Richard III & the Car Park

[Phil H]

But neither is there a case (other than a commercial one) for York, Monty.

He was not born in York (was never himself Duke of York, though that is not relevent) did not die there and never lived in the City. He held a sort of second coronation there and created his son Edward, Prince of Wales but that is not relevent either. His main residence in the county was at Middleham.

I'd argue that Fotheringhay has a better claim than York - he was born in the village and his parents are buried there, as his is brother Edmund.

No, Leicester will get him.

"Potentially fatal injuries to his head"...I understand “Although stories say his body was dumped in the river, many believe the body was claimed by the Franciscans and buried hastily but in a position of honour near the high altar of their church – exactly where the remains were found"

Somehow that has been garbled - the archival evidence of his burial in the Greyfriars (the Franciscan church) days after Bosworth is clear; as is the fact that 10 years or so later a tomb was erected at some cost (I have referred to the financial accounts previously).

The allegation that his remains were thrown in the river is LATER - circa 1535 - when the Greyfriars was dissolved by Henry VIII as part of the English Reformation. That has never been factually supported and the strong likelihood was that Richard's body remained where buried.


But why is it his head is sitting up on a different angle when they found it, obviously not embedded in the same soil and direction as the body itself. This suggests the head was separated, but there is nowhere written he was beheaded. It does say his inujuries were due possibly to a halberd (brrrr) but "potential injuries to the head" would not be stated if his head were severed.

Why the skeleton was as found, I know not. I hypothesised earlier today that the body may simply have been dumped in a hole in the chancel in August 1485 uncoffined, and left there. The other possibility that the still articulated skeleton -maybe still with flesh in 1535ish - was uncoffined and moved when the tomb monument above ground was dismantled. It might still have been shrouded but simply dumped in a corner of the previous grave. The monument was likely a chest tomb - a sort of rectangular box with an effigy atop it - which would have been above ground and would not have contained the body as such.

Just my thoughts,

Phil

[Monty]

I wasn't going to mention that Phil but yeah, The City of York has no real claim on him.

Seems they are no longer bothered with Robin Hood.

Monty

[Phil H]

The Forest of Barnsdale/Sheffield Robin you mean, Monty?

Nottingham has the Sherwood one pretty neatly sewn up.

I just saw something on the BBC News Chennel, but as I was on the phone didn't catch the commentary. A reporter seemed to be in an exhibition with holograms of the bones etc. Is that in Leicester do you know? - if it is I'll be across like a shot!!

Phil

[jason_c]

There was a clip on Sky News today about an application to excavate a site in search of the remains of Alfred the Great. I only caught a glimpse so cannot give any further info.

[Phil H]

I found the answer on the RIII exhibition. Opens 8 Feb.

I'll be over next week - fancy a pint Monty??

Link here:

http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council-services/lc/leicester-city-museums/exhibitions/richardiii/

Phil

[Errata]

Below is a picture of the skeleton at the Stonehenge site and the one of King Richard III at the car park.You can see the difference in how the spine lays when it is a natural straight spine, even though laying in a hole in a curved position. The vertabrae in King Richard's spine formed together in an unnatural curve.

The question, 'can people ride horses with scoliosis' I looked up. Found some interesting things on it in the "Scoliosis Support" forum:

http://www.scoliosis-support.org/showthread.php?t=8154

"Since we now have quite a few horsey people on here, I thought it would be interesting to see how all of you cope with your crookedness on horseback.

I have a couple of pics here which show that while my back looks quite straight, I can't sit 'straight' in the saddle - my pelvis is twisted so my right seatbone doesn't make proper contact with the saddle and my right leg is further back and can't lie flat on the horse's side, with right toes sticking out 'Charlie Chaplin style'!"

There are pics at the site.

I know that horseback riding can actually be beneficial to people with scoliosis, since it forces a good posture. That I have no issue with. My objection comes from personal experience. As you may remember, I did Renaissance Festivals for 15 years. And I fought with swords at all those shows. I also squired with Jousters, and am friends with Jousters.

The armor they use is much lighter than the armor of Richard the Third. But it is of a similar style, with similar restrictions. I have mild lumbar scoliosis. Which I never knew until the first time I tried to choreograph a sword and shield fight. I can't position a shield properly. I can get it up over my head, but getting it to the appropriate angle to actually deflect a sword causes a feeling of my spine ripping from my pelvis. Which was worrisome, but in the end, the solution was to not fight with a shield. My best friend also has scoliosis, visible between his shoulder blades , and he can't use a quarter staff. It's too painful to defend both right and left. For Jousters scoliosis is much worse. I've never met a Jouster who has it, though a squire does. It's why he's a squire not a jouster.

Essentially, armor makes it incredibly difficult to lift your arms. Not because it's heavy, but because the way it is jointed. You have to have a strong back to lift your arms to at least a 45 degree angle in armor. Which you have to able to do in order to use a sword. You have to be able to lift your arms much higher to be able to use an axe (as an axe requires more height for a chop to be effective). Remember that a weapon and a shield do not balance each other out. Shields are heavy. Weapons are less so. A rider with a sword and shield, or an axe and shield, will always be pulled to the left, shield arm side. A rider leans to the right to counteract the imbalance, but leaning to the right while swinging the right arm around places HUGE strain on the thighs, the hips and the back. Even exceptionally strong jousters occasionally just tip over.

Severe scoliosis, especially the sort portrayed on the skeleton makes it impossible for someone with such a deformity to be a warrior. Typically with such a deformity the ribs bow out to compensate for the curve. Typically the vertebrae start to develop a slant in the direction of the spinal curve. And a person's posture changes as I found out to my detriment. In order to compensate for my lumbar deformity, I tilted my pelvis in an unnatural way. Causing the disk between my sacrum and lumbar spine to be crushed, and then spat out into my spinal column. So that sucked. I used to be a decent rider, but my pelvic tilt caused the ball and socket joints in my hips to adjust to compensate, and now I can't sit a horse. Any skeletal deformity causes a cascade failure of other parts. If one shoulder was lower than the other, holding a weapon or a shield becomes much more difficult, especially parries, and it will overbalance on the other side. Scoliosis also comes with a loss of bone mass. A single blow to the back of someone with scoliosis that severe should be catastrophic. And there is no way Richard could have avoided a blow to the back in the almost 20 years of being a warrior. Armor would only make such a blow worse. Displacement of the shock of impact would have shattered the bone. And getting thrown from a horse with a deformity that severe?

So according to my experience, which is nowhere near as brutal as actual 15th century warfare says that such a severe deformity would have killed a warrior long before he ever made it to the throne. Richard the Third was considered a great fighter, fought many battles, was commanding armies at 17. So either that deformity is exaggerated by some circumstance, or his reputation and all of the stories of his successes in battle are a lie.

[Krinoid]

' The King in the carpark ' has been posted on you tube.

it must have been taken down.

[Phil H]

So either that deformity is exaggerated by some circumstance, or his reputation and all of the stories of his successes in battle are a lie.

Or he found some way to work with his problem.. training from a young age to compensate? Years ago there was a view widely expressed that Richard's higher shoulder shown in Tudor portraits was a result of increased musculature caused by practice. Medieval archers demonstrably (from skeletons) were deformed by having one arm bigger than the other (also longer?) because of the tremendous strength needed to pull a long bow.

I don't think the stories about Richard in battle can be lies or exaggerations. We only know of his wound at Barnet en passant, and that members of his household died because of a later payment for masses to be said for their souls. The Bosworth account comes from after his death (so why lie?) - the wounds we can now see suggest that the accounts are basically correct. he was hacked down.

We know he rode long distances, commanded an army in Scotland in the early 1480s, and rode from Yorkshire to London in a few days in 1483 after the death of Edward IV. None of it suggests a man incapable of exertion or endurance.

And the "legend" of his being deformed is of long-standing (More and the tudor historians have it). So even if the burial might have twisted his bones, it appears there was an historical basis for his physical appearance being "twisted" in some way.

Can anyone work out from the pictures would the curve in the spint have projected sideways or out at the back in life?

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

' The King in the carpark ' has been posted on you tube.

Before the BBC finds out, and makes youtube take it down, quick, download it to your harddrive!

The facial reconstruction I have now seen is interesting too:

* quite handsome - reminds me of Robert Pattison from those vampire films;
* fuller faced than the portraits suggested;
* but not too dissimilar given artistic conventions etc.
* he looks very boyish;
* maybe in life his physical problems would have given him a more careworn look that the modellers have not felt able to recreate (it would be invention/supposition).

Here's an image of the reconstruction. He certainly had a lantern jaw, which you can tell from the skeleton. Also, without the spinal curvature, I'll bet he would have been very tall. To me, he actually looks like a slimmer version of the portraits of Edward IV, than his own portraits, mostly because the portraits show him with a weaker jaw. The "boyishness" comes from the fact that he has no complexion. The clay has no wrinkles or blemishes. If someone took the image (which, hmm, maybe I'll do later, because I have some software that does that), and aged it, so he didn't look like he'd been attacked with Botox, he might look more thoughtful. He looks like he just got back from the Uncanny Valley.



Sally - where did you find the info about royal burials HAVING to be in a cathedral by law? St George's Chapel and Westminster Abbey are NOT cathedrals.

Phil H[/QUOTE]Maybe it's not a cathedral, per se, but a structure expected to be about as permanent as a manmade one can be, which as far as appropriate burial place go, cathedrals are. Abbeys are to, kind of, although Tintern is in ruins, but at least it isn't a car park.

Remember when the US decided to bury Osama bin Laden at sea. so people wouldn't make pilgrimages to his burial place, and it wouldn't end up being a place where supporters ended up finding one another, and fomenting rebellion? That could be why Richard was just dumped somewhere, unmarked, and a rumor started that he was thrown in the river, although maybe there was just enough reverence, or superstition, or what have you to bury a crowned king in a holy place, to avoid bad karma, or the wrath of the deity.

If you don't like that theory, than maybe his few followers stole the body, and saw to it he was buried on church grounds, with prayers.

I'm not sure of the entire theology of it, but there was some point in Christianity that not being buried on sacred grounds, with the proper prayers, meant you didn't go to heaven. I remember this from high school as the reason people confessed to witchcraft at Salem in the US; they were going to die one way or another, either by torture or execution, and the ones who confessed and renounced were still executed, but allowed Christian burials, and therefore got to go to heaven (according to the Puritan's theology), while the ones tortured to death, albeit innocent, were not given Christian burials, and were consigned to hell. Apparently, the doctrine was derived from the Catholic Church before Protestantism. But someone who knows more can correct me.

So, if anyone who was still loyal to Richard, or cared about him at all, after the battle, might go to great risk, to see him was properly buried, which is to say, on church grounds, with prayers.

[Sally]

Hey Phil

You've touched on a few points I'd like to expand on here.

Yet the burial does NOT seem to confirm what we thought we knew - no coffin evident, - did someone say the hands had been tied?

I think the consensus is that Richard's hands may have been tied. For my money, this makes sense. He was slung over the back of a horse post mortem - and quite apart from the symbolic power of tied hands; there would have been a real practical necessity. That of course doesn't explain why (if) they were still tied when he was buried; but I understand that he was on public display before that happened, so that would probably explain it. Richard, after death, had to be displayed as a loser, the defeated. Its a time-honoured tradition amongst usurpers, it reinforces their victory.

According to the previous archival evidence, Richard was given an honourable new monumnent some years after his burial. So was he simply dumped in an open grave in a place of honour (an odd paradox) in 1485, uncoffined and with hands bound? was the public display of the body with hands tied? (As he was brought back to Leicester naked over the back of a herald's horse, the tied hands might be logical - but one would then have supposed he would be laid flat for the public viewing.)

Richard would have been buried with as little fuss as practically possible. There would have been no 'ceremony' other than the one performed by the monks; to avoid any potential catalyst for rebellion. Burying Richard would have presented something of a quandary for the new king. On the one hand, being God-appointed, Richard had to be buried in a church, and in a suitably prestigious spot, as befitting his status. On the other hand, he couldn't have been buried with pomp and ceremony, because that might have caused unrest amongst those who still supported Richard. No church would have wanted him, because of the potential for trouble that having him would have caused. Greyfriars, a poor Friary, were very likely paid handsomely for their trouble. Later on, when things had settled down a bit, it would have been more circumspect to erect a momument - but not at the time. I don't think that there is any question of his having been 'dumped'. Just look at where he was buried.

Richard was not an unpopular king; so the threat of rebellion would've been quite real in Henry's mind at the time. In fact, we can tell that he was probably a loved and popular king on the whole - if he really had been despised and loathed, the Tudors wouldn't have needed to do such a hatchett job on his reputation. That sort of thing's so common in the past that its almost formulaic. It is only reputation that counts, in the end. If something is written, it soon becomes fact. Every king has known that, from time immemorial.

Sally - where did you find the info about royal burials HAVING to be in a cathedral by law? St George's Chapel and Westminster Abbey are NOT cathedrals.

I believe that the law in question is quite recent - only 18th century; but has older antecedents. The law is not that a king has to be buried in a cathedral, but that when a king (or queen, one supposes) is disinterred, they must be reinterred in the nearest cathedral. I think in practice an Abbey church would probably work just as well. The intent of the rule seems to me to be to stop anybody pinching the remains - apt enough here.

There is still a lot of feeling for Richard traditions in Yorkshire; so its probably as well the decision regarding his reburial is made by extant statute - saves any arguing.

[RivkahChaya]

Or he found some way to work with his problem.. training from a young age to compensate?

It isn't possible to compensate for that degree of debility to do what Richard is suppose to have done. It is possible to compensate for a lesser debility, which it is almost certain he did do. Moreover, a curve like that is just not what real scoliosis looks like. I emailed my cousin who is an orthopod, who said "Never say never," and she never treated someone who went untreated until age 36, but her guess, if she saw an x-ray that looked like that, was that the person had spent almost all their time lying down for most of their adult life.

I think that gravity on a corpse for 500 years accounts for some of the curve the way the skeleton is laid out in the photograph. Perhaps someone will do an upright reconstruction of the skeleton, or at least a cast of it, and we'll have a better idea of what Richard's posture would have been.

Bodies have been found in all sorts of odd and twisted positions, but they weren't in any posture from life. Heck, I doubt Mary Kelly slept with her legs spread painfully apart, with one hip out of joint.

[Sally]

Sorry Rivkah - posts crossed.

[Monty]

The Forest of Barnsdale/Sheffield Robin you mean, Monty?

Nottingham has the Sherwood one pretty neatly sewn up.

I just saw something on the BBC News Chennel, but as I was on the phone didn't catch the commentary. A reporter seemed to be in an exhibition with holograms of the bones etc. Is that in Leicester do you know? - if it is I'll be across like a shot!!

Phil

Errr yeah,

Its in the Guildhall. I pass it daily on the way to work.

Its the white building on the right where the bollards are at the begining of this video...

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=3ZlIU9JYnYs

Gimme a shout, I'll show you around.

Monty

[Graham]

I've not read all the posts on this hugely interesting thread, so forgive me if I'm duplicating what's already been written.

Richard looked upon York as almost his 'home town', visited it several times, and was generally loved and admired by the populace who showered him and his son with gifts. He also planned to be buried at York Minster and spoke about building a chantry-chapel for himself there. After Bosworth, the recorder of York wrote: King Richard late mercifully ruling over us was through great treason piteously slain and murdered to the great sorrow of this city.

He still most certainly had plenty of friends and supporters in York, even after Bosworth.

Graham

[Monty]

Sally

"Later on, when things had settled down a bit, it would have been more circumspect to erect a momument - but not at the time. I don't think that there is any question of his having been 'dumped'. Just look at where he was buried."

n 1612 Christopher Wren visited Herrick, whose house occupied the site then, and reported that the garden contained a 3-foot tall stone pillar inscribed, "Here lies the body of Richard III sometime King of England."

Leicester has a strong affection for richard also. He stayed in the City before he died after all, and there was reason for that. We have streets, pubs, buildings and statues dedicated to him all over as well as a memorial stone. For york to just say they have the moral high ground is laughable when for 500 odd years they couldn't give a monkeys. They didn't push for the excavation and the support given (from what I've heard) was one of a mocking tone at the begining of the dig.

Their claim is no stronger. Its either Leicester or westminster, however the descision has been made.

Just let him rest in peace now.

Monty