Richard III remains confirmed

[JackFavell]

I found this story in the headlines tremendously exciting!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/world ... .html?_r=0

Bones Under Parking Lot Belonged to Richard III
By JOHN F. BURNS and ALAN COWELL
Published: February 4, 2013

LEICESTER, England — In one of Britain’s most dramatic modern archaeological finds, researchers here announced on Monday that skeletal remains found under a parking lot in this English Midlands city were those of King Richard III, for centuries the most widely reviled of English monarchs, paving the way for a possible reassessment of his brief but violent reign.

Richard Buckley, the lead archaeologist on a project to identify the bones, told reporters that tests and research since the remains were discovered last September proved “beyond reasonable doubt” that the “individual exhumed” from a makeshift grave under the parking lot was “indeed Richard III, the last Plantagenet king of England.”

Part of the evidence came from DNA testing by the geneticist Turi King, who told the same new conference that DNA samples taken from modern-day descendants of Richard’s family matched those of the bones found at the site.

The skeleton, with an arrowhead in its back and bearing other signs of battle wounds, was exhumed in the ruins of an ancient priory. It was found in the same place as historians say Richard III was buried after perishing at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.

At the news conference on Monday, researchers showed photographs of the skeleton as they found it, stuffed into a grave without a coffin, clearly displaying curvature of the spine as chronicled in contemporary accounts of Richard III’s appearance.

DNA samples from the remains had been compared with the DNA of two descendants of the monarch’s family. One of them, Michael Ibsen, is the son of a 16th-generation niece of King Richard’s. The second descendant wished to remain anonymous, the researchers said.

The researchers said that the body displayed 10 wounds, 8 of them in the skull and some likely to have caused death, possibly by a blow from a halberd, a kind medieval weapon with an ex-like head on a long pole. Other wounds seem to have been inflicted after his death to humiliate the monarch after his armor was stripped and he was paraded naked over the back of a horse, the researchers said.

Since at least the late 18th century, scholars have debated whether Richard was the victim of a campaign of denigration by the Tudor monarchs who succeeded him. His supporters argue that he was a decent king, harsh in the ways of his time, but a proponent of groundbreaking measures to help the poor, extend protections to suspected felons and ease bans on the printing and selling books.

But his detractors cast Richard’s 26 months on the throne as one of England’s grimmest periods, its excesses captured in his alleged role in the murder in the Tower of London of two young princes — his own nephews — to rid himself of potential rivals.

Shakespeare told the king’s story in “Richard III,” depicting him as an evil, scheming hunchback whose death at 32 ended the War of the Roses and more than three centuries of Plantagenet rule, bookended England’s Middle Ages, and proved a prelude to the triumphs of the Tudors and Elizabethans.

In Shakespeare’s account, Richard was killed after being unhorsed on the battlefield, crying: “A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse.”

The identification of the bones on Monday may lead to demands for him to buried alongside other monarchs in a place of honor, such as London’s Westminster Abbey.

The bones were first located when archaeologists used ground-penetrating radar on the site of the former priory and discovered that it was not underneath a 19th century bank where it was presumed to be, but under a parking lot across the street. The remains were located within days of the start of digging.

John F. Burns reported from Leicester, and Alan Cowell from London.

[moira finnie]

Thanks for posting this, JF. This was much more exciting news this morning than a certain football game for me. I wonder if this last Plantagenet king will find a resting place in Westminster? I am intrigued with the fact that scientists have noted the curvature in Richard's spine without saying he had definitely been a hunchback (maybe this is one of history's smears?). From what I've read of medieval history, it was hardly uncommon for children to be born with birth defects in that era of poor nutrition, dismal sanitation and primitive medicine--but human nature being so quirky the physical was often readily interpreted as an external sign of inner character flaws.

I'm not sure if the victors or the revisionists are entirely correct about Richard III's harshness or liberality, but it seems that a better spot for his mortal remains than a parking lot might be found. Here's some earlier details we discussed about this event on the SSO, if interested:

http://silverscreenoasis.com/oasis3/vie ... &start=225

[RedRiver]

Wow! I'm no archeologist, but to me, this is amazing.

[JackFavell]

Ah yes! I knew we talked about it but I couldn't remember where. Duh. The Royals thread of course. Feel free to incorporate this into that thread if you think it's appropriate to do so.

I was so excited to read this, I do hope he will be placed in Westminster, but then there is so much to think about... where the heck to put him in the already cramped Abbey, what kind of gravestone or statuary to use, how big or little a tribute? horizontal or vertical?

I thought the wounds described were horrific. I like to think he's been maligned all these years, but it may just be the romantic in me.

[moira finnie]

I thought the wounds described were horrific.

Yeah, I'm with you, but mutilation of the dead seems to be a perennial part of war.

I like to think he's been maligned all these years, but it may just be the romantic in me.

Oh, yeah! I like to think he was "just misunderstood" too, but I feel that way about a lot of squirrelly guys throughout history (don't get me started on how Vincent Van Gogh might have been happy if he'd just gotten a dog!).

I have to go back and re-read The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey and Sharon Penman's The Sunne in Splendour again. This news should do wonders for memberships in The Richard III Society too. Maybe the Plantagenet descendents might have some preferences about where to bury their ancestor?

[moira finnie]

This just in from the BBC:

Based on the skull found, there is a reconstruction of how Richard III may have looked and the familiar portrait of the king:

A skeleton found under a car park in Leicester has been confirmed as that of the king.

The reconstructed face has a slightly arched nose and prominent chin, similar to features shown in portraits of Richard III painted after his death.

Historian and author John Ashdown-Hill said seeing it was "almost like being face to face with a real person".

The development comes after archaeologists from the University of Leicester confirmed the skeleton found last year was the 15th Century king's, with DNA from the bones having matched that of descendants of the monarch's family.

Richard, who was killed in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 at the age of 32 after just two years on the throne, having been challenged by the forces of Henry Tudor, the future Henry VII.

Dr Ashdown-Hill, who wrote The Last Days of Richard III, said: "The most obvious features in portraits are the shape of the nose and the chin and both of those are visible in the facial reconstruction."

Richard III Society member Philippa Langley, originator of the search, said on a Channel 4 documentary earlier: "It doesn't look like the face of a tyrant. I'm sorry but it doesn't.

"He's very handsome. It's like you could just talk to him, have a conversation with him right now."

Layers of muscle and skin were added by computer to a scan of the skull and the result was made into a three-dimensional plastic model.

'In the presence'

Dr Ashdown-Hill said: "I had said previously that when I stood by the grave in Leicester that I felt closer to Richard III than I had ever been, but when I saw the facial reconstruction I realised I had been close to a dead Richard III.


Confronting a facial reconstruction, I felt almost in the presence of a living Richard III”

Dr John Ashdown-Hill
Author of The Last Days of Richard III
"It was just bones, just a body, whereas confronting a facial reconstruction, I felt almost in the presence of a living Richard III."

The facial reconstruction is particularly important because there are no surviving contemporary portraits of Richard III.

Dr Ashdown-Hill said: "All the surviving portraits of him - even the very later ones with humped backs and things which were obviously later additions - facially are quite similar [to each other] so it has always been assumed that they were based on a contemporary portrait painted in his lifetime or possibly several portraits painted in his lifetime."

The Richard III society will officially unveil the reconstruction at 10:00 GMT on Tuesday, at the Society of Antiquaries in London.

It is expected that the reconstruction will be put on public display in future.


Richard III died aged 32 in the Battle of Bosworth
Experts from the University of Leicester said DNA from the skeleton matches that of a descendant of Richard III's family.

Dr Ashdown-Hill said: "We weren't certain whether the body was Richard III so the facial reconstruction - particularly if it hadn't been possible to get DNA from the bones - might have been an additional piece of evidence, and still is."

Caroline Wilkinson, professor of craniofacial identification at the University of Dundee, said: "When the 3D digital bust was complete it was replicated in plastic using a rapid prototyping system and this was painted, prosthetic eyes added and dressed with a wig, hat and clothing."

Prof Wilkinson said the Dundee team artist, Janice Aitken, used the portraits of Richard III at this stage as reference for hair style and colour, eye colour, skin colour and clothing.

"These details are not known from the skeletal remains and are estimated based on the most likely appearance from this period of time," she said.

[movieman1957]

I found the story fascinating. So much interest for someone who was only king for two years. Interesting history and interesting forensics.

Interesting game last night, Moira. Of course being in the winning city helps.

[Vienna]

Looking forward to watching Tv documentary on the find. The program was on last night.

[moira finnie]

Interesting game last night, Moira. Of course being in the winning city helps.

Oops, I forgot that you might have a dog in that fight. Nothing personal, Chris, but I just found a five hundred year old story really compelling. It's good to read that all of Maryland has something to cheer about.

Looking forward to watching Tv documentary on the find. The program was on last night.

Vienna, was this on television in the UK or Europe? I hope it is shown here soon.

[charliechaplinfan]

Ah, you all beat me too it, this is the most exciting news for some time. The program itself was meant to reveal the truth last night but some bright spark went ahead and spoiled the programme. The programme itself aired from 9pm to 10.35pm and Libby was desperate to see it. I don't think I'd have let her stay up for anything else and I'd kep the news off so in her mind it might not have been, so she stayed up with us.

The programme itself was fantastic, the dig had been organised by Ricardians (the people who believe that Richard has an unnecessary bad name) and the women who's passion it was knew as soon as she stood in the car park where he was by feeling it and lo and behold there he was and he was found straight away. She was truly very upset to find that he did have a bad curvature of the spine, believing of course that it was Tudor propaganda, the only portrait of him being painted after his death. But, it is him, they can see his injuries and it ties up with the accounts of how he died. The last monarch to die in battle and a brave one too.

I hope with this find, Shakespeare's Richard will be rewritten, it's unlikely he killed the Princes in the Tower there are two other more credible suspects rather than Richard and that we come to have a better understanding of Richard and how good a nobleman and King he really was. I think he should be buried at Westminister Abbey, a true king of England.

In essence, the whole story is amazing, the money was raised by the Ricardians afte rone woman spent years researching his burial site, he would have been buried in a monastery were his resting place could not have been a calling place for other Yorkists. He was found straight away and all the tests came back positive. I hope you get the programme broadcast, it's been one of the most interesting finds and programmes for years.

[RedRiver]

This discussion reminds me of TOWER OF LONDON, a cute, if forgettable adventure with Basil Rathbone as Richard. And as Mr. Karloff seems to find his way into many of our threads, he's creepy as the deformed executioner, Mord!

[JackFavell]

I hope they show it here, I don't know though. I'll be checking around to see if I can find it.

That facial reconstruction is just TREMENDOUS! I am assuming that the detailing of his mask was never from the portrait, but straight from the skull itself....which is uncanny! My father knows a woman who does this here in our country, in fact she was on an episode of Quincy once, well, just her hands I believe as they showed a similar reconstruction.

On the show did they talk about his reputation, or how it's possible that Henry Tudor had a hand in literally changing history? I hope this was all brought out again, giving people a chance to weigh the evidence, such as it is.

When I saw the news story on my computer, I immediately told Alice all about it. She has no knowledge of history, even American History, that subject has gone by the wayside in the attempt to push math and science here in the U.S. it seems. So I explained his story briefly, and the myths about him, the Shakespeare play, and what the revisionists believe. When else will we have such a great history lesson??

[charliechaplinfan]

I'm still buzzing from watching the documentary last night.

I've read a bit about Richard III in the past, none of his contemproraries ever wrote about a deformed back, that only came out in Henry VII's reign when it was in Henry's interest to portray Richard as a hunchback, a man with deformities would have been easier to denounce as deformities were often seen as the devil's work. So Ricardian's don't believe in the hunchback theory because no one had ever mentioned it in Richard's time so to find out he did have spinal deformities was a real shock for them, one can only think that they didn't dare write about Richard's deformity from fear. The only let down of the programe is that it didn't show us an image of Richard's body, the skeleton looked very curved to my lay man's eyes but the curve didn't seem to be about the shoulders but towards the lumbar spine. There was some discussion about it, spinal deformities wouldn't have been very unusual in Richard and not all deformities would show when a person was clothed. It wasn't mentioned whether the scientists would have expected it to show under clothes. There was a difference in his shoulders, one seemed higher up than the other, the right but this could be an overdeveloped use by shooting or combat. His skeleton was also shown to be quite small and feminine which did match accounts of the time, that his hands and arms were on the feminine side.

Two feelings that has grasped me as the day as gone on and I've had chance to mull over what I've seen and heard is that this man was a man who's bravery and loyalty to his brother deserved the crown of England. He was a fearless soldier, had fought for his brother many times and had ruled the North of England with a fairness that made him popular. When he took the throne he was no more barbaric than any who had gone before him, he tried in fact to be a just king. And he had a deformity but it didn't stop him being King of England and fighting to the end on foot and beset on all sides. An English hero not a Shakespearean villan.

My other thought was for the Ricardians who have so passionately believed in Richard and so desperately want to re draw his image from the one that Shakespeare gave him. They paid for the excavation and their passion, belief, dissappointment and tears both for the way he died and the fact he was a hunchback were genuninely shed. They were not interested like we are but utterly passionate about Richard III.

Wendy, Henry VII's claim on the throne was not strong, he needed Richard out of the way and he needed to attribute the deaths of the Princes in the Tower to Richard for him to have enough support for the throne. even then he was on rocky ground. How Henry stabilised his monrachy is another story, he achieved the incredible he gave the monarchy stability after many years but not until he'd sorted out the loose threads. Libby is still buzzing about this, she's been very excited about it.

[JackFavell]

Thanks for all the information Alison, I really appreciate your detail in writing about it.

As you are talking about Richard it brings to mind FDR, who for years hid his health problems from the public. It's possible that these deformities were hidden from the public or by clothing specially made for him and that Henry used this to paint a dastardly picture of him. Obviously it did not hinder him from being a fearless warrior, nor a good king.

[knitwit45]

is this eerie, or what???