Richard III & the Car Park

[Steve S]

Warrant says Leicester...Game over!...Why am I reminded of the Medieval Monks who resorted to fisticuffs to claim relics to corner the pilgrim trade........?

[Errata]

More on the curvature of the spine in the link below. The curvature of the spine was not affected by how it was laid out at burial(I think someone may have mentioned this earlier) according to the archaeologist involved. While I doubt the way they put the spine back together was perfect I suspect it was done fairly accurately. The spinal segment is 2min25 secs in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfi6g...yer_embedded#!

There are actually several different ways to put together a spine. If you are lucky, all of them end up looking the same way. But there are a lot of assumptions that are made that can be vital to an accurate reconstruction. Did they assume that all the spinous processes were straight? Which is how it is in a normal spine, but any of us with back problems can tell you that sometimes they are twisted, twizzler like, not corkscrew like. Did they assume a normal healthy disc space, assuming that no discs were squashed? Probably, since there is no way to tell how the discs were positioned at the time of his death. If the discs had adjusted to uneven ground so to speak became sort of wedge shaped, the spine would be much straighter than the vertebrae alone would suggest.

Also the statement that the spine could not have been disturbed after burial seems not quite right. Richard is shoved right up against a Victorian era wall. A bricklayer would have been standing right in his chest cavity. It's a mud site, so his skeleton could easily have been undamaged, but the spine could have slid sideways, along with the mud encasing it. It preserves an undisturbed look. And that's something I've seen. Couldn't figure out for the life of me figures out why Andrew Jackson would have had hitching posts and toolboxes 15 yards from the stable door. But it was a clay site. Turns out stuff had been sliding all over the place, with the ground it was in. Made for a very weird dig, but we did have daily bets on how much the well would move over night.

[jason_c]

There are actually several different ways to put together a spine. If you are lucky, all of them end up looking the same way. But there are a lot of assumptions that are made that can be vital to an accurate reconstruction. Did they assume that all the spinous processes were straight? Which is how it is in a normal spine, but any of us with back problems can tell you that sometimes they are twisted, twizzler like, not corkscrew like. Did they assume a normal healthy disc space, assuming that no discs were squashed? Probably, since there is no way to tell how the discs were positioned at the time of his death. If the discs had adjusted to uneven ground so to speak became sort of wedge shaped, the spine would be much straighter than the vertebrae alone would suggest.

Also the statement that the spine could not have been disturbed after burial seems not quite right. Richard is shoved right up against a Victorian era wall. A bricklayer would have been standing right in his chest cavity. It's a mud site, so his skeleton could easily have been undamaged, but the spine could have slid sideways, along with the mud encasing it. It preserves an undisturbed look. And that's something I've seen. Couldn't figure out for the life of me figures out why Andrew Jackson would have had hitching posts and toolboxes 15 yards from the stable door. But it was a clay site. Turns out stuff had been sliding all over the place, with the ground it was in. Made for a very weird dig, but we did have daily bets on how much the well would move over night.

I assume all your queries will be debated in the weeks and months to come. The people involved in this dig are experts in there field, though not infallible. Their academic findings will be peer reviewed. It's times like this we are required to trust in healthy and vigorous scientific scrutiny. To the layman here the information released on the University's website seems to be of a summary nature rather than a minutely detailed analysis.

[Sally]

Cynically it strikes me that the real motivation of York is tourist income, but maybe I'm wrong.

Oh, I'm sure that's a factor. Then again, I'm sure it's a factor for Leicester as well. Of course it is - it would be naive to suggest otherwise.

There are very real and complex politics iinvolved in this situation; not only the potential for tourism, but for the University of Leicester as well.

If all we were concerned for was what was best for Richard, he might as well have been left where he was, unless he was in iminent danger and I missed it. He might have been found in a carpark, but he wasn't buried in one, was he?

It's the new 'King as Commodity' fad, and I'm sure anybody who thinks they might have one will leap on the bandwagon as soon as they can. Winchester's only the first.

Alfred might look like a non-starter - but wait! It just so happens that the bones of his brothers Aethelbald an Aethelraed are lying around (allegedly) in Sherborne Abbey; so all we really need to do is obtain that elusive DNA match between them and the bones at Winchester and Hey Presto! A whole new Channel 4 documentary.

It happens because the powers that be in this country have decided that education is a business. Like the NHS, it is now absolutely target driven, and there will be casualties.

As for whether you can only care about the fate of Richard if you're a Plantagenet Fancier - I'm not, and I do. I think historians are born, really, not made.

[RivkahChaya]

Is anyone involved an orthopedist? that is, a doctor who actually diagnoses and treats scoliosis and other bone disorders? I have great faith in an anthropologist's ability to put together a skeleton, and, for example, get the vertebrae in the right order, and not mix up the phalanges, so one from the right hand gets on the left. I really respect their ability to distinguish individuals, too: the anthropologist who sorted out all the Romanov bones did so with DNA, because microscopic amounts weren't useful then, but later, when very small amounts could be typed, his reconstructions were shown to be almost perfect.

But they don't get a lot of experience with a particular type of pathology. I think an orthopod needs to look at the spinal reconstruction.

Also, don't forget, it's lying on a table. It may have leaned, and curved out as well as jutting sideways. It looks like the trap under the bathroom sink, and makes the head about two inches to the side of the coccyx. That just can't be right.

[Phil H]

As for fighting, remember that he and his brother were on the run for several years. And in Scotland, Wales, the Western Counties, etc. he would have had martial duties in regards to bandits, traitors, tiny little rebellions. Never mind constant drilling. It's a lot.

I think you have the wrong man, Errata.

Richard was NEVER "on the run" in Wales, Scotland or the West Country. (Margaret of Anjou and her son Edward of Lancaster did - maybe you are thinking of them.)

When he was about 8 Richard with his brother George had to flee abroad and again when around 17 he accompanied King Edward into exile in Burgundy. He was never again "on the run".

I listed the battles he fought in. True, he may have fought personally during the Scottish campaign in the early 1480s but it is not specifically mentioned.

As Lord High Constable of England he presided over the executions of Lancastrian commanders after Tewkesbury, but did not execute them himself.

If you can cite when, in his short life, Richard personally pursued bandits, and which little rebellions you have in mind, please let me know.

Phil

[Bridewell]

The gentleman from Scarborough makes much sarcastic play about the clue being in the title "Richard of York", presumably unaware that Richard III of the Royal House of York wasn't actually born there. The body has lain in a Leicester car park for 527 years and was found by a team of Leicester University archaelogists, driven on by the Richard III Society. It didn't take long to find him when someone actually took the trouble but for more than five centuries no-one (from Yorkshire or anywhere else) made the effort to look.

[Errata]

As for fighting, remember that he and his brother were on the run for several years. And in Scotland, Wales, the Western Counties, etc. he would have had martial duties in regards to bandits, traitors, tiny little rebellions. Never mind constant drilling. It's a lot.

I think you have the wrong man, Errata.

Richard was NEVER "on the run" in Wales, Scotland or the West Country. (Margaret of Anjou and her son Edward of Lancaster did - maybe you are thinking of them.)

When he was about 8 Richard with his brother George had to flee abroad and again when around 17 he accompanied King Edward into exile in Burgundy. He was never again "on the run".

I listed the battles he fought in. True, he may have fought personally during the Scottish campaign in the early 1480s but it is not specifically mentioned.

As Lord High Constable of England he presided over the executions of Lancastrian commanders after Tewkesbury, but did not execute them himself.

If you can cite when, in his short life, Richard personally pursued bandits, and which little rebellions you have in mind, please let me know.

Phil

I said on the run, full stop, and in Scotland and Wales etc as the conditions of the next set of specifics. Two separate things. Had they been meant in the same context, I would have said "On the run in Scotland and Wales".

His actions on the western border of Scotland earned him a commendation in the Rolls of Parliament. And it's been absolute ages since I've read the Paston Letters, But there was some bit about him recruiting a couple of guys and going after some kind of malcontent. I only remember that much because it was when I figured out that Newark was not originally in New Jersey (shuush. I was young). And his first military command of his very own was in Wales going after individual rebel lords there. It wasn't an organized rebellion as best I can tell, just a bunch of guys with castles deciding that England could shove it, which seems fair. Can't say I blame them.

I would imagine that at least initially he wasn't treated very royal. I mean, he could negotiate treaties, do some ambassadorial stuff, but while George was alive he was fifth in line? Sixth in line? So they wouldn't have kept him protected to any great degree. He was useful, certainly. But probably not so useful (or rather, it wouldn't make Edward look good for people to know how useful his baby brother was) that they would have kept out of the normal occupations of the youngest male heir. Which still was traditionally the military. I think one of the stronger arguments for him being reasonably abled was that he didn't enter the church. He was a fourth son, old enough to go into the church before Edmund died. Still young enough to go into it after Edward was crowned. And he could have wielded a great amount of power there. And served his family there. He clearly had administrative talent and a flare for detail. He would have been an enormous success. A brother on the throne and one as Archbishop would have been ideal for consolidating power. I think the uncertainty of rebellion was the only thing that kept from being marked for the church at birth. But he could have sailed through at any time afterward. But clearly they had more use for him in administrative and military posts. Which would seem a very strange choice indeed for a crippled young man. Especially when an Archbishop would have been so damned useful.

[RivkahChaya]

The gentleman from Scarborough makes much sarcastic play about the clue being in the title "Richard of York", presumably unaware that Richard III of the Royal House of York wasn't actually born there.

Well, no one's suggested digging up the presumed princes, trying to sort them out, then sending (little) Richard to York, and Edward to Wales.

[Archaic]

The gentleman from Scarborough makes much sarcastic play about the clue being in the title "Richard of York", presumably unaware that Richard III of the Royal House of York wasn't actually born there.

The body has lain in a Leicester car park for 527 years and was found by a team of Leicester University archaelogists, driven on by the Richard III Society.

It didn't take long to find him when someone actually took the trouble but for more than five centuries no-one (from Yorkshire or anywhere else) made the effort to look.

Good point, Colin.

Which begs the question, why didn't anybody ever dig for him in the vicinity of the ruined friary before?

(Or did they?)

Best regards,
Archaic

[Phil H]

Which begs the question, why didn't anybody ever dig for him in the vicinity of the ruined friary before?

Practicality, I think. Is the Council going to allow an in-use car park to be dug up on the off-chance.

I have delved into the subject on a pretty dilettante way over the years. The RIII Society did begin to challenge seriously the idea that in the 1530s the bones had been thrown into the River - there's a cast iron plaque on the wall near a bridge that says so, as I recall. They placed a memorial slab in the Cathedral, and put up a modern plaque near the presumed site of the grave on a wall, to indicate where he might be.

There are or were some papers on the net that I printed off some years ago that discussed the issue.

I'd say that recently opportunity, will, and certain individuals and organisations (the Society/academic, the University/scientific and the Local Authority) came together and produced this wonderful result.

John Ashdown-Hill did a lot of research on the descendents of Richard which may have shown that a DNA match might be found. I noted he was specificaly mentioned in the press conference. For anyone interested, his book (updated) is being republished entitled "The Last Days of Richard III" (now I think with a sub-title about DNA). His work might well have been a factor too.

Phil

[Steve S]

Worth noting Richard was made Constable of the North because Yorkshire was notably Lancastrian in sentiment....And he turned it round!....BTW,having just seen it on TV,think I'll visit the exhibition in Leicester Guildhall on Monday......

[Phil H]

For the record, Richard was never "Constable of the North" - a title unknown. He held the position (amongst others) of Warden of the West March - a post of great importance given the state of relations with Scotland before and after his time. It was a post held in the past by Neville relations (including "the Kingmaker") and which would be of equal importance in the Tudor period.

Richard also gradually acquired what has been known as a "palatinate" in the north - that is, an almost independent satrapy where he was the lord. (In English history, Chester (for that reason, almost always controlled by the Crown) and the bishopric of Durham (where the incumbent was uniquely in England in pre-reformation times often called the prince-bishop).

Most English nobles in the post-Conquest period had vast estates, but scattered over many counties (rarely did a nobleman's estates and the place of his title coincide) but Richard was an exception. the fact that he was allowed to acquire and hold such a vast territorial and unified power-base is a measure of Edward IV's trust in his brother.

On the other hand historians have criticised Edward for allowing such a thing to happen, as it could easily have created problems in future generations - a perhaps over-mighty subject, distantly related to the crown and ambitious, alied with the Scots.... Edward's heirs had they ruled might have found themselves faced with a difficult internal threat to their authority.

Richard's association with the north, probably (though I think, not certainly) linked to his upbringing at Middleham, in Warwick's household actually gave Richard himself problems once he was king.

There was deep suspicion in the C15th (through to Elizabethan and later times) of the north by the south, and Richard was perceived as a "northener". The so-called "Buckingham's rebellion" of late summer 1483, probably represented and reflected the fears of southern Yorkist adherents ahainst their northern counterparts brought down by Richard. The rebels were in large measure former members of Edward IV's government and household.

It does seem, however, that Richard was indeed a "good lord" to those under him in the north, providing firm and fair administration and valuing the qualities of the people. As has been rightly observed in this thread, York itself reverenced his memory long after his overthrow, when such views would have been far from welcome to Tudor ears.

Phil

[Archaic]

Richard III Museum & Burial Info In Museum Journal

http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/07022013-plans-for-richard-third-museum

Note this passage about burial in Leicester being included in the license to dig:
A statement from Leicester City Council said: “The terms of the licence for the archaeological dig, which was granted by the Ministry of Justice, provides for the University of Leicester, as the licence holder, to proceed with reinterment of the remains.”

Best regards,
Archaic

[Errata]

I still think he should buried with Anne. I would say or his son, but of course we don't know where he is buried. Whether she comes to him or he goes to her, I don't much care. They were friends, they were husband and wife, and to the best of our knowledge he was faithful to her, which is kind of unusual. Maybe I'm a romantic...

I am also wondering a couple of other things.

1: Being dead and being hauled about on horse and slung around can dislocate vertebrae or even break the spine. I wonder if that could result in an apparent massive spinal curvature? It still bothers me that his ribs aren't malformed in compensation.

2: Given the manner of Edward's death, and Edward himself, I wonder if we could be looking at Marfan Syndrome? Sufferers are tall, thin featured, long limbed, pigeon chested, and often develop scoliosis in reaction to loose connective tissue. It is fatal, and back then the life expectancy was an average of 41 years and death is due to heart failure. Not sudden heart failure, but due to a gradual loss of functioning connective tissue in the heart. Essentially (very essentially) a heart murmur forms and they die of a lack of oxygenated blood. It used to be confused for respiratory disease because of course it causes shortness of breath, chest pain, lack of circulation in the extremities, bluing of the extremities...

It's a genetic disorder that is heritable. It has a 50% chance of being passed on. So half of the Duke of York's children could have inherited it. Edmund died young in battle, so we don't know about him. But the oldest sister Anne died while giving birth to her first child, which is consistent. Edward sickened and died in a way very consistent with Marfan's, and was extremely tall for his time. George died young of unnatural causes, and even his kids don't help, because one survived to a relatively old age, but the other was executed and I can't track his illegitimate children. Richard is described as having a feminine skeleton, which made me think of it in the first place. And his son died of "pneumonia" which mimics heart failure of this kind.

Edward's kids... Well, clearly the boys didn't make it to an age where we could interpret any symptoms. Elizabeth died after childbirth, which could be a sign but since it was by no means her first child, I'm thinking that was in fact infection. Mary died too young for it likely to have been caused by Marfan's, but it could be. Cecily was the right age, but she successfully bore more than one child, which would be unusual for someone with Marfan at that time. Anne also died young, had one surviving son, but I don't know about her death at all. Catherine I'm pretty sure didn't have it, Brigit is a maybe. But the description of Arthur's illness, brother to Henry VIII sound like it could be Marfan but it's a bit young for when I would predict it. But when I have the time, I'll go through physical descriptions of the people involved.

Not that it really matters. Just a point of curiosity.