Richard III & the Car Park

[Phil H]

Monty - on Wolsey, I'd be as pleased to see him found (almost) as Richard (and far more important than Alfred the Great). To me he is one of the great unsung heroes of early modern England. Effectively Prime Minster and Foreign Secretary he laid the foundations of England's European influence and greatness. He made us more than an off-shore island.

Hilary Mantel paints a vivid and wonderful pen portrait of him in "Wolf Hall".

Dismissed as a scheming, avaricious churchman - the sort Luther felt needed reforming - he was much more - innovator, patron of the arts, an ecclesiastical reformer before Luther, as well as a great statesman.

Of course, he would have a true claim to be re-buried in York Minster because he was Archbishop of York at the time of his death.

Discovery of his remains might allow us to determine whether he died of natural causes or was poisoned (perhaps by himself). He was en route from York to London to face trial and probable execution.

I hadn't seen the press report so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Phil

[Phil H]

THE RICHARD III EXHIBITION, LEICESTER

You enter immediately opposite the "west" door of the Cathedral and after passing through a small "shop" enter the main exhibition. This is in a long narrow (I think temporary) room in which you walk down the right hand side and back up the left. On both walls and down the middle are display boards.

One of the first boards makes no higher claim for the discovery that that a compelling case has been made for the remains being Richard's. (This may, of course, have been prepared before the press-conference and final judgement of "beyond reasonable doubt"

We are told that further tests are in progress on what he ate; where he lived and the manner of his death.

Initially, the odds on finding the King's remains were judged "remote".

There is a display on the Blue Boar inn in Leicester where Richard is thought to have slept on his last night under a roof before Bosworth. They had a reproduction - and sell copies - of a 1926 painting that I had never seen before, of Richard departing from the inn.

The WOUNDS

A large bladed weapon - such as a halbard - cleaved off a section of the back of the King's skull.

There is also a small hole in the top of the skull probably caused by a dagger.

A penetrating wound in the upper jaw is interpreted as an act of deliberate mutilation. What they have termed an "insult injury".

A cut mark on a rib (made by a dagger or similar) is also likely to have been inflicted after death once the armour had been removed. Another "insult injury".

The worst of this insult wounds was caused by a bladed weapon thrust into the anus. This is shown by a scar on the inner right pelvic bone.

The fact that facial mutilation was not excessive suggests that the body was required to be put on public display and to be recognisable.

Other anatomical

There are NO wounds to the hands of arms suggesting he kept his steel gauntlets and lower arm armour until he was dead.

The is NO evidence of a withered arm, but some evidence that his hands may have been tied when the corpse was buried.

Scoliosis - developed in adolesence and got worse over time.

Richard's diet was high in seafood and oysters.

Those are my notes on the display boards and their contents.

Given the number of people and the activity of children it was difficult to get close to, or really observe, some of the items on display - for instance the translucent replication of the skull. It was also difficult to spend as much time as I had hoped on the inter-active display about the bones. the notes I managed to make are above.

In a pamphlet you can buy for 50p it says that the identification of Richard is by means of:

a) the skeleton dated to correct period
b) it contained many other clues about the King's life and death which matched the historical record
c)DNA via two separate descendents.

MUSINGS BY ME

??? I did wonder whether the onset of scoliosis relatively far on in his youth and that it got worse, may have made a naturally active man suicidal - I would be interested in Rivkah's and other's views on that. Was his charge at Bosworth the act of a man who did not care any longer whether he lived or died - he knew he would be infirm and a cripple soon anyway??

As someone observed a few posts back - if the scoliosis developed late, then the idea of claims that witchcraft was deforming him (as reflected in Shakespeare) becomes a realistic option.

The fact that the body still had the hands tied and was in an awkward position in the grave made me wonder -

if a blade had pierced the anus and perhaps cut into bowel, bladder and intestine etc - after three days exposure in the August weather, the body might have been in a pretty bad state not only of decomposition, but also nasty from faecal and other mess. Those doing the burying may have wanted it over as quickly as possible and just tipped him into the open hole.

In the Annual Report of the University of Lecester 2011-12 (Special Supplement) also on sale at the Guildhall, it says as follows:

* 10 wounds were discovered on the skeleton - RIII was killed by the trauma to the back of the head. (By me: On the other hand if Richard suffered wounds that did not mark the bones - a dagger thrust through the eye? an upward thrust to the heart - we would not know.)

* the significant seafood diet suggests the man was high-status;

* onset of scoliosis - believed to be at time of puberty;

* Richard probably around 5' 8" but scoliosis would have meant he stood significantly shorter;

* right shoulder may have been higher than the left;

* Richard was unusually slender, had an almost feminine build;

* the grave was not big enough and there was NO SHROUD or coffin.

Additionally:

The dental evidence suggests age for body of 35; bone evidence 30-39. (RIII died aged 33.)

Estimates of height range from 5'32 to 6'. The mean for each is 5'72 to 5'92.

Phil

[RivkahChaya]

??? I did wonder whether the onset of scoliosis relatively far on in his youth and that it got worse, may have made a naturally active man suicidal - I would be interested in Rivkah's and other's views on that. Was his charge at Bosworth the act of a man who did not care any longer whether he lived or died - he knew he would be infirm and a cripple soon anyway??

I'm not sure about knowledge that he would be a cripple, because I don't know that he knew that, but he may have been in a lot of pain.

Kurt Cobain had painful scoliosis that wasn't correctly treated when he was young-- it's why he is usually sitting when you see him playing. The pain he experienced contributed probably both to his drug use, and to his suicide, although you can't really say it was the sole cause.

I would be less inclined to speculate that Richard was suicidal, as that he was infirm, and that may have been the reason a surprising number of people deserted him on the battlefield for his opponent. I know that Tudor history claimed it was because people knew he had murdered his nephews, but that, or course, flies in the face of him having murdered them secretly, and hidden the bodies, and I have never heard a really good reason for people deserting him. I'm not going to guess that he literally fell on his sword, but he may have sort of given up without really making a conscious decision to do so. Pain, and seeing people fleeing to the other side would do that, I'd think.

Did they say he stood 5'8 with the curvature, or that he would have stood that tall without it?

If he had a slight build, and the curvature began in puberty, and he had that small midface, he may have had low production of a growth hormone, or of an androgen, which can have all sorts of causes, and might have developed osteoporosis if he had lived much longer.

So, whatever you think of Henry Tudor, it's possible Richard was spared an old age of great disability.

[Phil H]

Rivkah, Richard was probably around 5' 8" but scoliosis would have meant he stood significantly shorter. That's what the Report says.

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

I remember reading once that Richard was a skillful and graceful dancer.

[Errata]

THE RICHARD III EXHIBITION, LEICESTER


??? I did wonder whether the onset of scoliosis relatively far on in his youth and that it got worse, may have made a naturally active man suicidal - I would be interested in Rivkah's and other's views on that. Was his charge at Bosworth the act of a man who did not care any longer whether he lived or died - he knew he would be infirm and a cripple soon anyway??
....

* 10 wounds were discovered on the skeleton - RIII was killed by the trauma to the back of the head. (By me: On the other hand if Richard suffered wounds that did not mark the bones - a dagger thrust through the eye? an upward thrust to the heart - we would not know.)

Suicidal is one thing, but annihilating his family is something else entirely. I cannot see him chancing Henry taking the throne, even if he were in the purest agony. Far better to train up his heir, leave a solid council and maybe a Regent, and go galloping through the gopher holes in the north. Henry had no claim to the throne. Richard, raised the way he was in the family that he had doesn't give England to a mostly French commoner.

It's actually ironic that you named two injuries that almost always leave marks on the bones. The poker to the rectum seems a time honored tradition in English Royalty doesn't it? But if he was wearing his lower arm armor, he was wearing his upper arm armor. They overlap, and the bicep pieces don't come off until the forearm pieces do.

[Phil H]

Errata

Suicidal is one thing....

I'm sure you are right. In my earlier post I was just sharing my musings - a reaction I suppose to learning that Richard's problems were likely to get worse.

If he were in pain I think we have to consider the psychological effects and that was my first (infantile) response. His scoliosis must surely have had unseen impacts on his personality.

For instance, if he suffered bouts of pain, worse sometimes than at others, could such an attack have influenced his outburst against Hastings; or even a decision to neutralise his nephews?

It's actually ironic that you named two injuries that almost always leave marks on the bones. The poker to the rectum seems a time honored tradition in English Royalty doesn't it?

Well, as the Leicester experts have said, they can see only the bones - a wound through the eye-socket, or under the ribs into the heart would have left no skeletal trace. My comments simply echo what the exhibition display boards and pamphlets say.

The pelvic thrust is only known because it was so brutal and deep as to scar/score the bone.

On the poker business - there is now a strong case for believing it NEVER happened to Edward II - who appears to have survived in exile. I am quite convinced by the arguments though I note some historians reject the argument.

But if he was wearing his lower arm armor, he was wearing his upper arm armor. They overlap, and the bicep pieces don't come off until the forearm pieces do.

I think what is being assumed is that Richard was fully armed at the end. His helmet came off and with his head bared he received the two death wounds - the halberd and the dagger on top of the skull. When the halberd exposed his brain he might have gone down under a scrum of men striking at him.

Once he was dead, the idea is (I think) that the body was stripped to the skin and it was then he received the "insult injuries" - to the ribs and face. As the naked body was slung over a herald's horse for the journey back to Leicester, the bare backside would probably have been exposed and the anal/pelvic wound might have been inflicted then. But it could have been equally well as he lay naked on the ground. he might have been castrated too (my supposition) but would we know?

On his ability as a dancer I believe that comes from Buck and relates to remarks attributed to the aged Countess of Desmond, who danced with Richard when she was a girl.

Phil

[Errata]

Errata

Suicidal is one thing....

I'm sure you are right. In my earlier post I was just sharing my musings - a reaction I suppose to learning that Richard's problems were likely to get worse.

If he were in pain I think we have to consider the psychological effects and that was my first (infantile) response. His scoliosis must surely have had unseen impacts on his personality.

For instance, if he suffered bouts of pain, worse sometimes than at others, could such an attack have influenced his outburst against Hastings; or even a decision to neutralise his nephews?

It's actually ironic that you named two injuries that almost always leave marks on the bones. The poker to the rectum seems a time honored tradition in English Royalty doesn't it?

Well, as the Leicester experts have said, they can see only the bones - a wound through the eye-socket, or under the ribs into the heart would have left no skeletal trace. My comments simply echo what the exhibition display boards and pamphlets say.

Phil

Pain is an insidious thing. And as someone who has has a few corrective back surgeries, I can shed some light on the circumstance if not the reaction. You don't feel it getting worse. And it doesn't limit your motion so quickly that you realize you are losing mobility. One day you bend over and you realize you can't straighten out. One day you realize that the pain of getting out of bed isn't worth getting out of bed. And it makes you think you did something to hurt yourself worse, but you didn't. It's just been such a slow decline you didn't notice it. It absolutely causes depression in everybody. But depression manifests in so many ways, I can't say what Richard's reaction was.

The one thing I can think of that he would face that would let him know he actually was in physical decline would be mounting a horse unarmored. With armor, a knight got on a horse with mounting blocks or hoists. But recreational riding would be with a small mounting block or simply standing on the ground and swinging yourself up. Back injuries and back pain limit how high a person can lift their leg. He would have started having problems getting his foot in the stirrup long before he could no long get his foot in the stirrup. But only if he mounted from the ground, and given that mounting blocks were right outside the stables, I don't know how often he actually did that. In war and parades and progresses he would be wearing some kind of armor. So it's only recreational riding that would show him his immobility, and I don't know how often he rode.

All respect to the Leicester experts, but heart stabs even from under the sternum scrape the hell out of the inside of the ribs, and stabbing an eyeball leaves cuts either at the entry point on the front of the orbit, or on the back edge of the orbit. Both ar situation where if you look at a body, you can see how a person might think those would be clean stabs, but when you look at body positioning, and how people use weapons it becomes nigh impossible. Possible if a person does it to a prone body with surgical precision and calm, impossible for a pissed off jerk in the throes of profound emotion.

But in a similar vein, I have to say that if he was stabbed through the anus, which does leave a mark on the bone, then most likely he was emasculated. Which would not leave a mark. There are levels of post mortem injury inflicted by a mob. Stoning is pretty impersonal, and doesn't necessarily accompany any other mutilation. Hair cutting is more personal. Stabbing and cutting often goes with burns. And sexual assaults of any form all go together, and almost never exist singly. In women and in men. Probably due to the one upsmanship inherent in a mob. It escalates until one guy does something that makes every else fall silent until someone says the period equivalent of "Not cool, man". My bet would be that he removal of the genitals was that point with Richard. It's hard for a group of guys not to take that a little personally.

[Phil H]

I suppose with Richard's "insult injuries", it depends on whether there was someone in control or not.

The experts suggest that the lack of skull injury indicates that someone wanted him left recognisable - the head wasn't bludgeoned out of shape etc, I suppose.

One contemporary account says that he was taken into leicester without so much as a rag to cover his privy member - which suggest his genitals were intact - but who knows now?

I think the "hoists" to get an armoured knight into the saddle has more to do with Laurence Olivier's film "Henry V" than real history. My undertanding is that they a C15th armoured knight was quite manoeuverable. That said, I take your point.

Phil

[Bridie O'Reilly]

Hello all - help needed quite urgently!

Is there any documentation that Richard III passed through or even stayed in Southam, Warwickshire? A friend of mine is insistent that he did and that The Bull's Inn was his hostelry of choice. I'll owe him a few pints if he's right!

[Steve S]

I suppose with Richard's "insult injuries", it depends on whether there was someone in control or not.

The experts suggest that the lack of skull injury indicates that someone wanted him left recognisable - the head wasn't bludgeoned out of shape etc, I suppose.

One contemporary account says that he was taken into leicester without so much as a rag to cover his privy member - which suggest his genitals were intact - but who knows now?

I think the "hoists" to get an armoured knight into the saddle has more to do with Laurence Olivier's film "Henry V" than real history. My undertanding is that they a C15th armoured knight was quite manoeuverable. That said, I take your point.

Phil

AFAIK, real hoists were for the "super-heavy" specialist Jousting Armour of the C16.......

[Phil H]

That is always possible, Steve.

[Errata]

AFAIK, real hoists were for the "super-heavy" specialist Jousting Armour of the C16.......

The hoists you see in the movies, yeah those are 16 century hilarities. But they existed in simpler forms ranging from a swing on an L joint to a rope that dangled over the saddle allowing the armored person to lower themselves a little more gently than gravity typically allows. Rope swinging into a saddle? Sounds fun. But when I say hoist, I mean any number of mounting aids that are not a mounting block. If it lets you climb up to a horse, its a block, if it lowers you down on a horse, it's a hoist. I used to use a tree branch when my knee was popped out. Hop up on the block hang on to the tree branch while I got my legs sorted out.

[Phil H]

I don't recall any period illustrations of these, Errata.

C15th plate armour is usually considered flexible and light enough to allow pretty free movement. I have seen a combat at the Royal Armouries in Leeds were the two "knights" in full armour of this period, fought with poleaxes, fell, rolled, got up etc with great agility and no help.

If you could point me in the direction of the sources on which you are relying, I might understand better where you are coming from.

Phil

[Bridie O'Reilly]

Thanks so much for your help.

This community is such a sharing one.