Richard III & the Car Park

[Phil H]

Thanks fo the confirmation about the stone coffin. The latest clarification fits my understanding (at second - or more - hand). I would have deferred to your information of course. This helps with the loss of the feet though.

Thanks,

Phil H

[Sally]

Hi Phil

Paulinus' church (notwithstanding the deication of the one I have just been discussing) was, I suspect on the site of the present cathedral, and accounts for that being built where it was, close up against the old Roman wall. Again, no evidence except commonsense and a deep knowledge of the area.

Yes, you may be right - I don't think we're in a position to tell on the basis of current knowledge. Paul is a good early dedication, and common enough, no particular reason to connect it with Paulinus. The other thing I wanted to say was that pre-Conquest 'monasteries' (entirely different from the later Med imports) frequently contained more than one church. York, Bradford on Avon, probably Deerhurst - sure there are more, but off the top of my head. So its quite plausible - likely even - that a succession of earlier Christian structures underlies Lincoln Cathedral - but I'd expect those to date from considerably later than the end of the Roman period.

I'd love to know for sure though

[Errata]

Is it possible that "crouchback" refers to posture and not deformity? There is a known phenomena of certain people with certain personality traits having terrible posture. Women who develop early tend to sort of stoop and round their shoulders forward to hide their bust. A way to not stick out until the others catch up, but it's a habit that sticks. Also tall people who are very conscious of their height slump forward, as do those who are shy or have have low self esteem. As do those who read by terrible lighting. Monks were supposedly the epitome of the phenomenon, a few spectacular examples going through the world almost bent in half.

I mean, Richard was never even a little supposed to be king. In his formative years he was barely even royal. I can see the differences in height descriptions being due to him drawing himself up, and people being surprised by the extra inches gained just by standing up straight. It's a dramatic trick CEOs use today. It would mean he wasn't the 6'4 of Edward, but not short. He just had the ability to occasionally impress with his perceived height by apparently growing before people's eyes.

Even with the advent of modern medicine, I have to say I've broken a couple of ribs a couple of times, and not only did they not do anything to treat it, it didn't particularly lay me out. I certainly wouldn't have swung a sword, and I avoided gallon jugs for a few weeks, but otherwise it was business as usual, just the not infrequent hiss of pain when I did something that aggravated my ribs. The offered me a wrap if it felt better, which it didn't. They gave me pain pills I didn't take, and they told me not to fly under any circumstances. Since Richard wasn't about to fly anywhere, I doubt broken ribs would have altered his life much, just his workouts.

Sally: GPS vs. GPR. I know. I had just gotten off the phone with my dad where I was tying to coach him on how to program his GPS for a trip he is taking. It was on the brain.

And looking at the map, it doesn't look like they put a trench through the altar area. It looks like the altar was near the back wall, and the trench is a little more than half a room away. Which is close in the grand scheme of things, but pretty far away with such a narrow trench. And I'm not saying they did it wrong, or whatever. It's just that I personally wouldn't be satisfied until I saw what was immediately surrounding the altar, because I would think that the more important you are, the close to the altar you get, and if Richard wasn't by the altar, it would eat me alive until I found out who they thought had precedence over a king. I'm just that way.

[Phil H]

It's just that I personally wouldn't be satisfied until I saw what was immediately surrounding the altar, because I would think that the more important you are, the close to the altar you get, and if Richard wasn't by the altar, it would eat me alive until I found out who they thought had precedence over a king.

Imagine concentric semi-circles around the altar. Unless you are a saint whose bones have been obtained, you'll not be in direct contact with the altar. The patron saint or founder MIGHT be actually under, just behind or close to the altar.

The aim then is to get as close to the altar as possible with your tomb. Remember how, in an earlier post, I desribed the kings in Westminster Abbey as being close to the shrine of Edward the Confessor? They form a semi-circle around it.

Before Richard's time, positions close to the altar might already have been occupied by former abbots, or priors or leading friary notables, even local patrons.

Richard may have been given a reasonable place of presteige and honour, in the centre of the chancel, feet towards the altar - or in a reconstruction I have seen, against a wall to one side, with an epitaph fixed to the wall. The central position is occupied by William II at Winchester and John (Worcester).

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=King+John+tomb&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1024&bih=540&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=b-Wv4aOp49KBfM:&imgrefurl=http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/16a1c1/&docid=sSTux8b4p8c_3M&itg=1&imgurl=http://cache.virtualtourist.com/4/2833649-King_Johns_tomb_Worcester.jpg&w=658&h=492&ei=cG9fUKfpHsrs0gWz74H4BQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=495&vpy=143&dur=38&hovh=194&hovw=260&tx=171&ty=89&sig=115853153989040996388&page=3&tbnh=163&tbnw=245&start=21&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:21,i:177

Picture hopefully shows the centrally placed tomb of John as an example.
Phil H

[Sally]

And looking at the map, it doesn't look like they put a trench through the altar area. It looks like the altar was near the back wall, and the trench is a little more than half a room away. Which is close in the grand scheme of things, but pretty far away with such a narrow trench. And I'm not saying they did it wrong, or whatever. It's just that I personally wouldn't be satisfied until I saw what was immediately surrounding the altar, because I would think that the more important you are, the close to the altar you get, and if Richard wasn't by the altar, it would eat me alive until I found out who they thought had precedence over a king. I'm just that way.

Hi Errata

If you look at the plan, you'll notice that the vast majority is a hypothesised plan. This means that we are guessing where the altar was based on comparative data. We don't actually know exactly where it was, because only three carefully targetted trenches were excavated. The position of the altar - well, we know that it moved back towards the east wall from the chancel crossing over time, but a fine chronlogy of that movement would be impossible to achieve.

Other than the known fixed points, determined by excavation, all the rest is a guesstimate. The generic form of the medieval monastery make it a good one in general, but exact positioning of features cannot be determined that way.

[RivkahChaya]

Of course, this raises the question of the feet.

Maybe that explains why he was so short? Seriously, if they removed his feet to fit him into a casket (and yes, I realize this wasn't the case, but bear with me), they would not have just discarded the feet; they would have tucked them into the casket some place. That still goes, even if they just wrapped him in a sheet-- if the feet were removed to fit him into a space, they wouldn't have tossed them away.

I am unaware of any such detailed reports of Richard's birth, Rivkah.

Maybe the elements of the "myth" are a confused recollection of something real - a long labour? I don't know. he was born at Fotheringhay Castle, Northamptonshire (where Mary Queen of Scots was executed over 100 years later in 1587) in Oct 1452.

Cecily had one further child after Richard, so she cannot have been damaged too much by his birth.

A difficult birth with Richard due to his positioning, or his size, would not necessarily have affected CN's future pregnancies.

For the record, the complications I was describing are not terribly uncommon. I can't give a percentage, but I've met many other women who have gone through the same thing. One way midwives in the middle ages dealt with the problem was to wait for the baby to die in utero, then dismember it, rather than try to reposition it, or break its clavicle, but because the Nevilles were a prominent family, the midwife may have gone beyond the usual call of duty.

Babies that were delivered after repositioning often had mothers who came down with childbed fever, probably as a result of midwives sticking hands far inside the birth canal. Since people didn't understand that midwives really ought to wash their hands before such an undertaking, a lot of people blamed the fever on the baby's position in the first place.

Sounds like Cecily Neville had a pretty sturdy immune system. Aside from her longevity and numerous pregnancies, she traveled pretty widely too, didn't she?

Is it possible that "crouchback" refers to posture and not deformity? ... Women who develop early tend to sort of stoop and round their shoulders forward to hide their bust.

Speak for yourself.

As far as Richard normally appearing short, but being able to pull up several inches, my cousin, the doctor, says that is in fact consistent with scoliosis caused by muscles or ligaments pulling the spine out of alignment, as opposed to scoliosis caused by calcification, the latter being pretty rare in young people.

Even with the advent of modern medicine, I have to say I've broken a couple of ribs a couple of times, and not only did they not do anything to treat it, it didn't particularly lay me out.

I would have to clarify with my cousin, but I think she was saying that it's specific kinds of rib fractures, specifically, displaced fractures, that cause the rib to heal out of place (this happened to a cat I had-- she had a bent rib you could feel) or fractures very near a growth area, that cause the particular rib to stop growing, and of course, it's all more serious if it happens before you stop growing.

I think most rib fractures are hairline, or non-displaced fractures, because there's such a net of muscles and ligaments holding the ribs together, but a displaced rib fracture is a pretty serious injury. It can make it painful to draw a full breath. I think nowadays, it's usually a surgical situation.

Of course, I don't know that Richard had any of those things. But when my cousin wrote me back, I was kind of surprised at the list of really common childhood injuries that don't necessarily cause growth problems, or spine displacement problems, but potentially can. Now I'm really gonna worry every time my son trips.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Sally

When I moved from Brighton into West Sussex back in 1985, Chichester's roman credentials (including the much messed-about-with city walls) were explained to me in depth...I think the basilica theory was propounded to me at that time...Here though are a couple of sites I've found since:-

http://original.looklikefred.co.uk/r...tion-of-sussex

http://www.westsussex.info/roman-sussex.shtml

As regards the roman mosaic pavement visible through the glass viewing window in the Cathedral floor, please see:-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hqcasanova/5004824079/

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

Hi Errata

If you look at the plan, you'll notice that the vast majority is a hypothesised plan. This means that we are guessing where the altar was based on comparative data. We don't actually know exactly where it was, because only three carefully targetted trenches were excavated. The position of the altar - well, we know that it moved back towards the east wall from the chancel crossing over time, but a fine chronlogy of that movement would be impossible to achieve.

Other than the known fixed points, determined by excavation, all the rest is a guesstimate. The generic form of the medieval monastery make it a good one in general, but exact positioning of features cannot be determined that way.

Firstly, I had assumed that the plan showed scale, that the sizes of the bisected trenches were accurate in comparison with the assumed size of the room. Which upon reflection was an odd assumption to make, but I did it.

The other thing is that when I went on my little grand tour of Europe, I got a real education in the consistency of Catholic Church layout. In that after spending two weeks in Germany, I could have navigated the French churches blindfolded. Which is a consistency they don't have here, except for cathedrals specifically based off of European models. Which I gather is due to the whole station of the cross thing. So while there is no telling how far apart they may be, the altar is always going to be at one end of a rectangle, against, or very near the wall. So if the altar was not for some reason where they assume it to be, that would be remarkable.

So if I'm burying a king, he either gets an up close and personal of the altar, or he gets dead center a la John. Except that given this was at the time a working chapel, I would think he wouldn't be in the dead center of the room, but dead center between the spectator seats and the altar. But he gets an effigy, which has to be sort of in the way of a bunch of guys trying to take communion. Were I some sort of civic planner in a monastery, I'd put him against the wall, either on one side of the alter or another, or along that back wall. But trench 3 is just shy of bisecting the room, which still seems too far away from the altar. It's where I would think the first few rows of monks would be standing. Which wouldn't be a problem, except he that effigy and that's just a fire hazard. Or something. But they said he was buried in the chancel, and that's right around the altar. If he was dead center, that wouldn't be the chancel, but the nave.

[Phil H]

Errata

Don't forget that we are talking here of a friary, not a parish church or cathedral. The only participants in services would be the friars - so less people. (That said, even in a cathedral, or parish church, anything east of the rood screen - i.e. in the chancel, was reservd for clergy.)

John is buried in the chancel/choir at Worcester, as is William Rufus at Winchester - they seem to have had no problems.

Oh, and I don't think fire hazards would have been of much concern then.

Turning to yuor point about being against a wall, I have seen one reconstruction of the tomb by a highly reputable Ricardian, which shows in against a wall, with an epitaph above it afixed to the wall. Wording of the epitaph is reputed to have survived but I am not entirely convinced - but then some dog latin cobbled together by a local might not read that well.

The archaeologists should know for certain what the position of the grave was (they found it!) but perhaps not of the monument - unless its foundations have left traces. I would urge caution, in that while monuments are usually directly above the grave - they have no need to be. Before 1530 Richard could have rested under the paving in the centre of the chancel with the monument (later installed) nearby. This would be very true if, in the 10 years between burial and monument, the precise site of the grave had been forgotten.

Phil H

[Sally]

Errata

The other thing is that when I went on my little grand tour of Europe, I got a real education in the consistency of Catholic Church layout. In that after spending two weeks in Germany, I could have navigated the French churches blindfolded. Which is a consistency they don't have here, except for cathedrals specifically based off of European models. Which I gather is due to the whole station of the cross thing. So while there is no telling how far apart they may be, the altar is always going to be at one end of a rectangle, against, or very near the wall. So if the altar was not for some reason where they assume it to be, that would be remarkable.

The consistency of 'European models' is due to liturgical practices, not all of which are well understood. There is a distinction to be drawn between the medieval monastery - a continental import - and other churches. Medieval monasteries follow a distinct ground plan, they are normally very similar in design. Since we are talking about one in this case, it is reasonable to hypothesise the groundplan from the known fixed points established by excavation. The exact dimensions cannot be determined, however, without excavation. Several factors could have affects the actual dimensions of the monastic complex.

Estimations of the chancel and the position of the altar are just that - estimations. Therefore the actual position of both sets of remains and the 'founder's' casket are relative.

There are changes in liturgical and social practice throughout the Medieval period which affect the form of other churches. The position of the altar changes over time, doubtless to reflect that change. The position of the font changes too, similar thing.

IN this country, the standard development of local churches over time from about 1100 is sufficiently uniform to have enabled us to detect building features which do not belong to that progression - this is how we know what we do (and that's still woefully short) about 'Anglo-Saxon' churches.

[Phil H]

It is interesting that the Greyfriars, Leicester, appear to have no transepts. The structure was therefore essentially just one long rectangle from west door to high altar - quite simple. I assume that friary churches were somewhat simpler than the church within say a Benedictine or Cistercian house.

One wonders WHy the friary church was chosen as Richard's last resting place. Was the only one that would take a dead, attainted king? Or was it because it was more obscure, more out of the way?

A thought occurs to me that Henry VII may have been concerned with Richard's body becoming a place of veneration for discontented Yorkists/Ricardians - maybe why he took 10 years to have a monument put up. That the body did not become so is perhaps worthy of note. There were many supporters of Richard still alive from the high nobility (Lincoln, Lovell) to ordinary northeners - the people who supported Simnel and warbeck in due course.

So could it be that the friary church was reserved for Franciscans within the order, and thus not easily accessible by the general public? In any case the chancel would have been out of bounds to the laity.

This discovery is leading me down paths of thought untravelled hitherto.

Phil H

[Sally]

I think it would depend on whether the Fransiscans were a closed order or not Phil. I'm afraid I don't know - I know more about the architecture of monasteries than monastic orders.

If you're interested in old churches (or if anyone else is for that matter) you might check out the SCA. They have an annual conference (more or less anyway). I went to one in Lincoln a few years back as it happens - and produce a journal.

Link below:

http://www.archaeologyuk.org/socchurcharchaeol/

[Steve S]

Now have me thinking on differences between Friars and Monks..I know the whole idea of the former was that they were meant to go out in the world.....So exactly how a Friary worked is something I need to look at.......

[Errata]

Errata

Don't forget that we are talking here of a friary, not a parish church or cathedral. The only participants in services would be the friars - so less people. (That said, even in a cathedral, or parish church, anything east of the rood screen - i.e. in the chancel, was reservd for clergy.)

John is buried in the chancel/choir at Worcester, as is William Rufus at Winchester - they seem to have had no problems.

Oh, and I don't think fire hazards would have been of much concern then.

Turning to yuor point about being against a wall, I have seen one reconstruction of the tomb by a highly reputable Ricardian, which shows in against a wall, with an epitaph above it afixed to the wall. Wording of the epitaph is reputed to have survived but I am not entirely convinced - but then some dog latin cobbled together by a local might not read that well.

The archaeologists should know for certain what the position of the grave was (they found it!) but perhaps not of the monument - unless its foundations have left traces. I would urge caution, in that while monuments are usually directly above the grave - they have no need to be. Before 1530 Richard could have rested under the paving in the centre of the chancel with the monument (later installed) nearby. This would be very true if, in the 10 years between burial and monument, the precise site of the grave had been forgotten.

Phil H

I was joking about a fire hazard. Just that your standard effigy in the middle of a church would be like parking a Buick between the worshipers and the altar. Which certainly happened, just not so convenient.

And I freely admit that part of my whole problem with this is purely cultural. No one is buried in synagogues at all, and if they were they certainly wouldn't be under the floor where anyone could step on the grave. I have an instinctive feeling that people avoid doing this when they can, not because of any fact but because that's how I was raised to believe.

It's also terribly convenient that the first male remains that they find would turn out to be Richard. I mean, statistically it's as likely to be Richard as anyone else. But for some reason I'd feel better if they had gone through a couple of skeletons before happening upon him. It's kind of like finding pirate treasure the first time you use a metal detector.

[Sally]

It's also terribly convenient that the first male remains that they find would turn out to be Richard. I mean, statistically it's as likely to be Richard as anyone else. But for some reason I'd feel better if they had gone through a couple of skeletons before happening upon him. It's kind of like finding pirate treasure the first time you use a metal detector.

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.