Is Richard III buried under a parking lot?

If so, I guess he really DID pave the way for the Tudors.

http%3A//www.torontosun.com/2013/01/31/is-richard-iii-buried-under-a-parking-lot

Can't they find a more direct and viable descendant than Mr. Ibsen?
Richard III was a person? I thought he was a character in a movie like George Bailey or Sam Spade.
I don't think he killed the Princes. He didn't have much to gain by it. But Henry VII did!
If Michael Ibsen's mother is alive, wouldn't it be smarter to use her?
Sad...
I hope the DNA matches. It would be a great discovery.
Is it true that Queen Eizabeth is not welcoming his burial at Windsor or Westminster? That's kind of bitchy of her.
No it's not true, r7. There has been no comment from Buckingam Palace. Why would they comment over some bones that, today, have not had DNA results announced? No doubt, they are ready to be involved if the DNA indicates it's Richard III.
If the DNA doesn't match, it doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means one of Mr. Ipswich's female ancestors lied about who fathered her child.
No. But Richard II definitely is.
Those who haven't read "Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey, go do so & come back when you're through. You'll find it in the "mystery" section.
[11]I have read it. It makes a pretty convincing argument that Richard III was not behind the killing of the Princes -but was Henry VII. Why does the label still stick with Richard III. I guess Shakespeare is pretty hard to shake?
I've been to Bosworth Field in Leicestershire, where the battle that changed the course of history took place. When I got to the well that Richard prayed at the night before, I burst into tears. It was a genuinely emotional moment.
[quote]When I got to the well that Richard prayed at the night before, I burst into tears. It was a genuinely "Mary!" moment.
Well, they did pave paradise.
Joanie%20on%20a%20doob
If the bones are Richard III, he should be buried in York Minster, with Catholic rites, just as he wanted.
White%20Rose%20Forever
A recreation of Olivier's film, using He-Man clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DZ7H7c0eai18
The question is, should HRH The Queen Elizabeth allow for a Royal Funeral?
Elizabeth II should feel lucky that the British Parliament forbade Catholics on the throne or she'd be little more than some German hausfrau. Richard III was the real deal, on the other hand.
The results of the analysis of the body will be revealed today.
Richard had 'thin-meat fingers'.
Mrs%20Patrick%20Campbell%20%28sizemologist%29
[quote]The results of the analysis of the body will be revealed today. According to the article, the results will be revealed tomorrow. [italic]The archaeologists have gone to ground ahead of Monday’s announcement at the University of Leicester,...[/italic]
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/31/is-richard-iii-buried-under-a-parking-lot
If it's him, what will it mean? Will it cause something to happen, or is it just interesting?
[quote]Will it cause something to happen A monument will be erected somewhere. There will be a dedication ceremony. Tourists will come and spend money. R13 will look at the monument and burst into tears.
Plus a late surge for tickets at the Apollo to see Mark Rylance.
I demand that Richard is given a public funeral a la Princess Diana. It's time we honored our Plantaganet royal ancestors.
They gave his hair a splice and put up a parking lot!
Joan%20B
Gosh the media has been reporting this story all weekend. I guess tomorrow is the big day?
r28 - now is the winter of our discontent (should it not be Richard)
Avaunt, thou dreadful minister of hell!
[quote]When I got to the well that Richard prayed at the night before, I burst into tears. It was a genuinely emotional moment. I think this has to be one of the "Top Five Gayest Comments Ever Posted". Quite a feat for this place.
We should be getting the news around 3 a.m. Eastern time.
Just interesting, R23. Purely academic.
r31 - you wouldn't understand. You're not English.
Why would anyone cry for Richard III? Wasn't he a usurper who murdered his own nephews?
Okay, R34, that makes a difference. There was no way to know that you, at R13, are English. It was easy to figure you were some American touring England's historic sites.
R35 = Tudor apologist
Mrs.%20Bale%2C%20who%20has%20a%20Plantagenet%20face%20
The House of York were losers compared to the House of Lancaster.
A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a fucking horse
Live Stream. Results being announced now!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21319148
Queen Mary!
Wow, it's actually him!
Check out the curve on his spine. Shakespeare wasn't kidding about the hunchback king.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BCQRJZcCIAA6XTd.jpg:large
It's actually quite interesting because for years defenders of Richard claimed he was not hunchbacked and that all of the claims that he was grotesque were just slander by the Tudors. They may have amped it up a bit, but this is fascinating stuff...
State funeral at Westminster Abbey and then re-burial at Leicester - that's what should happen.
Made glorious summer! What was on his lute?
LOL! "Piece of Me" by Britney Spears was on Richard's lute.
My Kingdom for a hearse.
Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell was on his lute.
Olivier had some wonderful Mary! moments in the film. The whole glorious thing is available on youtube. His Richard is so devious, so bitchy, so witty - he'd make an excellent datalounge poster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DWO03SGXeApI
"Look, how I am bewitch'd!!! Behold mine arm Is, like a blasted sapling, wither'd up: And this is Edward's wife, that monstrous witch, consorted with that harlot strumpet Shore, that by their witchcraft thus have marked me!" "If they have done this thing, my gracious lord--" "IF?!!!!!! Thou protector of this damned strumpet-- talks thou to me of 'ifs'? Thou art a traitor: Off with his head! Now, by Saint Paul I swear, I will not dine until I see the same!" 80 RICHARD If? Thou protector of this damnèd strumpet, Talk’st thou to me of “ifs”? Thou art a traitor— Off with his head. Now by Saint Paul I swear I will not dine until I see the same.— Lovell and Ratcliffe, look that it be done.— The rest that love me, rise and follow me. RICHARD If? You lover of that damned whore, you’re talking to me of “ifs”? You’re a traitor.—Off with his head. By Saint Paul, I swear I won’t eat lunch until I see him beheaded.
[quote]Check out the curve on his spine. Shakespeare wasn't kidding about the hunchback king. Ok, I'm curious, How did they know to lay them out in that pattern? From all that I can see those vertebrae could have just as easily been arranged straight up and down. Is there something about the boned themselves that shows the skeleton as "humped"?
[quote]... found in remnants of a Franciscan friary known as Grey Friars I want to know more about this Grey Friars place. Monasteries were great keepers of all kinds of hidden knowledge. Their libraries often kept lots of great literature. Did they find anything else there?
Reminds me of this meme...
http://www.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/legacy/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/526CSI.jpg
[quote]From all that I can see those vertebrae could have just as easily been arranged straight up and down. If you look closely you'll see that they've arranged the vertebrae to follow the natural curve of his spine, like fitting puzzle pieces together. He had scoliosis, a very bad case of it. Fascinating stuff.
They stuck a sword up his butt. An early example of homophobia!
Why isn't one of his shoulders much higher than the other? I have mild scoliosis and have a noticeable shoulder height discrepancy.
oh wow, this is great. I hadn't heard any of this.
another%20Daughter%20of%20Time%20fan
[quote]If you look closely you'll see that they've arranged the vertebrae to follow the natural curve of his spine Is there an HD version of this pic somewhere, cause I can't see how they are fitting to make a curve. They look like straight lined pieces just placed in a curved line.
Another meme which always makes me laugh:
http://www.thedawgpound.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/discount_tent.jpg
The site for the event is up now with a video about the history of the dig and such.
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/
What a fascinating investigation this was. Historians and even "enthusiasts," as the BBC put it (dedicated hobbyists, I take it), contributed to tracing his family tree to the present. They were able to find a descendant of Richard's in Canada for genetic comparison. She died a few years ago, but her son in London provided a DNA sample. I wonder how someone with such a severe case of scoliosis managed to go into battle wearing armor and wielding heavy metal weapons. Such severe curvature can cause damage to the lungs as well as the heart and all of the associated symptomatology.
Richard did not use the term "Saint Paul", Mary r50, he said "The apostle Paul", also he had remarkably good teeth compared to the average Brut today. Maybe there was no sugar, drugs, moder medicine then.
Mrs%20Patrick%20Campbell
Before digging up the grave, they had to apply for permission and had to indicate plans for reburial. They stated that there would be reburial at Leicester Cathedral. Since it has been established that this is Richard III, there's no doubt the reburial will include a lot of pomp.
The Telegraph has a good story with photos.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9847738/Richard-III-to-be-re-interred-in-major-ceremony-at-Leicester-Cathedral.html
R13 is beyond weird.
He got what he had coming to him, as did we.
Margaret%20Beaufort
No r65 - Henry Tudor was the weirdo. Him and that corpulent son of his. A dynasty of psychopaths.
r13 is a nerd. Nothing wrong with that.
Thank you, r68. I'm a history nerd, too, and I've had some "Mary!" moments at historical sites where I've gotten quite verklempt.
r13 here. I refuse to be maimed by your cynical, unromantic and philistine perceptions. Royal heritage makes this land come alive and while I have no love for the infinitely brainless Windsors, I am a Plantaganet loyalist to the end. This is a glorious day!
Could this be the start of another uproar with the Catholic church? Richard III was Catholic but the English now want to bury him in an Anglican cathedral. Some Catholics seem to think he should be buried in Westminster Cathedral (not Abbey).
I'm not very educated on this subject but I don't think I'm crazy about Richard III - he did lock those boys up in a tower and have their bones stored in a wall, after all. But this is a neat thing and, like r61, I really wonder how did anything physical in his life, let alone in battle.
It seems appropriate to bury him in the same area he was initially buried. That is the location of the monks that were nice enough to bury his body in the first place after all. It would do the town and it's history some justice- and bring it lots of tourism.
Leicester deserves this attention. Many places in the English midlands so rich in history, in events and happenings and yet are egregiously overlooked by modern tourists - Leicester, Coventry and Northampton above all. Fantastic, splendid places.
[quote]he did lock those boys up in a tower Did he? Really? Isn't that a legend with no evidence or proof?
Who cares if some guy named Richard is sick?
In the future, we'll all be buried underneath parking lots.
[quote]In 1674, the skeletons of two children were discovered under the staircase leading to the chapel, during the course of renovations to the White Tower. At that time, these were believed to have been the remains of the two princes, and on the orders of Charles II the remains were reburied in Westminster Abbey. In 1933, the grave was opened to see if modern science could cast any light on the issues, and the skeletons were determined to be those of two young children, one aged around seven to eleven and the other around eleven to thirteen.[1] After finding Richard the III, there is renewed interest in doing more test on the boys, but the Grand Old Bird hasn't approved it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower%23Deaths
Henry VII was most likely the one who killed the princes in the tower. Read the fascinating book "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey. Yes it's a novel, but all of the facts are there.
[quote]Yes it's a novel, but all of the facts are there. And this is the logic of the Internet in a nutshell.
I read it just recently. It was on some list as the best mystery novel ever written. I wouldn't go that far. But it most definitely convinced me that Richard III was not behind the murder of the Princes. And that the most likely culprit was Henry VII. Got it from the library.
If he didn't do it himself, have it done for him, he most definitely benefitted from it. r79,r81. Does the book theorize why Richard III never had an official investigation to find the missing boys? Or into who killed them?
[quote]Does the book theorize why Richard III never had an official investigation to find the missing boys? Or into who killed them? Plans are underway to go to court to gain the release of his Twitter messages.
Judy Garland also had scoliosis.
As did Kurt Cobain.
Cobain and Garland? That certainly puts their substance abuse into a slightly different light if they were dealing with chronic pain resulting from it.
Scoliosis doesn't always cause pain or does it have to be crippling. My mother has it and it has never been an issue. It simply kept her out of gym class. Obviously KRIII's was a very bad case.
Also that Gillian woman from Britain's You Are What You Eat program. She has written about the pain she has endured due to scoliosis.
[quote]Shakespeare wasn't kidding about the hunchback king. He wasn't a hunchback; he had scoliosis. The hunchback thing was Tudor propaganda. Shakespeare was also obviously writing for a biased audience.
Severe cases have to cause some type of abnormal appearance.
You can see the severity of the scoliosis in the skeleton. It would have caused him to be lopsided and not hunched over.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/odd/news/a456102/richard-iii-dig-dna-confirms-bones-beneath-car-park-belong-to-king.html
Shakespeare also proabably realized that Scoliosis is not as physically dramatic as a hunchback and wouldn't make the character standout on stage or from a distance. It's something that might be noticeable via uneven shoulders and possibly a forward hunch but under clothing the appearance would not be as obvious as a hunched back.
r82, Richard never ordered an investigation because they weren't missing while he was alive. Henry VII had a VERY tenuous claim to the throne (long story). In order to secure the claim, he married the little princes oldest sister, Elizabeth (their father was Edward IV, Richard's older brother). But all Exward IV's children had been proclaimed bastards (another long story), which is how Richard came to the throne in the first place. So in order to validate his claim to the throne via marriage, Henry VII had to make Elizabeth legitimate again. But in doing so that made her brothers (the little princes) legitimate again, and if they were still alive (which they were) then the older one was the true king. Henry VII had them killed so there would be no barriers to his being king. That's over-simplifying it tremendously, but that's the heart of the argument.
Mary Tudor!
Still seems to me Richard had a more powerful motive, since with the boys alive he had no claim to the throne.
"He wasn't a hunchback; he had scoliosis." Sigh. A "hunchback" IS a person with severe, untreated scoliosis. FYI scoliosis has been treatable since the early 20th century, which is why you don't see "hunchbacks" any more.
ORlY r93? R III died in 1485. The boys went missing in 1483
Hunchback is kyphosis, which is different from scoliosis.
This skeleton appears hunched, though it's not the medically correct term for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abnormal_bone_growth.jpg
R56, sounds like your scoliosis is an S curve which would make your shoulders uneven. This seems to be what is known as a C curve. The severity and type of curve impacts internal organs over time differently in each case. They are still looking for other descendants noted in this article. Scroll down to one of the comments on the bottom. The side story of the great grandmother having an affair when someone had their DNA tested is priceless. You have to wonder if the "adoptive" father had any inkling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/dec/08/genetic-test-dna-richard-3-skeleton
R96 Kyphosis is not the same as scoliosis. Scoliosis is a side to side curvature whereas Kyphosis creates the hunch in the back. appearances of each are different.
No, they didn't, r97. That's Tudor propaganda. No, r95, he didn't. Richard didn't want to be king, but when his brother Edward IV died, the boys and their sisters were proclaimed illegitimate. Richard was named Regent in his brother's will, he would have been king in all by name until Edward V was 18, but when the claims of illegitimacy were made (technically they were legal claims, although they could have been fought in a court of ecclesiastical law) it was safer for the country for Richard to take the throne. He sent the boys way off for their protection and education, but there are letters that mention them after 1483. The Tudors suppressed these letters. In all likelihood Richard intended to pursue the reversal of the illegitimacy and then turn the throne over to Edward when he turned 18. England was in a very precarious state politically when Edward IV died in 1483. A Regency would have torn the country apart, which is why Richard took the course that he did, claiming the throne. And as events played out, he was right. Imagine if Henry Tudor had come sweeping in to try and take the throne from a 12 year old boy. Richard was able to hold the country together very neatly, and would have defeated Henry VII at Bosworth if the leader of a third of his army hadn't turned traitor and deserted him.
(Bloody) Mary Tudor!
R92 - That is untrue. The first reports that the princes had been disposed of occurred during Richard III's reign. A simple public walk by them across Tower Green would have ended such rumours, but it never happened. Most serious defenders of Richard accept the likelihood that the princes died then, but try to blame the duke of Buckingham or the Tower officials. And R102 is presenting fantasy history. The Yorkist sucession was wholly secure by then, and Henry of Richmond an exiled nobody. It was Richard who destroyed the Yorkist regime and re-ignited chaos and he paid the price - an probably inevitable one once his only son had died. He was a good (if pretty unethical) Number Two to his brother, who got ambitious and went down to disaster.
r104 knows his Shakespeare.
r82,103 etc. Will you please cite your sources? I'm not totally opposed to the idea of RII being a maligned martyr but I'd like to read more about this from an actual verifiable source— not a novel.
I mean r93, r102, etc
The Duke if Buckingham was charged with their care and protection. Buckingham is my choice for the killer. He had a motive, he had access and he had opportunity. Sharon Kay Penman writes some incredibly well researched historical novels. The Sunne in Splendor is the story of the War of the Roses, of The House of LAncaster and the House of York, excellent book, and yes, I too get verklempt. I love history and often feel very moved when I am at a site related to something I've read and loved. I once got teary eyed on my first visit to Napoleon's tomb. Not even because I like Napoleon. But because it was real and I'd only ever read about it. I felt the same way at Gettysburg.
Maybe there are some important royals buried under the ASDA.
Historical novels won't investigate things properly- of course not: that's not what they're for. There are plenty of good surveys of Richard's reign (by which I mean books and articles by historians with no particular axe to grind). Micaael Hicks's 'Richard III and his rivals', Rosemary Horrox, 'Richard III: a study of service' and Charles Ross's older 'Richard III' are all good.
Was it him or not?
Aye, r111. God save the king!!!!!!!!!
It%27s%20a%20bit%20late%20for%20that...
r13, was that before you lost your virginity? Because I certainly hope it was.
R106 (et al), Read Sir George Buck (16th century), read Sir Horace Walpole (18th century), read Paul Murray Kendall's definitive (and exhaustively researched) biography of Richard (published mid-20th century. They are not novels. Check out the sources and research material available on the Richard III society's website. However, Josephine Tey (Elizabeth Macintosh), who wrote The Daughter of Time, did extensive research on Richard before she wrote her novel. The fact that's its presented in fiction form doesn't not lessen the accuracy or veracity of the facts that were presented. Pretty much every point she makes is sourced and cited, but because it's a novel it's not done as a footnote or bibliography, but as part of the narrative. Read the book. I think you will find it both enjoyable and informative.
r113, I lost my virginity that day at Bosworth Field actually. A member of the regional battle reconstruction that day took me from behind, in full armour. One of my fantasies fulfilled.
This is so neat. He had magnificent teeth for a brit.
He wasn't that bad looking:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21328380
James Blake and Princess Eugenie also have Scoliosis with Eugenie having an operation to correct it a few years ago. I also have Scoliosis and had the operation a few years ago, while swimming and gym keeps it in check. However, had I lived in medieval times I would probably have had a back similar to Richard's and with the lack of medical understanding at the time many would have viewed sufferers as having some form of 'curse' which is probably what hit Richard's reputation, along with Tudor propoganda!
HYUFD
Other celebrities with Scoliosis include Sarah Michelle-Geller, Melanie Blatt, Chloe Sevigny,John Lydon, conducter Jeffrey Tate,Rebecca Romijn, Vanessa Williams, cricketer Andrew Flintoff and the late Liz Taylor according to Google and even Usain Bolt apparently (but keeping his back muscles strong has helped!)
HYUFD
Didn't Rene Russo have scoliosis? She's said she wore a back brace throughout middle/high school.
"I wonder how someone with such a severe case of scoliosis managed to go into battle wearing armor and wielding heavy metal weapons." Kings in Richard's day did not personally wield weapons, they oversaw the battle and gave orders. Well, they may have drawn their swords on occasion if they were unusally fit, but a king with scoliosis bought some nice show armor and learned about strategy.
Clearly it's not debilitating if cared for properly. I remember having screenings for it in junior high. I'm just stunned that someone with such a severe case could have mounted a horse, worn armor, carried weapons, and executed the movements required in combat. He must have drunk to manage the pain. And muster up the courage.
But Richard apparently participated fully in the Battle of Bosworth. I suspect his armourer/blacksmith could create something that compensated for the curvature of his spine.
Didn't see R121's post before I posted.
R122
Wasn't there a big traitor to Richard III in the Battle of Bosworth? Secretly aligned with his troops with Henry VII? Lord somebody?
First of all, this is just incredibly fascinating! Thank OP for starting this fantastic thread! So many posters on this thread have contribute so much interesting input. Its threads like these make DL fun and exciting! Wasn't Richard gay? I read that more than once. BTW, Liz Taylor had Scoliosis Those who immensely love, and highly appreciate history sometimes get overwhelmed with emotions when they are are on the very spot where an historic event took place, and where that figure of history is buried.you read about these things especially when you were a kid and your imagination soars and there you are standing at the very epicenter. You don't have to be from that particular country of origin to appreciate the history because true history lovers have no historic boundaries. I spoke with a couple of people who went to England,and who cried when they went to churches that contained the tombs of so many historic figures, royalty, writers, poets, etc. They said it was a very overwhelming experience.I don't get emotionally teary eyed at historic sites but I understand it. In my case, I get the feeling of excitement inside of like its Christmas or like the various times when I was a kid going to Disneyland. I don't think a person is a nerd who has a passion for history. Its better then getting emotional over these lose entertainers now a days who have done nothing to contribute to history in a profound way good or bad.
Homosexuality didn't exist in the Middle Ages.
[quote]Homosexuality didn't exist in the Middle Ages. Excuse me?
Edward%20II
Richard III is an actor's dream. The late Vincent Price gave an over the top performance as the hunchback king in 1960's "Tower of London."
Moviola
It was merely buggery back then.
I once saw Carol Channing play Richard III in a really crappy production at regional theater just outside of Altoona. She got raves...!!! You know how popular Carol Channing is in the regions!
Homosexuality did not exist until 1900 or so, when it was invented by Robert Ross.
It is rumored that apostle Paul was Gay, r128
Richard Simmons appears to be scoliotic, too.
But dead he is.
R133, now that is pure BS!
Certainly not R136. His bowels were always yearning on guys.
R136, just because he was single and lived his life dedicated for his spiritual purposes by going to various churches to preach, doesn't make him gay! He wasn't a Catholic priest who had major issues. Besides, the Catholic religion clashes with the bible anyway.
This "discovery" leaves me very confused
Really, if he was single than how did he beget Oneismus in his bondage? I guess you're thinking Oneismus was his lover.
quote]Wasn't Richard gay? I read that more than once. I think you're probably thinking of Richard I, not III. Of course we'll never know for sure. They did stab him in the buttock and all.
Headline from the future: "Remains of British Monarch Discovered in Ruins of Ancient 21st-century Casino in New Shanghai."
Akbar
I can certainly believe that the true culprit of the Princes death was the Tudor one. The Tudor race was evil, as Henry VIII would prove.
They were hardly a race, o Oxford don.
Thanks r110, and r114
^ sorry, I continue here. That being said, if the two Princes had survived, who is not to say that the younger one (named Richard also) would have not started some civil war and in the end the York house would have destroyed itself. And it probably would, the boys' mother (Elizabeth Woodville) was a very ambitious, unscrupulous woman. She would not have gotten the regency or the upbringing of her eldest son (Edward) but probably would have raised her youngest one (Richard). And probably would have turned him against his brother.
Didn't the Tudors kill off a bunch of other potential rivals for the throne, including Lady Grey?
[quote]If so, I guess he really DID pave the way for the Tudors. Brilliant opening line.
They paved Richard Three and put up a parking lot! (Oooh, bop bop bop bop!)
Joni%20Mitchell
So was gay sex called 'the beast with one back'?
[quote] He had magnificent teeth for a brit.[/quote] But wasn't he really a Norman? Aren't Normans part Viking and French and something else all wrapped into one? Their Wiki page explains finding blonds in some far off places, like Sicily. They were in Greece and Armenia as well. Ireland and Scotland and of course, England. There are so many Frenchy women mixed in with their Plantagenet line. The Normans were very adaptive and respecting of the cultures they conquered which allowed them to waltz right in without wasting energies on conflict. A concept that other groups who insist on religious identity fail to understand today. The trick to success is to blend. Expand your identity with acceptance of the good traits from other groups. Brilliant.
http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_18.htm
[quote]Wasn't Richard gay? I read that more than once. [quote]I think you're probably thinking of Richard I, not III. Richard II (great-grandson of Edward II) was also said to be gay with one of the DeVere earls. Not to take anything away of the delicious thought of the young Anthony Hopkins as Richard I getting it on with the young Timothy Dalton as Philip II. [quote]Of course we'll never know for sure. They did stab him in the buttock and all. They're saying that's a old nail from the church that fell into the grave site.
Now--importantly--has anyone heard from DL fave Philippa Gregory?
Damn R149 you beat me to it!!
[quote] Homosexuality didn't exist in the Middle Ages. This is an accurate statement - the concept of homosexuality and the name for it didn't come about until the late 1800's. German doctors/psychiatrists developed various theories on the idea. It existed beforehand (obviously) but appears to have been considered more of an action, not an identity.
Lady Jane Grey was beheaded after her father pushed her onto the throne for a hot minute after the death of Edward VI.
Don%27t%20Fuck%20with%20Mary%20Tudor%2C%20bitches
"Men for pleasure and fish for reproductia" was the rule back in the glorious olden days - and how glorious they truly must have been!
Mrs%20Patrick%20Campbell%20%28his-torian%29
Now is the winter of our...say, do you validate?
Dick III
They have now discovered what Richard III SOUNDED like - brace yourselves:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/richard-iii-voice-of-a-king---1587264
He looks like Bono.
I refuse to believe that they can tell what someone sounded like from a skeleton. Ludicrous.
[quote]I refuse to believe that they can tell what someone sounded like from a skeleton. Ludicrous. The skeleton has nothing to do with the conjecture, which is based on an analysis of RIII's writing style.
From everything I've read of that period, they spoke French. The educated ruling classes especially. Norman influence extended for quite some time. They probably did speak some form of English as well, but it was their second language, and to say he had a Midlands accent is absurd. The Celtic/Saxon based language was still evolving. Yes there were regional variances, but English was regarded as coarse, crude, and the language of illiterates for the most part. That's not to say it wasn't used, but it was certainly looked down upon during that particular time. French was the court language and it was, in fact the language of their every day speech. They also were very familiar with Latin since it was the Legal, official language of various documents. This guy sounds like he doesn't know from bupkus.
[quote]From everything I've read of that period, they spoke French. You should do some more reading.
They were actually in the parking lot looking for a two door hatchback. Found a Tudor hunchback. Whatever.
The English court spoke English in the 15th century. This is hardly obscure or difficult-to-discover information.
The Royal Family are going to owe a bloody big parking fine.
They killed Richard the 3rd/ Put up a parking lot.
He doesn't look a thing like Ian McKellan.
ooh, r169, we should cast it. Alexander Skarsgard for Edward IV? Claire Danes for Elizabeth Woodville? Joseph Gordon-Levitt for Richard III?
Yes let's cast it r170 (without the actors you named)
Richard the Third was a lousy lay.
Mistress Shore
[quote]Found a Tudor hunchback. Except he wasn't a Tudor. That's what killed him.
They also spoke French, true.
So basically -both were capable of killing the Princes.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/04/1184656/-Why-We-Should-Care-About-Richard-III
my buddy's mother makes $71 hourly on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her pay was $14286 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site jump80.com
[quote] Is Richard III buried under a parking lot? It's a car park. A municiple car park
I hope they are not going to reseal that dig. I hope the keep it open for the future archeological and historic purposes.
Those bastards up in York are trying to claim the skeleton. Leicester paid for this dig, funded everything and now the North are trying to steal the glory and publicity from the Midlands.
[quote]Is Richard III buried under a parking lot? [quote]It's a car park. A municiple car park A parking lot in the U.S. is where cars are parked. Isn't a car park also a place where cars are parked in England?
I guess the genetics are too far back for scoliosis to be a concern in the present generations. A more recent problem has been hemophilia, but I guess that has pretty much died out too...
[quote] Those bastards up in York are trying to claim the skeleton. Leicester paid for this dig, funded everything and now the North are trying to steal the glory and publicity from the Midlands. I had no idea there were such regional factions. Should we expect a civil war soon? Perhaps dueling serial killers?
Oh Dear! Richard the Third, what're we gonna do!
Balderic
I'm not getting this. They are saying QEII refuses to approves of DNA testing for the bones of the children that were found a long while ago? Let's say they did test them and discovered that they are the two young Princes, Richard III's nephews. It still wouldn't prove he killed them. Even if they proved the Princes were poisoned or whatever, it wouldn't prove a thing in so far as who did it. I am one who feels Richard should be interred at York. That was his home. Leicester is merely where he was killed. I can certainly understand why the Queen has a concern about everyone crawling out from under rocks wanting DNA testing for a myriad of reasons. What they need to do over there, is set up some kind of commission to determine who and under what circumstances a request is considered legitimate rather than frivolous. I understand that it can be a ridiculous mess, and costly, but the Crown doesn't have to pay for it. In those cases where there is a legitimate, approved request for testing, the people making the request should pay.
[quote]I am one who feels Richard should be interred at York. That was his home. Can you share the name of his castle in York? I can not find it.
I know he was of the House of York, and he grew up there. He was a king of England and I am not one who feels he was a monster or a murderer. I think he should be buried at The Minster, which is magnificent and a proper place for the Duke of York/King of England to be buried.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Minster
Sorry, I am mistaken. Richard was Duke of Gloucester, not York. But he was born and lived there until his father was killed, and later when his brther was King, Richard was responsible for the entire area of the north, and York was his home base. But as I said, he is of the House of York, and there is no prominent figure buried at York. The argument for Leicester centers around how great it would be for their economy. But that isn't a primary consideration if you are respectful of history. Tell Leicester to turn the car park into some kind of achaeological memorial, and let Richard go to the Minster at York.
Since he was Catholic, he should be reburied in a Catholic setting like Westminster Cathedral, not a Church of England location.
Why not bury him at Bosworth?
HA!!! York Minster has denied its own region's calls to bring the skeleton back, saying it should remain in Leicester. SUCK ON IT YORK!!!! You're just wanting the bones to boost tourism!
http://m.yorkpress.co.uk/news/10213806.Minster_does_not_want_remains_of_Richard_III/
r189, if you can in your life, make the journey to Boswoth Field. It is absolutely remarkable there. When you reach the well where Richard contemplated his fate, you will understand why I became emotional. It's not some kind of affectation. It's like a whole different aura exists there. I can't explain it. This is what the well looks like - when you get to Bosworth, you will be directed onto the trail and eventually you will find it.
http://www.r3.org/bosworth/img2/well1.html
Thank you, R191. I'm not R189, but I get very emotional and I also feel the power when visiting certain authentic historical sites. The first time I was conscious of this was as a high school student, we took a day trip to the Battlefield at Gettysburg. I believe there are many places in this world, historical places of seeming tranquility, and one feels the unquiet spirits or the power of the place. I plan to return to England and see this . It is one of those places I missed in previous visits.
R187
The decision by the Dean of York Minster is shameful. I agree with the commenters.
r193, what is shameful is Yorkshire pillocks trying to take away Leicestershire's moment in the sun.
Not to sound like one of those Stormfront et. al crazies but what subrace/type would the Windsor family fall under? How about the Planagenet line? Norman-Celtic? Here is a quiz to identify your subrace (Northern European only). European subrace test
http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the-european-subrace-test
The interest in testing the two boys' DNA might be in identifying whom they are there is a dispute that they are the princes. Their was a persistent Anastasia-like believe that they were not the princes and that Edward IV's sons had survived him. This theory led to the pretender Perkin Warbeck's claim that he was Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, in the 1490s. However, I don't see how Elizabeth could have any fear for the throne or the country should, at this point, the DNA analysis reveal that the skeletons are not those of the princes.
[quote]I don't see how Elizabeth could have any fear for the throne She doesn't have any fear for the throne. That's just a typical DL fantasy. The identity of the bones of the young boys doesn't matter to her. Why should it? If they start looking at their DNA, soon you'll have idiots wanting to dig up everyone in Westminster Abbey to do DNA testing.
Henry Tudor/VII married Richard's neice who was a Plantagenet (Elizabeth of York), thereby uniting the houses of York and Lancaster (which Tudor represented by 1485). So Queen Elizabeth I was related to both. Henry VII had a daughter amongst his children, Margaret, who married the King of Scotland. Her great grandson if i'm not mistaken was James VI, who became James I of England, thereby uniting England and Scotland.
[quote]I am one who feels Richard should be interred at York. That was his home. I agree, not that it particularly matters in the end. York was where, after his death when it was dangerous to do so, they spoke out to praise him. Leicestershire is just where he was murdered. They aren't even going to bury him in a Catholic church according to his faith. I'd imagine if it were my bones were dug up, I'd want to be buried in York, not to honor some University/City's "finders keepers".
[quote]If they start looking at their DNA, soon you'll have idiots wanting to dig up everyone in Westminster Abbey to do DNA testing. That would horrible, but I have to admit it would be interesting. History is littered with accusations of illegitimacy. If the accusations were even halfway believable (which they're not to me, I doubt that many women were taking the risk of sleeping around at the frequency the accusations suggest), we should see some DNA confirmation.
r199, but over the centuries, Leicester has been identified with Richard and has come to love him. The York troublemakers are acting like they've been wanting to dig the car park up for years - why have we never heard a peep out of them until the skeleton's identity was confirmed?!
R198, thank you. Yes, Elizabeth of York was King Edward's daughter and Richard's ward after her father died, but I don't think she was the daughter of Edward's widow. Richard himself had no legitimate children, but I think he may have had two illegitimate sons. I wonder what became of them. I really don't understand why the Leicester people have prevailed. Leicester should be gracious, and doing right by York. I have to wonder why Leicester never went to York to consult or petition that the Archaeological dig ve co-sponsored. It's just wrong. You wait. They'll inter him at Leicester, and then ten years from now for some reason they'll move him to York.
Eizabeth of York was indeed Elizabeth Woodville's daughter. i was mistaken. Edward had mistresses but only one wife.
R202, Richard III and his wife Anne (1456–1485) had one child, a boy named Edward who died young. From Anne's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: [italic]The death of her son, Edward, on 9 April 1484 was a shattering blow to both parents, who were described by the Crowland continuator as 'almost out of their minds for a long time when faced with the sudden grief' (Crowland Chronicle, 170–1)[/italic] Richard also had at least two illegitimate children who were born before his marriage. More info on Richard's bastards at the link.
http://www.r3.org/basics/basic6.html%23bastard2
The link at R195, my results came back "undetermined" Your exact European racial type cannot be determined by this quiz. It is highly probably that you are a good admixture of several different types. Your test score is below: Nordic characteristics: 10 Alpine characteristics: 3 Mediterranean characterisitics: 9 Dinaric characterisitics: 6 East Baltic characteristics: 4
The discovery of Richard’s remains also taps into a consumer obsession with criminal culture, the forensic specialist as history maker. American crime novellas and mini-series have paved the way for that, making the discovery of corpses through such characters as Dr. Temperance “Bones” Brennan sparklingly sexy. A visiting centre in Leicester is already being planned after the discovery. The University of Leicester is eager for increased publicity – as the press conference showed all too vividly: “The University of Leicester confirms the discovery of Richard III.” The City of York, however, will have none of this chest beating nonsense, and demands the royal bones in what has become a Plantagenet dispute in modern dress. This point is entirely missed on an overly enthusiastic Lemont Dobson of the School of Public Service and Global Citizenship at Central Michigan University. “This is one of those things where people are talking about archaeology and real science, not pseudoscience on television” (Christian Science Monitor, Feb 4). Expect, it would seem, an exhumation craze in due course, something the Church of England, the Queen and her ministers have been fearful of entertaining. Legitimacy might be lost in an instant. The entire episode has troubled a few scientists, who have shaken heads at the release of the results before further tests were done to rule out DNA contamination (The Atlantic, Feb 7). Maria Avila, a computational biologist at the Centre for GeoGenetics at the Natural History Museum of Denmark was sceptical. “The DNA results presented today are too weak, as they stand, to support the claim that DNA is actually from Richard III.” But it remains the dramatisation of the figure which survives any DNA efforts. As the Cambridge classicist Mary Beard tweeted with resounding common sense, “Does it have any HISTORICAL significance?” Other than causing a spike in commercial interest and a popularisation of archaeology, probably not. Shakespeare will remain, as he has been for centuries, the true interpreter of Richard’s legacy.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/08/richard-iii-in-history/
R202 Isn't it the Leicester people who first initiated and then paid for the dig? And the dna testing?