Richard III & the Car Park

[Phil H]

Rivkah

For me in the USA the places to see would be:

Custer battlefield: I got into the subject a year or so ago;

Alamo: similarly, got into the reading 6 months ago;

Gettysburg - to get a sense of the scale of the battle (also maybe Antietam; and Shiloh);

My real interest would be in mezo-America - especially Mayan sites.

I have done New England, a bit - the re-created Plymouth Plantation etc.

History would win out over environmental - so also any War of Independence sites; oh and the Getty Museum!!

Phil H

[Errata]

When I did my little European tour when I was 18, I could not remotely be persuaded to do the tourist things. I was in several places in Germany, Prague, Northern Italy, Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris... I went to the Armory at Napoleons tomb, and I got dragged to Prague Castle. In London I went to the BM and I passed Trafalgar square a few times. Oh and I did the Tower tour. Two weeks in London, four in Western Europe, and I saw almost nothing. It was nice really. Everyone else went to go see the sights, so I got left on my own a lot. Did a lot of prowling.

Of course I live in a tourist trap, and I have never been especially moved by paintings or sculptures, so I can't think I would have been especially enriched by the Louvre, or Neuschwanstein, etc. My sister stood in line for four hours to get into a cemetery to spend five minutes looking at the grave of a musician she didn't even like. That I don't understand. But I doubt she accidentally walked into a single sex club the entire time in Europe, and I did it every other day, so she was spared a certain amount of awkwardness.

[RivkahChaya]

As for the allegation that this was a stunt to boost tourism, the fact that monies wÍll not be recouped is evidence that this was not the reason for the dig.

Yeah, I already said that.

Richard III has a strong connection to the City, and is a major part of its history. To dismiss this as a stunt really shows that you do not understand its importance to the people of Leicester.

I didn't dismiss this as a stunt-- I said quite the opposite, albeit, it's true that I have no appreciation to Richard's connection to Leicester, as opposed to England in general.

As for building a car park on the site, well I suggest you do a lil background research on the site and its development over the years, coupled with the historical facts.

OK, but I doubt that will change the fact that to me, the idea of parking my car over the ruins of a medieval church is jaw-dropping. It's just a difference in cultural perspective, and wasn't meant to be an insult.

Rivkah

For me in the USA the places to see would be:

Custer battlefield: I got into the subject a year or so ago;

Alamo: similarly, got into the reading 6 months ago;

Gettysburg - to get a sense of the scale of the battle (also maybe Antietam; and Shiloh);

My real interest would be in mezo-America - especially Mayan sites.

I have done New England, a bit - the re-created Plymouth Plantation etc.

History would win out over environmental - so also any War of Independence sites; oh and the Getty Museum!!

Phil H

Well, you won't find too many Mayan sites in the US, although there are some freaked out Americans who think the world is going to end on Dec. 21, because that's as far out as the Mayans decided to calculate their calendars. Yeah. Like buying a calendar in the bookstore, and thinking "My gawd! It only has 12 months! that means the world is going to end in 12 months!"

I find it interesting that you find the US civil war interesting. It's one of the more shameful events of the past, as far as I'm concerned.

[Beowulf]

Rivkah

For me in the USA the places to see would be:


Gettysburg - to get a sense of the scale of the battle (also maybe Antietam; and Shiloh);


Phil H

We went to Gettysburg last year wanting to do just that, get a sense of the scale of the battle, actually feel it. Supposed to have a kind of presence there.

We decided to go over it on horseback. Well, we never ride horses, but were told that's okay, these horses will plod along the trail gently. Just pull the reins lightly if they begin to eat the grass on the side of the trail, do NOT let them under any circumstance leave the trail, the others will be influenced, you won't be able to control them, yada yada yada

My husbands horse's name was Stoney. Shoulda got a clue right there...

Here is my husband Robert trying his best to keep Stoney away from the grass. You can see a bit of the battlefield, it's huge.

I am wondering, did the skeleton of Richard III seem like a hunchback as reported? Is the current thinking he did NOT kill the prince/s?

[Errata]

When I was a kid, my family spent seven hours in Sector Five at Shiloh, not because we wanted to, but because a deer track was more prominent that the actual path, so we kept circling these two cannons like Chevy Chase and the whole "Look kids! Buckingham Palace!" bit from Family Vacation.

[Phil H]

I am wondering, did the skeleton of Richard III seem like a hunchback as reported? Is the current thinking he did NOT kill the prince/s?

I think your answer to the first question is more expertly answered in earlier posts in this thread. My understanding is that he may have had one should der higher than the other but would not have been hunchbacked. It has been suggested that good tailoring would have pretty much disguised any inequality.

IF (and it remains "if") the body belongs to Richard III, then I think there will be an interesting debate. Modern historians (pro-Ricardian ones at least) and historical novelists have tended to discount ANY deformity as Tudor myth. This is partly based on ther fact that early portraits appear to have been modified later to create the impression of uneven shoulders. So, IF HE WAS slightly deformed, why were the portaits painted showing him "normal"? (I am aware my phrasing is not particularly PC, but I can't think of an easier way.) Maybe he didn't appear uneven for the reasons given above and they wanted to make his uneveness clearer.

But the bottom line is that, if the remains are Richard's, then part of the Tudor myth will have a solid basis and THAT is interesting.

On the PRINCES, the jury is still out in the Uk at least.

The Richard III Society has achieved much in destroying the king's once black reputation, by pretty well-proving he was not responsible for the deaths of Edward of Lancaster, Clarence, his wife Anne, etc etc. There is a chance that as Lord high Constable, he over saw the assassination of Henry VI, but there is wide agreement that the responsibility was Edward IV's. So Richard is now seen as a less evil man than Shakespeare painted him, for instance.

But most history books, including academic studies/biographies of the King - including the late Charles Ross' - will still assume he usurped the throne and killed his (half) nephews. pro-Ricardian works will take a different line.

The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever - the fact that they were not knowingly seen again apart - that the two lads were murdered. their disappearance could be because they went to a place of safety in secret, maybe abroad in Burgundy. We don't know.

No one ever claimed responsibility for the crime - and logically their murder needed a public exposure of the bodies to make explicit that they were dead - so no pretenders - as was done with Edward IV (died apparently of natural causes) Henry VI, Warwick the Kingmaker etc. Henry VII did not appear to know their fate given the words he used in condeming Richard (mild) and his reaction to pretenders.

My personal view, for what it is worth, is that Richard had to be capable of killing anyone who got in his way. He was a fifteeth century politician and soldier. He presided over treason trials when 18 (after Tewkesbury); had hastings executed peremptorily; was ruthless in connection with the wydeville plotters, Rivers, Grey and Vaughn. Richard was a contemporary of Cesare Borgia; he lived in an age when how you dealt with enemies could and did determine your own fate. But I am NOT convinced Richard killed the boys. My view of his character is that he was open - that he would have made "no bones" (apologies for the pun) about exposing their bodies had HE ordered their deaths.

I am unconvinced by the way that the bones in the urn at Westminster are those of young Richard and Edward.

Hope this helps.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

Scoliosis:





Kyphosis/Lordosis:



Scheuermann’s kyphosis (major cause of kyphosis in developed world, where genetics appears to be the cause, and not nutrition, child labor, untreated injury, or any or the other things that cause kyphosis in undeveloped countries):



I'm posting this, because all the articles on the skeletal find I read were very explicit and specific in pointing out that the potentially "Richard" skeleton had scoliosis, but not kyphosis. Scoliosis does not cause a hunched back. Even though the term gets used generically for any spinal deformity, it specifically means a side-to-side spinal deformity, which causes a lot of problems all on its own, but being bent over forward is not one of them. The term for that is "kyphosis."

Phil can correct me, but I believe that all purportedly non-fictional (albeit, non-contemporary) accounts of Richard mention a weak arm and high shoulder, but the hunchback is Shakespeare's invention. Scoliosis can cause poor blood flow to one arm, or pinch the nerves on one side, or just cause the muscles to develop unevenly.

Now, scoliosis and kyphosis do occur together, and the unfortunate people with that condition have a sort of corkscrew spine.

Also, it's worth noting that patients with kyphosis and lordosis (front to back curvature in the lumbar region) have a lot more problems with pain and pain management than people with scoliosis, even untreated scoliosis.

[Sally]

Thanks for posting those pictures Rivkah, very interesting to see.

[Steve S]

I presume you mean Salem, Mass., of the witchcraft trial fame, but much else as well (Cotton Mather, one of the witchcraft trial judges also instituted the first public vaccination program during a smallpox outbreak), like the Hawthorne "house of seven gables," but since everything else you mention is a battle site, I wondered if you meant Old Salem, NC, which is where all the War of 1812 sites pretty much are. Probably not, since NC is far out of your way, just asking, because I know Americans who don't know Salem, MA from Old Salem, NC. Of course, I know Americans who can't find their own home state on a US map, but that's another post.

Yep,it's the Mass one....

[RivkahChaya]

I just talked to my cousin, the orthopod, who made me promise to say she is not making any diagnoses on Richard III, who she has not met, nor on the skeleton, which she has not seen, but I am allowed to say that she has met a few adults who grew up in other countries, and have untreated scoliosis (she usually works with children, but like I said before, untreated scoliosis is rare in the US), and the tendency is for it to look worse than it is, especially relative to kyphosis, or to other types of bone deformities. She says that a lay person looking at someone with advanced, untreated scoliosis will not have a good idea of their ability to do things like throw a ball, or even straighten up momentarily, and even doctors don't always make correct guesses just from photos.

So I said, "Does that mean that the skeleton with 'severe scoliosis' still could have fought in a battle?"

She won't answer that, but she did ask, who made the pronouncement of "severe scoliosis"? was it a lay person, a physical anthopologist, a medical examiner (pathologist), an orthopod, or some other kind of doctor?

I didn't know the answer, so I thought I'd put it to the board: do we know who made the diagnosis? Is it possible that a spinal condition that would be severe by today's standards, where virtually everyone who has it is treated in childhood for it, would not be severe by the standards of the middle ages? maybe that was not taken into account.

I mean, before antibiotics, strep throat was a much-feared disease. It caused scarlet fever, killed small children, and caused chronic heart conditions in people who recovered, sometimes. It also occasionally caused neurological impairments, including blindness. Now, with antibiotics and supportive medications (cough suppressants, decongestants, and pain relievers/fever reducers), it isn't much worse than a cold.

[Errata]

I didn't know the answer, so I thought I'd put it to the board: do we know who made the diagnosis? Is it possible that a spinal condition that would be severe by today's standards, where virtually everyone who has it is treated in childhood for it, would not be severe by the standards of the middle ages? maybe that was not taken into account.

I think the statement was that the spine was severely twisted. And I guess it depends on what kind of twisted? I mean, those spines you show look like snakes and make me hurt just looking at them. If a spine was corkscrewed, I imagine that would be devastating. If it was twisted like a twizzler, I don't know that mobility would necessarily be hampered, but the idea of the spinous and transverse processes sticking inward makes me nauseous. I don't even know if a spine can do that.

[RivkahChaya]

Well, this is what I'm wondering: there's a huge difference in saying that a disinterred skeleton has a curved or twisted spine, and diagnosing a disinterred body as being the remains of someone who has scoliosis in life.

Sometimes bodies that have been put into a fetal position, or some other awkward, but compact, position for transport, for a variety of reasons (the only container available was too small, for example) end up in rigor that way, and then either get buried in that position, or in an attempt to straighten them out while they are still in rigor, the bones get broken. I have heard some stories about bodies that initially looked like they had died violent deaths, but were later found to simply have been forced out of rigor, and posed, before burial.

I'm thinking about the fact that the corpse was missing its feet. If, at some point, the corpse was made to fit into a container that was too small for it to be laid out, maybe the feet were pushed up, so that they disarticulated, or were even just removed, and placed next to the body, and then the torso was forced down into a position that a human body can be forced into, but that would hurt a living person who isn't a contortionist, and was left in that position long enough that if it was ever moved, that was the position it stayed in, even if it was moved to a larger casket. Usually, bones fall apart when a body decays, but occasionally, mineral deposits in cartilage and some of the soft tissue keeps them together.

So I'm very interested in knowing whether an archeologist, who knows tons about medieval churches, and how to conduct archeological digs, but less about medicine, saw a corpse with a twisted spine, and jumped to "scoliosis," or whether is was someone trained to recognize the pathology.

[Phil H]

I understand that the feet were lost when a Victorian outhouse was built over the site. I suspect the foundations of the building cut across the grave.

Phil H

[Cogidubnus]

There's a fascinating left-pond vv right pond difference in perspective visible here which I highlight, not in the interests of discord, but purely because it's interesting.

Rivkah found it difficult to believe that the British would place a car park over the (already long-demolished) remains of a medieval church...I suspect others here right-pond found it unexceptional.

I suspect it's the fact that right-pond, in a relatively tiny and densely populated area, there is just SO much history, that if we didn't, in some way, build over the past, then we could never build anything new at all...

In Britain, even building over apparently virgin countryside (assuming it was ever permitted) could be destroying medieval ridge and furrow ploughing, Anglo Saxon settlement (often evidenced by little more than post holes), unrecorded roman evidence, bronze age burials etc etc ...

As regards urban redevelopment, recent Roman finds under Inner-London sites illustrate the point perfectly...and after archeological investigation, most of these sites are simply protected as far as possible by modern methods, then built over...

We simply don't have the space to do otherwise

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

There's a fascinating left-pond vv right pond difference in perspective visible here which I highlight, not in the interests of discord, but purely because it's interesting.

Rivkah found it difficult to believe that the British would place a car park over the (already long-demolished) remains of a medieval church...I suspect others here right-pond found it unexceptional.

Difficult to believe isn't quite right. I can understand building where there used to be something else. I guess I'm just surprised that, knowing that people are often interred in churches, they didn't excavate it first.

But that probably is a left-pond/right-pond thing too. You probably can't turn around without tripping over an historical artifact of some sort. They are rarer here, so we rope off anything we can. There's a house here in Indianapolis that can't be torn down, even though it now abuts the downtown area, because a very minor poet of Americana named James Whitcomb Riley lived there. His poetry was really terrible, in my opinion, and most people who grew up here hate it, because they were forced to read so much of it. No one outside of Indiana has heard of him. He's sort of like those holidays that the Hallmark card company invents.

And I remember in the town where I used to live, there was an old house that had no more claim to fame other than being old; it was downtown at that point, but once it had been a farmhouse, before the city was there. It was in the way of the public library expansion, and the library couldn't make use of the building, so it was lifted off the foundation, and moved to another location-- the Catholic church bought it for a retreat house, and got it basically for paying for the costs of moving it, plus promising to maintain its historical accuracy. This was a really big deal. The library needed to expand. It hand expanded for more than 20 years, and the city had doubled in size. It couldn't build another story without shutting down for several months to redo the foundation, and if it expanded on another block, it would need either a skywalk, or a street to be closed. Getting rid of the farmhouse was by far the cheapest solution, but people were protesting.

It's just because there's not that much history here, so we hang on to what we do have.