Richard III & the Car Park

[Graham]

Monty, as you're aware there was a tradition that Richard's bones were unceremoniously tossed into the Oare at the time of the Dissolution Of The Monasteries, during which exercise in Royal nastiness and greed Greyfriars was dissolved. Do you think this was a popular tradition, or an officially-generated one to prevent the known last resting-place of Richard becoming a shrine to his memory?

Graham

[Sally]

Neil -

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."

Yes, I think that was mentioned earlier on in the thread - well, there we are then. I don't think that there would've been any issue with commemorating Richard later - just not at the time he was first buried.

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.

I agree. York talks of mounting a legal challenge though. Let's hope that comes to nothing, else it'll go on for years.

[Monty]

Hey Graham,

This story of Richards bones being thrown into the River Soar comes from Puritan map maker John Speed.

Speed went in search of the old Kings remains and couldn't find them, so he made up the story that they were thrown into the River. However Speed wasn't much of a cartographer, for if he was he would have realised he had the wrong Friary. He was actually at Blackfriars to the north of the city instead of Greyfriars.

Monty

[Jenni Shelden]

when they put the spinal column together it showed the bend.

Jenni

[Monty]

To be honest Sally, if York wish to make a claim then fine.

As long as its not prolonged as I feel he should be laid to rest as soon as possible. This campaign of theirs is only delaying burial.

As I said, let the man rest now.

Monty

[Bridewell]

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.

Perhaps, then, Richard went into battle with no shield? I don't think the argument that he couldn't have been a warrior with such a deformity can be pursued. That he was a warrior is a matter of historical record, and the claim of 'Crookback' is supported by both historical record and archaeological discovery.

[Graham]

Hey Graham,

This story of Richards bones being thrown into the River Soar comes from Puritan map maker John Speed.

Speed went in search of the old Kings remains and couldn't find them, so he made up the story that they were thrown into the River. However Speed wasn't much of a cartographer, for if he was he would have realised he had the wrong Friary. He was actually at Blackfriars to the north of the city instead of Greyfriars.

Monty

Ta very much! That clears it up, and if I'd been even half-awake I'd have remembered something was said about this on last night's TV programme.
Getting old, I am....

Graham

[Monty]

Colin,

Well yeah. The fact remains he died in battle. And from all accounts, even his foe stated he fought vailliantly till the end.

Graham,

Happens to use all. I spent 10 mins looking for my glasses today before I realised I was wearing them.

Monty

[Scorpio]

Just watched it, thank you

"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" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#axzz2JqG1tHoV

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.

Btw, thankfully this film taught me for the first time how to say Plantagenet. It is not, as I have been saying with some discomfort, 'plant-a-janet'. Nice to know the pronounciation. No Janet's henceforth will be planted

The grave was to small for the body.The head would have rested at a nearly 90 degree angle to the spinal column and would have become detached in time due to weight pressing down from above.

[Scorpio]

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

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

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.[/QUOTE]

Its on 4oD Documentories.

[Phil H]

He also planned to be buried at York Minster and spoke about building a chantry-chapel for himself there.

Grateful to know where this statement comes from. So far as I am aware we know NOTHING from contemporary sources about Richard's burial intentions.

I genuinely would be interested to know if another source has emerged. the usual inference is that Windsor, where his beloved brother was buried, might have been in his mind. Fotheringhay - where Richard had overseen the re-burial of his father's remains was also in part designed as a mausoleum of the House of York.

Phil

[RivkahChaya]

Perhaps, then, Richard went into battle with no shield? I don't think the argument that he couldn't have been a warrior with such a deformity can be pursued. That he was a warrior is a matter of historical record, and the claim of 'Crookback' is supported by both historical record and archaeological discovery.

No one is arguing he didn't have scoliosis. We're arguing about degree. Scoliosis isn't one thing. Some people have such mild cases, it isn't even diagnosed until they have back problems as adults. Some people are so disabled they cannot walk without appliances (walkers, crutches). The way the skeleton laid out looks like a serious case, much too serious for what we know Richard accomplished, and this is why I suspect that it may not accurately reflect the way his skeleton was in life. I do not mean by that, that he had a perfectly straight spine; I only mean that the way he was buried exaggerated the curve that was already present. After all, his body was in that position much longer than he was alive.

It is also possible that his disability progressed as he aged, and he was actually rather disabled by the Battle of Bosworth, which might even explain why so many people suddenly chose to desert him, but that was the case only his last few years, and prior to that, when the disability was not especially troubling, he was able to do quite a lot.

It could even explain the "withered arm that resulted from witchcraft" story. He may have been losing the use of his arm due to pinched nerves or restricted blood flow, as the curvature increased, to the point that people around him noticed. Whether he actually accused anyone of witchcraft, or anyone else suggested that as a cause, I won't speculate-- it's only necessary that people noticed and talked, and by the time More was writing his history, that detail was part of the story.

[Errata]

Perhaps, then, Richard went into battle with no shield? I don't think the argument that he couldn't have been a warrior with such a deformity can be pursued. That he was a warrior is a matter of historical record, and the claim of 'Crookback' is supported by both historical record and archaeological discovery.

If you look at the fighting styles of the time, it is possible he fought with no shield. Not likely, but certainly possible. He would not have been stupid enough to fight with no left side protection. There were basically three ways to defend your left side. A shield, a pauldron, or a pole arm. Shield being out, that leaves pauldron or polearm. Really, a pauldron is not even a little protection outside of jousting, but with a polearm a soldier could deflect any left side blows. And I don't mean a traditional polearm, I mean a weapon longer than three feet. A battle axe can totally fall into that category. But weapons that long are by necessity two handed. And as hard as holding a shield would be, constantly swiveling left and right to parry and land blows would be awful.

Did he joust? Did anyone in his family joust? The Henri II thing hadn't happened yet, so rulers were still that dumb. But If his brothers jousted and he didn't that might mean some problems. Though I don't think any of them did, not even Edward who was the one that should have really appealed to.

[RivkahChaya]

If the clay reconstruction is at all accurate, then here's maybe an idea what he could have looked like with pores, and worry lines, and a little 5 o'clock shadow.



He still looks like he's wearing make-up, but it's good enough, I think. I could fine tune it, but it looks pretty much like a real person.

[RivkahChaya]

He would not have been stupid enough to fight with no left side protection. There were basically three ways to defend your left side. A shield, a pauldron, or a pole arm. Shield being out, that leaves pauldron or polearm. Really, a pauldron is not even a little protection outside of jousting, but with a polearm a soldier could deflect any left side blows.

It's also possible that he had some kind of customized protection that was fixed to his armor. It could have been hinged, so he could move it with his arm, but a lot of the weight would be on his upper back, and not on the left deltoids and biceps. It would provide the protection of a regular shield, but it would be better than nothing, and it would be better than using a regular shield very badly. Also, if his arm had a limited range of motion anyway, it might not have mattered that he didn't have the full use of a proper shield.