Richard III & the Car Park

[RivkahChaya]

I see what you mean Errata - but I think we're talking about something a bit different here. The trenches were placed where they were because one of the aims of the excavation was to try to locate Richard using the historic information available. It wasn't like striking out blind with a metal detector - the GPR presumably demonstrated enough to be reasonably certain those trenches were coming down on the chancel; and the mystery stone sarcophagus must have been pretty obvious. That signal could easily have been him, even if it didn't turn out to be. If Richard was buried in the chancel and had not been destroyed by later building - looks as though he had a lucky escape there - I think there was a fair chance he'd be located.

Its probably him.

Well, and they did find the one other skeleton, so maybe he was the second one they found. And maybe the place isn't as littered with bodies as one might think. Or maybe he was redressed in his leather armour, so he decayed more slowly, causing his skeleton to be more intact. Or placed in a stone-lined area, to the same effect, while others weren't.

Do we know, or at least have an idea, who buried him?

[RivkahChaya]

Its probably him.

Assuming that it is; let's say they get an mDNA match, or that there just doesn't seem to be anyone else missing from the time it could possibly be, what sort of post-mortem will be permitted before he is buried? I think it would be very interesting to learn specifically what kind of scoliosis he had, just how it would have affected his posture, whether it would have been noticeable during childhood, whether it was caused by an injury, or accompanied by disease, and what, if any limitations, it might have imposed on him.

We could finally know the truth about a lot of rumors. Just as an example, we might find he had a short arm, but it probably had normal strength and range of motion, so the "withered arm" had a basis in fact, but was greatly exaggerated. We could also know that his arm had been that way since childhood, making it unlikely that he accused anyone during a council meeting of recently bewitching him.

Would the government allow that, or would it feel that the king needed to be buried as soon as possible?

[Phil H]

There are rules about the finding of any bodies - they have to be reported to the police (I'm not sure about to a coroner.) It is a pain for archaeologists when they find human remains because everything comes to a standstill for a while. In this case, they were looking for a body specifically, so they may have been ready.

If demonstrated to be "old" (i.e. not someone who might have been murdered recently) the bones will be subjected to scientific research - we don't know he IS royal yet, rather than an autopsy.

After that the bones will almost certainly be reburied. I have set out my views on that elsewhere in the thread.

Phil H

[Phil H]

By the way Rivkah:

Or maybe he was redressed in his leather armour,

By the end of the C15the century, noblemen wore complete; highly articulated suits of steel plate into battle. Leather armour, I'll come on to this, was not worn by men of high station.

In civil costume, a man who wanted some protection might wear a brigandine, or coat of hessian, fitted with scale like metal plates and covered with velvet, then studded with gilt nails. But except perhaps for a bowman, that would not have been suitable for a battle.

The best evidenc we have suggests that having been exposed to public view naked (save perhaps for a cloth over his genitals - as was done for Edward IV in 1483 and Richard Neviile, Earl of Warwick - the Kingmaker - in 1471) he was buried in that state. With Richard there are specific mentions of his body having been totally stripped on the battlefield and taken into Leicester over a horse with his private parts on show. So maybe every indignity was heaped on Richard's corpse. My bet would be on a naked body.

A shroud might have helped keep the remains articulated - at least until the shroud inevitably disintegrated.

Phil H

[Errata]

I see what you mean Errata - but I think we're talking about something a bit different here. The trenches were placed where they were because one of the aims of the excavation was to try to locate Richard using the historic information available. It wasn't like striking out blind with a metal detector - the GPR presumably demonstrated enough to be reasonably certain those trenches were coming down on the chancel; and the mystery stone sarcophagus must have been pretty obvious. That signal could easily have been him, even if it didn't turn out to be. If Richard was buried in the chancel and had not been destroyed by later building - looks as though he had a lucky escape there - I think there was a fair chance he'd be located.

Its probably him.

So then here's a question. If "Richard" was not in the sarcophagus, does that mean the woman was? But she was disarticulated, which means she likely wasn't in a coffin, and it seems unlikely for monks to have removed her from the coffin, but then left it there. So who was in the sarcophagus, and if no one, why on earth would they bury an empty older model stone coffin?

[Monty]

Again, to clarify.

The coffin pre dates the two bodies by some years and is not connected to them.

The concensus is that its connected to a founding patron of the Friary.

It has NOTHING to do with the two remains found of a man (thought to be Richard) and a woman.

Monty

[RivkahChaya]

Leather armour, I'll come on to this, was not worn by men of high station.

My bad; I meant something along the lines of "undergarments," because I assume he didn't wear steel armour next to his skin. What I meant was whatever he wore to protect him from his armour, which I was assuming would involve leather, to be durable-- linen, then leather, or something.

Anyway, maybe he was redressed in his underwear, whatever that may have been, which if it was tough enough to protect his skin from his armour, may have resisted decay, and held his skeleton together until it became fairly well-impacted in the soil.

I was just thinking that whoever buried him probably also didn't want him left naked for the journey from Bosworth to his eventual grave. Since he doesn't seem to have been in a casket, or one thinks he would have been buried in it, that suggests redressing him.

[Errata]

Again, to clarify.

The coffin pre dates the two bodies by some years and is not connected to them.

The concensus is that its connected to a founding patron of the Friary.

It has NOTHING to do with the two remains found of a man (thought to be Richard) and a woman.

Monty

Which I assumed, but why is it empty? Or if it's not empty, why only refer to two sets of remains found?

In my mind, common sense dictates that if you take someone out of a coffin, for whatever reason, you don't rebury the empty coffin. Not that you necessarily recycle it... I mean shouldn't someone be in that coffin?

See, this is now the only truly inexplicable part of this. Sure it could be Richard, the woman could have every business being buried in a monastery, and in all honesty, god only knows what has happened under the surface of the earth in the past 500 years that could have moved a body a dozen feet or so in any direction. My mom witnessed a spectacular example of a seismic event triggering some interesting water table issues that caused an entire cemetery to be vomited out the side of a cliff and onto the town below without disturbing the headstones.

But who the crap buries an empty stone coffin? Digging a grave is really really hard work. And stone sarcophagi are really really heavy. Why mess with it if there is no one inside? I'm pretty sure that making someone do all of that for nothing is grounds for justifiable homicide. I mean, I would totally kill someone for that,

[RivkahChaya]

In my mind, common sense dictates that if you take someone out of a coffin, for whatever reason, you don't rebury the empty coffin. Not that you necessarily recycle it... I mean shouldn't someone be in that coffin?

...

But who the crap buries an empty stone coffin? Digging a grave is really really hard work. And stone sarcophagi are really really heavy. Why mess with it if there is no one inside? I'm pretty sure that making someone do all of that for nothing is grounds for justifiable homicide. I mean, I would totally kill someone for that,

Two not very spectacular guesses:

1) It's not a coffin, it's just shaped like one; or, it was originally a coffin, but what it's being used for currently was fill-stone, or something.

2) Someone removed the body for reburial elsewhere, and, because as you say, moving a stone coffin is work, not to mention, so is moving fill dirt, they took out the body, but the lid back on, and put the dirt back.

Why reburial elsewhere is unexplainable without knowing who it was. It's one of those "context is everything" situations. It might sound strange, but it would make total sense if we know who it was-- like, maybe it was a grave already in the area, and the person didn't "deserve" to be there, but it was too much trouble to move the coffin, so they worked around it. Total WAG, but maybe there was some rule about not leaving someone they couldn't be sure had been baptised. That's far-fetched, but more reasonable then "they buried an empty coffin for the heck of it."

[Errata]

Two not very spectacular guesses:

1) It's not a coffin, it's just shaped like one; or, it was originally a coffin, but what it's being used for currently was fill-stone, or something.

2) Someone removed the body for reburial elsewhere, and, because as you say, moving a stone coffin is work, not to mention, so is moving fill dirt, they took out the body, but the lid back on, and put the dirt back.

Why reburial elsewhere is unexplainable without knowing who it was. It's one of those "context is everything" situations. It might sound strange, but it would make total sense if we know who it was-- like, maybe it was a grave already in the area, and the person didn't "deserve" to be there, but it was too much trouble to move the coffin, so they worked around it. Total WAG, but maybe there was some rule about not leaving someone they couldn't be sure had been baptised. That's far-fetched, but more reasonable then "they buried an empty coffin for the heck of it."

Well, I don't think they buried an empty coffin for thrills. Penance maybe, who knows. I mean, clearly there is a reason, and probably a good one. But why waste a perfectly good coffin? I mean, sure we're squeamish about it now, but those things are expensive. And there are several kings who had themselves shoved into other peoples coffins so I wouldn't think there was some sort of sacred single occupant rule.

I mean, I know about Richard, this unidentified woman is mildly interesting to me... but what did some poor bastard do that was so bad that he got evicted from his own coffin, and then have it reburied without him as some sort of post mortem middle finger lifted against his very existence? I'm totally picturing monks dancing around on this tiny coffin while the exhumed corpse that has been tossed out the back door looks on with a single ghostly tear running down it's cheek.

Oh god I need more sleep.

But it reminds me of that comedian who said that he wanted to be buried in a washing machine to totally screw with archeologists down the line.

[Monty]

This is becoming a saga when it truly isn't.

Ok, will break it down to make it even more simple.

The coffin predates the two bodies, one a male, one female, found on the site.

I was told it is felt the coffin was for a founding patron. Therefore it is logical to think a body was found inside the coffin. They alluded to a body but did not state specifically 'a body was found inside'. Just kept saying 'We feel he...' And 'it looks like he....'. So we know its a he, we therefore know there was a body inside.

The coffin was found below the ground line on which the two bodies where found.

The reason it wasn't mentioned with the other finds of a male and female remains is because it isn't connected with the Richard III dig as such and mentioning it would have drawn confusion. As it obviously has done here.

For the final time THE COFFIN IS NOT CONNECTED TO RICHARD III.

Monty

[Phil H]

One has, I think to consider the very complex evolution of an English ecclesiastical site to understand this. It is (I believe) very different in the sheer length of time covered and the nature of the events which have occured, to anything likely to be found in the US, or even on continental Europe. I thus understand why there may be some confusion over the empty stone coffin among those less familiar with the issues.

Burial practices changed over the centuries - and Greyfriars Leicester existed for several hundred years. As far as I am aware, stone coffins went out of use (in any style, and there were several) long before the C15th.

By that time, a full scale royal funeral would have involved several coffins fitting into each other, sometimes including lead and wood layers (as was the case for Henry VII in 1547).

The stone coffin found is likely to predate Richard's burial by a considerable period - maybe a hundred years or more. It's being empty could be explained in a number of ways:

a) it was the tomb of the founder, patron or a "sanctified" individual which WAS (unlike Richard's remains) removed around the time of the dissolution. We know that shrines, like Thomas Becket's at Canterbury, were removed to prevent or discourage pilgrimage. Even the shrone of Edward the Confessor at westminster was dismantled. In part this reflected a change in religious practice, in part a desire to gt at the precious metals and jewels worked into these medieval shrines. Bones were removed - there is a separate controversy about Becket's bones for instance. So this could be a religious figure exhumed and removed.

b) the coffin contained the remains of a local notable's ancestor and again (unlike Richard) his family removed the bones to another resting place in a church not affected by the dissolution, where they would be safe.

c) the coffin was old enough that the remains had been removed to another more splendid shrine within the Greyfriars and the coffin - too heavy to move - remained in place.

Now I'll readily admit to not knowing what the specific practices and customs of the Franciscans were. They had a reputation for poverty and simplicity, but I have no idea whether that extended to their religious houses (friaries). Did they elevate and honour certain individuals? I think St Francis himself was given some honour in Italy. As we know, a monument was allowed over Richard's remains eventually - so there were sculptured effigies in the friary.

My point errata is to try to explain WHY there is no necessary or even likely connection between the coffin and the two sets of remains found. Neither need be associated with it. I hope this helps with some context.

Phil H

[Phil H]

A little more "factual" material.

This is fromJohn Ashdown-Hill's "The Last Days of Richard III" (2010). He is in my view one of the more academic and reputable of the Ricardians.

In 1494, Henry VII delegated responsibility for creating a fitting tomb for Richard III, to Sir Reginald Bray and Sir Thomas Lovell (both die hard adherents of the new king). They appear to have pleased Richard's mother in what they did as she named them as executors of her will (among others) - perhaps thinking of her own entombment at Fortheringhay.

The mason employed for the monument/effigy was Walter Hylton of Nottingham - he had been mayor of Nottingham in 1489/90 and was to be again in 1496/97.

An alabaster tomb was made in Nottingham and subsequently installed in the Greyfriars, Leicester. The sum traditionally said to have been paid for this work was £50 but this may only be part of the costs.

Ashdown-Hill thinks that conveyance of the monument to Leicester may have been done by one James Keyley at a cost of around £10.

For comparison, an alabaster retable for an altar, around the size of one of the long sides of the tomb, cost £1 17s 3d in the 1450s. An alabaster image of the Virgin Mary could be purchased for £2 in 1462.

In 1508, Henry Foljambe of Chesterfield, Derbyshire paid £10 for a table tomb. decorated with small effigies and shields. Thus for the price paid for Richard III's monument, the work should (in Ashdown-Hill's view) have been a magnificent example. It certainly bore a carved alabaster effigy of the dead king - though whether this was a flat incised stone or a three-dimensional work is unclear, but the latter would be more usual in the late C15th.

I will copy out the epitaph later.

Phil H

[Sally]

Hi Phil

The stone coffin found is likely to predate Richard's burial by a considerable period - maybe a hundred years or more. It's being empty could be explained in a number of ways:

If it is a 'founder's' coffin belonging to the founder of Greyfriars it should date from the 13th century. We don't actually know that is was empty. Perhaps it was, but I'd expect not. Yes, there are several things which might in theory have prompted the removal of remains from the coffin, but a) those would have to be very serious to warrant the disturbance of a final resting place; b) the location of the coffin would have to be known, exactly; and c) the practical difficulties associated with moving the coffin lid remain in every case. To access the remains, the coffin lid would have had to have been lifted out of the ground. Assuming that was done, it would then have to be lowered back down again and put back in place.

I can't think of a reason for doing that. Once empty of any remains, it could simply have been removed and broken up.

[Phil H]

All good points, Sally - but if the King's commissioners at the dissolution, were adamant about removing any "relics" or objects of veneration - then i suppose it might have been done.

I had assumed the coffin to be empty because all the reports had mentioned only TWO sets of remains, one articulated (Richard?) and the other disarticulated (female). I suppose we shall have to wait and see.

Can I just take this opportunity to thank all of you who have posted in this thread for the approach you have taken. It demonstrates, for me, all the great qualities and potential of Casebook.

We have shared information, some of it priveleged, we have discussed, illuminated, been adult, disagreed (without any sort of subtext) and it has been a pleasure. There has been no ego, no selfishness, no arrogance - just a cordial spirit of helpfulness. Shows what we can do if away from "Jack" for a while, doesn't it?

Phil H