Richard III & the Car Park

[Steve S]

It would be more accurate if we talked about the disappearance of the Princes,rather than their murder.....If they died/were murdered by Richard,display and burial would have settled things...I find the "Exile" theory difficult,UNLESS one of the pretenders was real............As for relative threats...The biggest was to Henry............

Steve - I simply suggested alternatives. In fact Duchess Margaret (Richard's sister) does not appear to have been certain about the fate of her nephews as she supported both Simnel and Warbeck. I suppose she could have been VERY cynical but...

Equally, Henry VII does not appear to have been certain of the fate of his brothers-in-law.

Certainly the deaths of the boys (if they were that) were advantageous to Henry more than Richard. Richard was king by Parliamentary approval, the boys declared illegitimate.

Henry made himself king by force, but parts of his agreement with the discontented Yorkists (the whole question is of a north/south split within the ruling party) were that he marry Elizabeth of York - the "princes"' sister.

But she was illegitimate under the same Parliamentary act as her brothers. To make her legitimate he would have legitimised her brothers too. Thus they then had a better right to the throne than he. So Henry had a distinct interest in the boys not being on the scene. So did his supporters.

His mother and/or the Cardinal could have removed the lads without Henry's knowledge or approval, either before or after his return. There is no evidence of course, but Margaret Beaufort was single minded and utterly cold. John Morton was cunning and clever and very duplicitous....

Phil H

Yep,we seem to be looking at this from the same angles........

[Scorpio]

I am intrigued by the arrow head they found amongst the bones of the upper spine. Considering that Richard would have possesed the best available armour, how did it get there?. A documentary i watched showed conclusively that late 15th century armour would stop any arrow, and the arrow in question is described as a broad head not the armour piercing bodkin.
I can only guess that the wound was post-mortem, and memories of the damage inflicted on colonel Gadaffis dead body spring to mind. The location of the wound is perhaps telling: the late middle ages society was mightily suspicious of deformities or strange bodily marks of any kind, and may have associated them with the occult or supernatural. It seems that anti-Richard propaganda was at play long before his death.

[RivkahChaya]

"I Richard, by grace of God, etc., in the presence of you, my lords spiritual and temporal, and you, my Lord Mayor and aldermen of London, promise and swear...that if the daughters of Elizabeth...will come to me out of the Sanctuary of Westminster and be guided, ruled, and demeaned after me, then I shall see that they shall be in surety of their lives...nor any of them imprison in the Tower of London or other prison, but that I shall put them into honest places..."

Wasn't it possible to be housed in the tower, without being, technically, imprisoned in the tower? Although, as children, and royal children, who probably did not go anywhere unaccompanied, it may have amounted to the same thing.

Do we know where The Duke of Gloucester is buried?

Richard was Duke of Gloucester before he became King, so I am not sure to whom you refer. Humphrey of Gloucester, the previous duke, died in 1447 and was no relation.

My bad-- I was posting at about 3am for me, during a bout of insomnia, and not thinking well. I meant the Duke of Clarence, and his son; I should have double-checked.

Earl of warwick was alive and well and free at Richard's death. Apart from an attainder, and being a minor, Edward would have had a prior claim to the throne over Richard. -snip-

Henry VII appears to have had no idea what became of them.

I didn't realize that the Earl of Warwick would have a prior claim, without his father's attainder. I thought "brother of king" came before "nephew of king," but I guess I'm confusing "nephew by dead older brother" with "nephew by sister." I didn't realize there was a different rule for the nephew by a brother who had a prior claim, except he was dead.

But Henry must have believed they were dead when he married their sister...By accepting her as legitimate,his own claim would be invalid if they were still around.........

Or, he took care of business. And then framed Richard.

It is entirely possible that Richard had killed them, though his motive is difficult to discern.

The Woodville family. As long as he didn't have an heir, he had to worry that at his death, the Woodvilles could try to put Edward V back on the throne. Henry Tudor got the attainder reversed; the Woodvilles could have as well. Since Richard couldn't openly groom Edward V as an heir, in order to counter-act Woodville influence beforehand, without looking like a hypocrite, it might have been a concern.

But I stand by my earlier statement that Richard would have had the boys openly mourned, and buried by the church.

He was ruthless enough to destroy Hastings, as well as Rivers and Grey, but did so publicly, openly.

And he did it because he either really hated the Woodvilles, or was afraid of what they might do to England, if they had the power, don't you think?

I dont know if puberty started earlier but the first signs of puberty were probably enough to get things rolling. -snip- Only in the Victorian period did childhood become romanticized.

Actually, I'd guess puberty started a little later, since you need good nutrition to be fertile. Maybe it started earlier in the royals than it did among commoners. Among Victorians, childhood, like a lot of things, was a status symbol of the rich. For the poor, children were "kitchen help," or just plain "workers."

I am intrigued by the arrow head they found amongst the bones of the upper spine. Considering that Richard would have possesed the best available armour, how did it get there?. A documentary i watched showed conclusively that late 15th century armour would stop any arrow, and the arrow in question is described as a broad head not the armour piercing bodkin.

Post-mortem, as an act of humiliation, or peri-mortem, as a coup de grace (an ironic one)-- for example, if he fell from his horse, and someone used an arrow like a spear.

It's remotely possible that if he had progressive scoliosis, his armor didn't fit well, but that's reaching. Post- or peri-mortem is a better theory.

All the reports put him in the forefront of the fighting, not least at Bosworth.

Good enough. Then I'll stand by what I said about scoliosis being of variable seriousness, and progressive, so that having even the visible manifestation of one shoulder being higher than the other did not imply that he was either weak, or in chronic pain, when he hadn't even reached middle age by today's standards. Today, we correct everything in early childhood, but probably a lot of people in 1483 had minor spinal curvatures, uneven shoulders, bowlegs, and other things that we don't see anymore. We don't even see midgets (pituitary dwarves, as opposed to other forms of dwarvism), because that is now treatable with injections of artificial human growth hormone during childhood.

[Steve S]

Armour maybe..Arming doublet and mail gusset at the armpit,revealed when you raise your weapon arm,maybe not.....If you're mounted and the archer is at about 45 degrees,that could go to the spine.........Or,as you say,the stripped body could have been used for target practice.......

[RivkahChaya]

I'm totally ignorant as to how often people got their armor refitted, and how big a task it was. If it was difficult and not done often, Richard's could have been poorly fitting, and if he was in the lead, he could have turned his back on the enemy to talk to his troops, and gotten sniped.

Or, fragged. If his armor wasn't fitting well in the back, he may not have been worried, because the arrows came from the front....

Or, maybe not a deliberate frag, maybe just so-called "friendly fire."

Wouldn't that be a kicker? If the Tudor reign, and therefore the whole English Renaissance, was due to an accident of friendly fire?

(Yes, I realize that the Renaissance was a Western European phenomenon that would have caught up with England no matter what. Just sayin'.)

[jason_c]

Wasn't it possible to be housed in the tower, without being, technically, imprisoned in the tower? Although, as children, and royal children, who probably did not go anywhere unaccompanied, it may have amounted to the same thing.My bad-- I was posting at about 3am for me, during a bout of insomnia, and not thinking well. I meant the Duke of Clarence, and his son; I should have double-checked.

Its very possible to have been housed in the Tower. The Tower of London was at that time mainly a palace not a prison. Of course its possible they were "housed" the very same way as Mary Queen of Scots was housed by Elizabeth I - with a jailers key and some burly guards. Imprisonment and safekeeping are not mutually exclusive.

[Phil H]

It is thought that John Howard, Duke of norfolk, was killed at bosworth by an arrow. the battle is being reassessed as new evidence and new location are investigated. It seems that there was a considerable artillery barrage before the battle, maybe an arrow storm as well...

My guess is that the arrow might have been driven into the dead king's body once it had been stripped, at least of its armour. There might have been many more wounds in the now decayed flesh - a slit throat, a dagger into the brain through the eye - all were ways of killing a fully armed man. the wounds we have are those that reached bone - in the head and spinal column.

The idea that his deformed back - once exposed to view - might have been attacked is credible to me.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

The idea that his deformed back - once exposed to view - might have been attacked is credible to me.

I hadn't thought about it, but that's true-- if he had the sort of mild scoliosis that didn't really disable him, just made his posture a little odd, and might have caused him pain in the future, then it's possible it didn't show when he was in armor, but the purpose of stripping him may have been to see the deformity that people had heard rumored, but that was usually covered.

The kinds of clothes people wore then would have covered mild scoliosis pretty effectively, and padding in one shoulder of his shirt would have hidden one shoulder being higher than the other, which is why I'm surprised there'd be paintings showing it, unless they were "corrected" under the Tudors.

As an example, Kurt Cobain had mild scoliosis, which is why he is usually sitting down during performances, holding his guitar, but when you do see him standing, he doesn't lean to one side, and wasn't hunch-backed. He probably would eventually have needed surgery, if he'd lived longer.

Apparently, the repetitive motion of guitar playing aggravated it, and some people think that if he'd played guitar right-handed (he could write right-handed, so I'm not sure why he played guitar left-handed), he would have had fewer problems.

At any rate, you can see how there's nothing obvious to the casual observer about Kurt Cobain; he certainly didn't appear deformed.

[Steve S]

That's a good example.....Military training could have overdeveloped one shoulder.......

[jason_c]

I hadn't thought about it, but that's true-- if he had the sort of mild scoliosis that didn't really disable him, just made his posture a little odd, and might have caused him pain in the future, then it's possible it didn't show when he was in armor, but the purpose of stripping him may have been to see the deformity that people had heard rumored, but that was usually covered.

The kinds of clothes people wore then would have covered mild scoliosis pretty effectively, and padding in one shoulder of his shirt would have hidden one shoulder being higher than the other, which is why I'm surprised there'd be paintings showing it, unless they were "corrected" under the Tudors.

As an example, Kurt Cobain had mild scoliosis, which is why he is usually sitting down during performances, holding his guitar, but when you do see him standing, he doesn't lean to one side, and wasn't hunch-backed. He probably would eventually have needed surgery, if he'd lived longer.

Apparently, the repetitive motion of guitar playing aggravated it, and some people think that if he'd played guitar right-handed (he could write right-handed, so I'm not sure why he played guitar left-handed), he would have had fewer problems.

At any rate, you can see how there's nothing obvious to the casual observer about Kurt Cobain; he certainly didn't appear deformed.

The wording from the archeologists was of a skeleton found showing "severe scoliosis". Now this isnt certainty to be Richard, and I imagine further tests can be carried out on just how severe it was. But lets not forget the actual wording, severe was the term used.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1876497.html

[Sally]

I don't think there's any evidence for that Phil.

I'm no expert, but my reading suggests the conclusion I endorsed in my post. Margaret Beaufort is a good example. It may have been a difficult birth and her husband Edmund probably was over eager to consummate - but she was pregnant at a remarkably young age.

We know that boys accepted adult responsibilities at a much younger age than would be usual today.

Phil H

Well yes, adulthood came earlier then - and there is evidence that puberty is affected by environmental factors to an extent.

However, puberty in the west generally begins between the ages of 10 and 14 - so an average age of 12. Are you suggesting that puberty in the late Med occurred at an age younger than 10? Surely not.

Young girls - as young as 12, 13, get pregnant in this country today, quite regularly. It may not be the 'norm' but it certainly happens.

[Sally]

Jason

There was none of this teenage maturing process we have today. One day you were a child, the next day you were a man or a woman. Society could not afford to mollycoddle teenagers until they were 18. Children who didnt contribute economically were by and large an expensive mouth to feed. Only in the Victorian period did childhood become romanticized.

Well, the concept of a 'teenager' is modern, so you're right there. As for one's economic worth, that depended upon social position. Yes, anybody below the nobility became an economic asset, undoubtedly at an early age. Noble children were a different kind of asset - daughters particularly. Sons not so much apart from the eldest, who inherited. Younger sons went into the church, became fighting men, or took up a legal or political career.

[RivkahChaya]

That's a good example.....Military training could have overdeveloped one shoulder.......

Everyone's dominant hand and arm has better-developed musculature, and this is especially true for people who play a sport like tennis or baseball. Here's Nolan Ryan, one of baseball's best pitchers, back in the 1970s, when baseball players did a lot less weightlifting for their appearance:



He also had one of the longest careers in major league baseball-- 27 years, which is astounding for any professional athlete, but especially for a baseball pitcher, because they often retire early, due to torn ligaments, or rotator cuff injuries.

Anyway, you can see-- or can't, more to the point, how much more developed his right arm is, I don't know if that's due to dermis, subcutaneous fat, impact response to catching balls in his left hand, or just some kind of natural attempt of the body toward symmetry. I would guess that sonographic imaging, or umm, autopsy (he's still alive) would show the difference, though.

Well yes, adulthood came earlier then - and there is evidence that puberty is affected by environmental factors to an extent.

I'm not addressing this to you, Sally, just using your post as a jumping off point.

Puberty is a biological state, or stage of development. Adulthood is both a biological stage, and a sociological concept, and they don't always match up, exactly. In biology, puberty is the onset of adulthood in mammals. What constitutes adulthood in a particular society (of humans) is going to be specific to that society, but generally speaking, the longer a life expectancy in a society, the more people tend to be regarded as adults at the end of puberty, whereas in places where life expectancy is short, people tend to be regarded as adults around the onset of puberty.

So, just to be clear about terms, are we talking about literal puberty, of being regarded as an adult by the larger society?

ETA: Eek. That picture was smaller on the website I copies it from.

[RivkahChaya]

The wording from the archeologists was of a skeleton found showing "severe scoliosis".

Sorry, I am not being very precise. They are many forms of scoliosis. SOme of them are rapidly developing, and some are not. Some involve spinal cord compression, and some do not.

A doctor would describe a case of scoliosis as "mild," or "severe," based on urgency of treatment and prognosis, as well as etiology, and whether or not the patient experiences pain. I know someone who does not look at all deformed, but has a type of scoliosis that has been causing her a lot of pain for the last 10 years or so-- she is about 68. I also know a 12-year-old who has a very oddly shaped back, but no pain, and no limitation of movement. Honestly, he looks like he has a dorsal fin, and that's after two surgeries, but right now it isn't bothering him. It probably will someday, but for now, it doesn't.

I was just using "mild" to describe how it might affect Richard in the moment, which is to say that even if he was destined for severe debilitation in late middle age, he might not be very severely affected at the time of his death. I have no idea what the basis was for the archeologist, or anthropologist, or orthopedist, who saw the body to say "severe."

Keep in mind that the body was not laid in a coffin. Some twisting of the spine could be due to how the body ended up where it ended up. Think about how the necks of the few mostly complete sauropod skeletons found have looked in situ. Their necks often are very twisted.

Anyway, we can't use the skeleton to prove that it is Richard, because it had a high shoulder, and therefore, Richard had a high shoulder. That's classic question begging.

[RivkahChaya]

Oh, since the article mentioned it, and in case anyone doesn't know, the skeleton has scoliosis, which is side-to-side S- or C-curvature. Swayback or humpback curvature is called "kyphosis." It's possible to have both together, and have a spine that curves in three dimensions, or spirals, which is a terrible double-whammy, but it's not that common, but it is what the kid I know with the sort of dorsal fin has.

So, all the movies that show Richard III as a Quasimodo-style humpback are wrong. If this is him.

Anyone want to speculate on the female skeleton?