Richard III found under a carpark!

Judgement Day

Confirmation today that the skeletal remains found under a Leicestershire carpark are those of the ill fated King Richard III (King of England and France, Lord of Ireland) who died at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. Richard, whose forces outnumbered his rival Henry (Earl of Richmond) was in control until being betrayed by the Stanleys who switched sides to join Henry at a pivotal moment in the battle. Seeing that all was in danger of being lost Richard led a futile charge towards Henry but was cut down within yards of his goal. The last Plantagenet King and the last King to die in battle on British soil.

The immortal lines "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" were supposed to have been uttered by Richard but I think that was a Shakespearean addition and "Treason, treason" - referring to the Stanleys -are the more usually accepted. Fascinating stuff and, as usual, in England the scene is now set for a State funeral, a new museum etc.etc.


Resting place for over 500 years of King Richard III. Photo: University of Leicester.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-britain-richard-idUSBRE9130BW20130204

mike65

They were following a hunch.

Madam

I wonder if we'll find out if he really was disabled in some way(curvature of the spine being one of his ailments supposedly)?

ardmacha

Well, Here's Another Fine Mess You've Gotten Me Into, Stanley .......

tac foley

Madam wrote: »

I wonder if we'll find out if he really was disabled in some way(curvature of the spine being one of his ailments supposedly)?

Yes, the spine DID show signs of late childhood scoliosis, but Shakespear[e] got it wrong about the withered arm.

As a very long time member of the Richard III Society, I am very happy that the last King who could call himself English without his tongue being firmly in his cheek will get a proper burial at last.

tac

ronoc 1

was watching the conference this morning and i thought they did a great job at explaining their conclusions.looking forward to the documentary tonight on channel 4.

richard is one of my favourite historical figures but ive always been bothered at why he led that fatal charge at bosworth field,i mean if the battle was turning against him he should have retreated and fought at another time.I mean he was the king so surely he had better resources than henry.

Jolly Red Giant

This is a massive find - to be able to identify a skeleton that is more than 600 years old from an archaeological dig is remarkable. The continuing evidence that will emerge from this will significanly enhance the historiography of this period.

Judgement Day

Interestingly the descendants of both the Stanleys (Earls of Derby and formerly Lords of Mann) continue to thrive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Stanley,_19th_Earl_of_Derby and the descendants of the less fortunate Richard III ...

Researchers were confident they had found Richard III, but the final green light came just hours before more than 150 journalists were due to gather for the announcement, with the confirmation of the DNA results.
Geneticist Turi King revealed that the skeleton's DNA matched that of two descendants of Richard's sister, Anne of York – a Canadian-born carpenter, Michael Ibsen, and another person who wishes to remain anonymous.
It presented a "strong and compelling case that these are indeed the remains of Richard III", King said.
Ibsen, the 17th generation descendant, said he was "stunned" at the discovery, and was looking forward to seeing the facial reconstruction.
There had been debate about what to do with the bones amid calls from some for them to be buried in the city of York, Richard's power base, but it has been decided that his final resting place will be Leicester Cathedral.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9847418/Richard-III-descendant-privileged-to-play-part-in-royal-discovery.html

Alicat

I'm amazed at how easy it was to find him! Obviously, it wasn't easy for Philippa Langley, who I'm sure spent months and months researching his possible burial places, but to arrive at the carpark and find the bones in one of their opening trenches is amazing.

robp

I'm very curious to see how they achieved a DNA match to his closest living relative after 17 generations. I don't think any paper has been published yet so I am sitting on the fence until then.

Balmed Out

Alicat wrote: »

I'm amazed at how easy it was to find him! Obviously, it wasn't easy for Philippa Langley, who I'm sure spent months and months researching his possible burial places, but to arrive at the carpark and find the bones in one of their opening trenches is amazing.

What amazed me is that the letter "R" was written there.

BostonB

robp wrote: »

I'm very curious to see how they achieved a DNA match to his closest living relative after 17 generations. I don't think any paper has been published yet so I am sitting on the fence until then.

Some more here...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/04/richard-iii-skeleton-bone-dna

Snickers Man

tac foley wrote: »

the last King who could call himself English without his tongue being firmly in his cheek

English me arse! His granny was a Westmeath woman (Anne Mortimer) and his great granny, Isabella of Castille, was Spanish.

He could have played for a number of teams.

yellowlabrador

Snickers Man wrote: »

English me arse! His granny was a Westmeath woman (Anne Mortimer) and his great granny, Isabella of Castille, was Spanish.

He could have played for a number of teams.

Not to mention that the Plantagenets were French.

redlead

I find it interesting that the ceremony in Leicester Cathedral will presumably be an Anglican one despite the fact that Richard III was Catholic. Whose decision is this? It is all the more ironic due to the fact that it was Henry Tudor who killed him whose son went on to create the Anglican church. It doesn't bother me in the least, but I'm surprised that more of an issue isn't being raised that his burial ceremony will not be conducted in his own faith.

tac foley

yellowlabrador wrote: »

Not to mention that the Plantagenets were French.

And, in answer, by his time, they had been calling themselves English for a couple of hundred years.

Right now I'm more inclined to marvel at the manner of the finding of his remains, rather than poking holes in his background.

Next I'll be informed that Alfred the Great, who actually called himself The first King of the English, was actually from somewhere east of present-day Berlin.

tac

knucklehead6

I'm just coming to the end of the C4 documentary here, and I have to admit to being fascinated.....BUT.....
And I don't mean to be stirring stuff here, how can there be a state funeral? The current heads of state are from the house of Windsor, so how can they allow a state funeral for a member of the house of Plantagenet?

donaghs

From what I've read so far, in the news, it's not entirely convincing that this is actually Richard III?

The main link seems to be the DNA evidence? But still some questions about that too: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2013/02/leicester-body-richard-iii.html

Interesting story all the same

donaghs

redlead wrote: »

I find it interesting that the ceremony in Leicester Cathedral will presumably be an Anglican one despite the fact that Richard III was Catholic. Whose decision is this? It is all the more ironic due to the fact that it was Henry Tudor who killed him whose son went on to create the Anglican church. It doesn't bother me in the least, but I'm surprised that more of an issue isn't being raised that his burial ceremony will not be conducted in his own faith.

The CofE claims to the direct descendent of pre-reformation Christianity. But true, Richard would be more used the Latin Mass as once practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. However, he may not have been comfortable with some developments like Vatican II!

knucklehead6

donaghs wrote: »

From what I've read so far, in the news, it's not entirely convincing that this is actually Richard III?

The main link seems to be the DNA evidence? But still some questions about that too: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2013/02/leicester-body-richard-iii.html

Interesting story all the same

I'd be inclined to believe that it is him, given all the other factors to be taken into consideration, the injuries, the deformation of the spine etc...

Snickers Man

knucklehead6 wrote: »

how can there be a state funeral? The current heads of state are from the house of Windsor, so how can they allow a state funeral for a member of the house of Plantagenet?

Ah come on now. Richard was the third cousin seventeen times removed of the current sovereign, Elizabeth II.

To name but one connection.


Richard III and Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond were third cousins, each having been a great-great grandchild of King Edward III.

Margaret Beaufort was the mother of Henry VII, nemesis of Richard III and a direct ancestor of the current queen. Her (Margaret's) direct line of descent goes through the Tudors, branching off into the Stuarts and from there to the Hanoverians who became Kings of England in the 18th century when it was decided that Papists were unsuitable for the job.

Corruptedmorals

Snickers Man wrote: »

Ah come on now. Richard was the third cousin seventeen times removed of the current sovereign, Elizabeth II.

To name but one connection.


Richard III and Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond were third cousins, each having been a great-great grandchild of King Edward III.

Margaret Beaufort was the mother of Henry VII, nemesis of Richard III and a direct ancestor of the current queen. Her (Margaret's) direct line of descent goes through the Tudors, branching off into the Stuarts and from there to the Hanoverians who became Kings of England in the 18th century when it was decided that Papists were unsuitable for the job.

I would not call Margaret a direct ancestor? Depends what you mean by direct. The Tudor-Stuart link isn't that bad, but the Hanoverian one was..didn't they pass 60+ Catholic claimants? They ARE related, but barely.

Curly Judge

If you go back far enough his ancestor was a monkey: same as us all.
That said:
Facinating history!
Facinating forensics!
Facinating Telly!
I feel privileged to have lived in such a time>

Cavehill Red

British citizens and residents can petition the government to respect Richard's own wishes and have him buried at York Minster instead:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38772

mickmackey1

Curly Judge wrote: »

If you go back far enough his ancestor was a monkey: same as us all.>

So where did the monkeys come from?

Curly Judge

mickmackey1 wrote: »

So where did the monkeys come from?

From the zoo, of course!

mickmackey1

Curly Judge wrote: »

From the zoo, of course!

Yes of course, silly me..:pac:

tac foley

Cavehill Red wrote: »

British citizens and residents can petition the government to respect Richard's own wishes and have him buried at York Minster instead:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38772

The decision was announced this afternoon - Richard's remains will be laid to rest in Leicester Cathedral next year.

Quote -
The battle over where Richard III's remains will end up has been won - by the city where his body was found under a car park.

Leicester has ended up being the final destination for the king's remains after York, the other contender, gave up the fight.

York Minster announced that it believed the King's remains should be commended "to Leicester's care".

Support for York as a final resting place had been growing with 11,000 people signing a petition calling for his remains to be brought to the city.
As a member of the House of York, Richard III would have regarded York as the centre of his support.

But people in Leicester had been equally keen for his remains stay in the city. He was buried there for more than 500 years since being taken to the city following his death at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.

End Quote.

tac

Curly Judge

tac foley wrote: »

The decision was announced this afternoon - Richard's remains will be laid to rest in Leicester Cathedral next year.

Quote -
The battle over where Richard III's remains will end up has been won - by the city where his body was found under a car park.

Leicester has ended up being the final destination for the king's remains after York, the other contender, gave up the fight.

York Minster announced that it believed the King's remains should be commended "to Leicester's care".

Support for York as a final resting place had been growing with 11,000 people signing a petition calling for his remains to be brought to the city.
As a member of the House of York, Richard III would have regarded York as the centre of his support.

But people in Leicester had been equally keen for his remains stay in the city. He was buried there for more than 500 years since being taken to the city following his death at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.

End Quote.

tac

Disgraceful!
I move that we catholics dig up Guy Fawkes.

steddyeddy

That's brilliant. DNA should be able to tell us a lot about him. It's good also because it could serve to give you english people a sense of interest in their history.

Snickers Man

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

I would not call Margaret a direct ancestor? Depends what you mean by direct. The Tudor-Stuart link isn't that bad, but the Hanoverian one was..didn't they pass 60+ Catholic claimants? They ARE related, but barely.

What other meaning of direct ancestor is there?

Margaret Beaufort WAS a direct ancestor of the current queen. This is fact, so far as can be demonstrated with genealogical records.

She was the Great Great Great (times 15) grandmother of Queen Elizabeth II

Margaret Beaufort was the mother of Henry VII who as well as being the father of Henry VIII was also the father of Margaret Tudor who married James IV of Scotland.

She was the mother of James V of Scotland who was the father of Mary Queen of Scots.

She was the mother of James VI of Scotland who became James I of England once Henry VIII's direct descendants died out.

James I, was father of Charles I and also the father of Elizabeth Stuart who married Frederick V, Elector of Palatine and briefly King of Bohemia.

For several reasons, one of them being that they were a protestant family, Frederick and Elizabeth were booted off the throne of Bohemia by forces of the Holy Roman Empire in what started off the notorious 30 Years War(s) in Europe. They became known henceforth as the Winter King and Queen of Bohemia, for being the wrong religion on the wrong throne at the wrong time.

With history's great tendency for irony, their grandson was to benefit from his Stuart cousins being excluded from their rightful ascension to the throne of Britain precisely because they were Catholics and therefore the wrong religion for the wrong throne at the wrong time.

Frederick and Elizabeth's daughter was Sophia of Hannover who was mother of George I of Britain. He was parachuted on to the British throne in the early 18th century, despite not having a word of English, because the Act of Settlement following the Williamite Jacobite Wars (or the Glorious Revolution as the British call it) insisted on only protestants being eligible for the monarchy.

George I was father of George II who was grandfather of George III who was grandfather of Queen Victoria.

She begat Edward VII who begat George V who begat George VI who was the current queen's daddy.

Clear now?

quickbeam

I wonder if the same descendant could be used to verify that the bones of the two boys dug up in the 17th century were the Princes in the Tower - Richard III's nephews. Would be great to have verification.

pinkypinky

quickbeam wrote: »

I wonder if the same descendant could be used to verify that the bones of the two boys dug up in the 17th century were the Princes in the Tower - Richard III's nephews. Would be great to have verification.

I'm so hoping that this is going to reignite that debate...he'd be a similar relation. Anne of York, the ancestor of Michael Ibsen, was their aunt. They'd have to get royal permission to open it up though - aren't they buried in Westminister Abbey?

GhostInTheRuins

The documentary is on right now, on 4seven for anyone like myself that missed it the first time.

Reekwind

Snickers Man wrote: »

For several reasons, one of them being that they were a protestant family, Frederick and Elizabeth were booted off the throne...

And mostly because they'd been offered the throne by Protestant nobles in revolt against the Holy Roman Emperor. Frederick's rash ambition did much to spark the subsequent decades of war. As Christian IV of Denmark seethed, "Who advised you to drive out kings and seize kingdoms?"

Manach

Bumping an old thread, an article on the re-burial of Richard III might be of interest.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-31990721

tac foley

We are off shortly to see the last real King of England buried properly.

tac

Del.Monte

Manach wrote: »

Bumping an old thread, an article on the re-burial of Richard III (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-31990721) might be of interest.

Does not compute - the link that is.

Manach

Del.Monte wrote: »

Does not compute - the link that is.

Hopefully fixed

steamengine

And how come he wound up in a car park, did his horse get clamped or what ?

tac foley

Very droll.

You will, of course, now direct me to where we can visit the grave of a King of Ireland and pay our respects.

tac

who the fug

How are they squaring burying a Catholic in a Protestant church.

tac foley

Interesting to note that EVERY English monarch who died before the reformation is now buried in a Church of England church of one kind or another.

I guess that the two churches can live with it, after all, the head of the RC Church in England was at the initial funeral service - if he had any reservations about it he certainly didn't say anything.

Besides, there are only a couple of RC cathedrals in the country - 'Paddy's Wigwam' in Liverpool, and Westminster Cathedral in, uh, Westminster, neither of which had anything to do with Richard III. I 'spose that the RC Cathedral in Armagh might have been a possibility, but Richard, as far as we know, never went to Ireland for anything.

tac

who the fug

tac foley wrote: »

Interesting to note that EVERY English monarch who died before the reformation is now buried in a Church of England church of one kind or another.

I guess that the two churches can live with it, after all, the head of the RC Church in England was at the initial funeral service - if he had any reservations about it he certainly didn't say anything.

Besides, there are only a couple of RC cathedrals in the country - 'Paddy's Wigwam' in Liverpool, and Westminster Cathedral in, uh, Westminster, neither of which had anything to do with Richard III. I 'spose that the RC Cathedral in Armagh might have been a possibility, but Richard, as far as we know, never went to Ireland for anything.

tac

Given how OTT this has become surprised that some miltant catholics are not having a sit in.

Anyway seems to have more to do with creating a Tourist attraction in Leicester than anything else.

tac foley

This is England. There appears to be a marked absence of militant Christians of any particular persuasion.

As for the comment on making a tourist attraction in Leicester, I agree that the place could certainly use some help in improving its image as the city with the largest population from the Indian sub-continent AND the largest covered market in the UK.

The main problem that you seem to be representing is that of suddenly having to deal with a lost king who has had over 500 years of bad press, but according to the church teachings has been forgiven and absolved of all his sins, and is now having a long-overdue Christian burial, as is his due as the anointed king of England etc..

Having been a member of the R3S for many years, I'm well-used to dealing with day-to-day coals heaped on the head of a man who was well-loved by his people in the North, and greatly-mourned at the time. After all, what was England getting in return? A half-Welsh/half-French usurper with no real history?

tac

donaghs

who the fug wrote: »

How are they squaring burying a Catholic in a Protestant church.

The C of E claims it lineage from the pre-Reformation Christian Church in England and Wales. It holds all the Churches and graveyards from that time (which the state didn't confiscate). Catholic and Protestant didn't exist before the Reformation.

But even the Catholic Church isn't the medieval Catholic Church anymore. Many changes having taken place. Vatican II being a particular radical one.

Manach

Personally so long as the remains were given a respectiful burial ceromony, I'd have no issue even if it was not a Catholic funeral which would have had a link both doctrinally and with the recussant Catholics in the realm.

Jesus.

He was buried with rosary beads in his hand so I wouldn't worry

Peregrinus

who the fug wrote: »

How are they squaring burying a Catholic in a Protestant church.

From the Catholic point of view, this is not a problem. The Irish countryside is filled with Anglican churches in whose churchyards numerous Catholics are buried. It has never been an aspect of Catholic teaching or practice that Catholics have to be buried in a place owned or managed by the Catholic church.

tac foley wrote: »

The main problem that you seem to be representing is that of suddenly having to deal with a lost king who has had over 500 years of bad press, but according to the church teachings has been forgiven and absolved of all his sins, and is now having a long-overdue Christian burial, as is his due as the anointed king of England etc.

He had a Christian burial the first time around. He was buried in the choir of the Franciscan friary in Leicester, which would be a fairly high-status burial place. SFAIK there was a funeral mass and committal at the time. The service being said this time round is a (multidenominational) memorial service, not a funeral service, because he has already had a funeral. About ten years after the burial, Henry VII paid for a marble and alabaster tomb on the spot where he was buried. It was only after the dissolution of the monasteries and the demolition of this particular abbey that the memory of the location of his burial place was lost.

Leicester Cathedral was chosen for the reburial as it's the nearest active burial place to the spot where he was found - in fact it's just across the road. The general rule in England for bodies exhumed during archaeological or construction work is that they should be reburied in a burial ground as close as possible to where they were found, and if any other bodies had been uncovered in the dig they too would have been reburied in the Cathedral. There was some suggestion that this was not solemn or dignified enough for a king, and that he should be reburied in Westminster Abbey or York Minster, and there was also a suggestion that he should be reburied in a Catholic location - Arundel Cathedral was mentioned, but it's a long way away. But in the event it was decided to stick with the original option.

tac foley

He was reburied not far from where he was originally 'hastilie' buried, as the state of the body - no cerements, grave too small to hold him without contorting, et al - would testify.

Leicester cathedral, although small, is still the nearest Christian church of note - I think that he is in the right place.

Forgive me saying so, as a non-Christian, but you [in general] seem to making a real issue about the Roman Catholicism thing vis-á-vis Protestantism. This country has effectively been Anglican since 1534, and the divisions and barriers that seem to matter so much to many in Ireland simply do not exist here - there is nothing of the religious intolerance that we see exhibited on an almost daily basis in the North of Ireland, for instance.

If Richard had not died at Bosworth Field, then perhaps this might still be a Catholic country. But, given the histories of local countries with whom the English have always felt more comfortable - and given that unlike France, a Romance-speaking nation, the English are far more Germanic in outlook and genetics - it would be more likely to have followed the mainland European-wide Reformation of religious persuasion.

tac

Del.Monte

At least King Richard III wasn't left under the carpark. In Ireland there would have been some development built on top of him (Wood Quay, Frescati Shopping Centre etc.) and perhaps a plaque - or even worse an OPW Interpretative Centre.