Richard III & the Car Park

[Errata]

The fact is, the guy fought a lot. A whole lot. We aren't talking about him being potentially at risk for the final battle of Bosworth. Were talking hundreds of skirmishes, fights, wars, rebellions, etc.

A slight exaggeration, I feel.

Richard fought in three major battles - Barnet and Tewkesbury when he was young, and at Bosworth where he did.

There is no record of him fighting in France in 1475 or in Scotland in the early 1480s, though he commanded the army. There may have been other "skirmishes" during his career, but I am unaware of them being mentioned. He did not fight, for instance, during Buckingham's rebellion in 1483.

I have never heard of Richard having a speech impediment - though the Tudor historians have him born with teeth!! (Could that be another embroidery upon something factual?)

On inbreeding in the House of York, I find that unlikely frankly.

Richard's father and mother were not related at all closely. She was a Neville (Westmoreland) on her father's side; a Beafort (Plantagenet) on her mothers. Both were descended from John of Gaunt, and edward III but by different lines over three generations. Richard of York had Mowbray blood as well as Plantagenet. That seems to me to be a pretty wide selection (totally different to the Hapsburg example mentioned) and certainly not atypical of the nobility of the time - or were they ALL inbed?

Phil

As for the Habsburg jaw, Richard's Jaw is nowhere near as grotesque. I think if inbreeding had persisted for about five more generations it might approach that level of damage. The geneologies of the Wars of the Roses are so effing complicated... his parents were second cousins. They might be second double cousins, but I can't figure that out without pulling the giant chart of everything.

As for fighting, remember that he and his brother were on the run for several years. And in Scotland, Wales, the Western Counties, etc. he would have had martial duties in regards to bandits, traitors, tiny little rebellions. Never mind constant drilling. It's a lot.

[Phil H]

I responded to the tone of your post which seemed dismissive of Richard, that's all.

the impressive Richard III museum in the Monk Bar being just one example of his previous important to the city,

Many places have museums to people but would not be regarded (on that bassi0 as a final resting place;

such regional connections in the Kings Manor, Middleham Castle and Sheriff Hutton castle.

I think he visited Sheriff Hutton once as far as records go.

His father was the Duke of York which additionally displays a familial uke of York which additionally displays a familial connection to the city,

Not one the House of York ever acknowledged in their day. Fortheringhay was developed as the family burial place and Richard's father mother and his brother Edmund were buried there. Edward IV rests at Windsor which he developed. We simply do not know where Richard proposed to be buried - at 33 he might not have decided.

Leicester was just the nearest large town to where he was killed, it is a quirk of history and nothing more.

Many people are buried because of "quirks of history". Charles I is at Windsor, should he be?

Leicester took the trouble to find his body. It has lain there for half a millenia. It seems logical to rebury him nearby. And the richard III Society thought enough of the place to put up a plaque saying his body was probably nearby; and to erect a monument/slab in the cathedral.

You might be intereted to see my views in an earlier post on alternatives even to York.

I don't want to be antagonistic - I am just probing at the arguments.

Cynically it strikes me that the real motivation of York is tourist income, but maybe I'm wrong.

Phil

[Phil H]

Dukes and lords are not usually buried in the places from which they take their title!!

On that basis Lord Mountbatten should be buried in Myanmar (former Burma)!!

On the basis of the argument advnced by the intellectually challenged and sophistical gentleman from Scarborough, the following places could well argue to have Richard buried there:

a) Fotheringhay - he was born there and his parents and an older brother are buried there. It was at one time the family mausoleum of the House of York;

b) Gloucester - he took his title from the city but visted rarely (it has a cathedral);

c) Barnet, Tewkesbury - he fought battles there and Tewkesbury has an Abbey where his brother and sister-in-law were buried;

d) Middleham - allegedly his favorite home;

e) Westminster Abbey - he was crowned there and his wife is interred there;

f) York Minster - he held a sort of northern coronation there and invested his son)

g) St Paul's - he lived in the City as Lord Protector (Crosby Hall) and was offered the crown at Baynard's Castle;

h) St George's Windsor - his brother is buried there; he moved Henry VI's body there and he was a Kinight of the Garter.

All as good claims as york if not better. But (i) Leicester has the following added advantages: he was buried there after Bosworth, has lain there for 500+ years; the City found him and the exhumation warrant specified Leicester Cathedral for reburial.

Incidentally, I don't think HM The Queen (petitions or not) has any locus in this decision (or interest probably!).

Phil

[AmmanValleyJack]

Yesterday I was in York in the AM and Leicester in the PM. I still maintain York seems to be the place he should be buried. [/B]

Your arguments being? I'd love to deconstruct them one by one. there is NO case - absolutely no case - for York.

my argument being that, as said before, the impressive Richard III museum in the Monk Bar being just one example of his previous important to the city, not to mention as has been previously stated such regional connections in the Kings Manor, Middleham Castle and Sheriff Hutton castle. His father was the Duke of York which additionally displays a familial connection to the city, which continued to rever Richard III somewhat after his death. It's just a more natural choice in my opinon. Im not right and I'm not wrong sir, it is just my opinion. Leicester was just the nearest large town to where he was killed, it is a quirk of history and nothing more. I visited there site where he was found and it seemed that only once I stopped and took some pics of the surroundin area that others slowly stopped to look. Similarly in the cathedral. Doesnt seem to be as much focus around it that i expected. Perhaps I came at the wrong time? So there IS a case for York, just not in your opinion.

Although as a Tudor historian I dont particularly care too much what happens

Your view. I too am fervently interested in the Tudor period, but I have always found Richard fascinating too. Why does one interest rule out another - or as an "historian" - are you partisan? What part does partisanship play in historical research and the conclusions one reaches pray.

Henry VII and Henry VIII judicially murderered far more people than any member of the House of York. Henry VII contrived the death of Richard's nephew Warwick (Clarence's son) and Henry VIII did for his sister. What about Fisher, More, Cromwell, Surrey, Anne Boleyn and her alleged lovers.... all the monks and friars during the Reformation?

Don't get me wrong, I accuse the tudors of nothing - I simply am interested that Richard can be dismissed as somehow inimical to Tudor interest, but you can be interested in the Tudors?

Further, Henry Tudor mounted (usurped) the throne - to which he had absolutely no claim - as the result of a factional split in the House of york and its supporters; he married Elizabeth of York; administratively he built on the reforms of Edward IV. Surely there is continuity - so how can you dismiss what went before 1485 so lightly?

Phil

Who's dismissing Richard as inimical...did I not visit all of his locations in North Yorkshire and drive 3 odd hours to Leicester, out of my way may I add, to visit the site? I'm merely stating its not of major concern to me where he ends up, just that I feel York is a more natural choice in my opinon. Any other assumptions you wish to throw my way?

[Monty]

Heres Councillor Fox's contact detaisl, all off the net so all kosher.

Home address:
25 St Sepulchre Street
Scarborough
YO11 1QG

Phone: 01723 374594

Mobile: 07875877999

Bus. email: Cllr.Tom.Fox@scarborough.gov.uk

So er, let see if we get an apology.

Monty

[Robert]

It's your fault, Monty, for misplacing him.

[Monty]

Is this guy f*cking serious?

This from a leader of a town who embraced Jimmy Savile.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21370580

Monty

[Monty]

Yesterday I was in York in the AM and Leicester in the PM. I still maintain York seems to be the place he should be buried. Although as a Tudor historian I dont particularly care too much what happens

Just as well, as Tudor opinion isnt cared too much about here either.

Monty

[Phil H]

City mayor Sir Peter Soulsby has previously said the bones of Richard III would leave the city over his dead body.

And the Mayor would be buried...where? Maybe in the now empty grave in the carpark?

Yesterday I was in York in the AM and Leicester in the PM. I still maintain York seems to be the place he should be buried.

Your arguments being? I'd love to deconstruct them one by one. there is NO case - absolutely no case - for York.

Although as a Tudor historian I dont particularly care too much what happens

Your view. I too am fervently interested in the Tudor period, but I have always found Richard fascinating too. Why does one interest rule out another - or as an "historian" - are you partisan? What part does partisanship play in historical research and the conclusions one reaches pray.

Henry VII and Henry VIII judicially murderered far more people than any member of the House of York. Henry VII contrived the death of Richard's nephew Warwick (Clarence's son) and Henry VIII did for his sister. What about Fisher, More, Cromwell, Surrey, Anne Boleyn and her alleged lovers.... all the monks and friars during the Reformation?

Don't get me wrong, I accuse the tudors of nothing - I simply am interested that Richard can be dismissed as somehow inimical to Tudor interest, but you can be interested in the Tudors?

Further, Henry Tudor mounted (usurped) the throne - to which he had absolutely no claim - as the result of a factional split in the House of york and its supporters; he married Elizabeth of York; administratively he built on the reforms of Edward IV. Surely there is continuity - so how can you dismiss what went before 1485 so lightly?

Phil

[RivkahChaya]

Yesterday I was in York in the AM and Leicester in the PM. I still maintain York seems to be the place he should be buried. Although as a Tudor historian I dont particularly care too much what happens

Ouch!

[AmmanValleyJack]

I've not read all the posts on this hugely interesting thread, so forgive me if I'm duplicating what's already been written.

Richard looked upon York as almost his 'home town', visited it several times, and was generally loved and admired by the populace who showered him and his son with gifts. He also planned to be buried at York Minster and spoke about building a chantry-chapel for himself there. After Bosworth, the recorder of York wrote: King Richard late mercifully ruling over us was through great treason piteously slain and murdered to the great sorrow of this city.

He still most certainly had plenty of friends and supporters in York, even after Bosworth.

Graham

Yesterday I was in York in the AM and Leicester in the PM. I still maintain York seems to be the place he should be buried. Although as a Tudor historian I dont particularly care too much what happens

[Monty]

So much for York wanting him. Though, to be fair, the recognition by the Minister of the people of Leicesters feelings is appreciated.

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/10213806.Minster_does_not_want_remains_of_Richard_III/

Meanwhile, in Leicester.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-set-buried-Leicester-university-makes/story-18077880-detail/story.html#axzz2KDr5wTb7

Monty

[Steve S]

I believe total military activity in the 30 odd years of the WOTR was about a couple of years worth...with most of that being in the early 1460's.........

[Phil H]

The fact is, the guy fought a lot. A whole lot. We aren't talking about him being potentially at risk for the final battle of Bosworth. Were talking hundreds of skirmishes, fights, wars, rebellions, etc.

A slight exaggeration, I feel.

Richard fought in three major battles - Barnet and Tewkesbury when he was young, and at Bosworth where he did.

There is no record of him fighting in France in 1475 or in Scotland in the early 1480s, though he commanded the army. There may have been other "skirmishes" during his career, but I am unaware of them being mentioned. He did not fight, for instance, during Buckingham's rebellion in 1483.

I have never heard of Richard having a speech impediment - though the Tudor historians have him born with teeth!! (Could that be another embroidery upon something factual?)

On inbreeding in the House of York, I find that unlikely frankly.

Richard's father and mother were not related at all closely. She was a Neville (Westmoreland) on her father's side; a Beafort (Plantagenet) on her mothers. Both were descended from John of Gaunt, and edward III but by different lines over three generations. Richard of York had Mowbray blood as well as Plantagenet. That seems to me to be a pretty wide selection (totally different to the Hapsburg example mentioned) and certainly not atypical of the nobility of the time - or were they ALL inbed?

Phil

[jason_c]

I have no doubt he had customized armor. Unfortunately, great fitting armor does not solve upper body mobility issues. It does help a guy stay on a horse, and prevents gaps that could easily become home to an arrow. So it's worth it. A targe is affixed to the shoulder, it essentially covers from collar bone to shoulder, about chin high, about waist low. And they are great for jousting or lance combat. They are terrible for battle, because in battle you have to defend yourself from foot troops, and A targe is no help there. It also limits the back and forth movement of that arm, so you can't use a weapon on that side. I think any adaptation made to the armor allowing it to function more predictably and with less strength would have been adopted by others. I mean sure, Richard might have needed the weight distributed differently, but that doesn't mean other knights wouldn't benefit from the same thing.

The fact is, the guy fought a lot. A whole lot. We aren't talking about him being potentially at risk for the final battle of Bosworth. Were talking hundreds of skirmishes, fights, wars, rebellions, etc. If he couldn't protect his left side, he would have died early. So he could protect his left side. He could use the technology and devices available at the time. And he hunted, so we know he could throw a lance and draw a bow. And he could fight with an axe, which is mostly a strength thing, but he had to be able to lift both arms over his head. All of these things require a level of mobility that does not go along with such a twisted spine, or even one shoulder higher than the other.

He did do these things. And yet none of these things are consistent with that level of spinal deformity. And if he just grit his teeth and gutted through these things, he should have had long recovery times after battle. But there's no record of his taking any appreciable amount of time to rest and recover. He should have been prostrate for a not insignificant part of his adulthood. But he wasn't. Also Adolescent onset scoliosis is accompanied by a loss of bone mass, as much as 50%. Which is unthinkable in someone who gets essentially whacked across the back with a baseball bat on a semi regular basis. And if he had broken vertebrae, it wouldn't necessarily mean paralysis, quadriplegia or death. But it necessarily would have resulted in broken vertebrae, which the skeleton does not have.

I will stipulate that he had a spinal deformity. A lot of people do. But that level of deformity just doesn't jive with Richard's accomplishments, and there's only so much assistance he could receive. Both because of the limits of technology, and because he commanded men who technically were not his during his brother's reign. If they though him disabled, they would not have followed him. So he had to at least appear perfectly normal, which means no tricks with the armor or weapons. So I have to think that the curve is exaggerated.

Someone mentioned them putting the spine together. And I haven't seen that. Does anyone know where to find that?

More on the curvature of the spine in the link below. The curvature of the spine was not affected by how it was laid out at burial(I think someone may have mentioned this earlier) according to the archaeologist involved. While I doubt the way they put the spine back together was perfect I suspect it was done fairly accurately. The spinal segment is 2min25 secs in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6g...yer_embedded#!