Richard III & the Car Park

[jason_c]

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?

Almost all the movies are based on Shakespeare's play. They are not wrong in terms of the play. Shakespeare was rarely known to be historically accurate.

Do I think Richard III was a gruesome hunchback? No. But I doubt he was a Brad Pitt lookalike, with an overdeveloped shoulder due to all his military training, as has been implied.

[Phil H]

I veryu much doubt the female skeleton has anything to do with Richard. It is just another burial in the friary church.

Phil H

[Phil H]

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.

I think we can - to an extent - since we are looking for a particular man in a particular spot.

We did not anticipate finding a deformed skeleton, but the myth has always been specific about a raised shoulder. So that is interesting and likely to be the subject of prolonged debate.

Your comment would be true if archaeologists had found a skeleton at say Bosworth and said - deformity so MUST be Richard. That wopuld not be a logical deduction. In a specific church, looking for a specific tomb, it is as i have said, interesting - but will only be conclusive if other scientific tests suggest this is the right body.

Phil H

[Errata]

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.

Here's what gets me. In any military situation, the arrow should not have been broad headed. It's the pinnacle of the armor wearing age, and while broad headed arrows were useful in any number of wars in other places, in England, France and Germany they should have all been bodkins, or the less common "man killers" which are the sort of small diamond shaped ones. And no arrowhead could actually penetrate plate armor. Even with a crossbow. Agincourt was so successful not because of the strength of the bows, but because of the numbers of archers. Multiple huge volleys of arrows ensured that every French knight had a real chance of getting drilled through a weak spot. The biggest problem was that the French knights were cavalry, and their horses were very vulnerable to an arrow, and a guy in a tin can pitching over the front of his horse was not uncommonly fatal. Especially if swordsmen were waiting for exactly that to happen.

There is a reason that armor went out as guns came in. Bullets were unlikely to actually penetrate metal, but bullets could fracture metal, and bend. A guy in armor gets shot, the armor stops the bullet but pieces of his armor penetrate him. Broadheads in England and France should have been phased out, left for hunting. The average suit of armor (which a king of all people should have had a well fitted suit of) can gap to as much as an inch at the armpit if the knight manages to raise his arms over his head, which isn't easy, but is doable. If the knight gets shot through that one inch gap, there is a chance for it to be lethal if it's on his left side, where penetrating a couple of inches can pierce the heart. But it won't penetrate farther than that because the opening closes so quickly, and there's usually an angle issue with a standing archer and a mounted knight. There is no scenario where a knight get an arrow in the armpit and it ends up near his spine, unless the arrowhead was broken off, and when his corpse rotted it just fell back towards the spine.

I really want to know how severe this head injury is. By all accounts if it is Richard, the skull should be caved in. He was wearing a war helmet, and lethal blow would have crushed his skull, not cut. Essentially more like getting hit with a bat than a sword. Even if he wasn't wearing a helmet, that kind of blow with a sharpened iron bar still tends to crack the skull like an egg. Only a non lethal blow could cut the skull but not hammer it in. So that I'd like to know more about.

[RivkahChaya]

Almost all the movies are based on Shakespeare's play. They are not wrong in terms of the play. Shakespeare was rarely known to be historically accurate.

Tower of London, with Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff, and Vincent Price, is not based on the play, and is downright sympathetic to Richard, compared to the play. Rathbone plays a humpback (but not hunched over, there's a difference) Richard who is still fairly agile. It's actually pretty believable, in terms of real-world spinal problems. It would be kyphosis, not scoliosis, but that's the least of the films historical inaccuracies.

an overdeveloped shoulder due to all his military training, as has been implied.

I really, really doubt he would have a visibly larger shoulder from just having a bigger deltoid muscle. I've shot an email to my cousin, who is an orthopedist-- she mostly works on leg bones, but she'll know this stuff. I asked whether someone with scoliosis would have a visibly higher shoulder in a normally relaxed pose, but would be capable of straightening out his posture on purpose, if he wanted to look commanding, for example.

It occurred to me that "withered" hand is not an either/or proposition. There are people who for various reasons, from cerebral palsy, to having once fractured a clavicle, have a weaker side, that is visibly smaller, but far from useless.

We tend to think of people like that as not military material, because they would be rejected for service now, and forget that people like Lord Nelson continued to serve after losing an entire limb.

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.

I think we can - to an extent - since we are looking for a particular man in a particular spot.

Begging the Question.

What I meant, if I wasn't clear, is that we can say "Richard had a high shoulder; therefore we will look for a skeleton with a scapular or spinal deformity." Or, we can say "This skeleton is Richard; from that, we can conclude that he had scoliosis, and probably a noticeably abnormal posture." What we can't do is use A to prove B, then turn around and use B to prove A. We need outside evidence for one or the other. It looks like there will be some of each, though.

[Errata]

Do we know how many others were buried (or entombed) in the chancel? I mean, I've never even heard of a Jew being buried indoors, so I have zero experience in the matter. Westminster is clearly just littered with corpses, but Westminster also tries to be the burial spot of choice for famous Brits. Would an abbot or a father superior (is that a thing? Father superior?) be buried in the chancel? If so there should be about 200 years worth of them in that area. And what could possibly convince a bunch of monks to bury a woman in the chancel? Are they even allowed to bury women? I actually really don't know. My Catholic training was confined to my mothers New Jersey relatives life events, so for all I know, there is a papal decree out there that says "Thou shalt have fireworks at wedding receptions".

My reasoning being this. Richard and Richard alone could have been buried there. But theres this other person. A woman no less. And it's more than a little strange that they would bury Richard there, and then some random woman and no one else. So shouldn't there be more bones? And what does it mean that there aren't more bones? Is this random woman really freakishly important? But then why doesn't anyone know who she is?

Personally, I think he should be buried with his wife. It may not have been some grand love affair, but they were cousins, and they were childhood friends, and they went through hell together. I think they probably cared very much about each other. I mean, I get why they want to keep him where he is, but he went off to battle, died, and was abused and buried in haste. Maybe we should thank Greyfriars for taking care of him this long, and let him go home.

[Phil H]

errata

The chancel in an English church is the most sacred area (in general terms) where the high altar stands and usually also where the choir stalls - both for the clergy, members of the friary and (in medieval times) a male chorus of singers - boys and men - (called a choir) would sit during services.

The chancel was also the presteige place to be buried. Abbots, priors, bishops etc often had tombs in the chncel or in the altar area and other local nobility or patrons of the church would also seek such a high status burial place. Some bodies would be under flat slabs, sometimes with an engraved "brass" inset into them with a depiction of them in life and an inscription - some of these are life sized. Other tombs might have a box-type monument, either with or without an effigy. Henry VII is thought to have paid for a life-sized alabaster effigy of Richard -I believe a fragment is claimed to exist. I'll try to check.

At Leicester, the corpse of Richard III - having been exposed to public gaze naked, to demonstrate clearly that he was dead - would have been interred in the ground under the chancel floor. No doubt in a prominent place. If the remains found are Richard's then he appears to have been buried just in a shroud (I have not heard of coffin fragments being found) which might fit the circumstances. In his case the monument/effigy came later.

Westminster Abbey along with St George's Chapel, Windsor, are the two main royal mausoleums in England. The equivalent in France is St Denis.

At Westminster there are a group of medieval monarchs around the central tomb of the English royal saint, Edward the Confessor (died 1066) just BEHIND the high altar. Westminster is different to other churches as the area immediately in front of the high altar and between it and the choir, is left clear and open for coronations. Monarchs around Edward include Henry III, Edward I, Edward III and Philippa of Hainault, Richard III and Anne of Bohemia (interestingly, he was deposed and murdered and reburied in the Abbey after initial interment elsewhere). Ricahrd III's queen, Anne Neville, who predeceased him, is close by.

Behind these tombs lies the chantry chapel of Henry V (victor of Agincourt).

Richard's successor rebuilt the former lady Chapel of the Abbey as a proposed shrine for Henry VI (mad but supposedly saintly!). This became a new royal burial place, with Henry VII, Elizabeth of York and bizzarely, James I, in a vault in pride of place. Henry's mother has a remarkable effigy nearby. Elizabeth I is buried with her sister mary under a magnificent monument and Mary Queen of Scots was brought here from Peterbrough for reburial. Most of the Stuart monarchs are buried in vaults that are largely unmarked. Queen Anne was so bloated with dropsy that her coffin is said to be almost a cube!!

St George's is the resting place of Henry VIII, Jane Seymour and Charles I - in the centre of the chancel/choir, under a plain black slab. Richard II's brother, Edward IV, his Queen Elizabeth Wydeville, Lord Hastings (peremptorily executed on Richard's order) and Henry VI all lie nearby, close to the high altar.

More modern monarchs are also buried in the Chapel, but not in the choir - Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, George V and Queen Mary, George VI and Queen Elizabeth. Queen Victoria has her own mausoleum at Frogmore (close to Windsor in the castle's park) and the hanoverians are mainly buried in a separate vault partly under and accessed from St George's Chapel.

I hope that might provide some background to burial practices of English royalty and the importance of the chancel as a place of burial.

Phil H

[Phil H]

Here's what gets me. In any military situation, the arrow should not have been broad headed. It's the pinnacle of the armor wearing age, and while broad headed arrows were useful in any number of wars in other places, in England, France and Germany they should have all been bodkins, or the less common "man killers" which are the sort of small diamond shaped ones. And no arrowhead could actually penetrate plate armor. Even with a crossbow. Agincourt was so successful not because of the strength of the bows, but because of the numbers of archers. Multiple huge volleys of arrows ensured that every French knight had a real chance of getting drilled through a weak spot. The biggest problem was that the French knights were cavalry, and their horses were very vulnerable to an arrow, and a guy in a tin can pitching over the front of his horse was not uncommonly fatal. Especially if swordsmen were waiting for exactly that to happen.

On arrows, I think it is foolish in any questions of history to say this or that COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Strange things did and do!!

C15th armies were often made up of local men who provided their own weapons, especially archers. there were few uniforms (men might wear a jacket in the livery colours of their lord) and little uniformity in weaponry. I suspect that some helmets worn at Bosworth might have seen service in the French wars 50 years before.

What an archer might have in his quiver, or what might be included in the bundles of arrows brought in wagons - thousands would be needed - is anyone's guess. Who can say that the odd broad bladed arrow might not have been included by accident or design, or just "lived" in the quiver of a Tudor bowman.

Earlier, I speculated (no more) that if the body were proven be Richard's, then the arrow wound might have been inflicted post-mortem, as part of a desecration of the corpse. We know that Henry had the body stripped and taken back to Leicester naked, over a mule, with the private parts on show. he was clearly keen to demean his dead opponent. Any sort of indignity might have been inflicted on the corpse at that time - perhaps, as someone else said, out of some sort of fear of the deformed back now revealed.

Richard died, if the records are correct, fighting to the end, on foot, and surrounded by his foes. I doubt he went easily. In the melee, his helmet could have been pulled off or lost (we know that traditionally the helmet-crown he wore was found under a hawthorn bush - later a Tudor emblem). With his head bare, he could have been exposed to all sorts of head wounds.

But this is nothing more than speculation - we need to await the scientific results of tests etc. I simply advance the arguments to show the range of options.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

Is it plausible, whether or not likely, that archers carried these kind of arrows the way early riflemen carried bayonets? a musket or early rifle shot rarely killed someone right off, although it usually downed them, and was often a deadly blow, although death might come months later, so soldiers had bayonets fixed to the ends of their rifles, and musketeers kept them at their sides (IIRC-- I think the muskets were too long for fixed bayonets).

It's my understanding that arrows from archers caused blunt force trauma, like people who are shot by bullets while wearing bullet proof vests experience. Enough of that, and someone can eventually go down. I know finishing them off with a sword or battle axe makes more sense, but maybe some archer wanted to use a large arrow as a sort of spear, to sort of declare that an archer alone took down the victim.

Just a guess.

Also, would it be appropriate to bury Richard at York? Didn't he spend most of his political career governing York, and didn't York officially mourn him, to the displeasure of Henry Tudor? If that is a really stupid idea, be gentle. I'll play my American ignorance card again.

[RivkahChaya]

Earlier, I speculated (no more) that if the body were proven be Richard's, then the arrow wound might have been inflicted post-mortem, as part of a desecration of the corpse.

I'll go one better, and suggest that everyone behaved like a bunch of adolescents, and said "Hey, let's see this weird back we've all heard about, that he keeps covered-- well, crap, if it ain't true." Then they did the medieval version of taking a permanent marker, and drawing obscenities, and representations of genitalia on the face of the first guy to pass out drunk at a party.

For all we know, someone said "He looks like a animal-- let's give him a tail."

[Errata]

On arrows, I think it is foolish in any questions of history to say this or that COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Strange things did and do!!

Phil H

I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. When I said it "gets me" about the broad headed arrow, I didn't mean it couldn't have happened. Just that I get irrationally irritated when things don't fit into the pigeonholed history we are taught. I was on a dig where they found a skeleton in the 19th century layer, surrounded by Native American arrows from the 18th century, holding a 15th century rosary. And I was sort of chastising the poor bastard for being such a historical mess. I think if I had actually pursued Archeology I would have gotten used to it, but I went the History route, so I'm pissed off at that arrowhead. It violates my sensibilities, but it's clearly not impossible.

So now that I know about the chancel and it's significance, is it strange that no other bones have been found there?

To this day I can't go in Westminster. I have been taught that it is disrespectful in the extreme to step on graves, and the early childhood training stuck to such a degree that I can't bring myself to more that peek through windows.

[Scorpio]

Here's what gets me. In any military situation, the arrow should not have been broad headed. It's the pinnacle of the armor wearing age, and while broad headed arrows were useful in any number of wars in other places, in England, France and Germany they should have all been bodkins, or the less common "man killers" which are the sort of small diamond shaped ones. And no arrowhead could actually penetrate plate armor. Even with a crossbow. Agincourt was so successful not because of the strength of the bows, but because of the numbers of archers. Multiple huge volleys of arrows ensured that every French knight had a real chance of getting drilled through a weak spot. The biggest problem was that the French knights were cavalry, and their horses were very vulnerable to an arrow, and a guy in a tin can pitching over the front of his horse was not uncommonly fatal. Especially if swordsmen were waiting for exactly that to happen.

There is a reason that armor went out as guns came in. Bullets were unlikely to actually penetrate metal, but bullets could fracture metal, and bend. A guy in armor gets shot, the armor stops the bullet but pieces of his armor penetrate him. Broadheads in England and France should have been phased out, left for hunting. The average suit of armor (which a king of all people should have had a well fitted suit of) can gap to as much as an inch at the armpit if the knight manages to raise his arms over his head, which isn't easy, but is doable. If the knight gets shot through that one inch gap, there is a chance for it to be lethal if it's on his left side, where penetrating a couple of inches can pierce the heart. But it won't penetrate farther than that because the opening closes so quickly, and there's usually an angle issue with a standing archer and a mounted knight. There is no scenario where a knight get an arrow in the armpit and it ends up near his spine, unless the arrowhead was broken off, and when his corpse rotted it just fell back towards the spine.

I really want to know how severe this head injury is. By all accounts if it is Richard, the skull should be caved in. He was wearing a war helmet, and lethal blow would have crushed his skull, not cut. Essentially more like getting hit with a bat than a sword. Even if he wasn't wearing a helmet, that kind of blow with a sharpened iron bar still tends to crack the skull like an egg. Only a non lethal blow could cut the skull but not hammer it in. So that I'd like to know more about.

Yes, the broadhead was a classic hunting arrow, not a variety developed for war. However,the arrow undoubtedly came from a long bow; i would guess that a ad hoc Welsh yeoman with less sophisticated equipment fired the arrow and not a veteran mercenary. The word from the archaeological dig speaks of multiple head trauma, and the contemporary accounts state that he was struck with a poleaxe numerous times; so many times in fact that his head was squashed into the floor.

[Phil H]

and the contemporary accounts state that he was struck with a poleaxe numerous times; so many times in fact that his head was squashed into the floor.

I would be interested in your reference.

I am familiar with all the Ricardian sources, but don't recall that.

Thanks in anticipation,

Phil H

[Sally]

Errata -

Do we know how many others were buried (or entombed) in the chancel?

Yes, originally the chancel was the domain of clergy, the nave of the congregation. Who was buried in the chancel is dependent to an extent on what sort of church you're talking about. In a monastic church, the higher clergy. You might find secular persons there on occasion, but most of them were buried in parish or 'mother' churches from about 1100; unless familiar tradition dictated otherwise.

I mean, I've never even heard of a Jew being buried indoors, so I have zero experience in the matter.

No, the whole burying inside the church thing is derived from an early Christian practice. In England, the Jewish population in towns and cities had their own cemeteries. Occasionally archaeologists engaged in urban excavation discover them.

Westminster is clearly just littered with corpses, but Westminster also tries to be the burial spot of choice for famous Brits.

Westminster is very ancient, built on land given to the Church by Edward the Confessor shortly before his death. Historically, it accumulated kudos over the centuries, eventually becoming the 1st burial choice for important and famous Britons. I believe it's pretty tough to get in these days.

Would an abbot or a father superior (is that a thing? Father superior?) be buried in the chancel? If so there should be about 200 years worth of them in that area. And what could possibly convince a bunch of monks to bury a woman in the chancel? Are they even allowed to bury women?

There have been no abbots since the Dissolution - Henry replaced them with Chapters. Before that, it would be theoretically possible to find almost a thousand years worth of abbots in some places! Regarding women - in the early church women were as important as men - there is certainly nothing that militates against a woman being buried in the chancel; assuming the usual social conditions applied.

My reasoning being this. Richard and Richard alone could have been buried there. But theres this other person. A woman no less. And it's more than a little strange that they would bury Richard there, and then some random woman and no one else. So shouldn't there be more bones? And what does it mean that there aren't more bones? Is this random woman really freakishly important? But then why doesn't anyone know who she is?

Not at all. Richard may have been buried there, but a burial spot in the chancel wasn't necessarily reserved for royalty. As for the mystery woman, we don't know yet how she got there. Is it a complete skeleton, or not? That might make a difference.

[Phil H]

As for the mystery woman, we don't know yet how she got there. Is it a complete skeleton, or not? That might make a difference.

My understanding is that whereas the male skeleton was still articulated, the female was disarticulated.

Phil H