by emotional flim flam.

I suppose it was meant to make the programme more appealing to a wider audience. [Roll Eyes]

For the very little it's worth; my preferred villain in the Princes In The Tower story is Margaret Beaufort
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Roseofsharon:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I thought the Channel 4 programme was dreadful - a really good story and an appalling programme. I don't think the osteoarchaeologist was very happy.

Boogie said:

quote:
It was sweet how the archaeologist put a royal standard over the box with his bones in to carry it to the van
If by 'sweet', you mean cloying and sickening, I'll agree.

As Phillipa Langley inaugurated the quest for King Richard's lost grave as part of her ongoing research for a book she is currently writing, and as members/supporters of the King Richard III Society raised much of the money to fund it, there was bound to be some involvement by her. However, I felt from very early in the programme (to be specific, when she could 'feel' Richard's presence under that "R" marked parking bay) that what could have been a serious investigative programme was going to be severely marred by emotional flim flam.

I suppose it was meant to make the programme more appealing to a wider audience. [Roll Eyes]

Yep - that's me, a 'wider audience' I wouldn't have ordinarily found the subject even vaguely interesting. I am a republican. As I said, I didn't find it cloying or sickening. I found the respect given to the bones touching.
 
Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :
 
Where was Tony Robinson? I think he'd have made a much better job of marrying the emotional side of the story - the look on the bone specialist's face at times when faced with Langley's feelings about the subject were priceless - with the serious archeology than Simon Farnaby did.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:


Boogie said:

quote:
It was sweet how the archaeologist put a royal standard over the box with his bones in to carry it to the van
If by 'sweet', you mean cloying and sickening, I'll agree.

No, I mean touching that she had an emotional attachment to the bones, and because of this showed them such respect.
I think it was unfortunate that Philippa came over as a bit... well, bonkers, which is a shame. She spoke at our Society AGM last year, and gave an interesting account of her involvement in the dig.

And if it wasn't for her grit and determination over 4 years this project would never even have been started, so all credit to her.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
RoseofSharon opined:

quote:
my preferred villain in the Princes In The Tower story is Margaret Beaufort
I think this is spot on. She was Henry Tudor's mother, spawn of a bastard line whose later legitimation did not include succession rights. Derby, her husband, was a supposed ally of Richard, who failed to come to the king's aid at Bosworth. It was in Henry's interest that the boys disappeared, even more so than Richard's.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
quote:
I think he was easily in danger of being executed himself if the Woodvilles got their way...
That's what I think too... as others have said, his behaviour in usurping the throne was out of character. And in 1483 he didn't just have himself to consider; IIRC his wife and son were still alive then, so they'd have been in danger too if the Woodvilles had got the upper hand.

Doublethink, he would have confessed and received Mass just before the battle; SOP in those days. So he didn't die unshriven.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Pine Marten said:

quote:
I think it was unfortunate that Philippa came over as a bit... well, bonkers
...
And if it wasn't for her grit and determination over 4 years this project would never even have been started, so all credit to her.
She came over as more than 'a bit' bonkers, more 'completely' so. She obviously does not come over well on TV, or perhaps it was edited to make her look bonkers. I appreciate that the society had funded it, which I assumed was the reason she was allowed such access. It obviously did not go down well with some of the specialists!

I would have liked less emotion and more about how they traced the descendant they used for the DNA comparison - I would love to know how they traced him through 17 generations but I don't recall a word about that, although I admit I was losing the will to live.

And, Boogie, we can agree to differ over whether the flag thing was 'sweet' or 'sickening' but I'm interested why you use the fact you are a republican as a reason why you would not usually have been interested? He was a famous person whether you agree with the system of government he represented or not.

I await the programme in 10 years time, when they re-evaluate the evidence and decide it was some hapless nobody after all.


M.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:

And, Boogie, we can agree to differ over whether the flag thing was 'sweet' or 'sickening' but I'm interested why you use the fact you are a republican as a reason why you would not usually have been interested? He was a famous person whether you agree with the system of government he represented or not.
True enough - but I still would have changed channels as neither tales of kings and princes nor archaeology interest me. The invested emotions of all concerned did.

[Smile]

<edited to improve crazy code>

[ 05. February 2013, 09:39: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
I would have liked more science, too - I wanted to know a lot more about his diet (from the teeth), his health, height, and general condition. I gather that they estimate he would have been 5' 8" without the scoliosis, but I'd like to know what they estimate *with* the scoliosis.

I'd have liked more about the DNA research and less emoting, but obviously it was edited that way. *And* fewer adverts, which brought the programme down to about an hour! Still, all in all it was a fascinating programme and a brilliantly successful project. Thank you, Philippa and John.
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
I see that they have reconstructed his face from the skull (although hair colour, etc was based on the portraits). The jaw of the skull (and the reconstruction) has some resemblance to the historic portraits:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21328380

[ 05. February 2013, 10:43: Message edited by: MSHB ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
FWIW there was a moot court trial of Richard III which declared him innocent.

Moo
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
I see that they have reconstructed his face from the skull (although hair colour, etc was based on the portraits). The jaw of the skull (and the reconstruction) has some resemblance to the historic portraits:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21328380
This at the end, though.
quote:
"Our facial reconstruction methods have been blind tested many times using living subjects and we know that we can expect that approximately 70% of the facial surface should have less than 2mm of error," said Prof Wilkinson.
30% is huge. Facial reconstruction is a bit less perfect than often represented. Two different practitioners/methods can yield different identifications.
 
Posted by Watcher (# 15999) on :
 
quote:
It obviously did not go down well with some of the specialists!
That was very evident and it must have been very difficult to maintain a dispassionate approach when your sponsor was so single minded. I thought the incident with the standard illustrated that very clearly.

I suspect however that, as in so many things, how the programme was filmed and edited was the problem.
 
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :
 
Knowing how these people work, it wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately edited in all Philippa Langley's most emotional moments and left out the stable bits. It made for a 'better' - that is more generally entertaining - programme to have someone involved who was, well, emotional.

However, whatever criticism may be laid against Ms Langley, there is no doubt at all that without her this event simply wouldn't have happened. It has to be one of the most remarkable historical finds in the last century, and it was brought about by one woman's passion.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
What to do with the newly identified/discovered Richard III now rests (apparently) with the royal family, which gives them something of a problem. If they agree to Leicester it gives an OK-ish nod to the Tudor disposal; if York, why? And so the answer should be Westminster Abbey - which is where he (probably) would have been buried had he died in his bed.

As for whether or not he was a nepoticide, the Abbey's own history has evidence for this NOT being the case. When Richard and his party met with the young Edward V on his way to London they took the king but sent the young prince's guardians (one his uncle) north where they were summarily executed. Had Richard wanted to do away with Edward V the simplest thing would have been to have staged an attack on the royal party in which Edward V was tragically killed - he didn't; nor did Richard send Edward north but was with him when the new king entered London to a tumultuous welcome. As for "sending" Edward to the Tower, it was normal for monarchs to live at the Tower before coronation - this was the case at least up to the time of the Stuarts.

It is unlikely that Elizabeth Woodville would have sent her second son to join his brother in the Tower: by the time he supposedly entered the Tower (16th June) his brother had been there for 6 weeks and it would have been very obvious that his uncle had no intention of him being crowned. Since the royal children were not well-known by sight (no photographs!) and Richard of Gloucester had spent most of the preceding years in the north a substitution would have been relatively easy to make. Ask yourself this: would a loving mother have consigned another son to the tender mercies of an uncle who gave every sign of usurping the throne?

If Edward V and "Richard" were killed in the Tower during the reign of Richard III it was most likely the work of an over-zealous supporter. If, as seems more likely, they died after Bosworth then the person in the frame is Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII who had had a long-running feud with Elizabeth Woodville's mother and whose treatment of her daughter-in-law, brother of Edward V, must have been truly appalling because even the pro-tudor chroniclers of the time commented on it.

So, let Richard III lie in Westminster Abbey - and DNA test the bones of the supposed Princes in the Tower to see if they really were related to each other.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Lots of people had motive, Henry Tudor, Lady Margaret Beaufort, Richard of York etc. The only person who didn't was Elizabeth Woodville. Only one of those though had custody of the princes at the time they disappeared. He also would have had a strong motive to get rid of Lady Margaret Beaufort if circumstances had given him the slightest smidgen of an opportunity. It may not be possible after all these centuries to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, but it looks fairly obvious to anyone who hasn't got a stake in the issue who is left holding the smoking gun.

With all due apologies to the RIII society and its members, but it's Wicked Uncle Dicky.

As for where he is buried, his mortal remains have been in Leicester since 1485. They should be reinterred there.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Nonsense. Richard was a caring man who cared for his young charges, one of whom grew into a big, strong boy, and after Bosworth Field reigned for 14 glorious years as King Richard IV; succeeded for about 30 seconds by Edmund, as eny fule no.

There was a docudrama about it on UK telly in the early 80s.
 
Posted by Huntress (# 2595) on :
 
I would have hated Starkey to have got his hands on the programme; I think he is a sensationalist entertainer, rather than a good historian.

I admired Philippa for her dedication to a cause she was clearly deeply passionate about and wished that her emotional episodes could have been edited down / out of the programme as I felt they took up too much time, but I guess the programme wanted to present the dual interests of academic archaeology and personal quest.

If I remember correctly, the mention of Richard 'making himself King' did not mention the fact that Princes Edward and Richard and siblings were declared illegitimate when various folk attested that their father was pre-contracted (a binding arrangement) to marry Lady Eleanor Butler, thus making his subsequent marriage to Elizabeth Woodville null and any issue illegitimate. Richard was therefore the lawful King in this circumstance.

The children of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville were subsequently declared legitimate by Henry VII so that he could marry Princess Elizabeth of York (sister to the now-missing-presumed-dead Princes Edward and Richard) and strengthen his hold on the English throne.

I recommend Royal Blood, by Bertram Fields which will hopefully be reprinted soon, which assesses the evidence for and against Richard III being the bad King of popular sentiment.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huntress:
If I remember correctly, the mention of Richard 'making himself King' did not mention the fact that Princes Edward and Richard and siblings were declared illegitimate when various folk attested that their father was pre-contracted (a binding arrangement) to marry Lady Eleanor Butler, thus making his subsequent marriage to Elizabeth Woodville null and any issue illegitimate. Richard was therefore the lawful King in this circumstance.
And who was it who promoted that particular volte face?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
At the time of his death, Richard was in the diocese of Lincoln. The present cathedral of Leicester was only a parish church.
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nonsense. Richard was a caring man who cared for his young charges, one of whom grew into a big, strong boy, and after Bosworth Field reigned for 14 glorious years as King Richard IV; succeeded for about 30 seconds by Edmund, as eny fule no.

There was a docudrama about it on UK telly in the early 80s.
With Rowan Atkinson and Brian Blessed. [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Indeed. Without it, would most people know about about St Ralph the Liar, the traditions of St Leonard's Day, the fact that Morris Dancers have always been fourth rate entertainment, or the true horror of snails?

A very valuable three hours of top notch informational telly, IMO.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
I watched the programme, and I certainly found Philippa eccentric, to say the least. She seemed almost as though she had a personal relationship with Richard III, and that his reputation must be defended at all costs. I was bemused by the comment that his reconstructed face was "not the face of a tyrant". What is a tyrant supposed to look like?

However, I understand that she was the prime mover behind this discovery, and I suppose if it wasn't for slightly eccentric people there would be very few significant breakthroughs in this world. So, in the context of the whole story, she deserves the highest praise for her dedication and commitment to her cause.

Talking about her cause: this discovery has exposed a woeful gap in my education. I seem to know next to nothing about Richard III, apart from what I have picked up over the last few days. So perhaps some of the contributors here could explain why they have such a high regard for this king?

I really would be most interested to learn more about this subject.
 
Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :
 
Why York? Because he grew up in Yorkshire, in Middleham Castle, ruled the North of England for his brother Edward IV for some years, endowed a chantry chapel in York Minster, which is generally taken as an indication that he wished to be buried there, and was much loved by the people of York (see my previous post). By contrast, what is his connection with Leicester? Apart from happening to get killed near there of course. Most soldiers killed in the field are taken home for burial.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I watched the programme, and I certainly found Philippa eccentric, to say the least. She seemed almost as though she had a personal relationship with Richard III, and that his reputation must be defended at all costs. I was bemused by the comment that his reconstructed face was "not the face of a tyrant". What is a tyrant supposed to look like?

However, I understand that she was the prime mover behind this discovery, and I suppose if it wasn't for slightly eccentric people there would be very few significant breakthroughs in this world. So, in the context of the whole story, she deserves the highest praise for her dedication and commitment to her cause.

Talking about her cause: this discovery has exposed a woeful gap in my education. I seem to know next to nothing about Richard III, apart from what I have picked up over the last few days. So perhaps some of the contributors here could explain why they have such a high regard for this king?

I really would be most interested to learn more about this subject.
Yes, without Philippa none of this would have happened. She deserves much credit, as does John Ashdown-Hill for his research into DNA.

EE: Richard and the Wars of the Roses are fascinating. Have a look at the Richard III Society website www.richardiii.net and you'll find lots of information. I've been interested in Richard for many years, and the Society is very good, promoting research into his life and times.

eta: the Society also has a Facebook page.

[ 06. February 2013, 15:25: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
Posted by Pine Martin:
quote:
EE: Richard and the Wars of the Roses are fascinating.
Indeed, as the burst of interest in this news story shows. The first I ever heard about Richard was Eleanor and Herbert Farjeon's book of poems for children: Kings and Queens, first published in the 1930s and reissued several time thereafter.

The Farjeon's start with Edward V.

quote:
Alas for this nice little, poor little lad!
His reign was the shortest that any king had --
And if, gentle reader, you want to know why,
Turn to Richard the Third, and you'll find the reply.
quote:
Crookback Dick
Had nephews two,
Younger than me,
Older than you.

[snip]
Generations of cartoons and horror movies have confirmed this simplistic view, which I suspect remains the only impression that most people -- certainly outside the UK -- have of Richard. I hope the attention given to the discovery of his skeleton changes things.

[Edited to avoid possible copyright violations]

[ 06. February 2013, 16:42: Message edited by: Firenze ]
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
One person wants Richard III buried according to Roman Catholic rites:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100201761/richard-iii-was-a-catholic-and-should-be-buried-in-a-catholic-churc h/

Question: Do we know the funeral liturgy of the late medieval period in England? Would it be possible to have a "historical" liturgy when the King is reinterred.
 
Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :
 
It is perfectly possible to have a Roman Catholic mass/funeral service in York Minster. I have been to several RC masses held there by courteous permission of the Dean and Chapter.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
RoseofSharon opined:

quote:
my preferred villain in the Princes In The Tower story is Margaret Beaufort
I think this is spot on. She was Henry Tudor's mother, spawn of a bastard line whose later legitimation did not include succession rights. Derby, her husband, was a supposed ally of Richard, who failed to come to the king's aid at Bosworth. It was in Henry's interest that the boys disappeared, even more so than Richard's.
Here's another vote for Margaret Beaufort. She was renowned for her ruthless ambition for her family. But as history is written by the winners, and the Tudors - at that time - were the winners, it was very unlikely Tudor involvement with dark practices would've been seriously investigated, when one had a handy scapegoat like Richard to exploit.

From an historical point of view I think this is incredibly exciting. I'm not much of a monarchist - especially pre-modern monarchism - but the fact that such an important historical artefact has come to light is tremendous. I love the history of England's royals and protectors, governments and ordinary peoples down through the ages. Wonderful to have this new puzzle piece to fit into the jigsaw.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hanginginthere:
... Most soldiers killed in the field are taken home for burial.
That's a very recent development indeed, as evidenced by the large numbers of war cemeteries in France, the Dardanelles etc.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
True. If you got buried at all, it was where you fell. Transportation was only for kings. I may be about to visit the Chateau of Vincennes, where Henry V died and where, the guide book avers, they boiled him prior to sending him back to England.

('What's the soup of the day?

You don't want to know.')
 
Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :
 
OK, general repatriation is a present-day development but
a) this is the present-day, and
b) he was a king.
 
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :
 
Well, it has to be said that Ricardus Rex - whether you think him good or bad - is part of our history, and we have to respect him for that.
And, even from a Tudor point of view, he perhaps wasn't as bad as some. There's John, for instance. And Guillaume le Batarde was just that, in all senses.
But, another point. The skeleton showed signs of scoliosis - I'm no medic, but it looked pretty bad to me. And yet, Richard was, it seems, despite the scoliosis, physically strong and a formidable warrior; and, evidently, a man of magnificent courage in battle. That marks him out as something special.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So perhaps some of the contributors here could explain why they have such a high regard for this king?

I really would be most interested to learn more about this subject.
Well, for my part, I was an English major as an undergrad, and was specifically interested in English (as opposed to American) literature. So I got interested in Rchard III through Shakespeare's play, especially the astonishing second scene from Act 1 where Richard (then Gloster, as it's spelled in my edition), manages to maneuver Anne from murderous rage at him for the killing of her husband to accepting him as a suitor in the space of 15 minutes flat!

Of course, it was Shakespeare's incredible wit that captured me (though he does write amazing villains -- witness Iago) rather than any actual history, or particular regard for Richard, at the point.

Of course, while studying this play, I had to read what history had to offer. (And I must confess, I find the War of the Roses incredibly confusing. I've tried and tried, and I still can't untangle it).

While reading the historical material, I came across the Josephine Tey book. And I'm a sucker for an unresolved mystery.

That's what's kept me interested: what did happen to those two boys? It's that, more than any particular regard for Richard himself that attracts my attention.

But I do have to say that the medieval mind might well have been inclined to view Richard as evil (or at least suspect) simply on the basis of his disability; his scoliosis may have been regarded as a mark of divine disfavor -- if not aimed at him, then at his progenitors.

Actually, in some ways, the fact that the remains show evidence of scoliosis slightly confirms for me that Richard's reputation for evil may not have been earned so much as imposed.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I also became intrigued with Richard III through Shakespeare's play. I think the reason I've felt more warmly about him than most who only know him through the play, is that the actor who played him (Bo Foxworth) was just so gosh-darned cute! Here is a not-very-good picture of him as Richard. He made a charming, devious bad guy.

(Last year I saw David Lee Jones in the part. He did a great job, but wasn't anywhere near as cute.)

At any rate, the play got me interested in Richard, and I'm absolutely delighted that he's been found.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Amazing news. I've been fascinated by Richard in the past, due to Shakespeare and that book -- is it The Thief of Time? I wish I could attend the ceremony . . .
I really don't understand why anyone gets worked up about the remains of someone who's been dead for over 500 years.

Just to muddy the waters - Richard III was a son of Northamptonshire; perhaps his bones should be interred in the contemporaneous village church - apparently it has been described as "a galleon of Perpendicular on a sea of corn" .

I thoroughly recommend Thief of Time however.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I really don't understand why anyone gets worked up about the remains of someone who's been dead for over 500 years.

. . .

I thoroughly recommend Thief of Time however.
Because at some level, R3 isn't dead. For good or ill, he formed a significant chunk of history -- shaped and influenced the world he left for "after-comers" to deal with.

As for the novel, I read the Tony Hillerman one. I've loved some of Pratchett's novels, while others left me cold. Haven't read his Thief of Time The book I was actually trying to reference, though, is The Daughter of Time by Tey.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
Originally posted by Porridge:
 Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I really don't understand why anyone gets worked up about the remains of someone who's been dead for over 500 years.

Because at some level, R3 isn't dead. I presume we agree that, so far as anyone can tell, he's dead: but his actions still have consequences. For good or ill, he formed a significant chunk of history -- shaped and influenced the world he left for "after-comers" to deal with.

I understand that - I just don't see what that has to do with his bones.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Some people like great art. Some people like well-played football. Other people like tangible bits of history like bones.

Frankly, I don't get excited about association football, but that's just me.
 
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Some people like great art. Some people like well-played football. Other people like tangible bits of history like bones.

Frankly, I don't get excited about association football, but that's just me.
Well said. What fascinates one person is a source of utter bewilderment to others.

The TV and popular press are full of stories that bore me rigid, but are clearly of substantial interest to a significant segment of the population.

Different strokes for different folks.
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
Personally, I think he should be buried in the Priory Church of the Holy Cross, Leicester. He would have been familiar with the Dominican Rite, unlike this modernist Tridentine business.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Well, it has to be said that Ricardus Rex - whether you think him good or bad - is part of our history, and we have to respect him for that.
Yes, I've always thought that too. [Razz]

[ 07. February 2013, 12:11: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I really don't understand why anyone gets worked up about the remains of someone who's been dead for over 500 years.
In part, and in this case in particular, it confirms debated/discussed details of his physical nature and death.

But really, it is about the tangible vs. the conceptual. Every step closer to actually experiencing something makes it more real to most people.
 
Posted by geroff (# 3882) on :
 
I would assume that the Exhumation Order stated that the remians be reinterred nearby. As the Friary no longer exists it would seem appropriate that he is buried at the parish church, ie St Martins Cathedral Church, Leicester.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
York Minster has now issued a statement here , so I guess all the wittering and petitions about where he should be buried can now cease.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Good to see it was thought through ahead of time. To be honest, I think the fact that a religious order in Leicester buried in him in the first place is probably the strongest argument for having him reburied in the city.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
quote:
Richard III was a son of Northamptonshire...
[Ultra confused] He was a son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York. He may have been *born* in Northamptonshire, but he spent quite a lot of his life in Yorkshire, his favourite estate was here and he was leader of the Council in the North (based in York) under Edward IV.

Royalty and nobility were fairly nomadic during the Middle Ages (due to the inadequacies of castle plumbing), but Richard III has more ties to Yorkshire than anywhere else.

Though I daresay if he'd won Bosworth and died in his bed of old age he'd have been buried in Westminster Abbey. And England might still be Catholic, because Henry VIII would never have been born [Two face]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So perhaps some of the contributors here could explain why they have such a high regard for this king?

I really would be most interested to learn more about this subject.
Could the enthusiasts actually answer this question please?

He was king for two years, over 500 years ago. He achieved nothing. He left no legacy apart from a suspicion that he was responsible for killing his nephews. Other monarchs with short reigns don't have societies committed to revisiting their memory. There is no Edward VI, Jane, Mary, James II or William IV society - unless one calls the RCC the Mary and James II Society [Mad] . Why this one?
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge
Because at some level, R3 isn't dead.
You mean like Elvis, Adolf Hitler or Lord Lucan?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I think it's because he's interesting. And I'm sorry to say, a person who is either a) controversial or b) evil or c) both is going to be more interesting almost always than one who was a moral model.

Which is what makes Jesus such an oddity.

ETA: but then he fits under "controversial", doesn't he? I'm losing my marbles. (goes away)

[ 07. February 2013, 21:49: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So perhaps some of the contributors here could explain why they have such a high regard for this king?

I really would be most interested to learn more about this subject.
Could the enthusiasts actually answer this question please?

He was king for two years, over 500 years ago. He achieved nothing. He left no legacy apart from a suspicion that he was responsible for killing his nephews. Other monarchs with short reigns don't have societies committed to revisiting their memory. There is no Edward VI, Jane, Mary, James II or William IV society - unless one calls the RCC the Mary and James II Society [Mad] . Why this one?
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge
Because at some level, R3 isn't dead.
You mean like Elvis, Adolf Hitler or Lord Lucan?
Because none of those other monarchs has been as slandered as much as Richard III. The interest in Richard III is largely to do with getting an accurate account of the king, and not the Tudor revisionism. I'm not quite sure why you're so angry/frustrated at others being interested in him...?

Within historical circles there certainly are those very interested in those monarchs you mentioned, Richard just captures public interest more.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not quite sure why you're so angry/frustrated at others being interested in him...?

Within historical circles there certainly are those very interested in those monarchs you mentioned, Richard just captures public interest more.
I think Enoch is persuaded that R3 is a cold-blooded child murderer and wishes we'd pay attention to Somebody Nice.
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... He left no legacy apart from a suspicion that he was responsible for killing his nephews ...
I think that's the whole point of our fascination with him: the irresistible combination of child-killing monster and unsolved mystery.

We'll probably never know the whole truth of the matter, but it's not going to stop people trying, and I say long may they continue.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I know I'm not the only one to become intrigued by him after seeing Shakespeare's play. The others on Enoch's list didn't get that kind of publicity.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Enoch:
quote:
Could the enthusiasts actually answer this question please?

He was king for two years, over 500 years ago. He achieved nothing. He left no legacy apart from a suspicion that he was responsible for killing his nephews. Other monarchs with short reigns don't have societies committed to revisiting their memory. There is no Edward VI, Jane, Mary, James II or William IV society - unless one calls the RCC the Mary and James II Society. Why this one?
Ahem. This is only from Wiki, and others can say if they have it wrong but...
quote:
In December 1483, Richard instituted what later became known as the Court of Requests, a court to which poor people who could not afford legal representation could apply for their grievances to be heard.[55] He also introduced bail in January 1484, to protect suspected felons from imprisonment before trial and to protect their property from seizure during that time.[56] He founded the College of Arms in 1484,[57] he banned restrictions on the printing and sale of books,[58] and he ordered the translation of the written Laws and Statutes from the traditional French into English.[59]
Small claims court, bail, College of Arms, some sort of medieval freedom of the press, and the law translated into the vernacular. I'd say that was a reasonably good legacy for two years' work.
 
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :
 
There is no statute that I am aware of than bans people from forming societies relating to these other monarchs. It is up to their admirers/ people who are interested (if any) to do so.

There was at one time a Henry VI Society seeking canonization of that king. I suspect it may be dormant or defunct.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
There is no statute that I am aware of than bans people from forming societies relating to these other monarchs. It is up to their admirers/ people who are interested (if any) to do so.

There was at one time a Henry VI Society seeking canonization of that king. I suspect it may be dormant or defunct.
Indeed, Henry VI has long had quite a cult attached to him.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Enoch:
quote:
Could the enthusiasts actually answer this question please?

He was king for two years, over 500 years ago. He achieved nothing. He left no legacy apart from a suspicion that he was responsible for killing his nephews. Other monarchs with short reigns don't have societies committed to revisiting their memory. There is no Edward VI, Jane, Mary, James II or William IV society - unless one calls the RCC the Mary and James II Society. Why this one?
Ahem. This is only from Wiki, and others can say if they have it wrong but...
quote:
In December 1483, Richard instituted what later became known as the Court of Requests, a court to which poor people who could not afford legal representation could apply for their grievances to be heard.[55] He also introduced bail in January 1484, to protect suspected felons from imprisonment before trial and to protect their property from seizure during that time.[56] He founded the College of Arms in 1484,[57] he banned restrictions on the printing and sale of books,[58] and he ordered the translation of the written Laws and Statutes from the traditional French into English.[59]
Small claims court, bail, College of Arms, some sort of medieval freedom of the press, and the law translated into the vernacular. I'd say that was a reasonably good legacy for two years' work.
Quite so, Lyda*Rose, thank you for posting this before I did! A good record indeed for 2 years' reign.

I originally got interested in him through Shakespeare's play, and having been a Ricardian now for several decades the fascination has not diminished, and the more I find out about the complications of the politics and the twisty ins-and-outs of his life and times the more there is to find out!

Anyway, later today we're off to a Society meeting and no doubt there'll be mobs of excited Ricardians milling about gawping at the facial reconstruction... [Yipee]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
Apparantly the team who discovered Richard IIIs bones under the car park in Leicester are now digging up Tesco's car park to see if they can find his horse!
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
The Economist labels Richard III, England's most controversial King

I dunno, wasn't Charles Stuart fairly controversial.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Possibly one of the more controversial in terms of modern reputation, but I don't think Richard III was very controversial at the time.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
There wasn't "controversy" as we know it, mainly because anyone who disagreed with the New Regime was well-advised to keep their mouths shut!
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So perhaps some of the contributors here could explain why they have such a high regard for this king?

I really would be most interested to learn more about this subject.
Could the enthusiasts actually answer this question please?

He was king for two years, over 500 years ago. He achieved nothing. He left no legacy apart from a suspicion that he was responsible for killing his nephews. Other monarchs with short reigns don't have societies committed to revisiting their memory. There is no Edward VI, Jane, Mary, James II or William IV society - unless one calls the RCC the Mary and James II Society. Why this one?
If they'd had Shakespeare writing such memorable lines for them, they might!

I certainly got hooked in via Shakespeare - used to read the Complete Plays at my grandmother's as a wee bit lassie, and RIII really stood out. Read about everything I could get my hands on about the Tudors and Plantagenets when I was a little older. Read _The Daughter of Time_ as a young woman and had my world rocked.

I definitely think the fascination is connected with Shakespeare/Henry VIII/Elizabeth.

(Speaking of Henry VIII, I would love some talented alt.historian to imagine what would have happened if Katherine of Aragon had given him living son(s). Paging Harry Turtledove!)
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
It would be really cool if they got the Archbishop of Westminster to do the Requiem.
According to the Medieval Franciscan use?
I don't know if this was meant as a passing joke or not but in case it wasn't, unlike other orders the Franciscans did not have their own "use", they used the Roman Rite.

Actually, most if not all of the medieval "uses" practiced in England were forms of the Roman Rite, including the Sarum Use (Use of Salisbury).

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
By his own beliefs and the teaching of the church at the time, he presumably ought to be buried in unconsecrated ground as he died without confession ?
Others already pointed out that he would've gone to confession before heading off to battle but I wouldn't have thought that under normal circumstances not receiving confession before dying wasn't enough to keep one from being buried in unconsecrated ground either, at least in recent centuries (although one always hopes to receive the "last rites" before dying).

It would've been a problem (since changed) if he had committed suicide but that's because back then we didn't understand the effects of depression and mental illness on the decisions people make.

If his bad reputation were true he might need extra masses and prayers said for him, though!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The Economist labels Richard III, England's most controversial King
I had to see the page of the Book of Hours that's mentioned in this article - I was tickled by the idea of his writing in his birthday in one - but why not? Anyway, here it is. The handwriting looks quite confident and polished - no faltering here, this is someone well used to writing, and fluent in Latin, and a little flourish on the X of Rex suggests to me that he enjoyed his role (at least, at the time of writing, anyhow).

I never had any particular interest in him before, but the reconstruction of the skull and now this have made him seem much more of a real person.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Amazing Grace:
quote:
(Speaking of Henry VIII, I would love some talented alt.historian to imagine what would have happened if Katherine of Aragon had given him living son(s). Paging Harry Turtledove!)
Or, indeed, if his older brother had lived and had children by Katherine. Given the number of women Henry seems to have had sex with, and the very few children who were produced, the problem with fertility may well have rested with him, rather than his wives. Which he would have found an insulting idea, I'm quite sure!
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Given the number of women Henry seems to have had sex with, and the very few children who were produced, the problem with fertility may well have rested with him, rather than his wives. Which he would have found an insulting idea, I'm quite sure!
It has been suggested that he had syphilis, which might account for all the stillborn babies.

Moo
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
He must have had suspicions I think (quote after Anne's last loss: "I see God will not give ME children"). Though his very well trained ego promptly buried them under six feet of horse shit. As far as I recall, he never managed to have more than a single living child with any woman, even illegitimately, which seems a bit odd. And I believe they were all first conceptions. I wish I knew more about possible syndromes that could cause this. Rh disease seems unlikely with so many women involved.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Just did some googling--hemolytic disease of the newborn can also be caused by a mismatch in Kell factor blood antigens (?), and if HVIII happened to be homozygous positive for Kell factor, he'd be apt to cause a lot of trouble among the more than 90% of women who are negative. That could easily result in one chance for a baby and disaster from then on out,no matter how many women he ran through. And he would have had to go some distance to find a Kell positive woman who could actually carry a second child to healthy birth for him, as they're very rare on the ground. That is, if I'm understanding all this correctly.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
Recently read Hilary Mantel's first two installments of her fictionalized biography of Cromwell. In it she suggests (and I doubt she's the first) that whispers of adultery against Anne Boleyn may well have resulted from that lady's efforts to become pregnant once she realized that Henry was unlikely to sire living children with her.

Is there any doubt, though, that Mary and Elizabeth were his?

[ 10. February 2013, 00:44: Message edited by: Porridge ]
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Hilary Mantel ... suggests (and I doubt she's the first) that whispers of adultery against Anne Boleyn may well have resulted from that lady's efforts to become pregnant ...
Philippa Gregory suggests in The Other Boleyn Girl that the accusation of incest with her brother had its foundations in her desperation to produce a live, male heir.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
While we're speaking of historical fiction, I have to recommend a book that hasn't yet been mentioned (unless I missed it) on this thread, although I did promote it quite a bit when we read The Daughter of Time as a book club selection awhile back.

To anyone interested in a well-researched and sympathetic portrait of Richard III, I highly recommend Sharon Kay Penman's novel The Sunne in Splendour. I read it long before reading either Shakespeare's play or Tey's Daughter of Time and it is wholly responsible for my ongoing fascination with Richard. Re-reading it in recent years from a more mature perspective (I first read it in my early 20s but have read it many times since then) I think her Richard is perhaps a bit TOO blameless, but still feels very real, as does the entire world and cast of characters surrounding him.

Also, as Philippa Gregory has been mentioned, I don't find her as consistently good a novelist as Penman, but her series of novels about the women involved in the Wars of the Roses (Lady of the Rivers, The White Queen, The Red Queen, The Kingmaker's Daughter) have some interesting perspectives on the era. I think The Red Queen, about Margaret Beaufort, is brilliant -- such a good job of taking a thoroughly unsympathetic character and making her real and vivid while still remaining completely unsympathetic.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
To anyone interested in a well-researched and sympathetic portrait of Richard III, I highly recommend Sharon Kay Penman's novel The Sunne in Splendour.
Thanks, I was hoping someone would recommend a good historical novel on Richard III. I'll look out for this.

[ 10. February 2013, 12:36: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Just did some googling--hemolytic disease of the newborn can also be caused by a mismatch in Kell factor blood antigens (?), and if HVIII happened to be homozygous positive for Kell factor, he'd be apt to cause a lot of trouble among the more than 90% of women who are negative. That could easily result in one chance for a baby and disaster from then on out,no matter how many women he ran through. And he would have had to go some distance to find a Kell positive woman who could actually carry a second child to healthy birth for him, as they're very rare on the ground. That is, if I'm understanding all this correctly.
The problem with that suggestion is that his eldest child, Mary, was born seven years into his marriage after his first wife Catherine had had several miscarriages.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Whoops. Back to the drawing board on that theory, then.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
To anyone interested in a well-researched and sympathetic portrait of Richard III, I highly recommend Sharon Kay Penman's novel The Sunne in Splendour.
Thanks, I was hoping someone would recommend a good historical novel on Richard III. I'll look out for this.
There is also Rosemary Hawley Jarman's We Speak No Treason, which is told from the viewpoint of several people who know Richard. This was her first novel, and she wrote several others, including one about Elizabeth Woodville, The King's Grey Mare.

We Speak No Treason is strongly pro-Richard, rather flowery and romantic - I loved it when it was first published, and wept buckets!

There is also the rather extraordinary The Court of the Midnight King, by Freda Warrington. This was suggested to me by Amazon (as it does), and I will say no more about it except there is a strong fantastical, otherworldly element to it. It made me go 'Huh???!'
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
John Ford's The Dragon Waiting is another (dark) fantasy featuring Richard III.
 
Posted by Quinine (# 1668) on :
 
Has anyone else read Marjorie Bowen's Dickon? It was the first historical novel about Richard III I ever read (only coming across the Penman novel much later). That was a very long time ago but I remember her portrait was sympathetic, very melancholic.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Is there any doubt, though, that Mary and Elizabeth were his?
Would be interesting to know. Think we could generate an exhumation order for QEI and the lecherous old bastard to find out?
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
A contrarian history I read - and whose name I can't at the moment recall - argued that Mary knew Elizabeth was not her (half) sister. Principal evidence was that she would not accede to Elizabeth's marriage to Spanish nobility, despite Philip proposing it. Same chap also argued that Leicester and Elizabeth connived at the death of Amy Robsart, but Cecil knew and blackmailed them ever afterwards.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quinine:
Has anyone else read Marjorie Bowen's Dickon? It was the first historical novel about Richard III I ever read (only coming across the Penman novel much later). That was a very long time ago but I remember her portrait was sympathetic, very melancholic.
Yes! I *love* it - my brother got it for me many moons (not to say decades) ago, and it's a 1934 reprint (first published 1929). I've seen modern copies with a soppy cover but I love my 1934 hardback copy [Axe murder] .

It's a very good, sympathetic read, again with a slightly supernatural air in the figure of Sir John Fogg. And the epitaph at the front is very poignant:

'...England I was once and Gloucester...
Thou, passing by, above my dust
Give me thy prayers and charity.'

[Frown]

[eta for spleling]

[ 10. February 2013, 17:38: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
STOOOOPPPPP!!!!!

My bedside table runneth over!
 
Posted by Quinine (# 1668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
quote:
Originally posted by Quinine:
Has anyone else read Marjorie Bowen's Dickon? It was the first historical novel about Richard III I ever read (only coming across the Penman novel much later). That was a very long time ago but I remember her portrait was sympathetic, very melancholic.
Yes! I *love* it - my brother got it for me many moons (not to say decades) ago, and it's a 1934 reprint (first published 1929). I've seen modern copies with a soppy cover but I love my 1934 hardback copy [Axe murder] .

It's a very good, sympathetic read, again with a slightly supernatural air in the figure of Sir John Fogg. And the epitaph at the front is very poignant:

'...England I was once and Gloucester...
Thou, passing by, above my dust
Give me thy prayers and charity.'

[Frown]

[eta for spleling]
Ah yes, Sir John Fogg. It's coming back to me a bit more now. Alas, my copy has been lost in the mists of time. (It was a relatively modern, secondhand paperback - 1970s possibly.) My late mother might have given it to me - she was a great Richard III fan.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
One can never have enough books, Porridge [Biased] .
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Amazing Grace:
quote:
(Speaking of Henry VIII, I would love some talented alt.historian to imagine what would have happened if Katherine of Aragon had given him living son(s). Paging Harry Turtledove!)
Or, indeed, if his older brother had lived and had children by Katherine. Given the number of women Henry seems to have had sex with, and the very few children who were produced, the problem with fertility may well have rested with him, rather than his wives. Which he would have found an insulting idea, I'm quite sure!
While I agree re Henry's fertility or lack of it, for a monarch of his time Henry was actually not particularly promiscuous. He had very few mistresses that we know about, preferring serial monogamy instead - which is quite unusual in medieval/early modern kings. Compared to Francois I of France, he was virtually a monk!
 
Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :
 
I loved Marjorie Bowen's 'Viper of Milan', which I came across in a children's library when I first started work as a librarian. Despite having three half-read books on the go, I'll have to add 'Dickon' to the list.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
One can never have enough books, Porridge [Biased] .
One already has double-packed bookshelves, however. [Biased]
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
STOOOOPPPPP!!!!!

My bedside table runneth over!
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
One already has double-packed bookshelves, however.
How about building a platform of books and standing the bedside table on top of it?
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Just did some googling--hemolytic disease of the newborn can also be caused by a mismatch in Kell factor blood antigens (?), and if HVIII happened to be homozygous positive for Kell factor, he'd be apt to cause a lot of trouble among the more than 90% of women who are negative. That could easily result in one chance for a baby and disaster from then on out,no matter how many women he ran through. And he would have had to go some distance to find a Kell positive woman who could actually carry a second child to healthy birth for him, as they're very rare on the ground. That is, if I'm understanding all this correctly.
The problem with that suggestion is that his eldest child, Mary, was born seven years into his marriage after his first wife Catherine had had several miscarriages.
Catherine had also produced two sons who were born alive but died in infancy (as babies, alas, often did in those days). (Again, before Mary was born.)
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Amazing Grace:
quote:
(Speaking of Henry VIII, I would love some talented alt.historian to imagine what would have happened if Katherine of Aragon had given him living son(s). Paging Harry Turtledove!)
Or, indeed, if his older brother had lived and had children by Katherine. Given the number of women Henry seems to have had sex with, and the very few children who were produced, the problem with fertility may well have rested with him, rather than his wives. Which he would have found an insulting idea, I'm quite sure!
Somebody's already posited the former in fiction, with Henry, Duke of York (as he was) cast as the wicked attempted-usurping uncle! N.B. Arthur was still dead in that scenario, but had a posthumous son.

Personally I think that Henry was just unlucky in his first spouse's fertility, wasn't with the next two that long, and was likely infertile during his last three marriages.

I don't, however, think he would have been quite the pop culture "rock star" if he had son(s) by his first marriage, thus obviating his percieved need to put Catherine asides for someone who could give him sons. I think he would have remarried after she died but not the whole "six wives" thing! There are huge implications for the path of the Reformation in England as well. (Back to Richard III ... maybe Greyfriars wouldn't have been dissolved, causing R3's bones to go missing for nearly five hundred years.)
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Roseofsharon:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
STOOOOPPPPP!!!!!

My bedside table runneth over!
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
One already has double-packed bookshelves, however.
How about building a platform of books and standing the bedside table on top of it?
Screw that. Build a platform out of books, add pillow and blanket, and you' re good to go.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
Well, extreme discomfort may be a reasonable excuse for staying up all night reading, but it's not the most appealing one.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
*****, now seemeth it vertu to us ****es that alle converse anent thys king, be spake like unto the tymes wherein he was on lyf.

**** gentles, doeth so.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
That certayne wordes will nat appear is eke a jape.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Yea, verily yea.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Mais, forsooth, fayre damsels all, hath none thinketh of the aloneness of thys moste holie Kinge sans fils or wyffe? For theye departeth thys mortal coyl before the Bosworth Fyeld whereat our most gracyous liege Lorde was foully slain?
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
So say ye, gentlefolk alle, that yon king, the which was never a lik, cam to swich despayr as to tak upon his immortal soule that most grievous act of selfe-mordere by the hand of his owne enemie?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Mais*, forsooth, fayre damsels all, hath none thinketh of the aloneness of thys moste holie Kinge sans fils or wyffe? For theye departeth thys mortal coyl before the Bosworth Fyeld whereat our most gracyous liege Lorde was foully slain?
Frankish. Thou naughty varlet! Wottest thee that not all men speake this tongue?
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0