Richard III & the Car Park

[Scorpio]

Well you'd think so wouldn't you? Although last time I checked the remains of more than one member of ancient royalty were just lying around in an old box in an abbey that shall remain nameless - so, maybe not always.

Richard has a high enough public profile to be taken more seriously, I should think. Shakespeare's play is still very popular.

There will be a new drama about him no doubt,if the remains are his, and the media catches on. I think Matt Smith or Richard Ashcroft will play him.

[Scorpio]

There will be a new drama about him no doubt,if the remains are his, and the media catches on. I think Matt Smith or Richard Ashcroft will play him.

Make it Richard Armitage while i am about it.

[ChrisGeorge]

Make it Richard Armitage while i am about it.

Looks like Richard III to me.

[Phil H]

I'll be interested to hear how tall they reckon Richard was. As the feet of the skeleton are said to be missing, it will have to be an estimate.

Novelists have sometimes assumed he was small, but his brothers were tall (Edward IV was around six four).

Phil H

[Phil H]

When you think about it, the city of Leicester had two great men with disabilities closely associated with it: the Elephant Man, John Merrick, born there; and Richard III, buried there.

Cardinal Wolsey, as I noted above was also buried there, and in the same friary church as Richard III. Notwithstanding his reputation for greed and corruption, Thomas Wolsey was one of the greatest statesmen this country has ever had.

Was not a very fat man (Daniel Lambert - was that his name) also a resident of Leicester? Does that count as a disability?

Even more associations for the city.

There is a lovely statue of richard there, in armour brandishing his crown - it was in a park when i saw it some years ago. It may have been moved since.

Phil H

[ChrisGeorge]

I'll be interested to hear how tall they reckon Richard was. As the feet of the skeleton are said to be missing, it will have to be an estimate.

Novelists have sometimes assumed he was small, but his brothers were tall (Edward IV was around six four).

Phil H

For what its worth, Thomas More described Richard III as "little of stature, ill-featured of limbs, crook-backed...hard-favoured of visage" (Wikipedia) -- however objective estimates of his height seem to be lacking.

Chris

[Archaic]

Archeological News re: Richard III

Hi everyone.

There are some excellent articles about the search for Richard III on the website of the magazine 'Current Archeology': http://www.archaeology.co.uk/

I was wondering, if it turns out to be him will he finally get a funeral?

Best regards,
Archaic

[Monty]

When you think about it, the city of Leicester had two great men with disabilities closely associated with it: the Elephant Man, John Merrick, born there; and Richard III, buried there.

Cardinal Wolsey, as I noted above was also buried there, and in the same friary church as Richard III. Notwithstanding his reputation for greed and corruption, Thomas Wolsey was one of the greatest statesmen this country has ever had.

Was not a very fat man (Daniel Lambert - was that his name) also a resident of Leicester? Does that count as a disability?

Even more associations for the city.

There is a lovely statue of richard there, in armour brandishing his crown - it was in a park when i saw it some years ago. It may have been moved since.

Phil H

Hey Phil,

Wolsey was buried in Abbey Park, where Leicester Abbey once stood, not Greyfriars.

Here are some photos of the King Richard III statue. Its situated in Castle Park and is on the route he took out of the City towards Bosworth. The same route his body took on the way back.

Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

For what its worth, Thomas More described Richard III as "little of stature, ill-featured of limbs, crook-backed...hard-favoured of visage" (Wikipedia) -- however objective estimates of his height seem to be lacking.

Chris

Interesting question posed by Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb in "A Tudor historian's view of the Richard III excavations" on the BBC History Extra site:

"Should we conclude that the sainted More, a man of integrity who died a martyr rather than swear against his conscience, was a liar? That can of worms may be even more controversial than the story of Richard III himself."

Chris

[jason_c]

As far as Richards hunchback goes there has been propaganda for and against. The Tudors did alter his portraits. Yet we are to assume the original portraits were painted to real life. Unless otherwise ordered(Cromwell: warts and all) it would be a brave artist to paint him with a hunchback. No matter how often populist Tv history presenters(Tony Robinson etc) or The Richard the 3rd Society tell me otherwise I always believed Richard had some major deformity. The wording from the archaeologists were the bones showed "severe scoliosis".

[Phil H]

More was a nasty piece of work.

Don't believe the saintly image of the play "A man for all seasons", or Scofield's sympathetic performance. The real more was a man who burned heretics at the drop of a hat, and for all intents and purposes a suicide.

The King gave him every opportunity to escape the death penalty, but he refused. I have no time for him.

He never finished his "Life of Richard III" (which exists in two incomplete versions, one Latin, one English). Both are innacurate in detail and melodramatic in tone/style.

The debate has been, did he derive his version from Cardinal Morton, his mentor and one of Richard's most adamant opponents? Even, was more drawing on some narrative written by Morton - another devious, treacherous and cunning man.

It has also been suggested that, in a time when it was not safe to criticise the reigning monarch, his "Richard" is actually about Henry VII - a recent (excellent btw) biography of whom is titled "The Winter king"; so cold was his temperament. I don't think More was getting at Henry, but his picture of Richard is more comedy than biography and is internally inconsistent - perhaps why he never finished either version. Whatever, he is certainly NOT a reputable source.

Phil H

[Steve S]

What Phil said.....More is one of the great whitewash jobs of history..........

[jason_c]

More was a nasty piece of work.

Don't believe the saintly image of the play "A man for all seasons", or Scofield's sympathetic performance. The real more was a man who burned heretics at the drop of a hat, and for all intents and purposes a suicide.

The King gave him every opportunity to escape the death penalty, but he refused. I have no time for him.

He never finished his "Life of Richard III" (which exists in two incomplete versions, one Latin, one English). Both are innacurate in detail and melodramatic in tone/style.

The debate has been, did he derive his version from Cardinal Morton, his mentor and one of Richard's most adamant opponents? Even, was more drawing on some narrative written by Morton - another devious, treacherous and cunning man.

It has also been suggested that, in a time when it was not safe to criticise the reigning monarch, his "Richard" is actually about Henry VII - a recent (excellent btw) biography of whom is titled "The Winter king"; so cold was his temperament. I don't think More was getting at Henry, but his picture of Richard is more comedy than biography and is internally inconsistent - perhaps why he never finished either version. Whatever, he is certainly NOT a reputable source.

Phil H

I agree to an extent about More. He himself could sign death warrants without blinking an eye. His image has been glossed over.

Still, some of his writings on the Princes in the Tower did subsequently prove to be correct. The bones of two similar aged boys were where he said the Princes bones were incarcerated. The fact that his manuscripts were unfinished diminishes there likelihood as being purely Tudor propaganda. Plus, More appears to be correct about some of the physical deformities of Richard.

[Cogidubnus]

Synchronicity

Still, some of his writings on the Princes in the Tower did subsequently prove to be correct. The bones of two similar aged boys were where he said the Princes bones were incarcerated. The fact that his manuscripts were unfinished diminishes there likelihood as being purely Tudor propaganda

Ah yes the sainted and totally authoritative More...He'd be bound to know where the princes in the tower were buried wouldn't he? Jason, he was just seven years old when Richard lll died...so when he'd grown up a little, presumably someone told him where they were hidden...there were no Plantagenets around were there, so that person could only have been...(gasps)...you've got it...a Tudor...

Like it or not, More was a Tudor creation through and through...they made him, they destroyed him...

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

I'm afraid that Henry was a dangerous pal to have. Boy, that was one hell of a midlife crisis.