Richard III & the Car Park

[Rosella]

This time it's King Stephen, under playing fields!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3013643/Is-Britain-s-medieval-monarchs-dug-Archaeologists-dig-King-Stephen-grandson-William-Conquerer-school-playing-field.html

[Robert]

"...and after King Stephen made his awful goalkeeping error, he wished for a hole in the ground to swallow him up." - Ye Olde Chronicle of the Life of King Stephen.

[Mayerling]

This time it's King Stephen, under playing fields!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-field.html

From having a notorious monarch who may not deserve his notoriety, but who finally got a decent burial, we now turn to a sad sack whose reign is a decade and a half gap between two strong kings, Henry I and Henry II.

Perhaps they should look for the grave of William Rufus, authorize an exhumation, and then see if he had deer antlers growing out of his head.

Jeff

[Cogidubnus]

I'm waiting for them to discover that the stranded crew of the Marie Celeste founded an isolated and extremist civilisation in North America...naaah it ain't the tea party...I said civilisation...

Dave

[Mayerling]

I'm waiting for them to discover that the stranded crew of the Marie Celeste founded an isolated and extremist civilisation in North America...naaah it ain't the tea party...I said civilisation...

Dave

Hi Dave,

Actually the Mary Celeste (correct spelling) and it's Captain, his family and crew, were fleeing North America - wisely, as it was winter, they were headed for Genoa. Viva Italia!!!

Jeff

[Beowulf]

The Big Question: Should Leicester have a Richard III festival every year?

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Bi...#ixzz3YhxVgMSW

[Monty]

The Big Question: Should Leicester have a Richard III festival every year?

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Bi...#ixzz3YhxVgMSW

They do.

Monty

[Mayerling]

The Big Question: Should Leicester have a Richard III festival every year?

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Bi...#ixzz3YhxVgMSW

Maybe on the anniversary of his birth or of the battle of nearby Bosworth Field. If you want to be sharp about it, turn it into a second Guy Fawks Day, burning an effigy of either Lord Stanley or King Henry VII during the concluding festivities.

Jeff

[Karl]

I feel like DNA is often used to brow-beat counter-arguments into submission, because "a match is a match is a match", and DNA is super accurate, don't you know.

Well... yes and no. Yes, it is very accurate, but no, it doesn't have to mean much. And in this case I was annoyed from the very beginning at how incredibly vague they were. "There was a match". Yes? How many base pairs? If it was a perfect match, the lady presenting the find would surely have said so.

Even if the match was absolutely perfect however, what does that mean? It means that the skeleton and the two present day maternal descendants tested share a common ancestor maybe as much as 200 years before Richard III (based on the mutation rate). How significant is this? That entirely depends. Not at all on how rare that particular strand of mtDNA is today, which is actually completely irrelevant (because we aren't trying to identify anyone today). Rather, how common was that particular strand of mtDNA back in Richard's day? It could be common as all that back then, and still be rare today.

But let us assume that we someone managed to positively identify that skeleton as Richard III. That would mean that the accounts of his final moments at Bosworth Field are entirely wrong. Contrary to the eager archaeologists, the wounds on the skeleton are not consistent with the battlefield accounts, at all. None of the wounds seen on the skeleton could have been administered through plate harness, and all those wounds together do not constitute what we would normally expect from battlefield injuries, either. Instead, it looks like this person was ganged up on and brutally murdered.

The injury to the skull has been explained something like this: the helmet might have been knocked off, leaving the head vulnerable to such a blow. I do not see how that could have happened as the sallet - which is likely the type of helmet Richard would have worn - would have been securely fastened. If these are the remains of Richard III, he was taken prisoner, stripped of his armour and then brutally murdered. There is also a hint of sexualized violence, as if they rammed a spear up his backside. This was cruelty not unheard of against homosexuals, but to kill a king this way? Remember, this was the height of the days when nobility could bring in a pretty penny as ransom, and a king would be worth, well, a king's ransom.

Another "match" is the fact that the skeleton shows someone who was used to a diet consisting heavily of seafood, which was allegedly a nobleman's diet. But such was hardly the case, as anyone living by the coast would have had seafood as a significant part of their diet. Furthermore, it wasn't just the nobles who gorged themselves on good food, but clergy as well. Clergy had the right to massive amounts of food of all kind, which led to the stereotype of the bloated friar.

Also, I do find it interesting that until this skeleton was unearthed, everyone was pretty much agreed that all that nonsense about Richard's deformities was just Tudorian propaganda, which only started cropping up after his death and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously. But now that we have a skeleton with severe scoliosis, it is suddenly evidence that it's Richard.

Even if they matched perfectly, all of the evidence would still be circumstantial. Yes, the DNA evidence in particular, which is no more convincing than that DNA "identification" of Kosminski as Jack the Ripper - which is of the exact same caliber. And the Y-chromosome test was not a match. And the rest of the evidence matches only with the help of a crowbar. So no, ladies and gentlemen, I am not convinced. So far, the only evidence which I find remotely compelling is the location. If this is indeed Richard III (a possibility I do not exclude), then it is in spite of much of the evidence, rather than because of it.

[Mayerling]

I feel like DNA is often used to brow-beat counter-arguments into submission, because "a match is a match is a match", and DNA is super accurate, don't you know.

Well... yes and no. Yes, it is very accurate, but no, it doesn't have to mean much. And in this case I was annoyed from the very beginning at how incredibly vague they were. "There was a match". Yes? How many base pairs? If it was a perfect match, the lady presenting the find would surely have said so.

Even if the match was absolutely perfect however, what does that mean? It means that the skeleton and the two present day maternal descendants tested share a common ancestor maybe as much as 200 years before Richard III (based on the mutation rate). How significant is this? That entirely depends. Not at all on how rare that particular strand of mtDNA is today, which is actually completely irrelevant (because we aren't trying to identify anyone today). Rather, how common was that particular strand of mtDNA back in Richard's day? It could be common as all that back then, and still be rare today.

But let us assume that we someone managed to positively identify that skeleton as Richard III. That would mean that the accounts of his final moments at Bosworth Field are entirely wrong. Contrary to the eager archaeologists, the wounds on the skeleton are not consistent with the battlefield accounts, at all. None of the wounds seen on the skeleton could have been administered through plate harness, and all those wounds together do not constitute what we would normally expect from battlefield injuries, either. Instead, it looks like this person was ganged up on and brutally murdered.

The injury to the skull has been explained something like this: the helmet might have been knocked off, leaving the head vulnerable to such a blow. I do not see how that could have happened as the sallet - which is likely the type of helmet Richard would have worn - would have been securely fastened. If these are the remains of Richard III, he was taken prisoner, stripped of his armour and then brutally murdered. There is also a hint of sexualized violence, as if they rammed a spear up his backside. This was cruelty not unheard of against homosexuals, but to kill a king this way? Remember, this was the height of the days when nobility could bring in a pretty penny as ransom, and a king would be worth, well, a king's ransom.

Another "match" is the fact that the skeleton shows someone who was used to a diet consisting heavily of seafood, which was allegedly a nobleman's diet. But such was hardly the case, as anyone living by the coast would have had seafood as a significant part of their diet. Furthermore, it wasn't just the nobles who gorged themselves on good food, but clergy as well. Clergy had the right to massive amounts of food of all kind, which led to the stereotype of the bloated friar.

Also, I do find it interesting that until this skeleton was unearthed, everyone was pretty much agreed that all that nonsense about Richard's deformities was just Tudorian propaganda, which only started cropping up after his death and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously. But now that we have a skeleton with severe scoliosis, it is suddenly evidence that it's Richard.

Even if they matched perfectly, all of the evidence would still be circumstantial. Yes, the DNA evidence in particular, which is no more convincing than that DNA "identification" of Kosminski as Jack the Ripper - which is of the exact same caliber. And the Y-chromosome test was not a match. And the rest of the evidence matches only with the help of a crowbar. So no, ladies and gentlemen, I am not convinced. So far, the only evidence which I find remotely compelling is the location. If this is indeed Richard III (a possibility I do not exclude), then it is in spite of much of the evidence, rather than because of it.

I see your points, but somehow I am not sure how accurate they are. In fact I can see that there is one thing I would agree with - that the injuries on the body do not totally match the old accounts of the death of Richard in battle. But there is an interesting twist in this.

When we think of Richard's death at Bosworth it is of him fighting to the bitter end, except for Shakespeare's use of the line, "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!!" The line does suggest panic in Richard - at best that he is trying to leave to fight again when at some advantage over Henry Tudor. But Shakespeare had already shown (on the eve of the battle) that Richard was attacked in his conscience by his many victim's ghosts. Shakespeare was trying to show that Richard was always a coward, and that he was dying when he was really scared. That would fit in with the desired image the Tudors wanted.

But the Tudors always knew they had a weak claim to their being the best claimants of the Lancastrians. That's why there were as many Lancastrians descendants executed by Tudor monarchs as Yorkists were. It made better public relations for the Tudors for Henry VII to have beaten a dangerous, brave foe than a total coward. Which is why the business about the "horse" comment, and the ghostly visitations, were not part of the of the original accounts of the battle. They showed Richard fighting until killed.

My guess is Richard was captured and brutally murdered. These things were not done by half when kingdoms were at stake, and Richard III's death would have been as violent as Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York, of Henry VI and his son the Prince of Wales after a battle in 1471, and of others going back to Richard II at Pontefrac (sp.) castle in 1400. Moreover these were such brutal actions the details were rarely given. We really don't know how Henry VI died in 1471 - poison, a knife wound? Whatever the speedy method, it was probably arranged by Edward IV.

But how much better for the legend if Richard died killed at the height of battle? As violent a death, and as deserved, but not as ugly in it's way.

That would be how I'd accept the different injuries. But it is how I accept them.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

A New Royal Search Begins - Lamprays Anyone?

This was in the New York Times from last Tuesday, June 14, 2016, First Section, P. A4. I did not have the time to make note of it last week, and I wonder if there was anything in the newspapers or media in Britain about it.

"The Search is On for the King Henry I, Who may be Buried Under a Parking Lot"

"by Dan Silefsky."

"London -- Looking for a dead medieval king? You might want to check under a parking lot.

That theory, at least, is on the minds of archaeologists and historians in Reading, about 40 miles west of London, who this week will begin searching for the high altar of the abbey founded by King Henry I. They believe that the altar -- and, they hope, the king's remains -- could be under the parking lot of a local prison, near the abbey ruins. The area around a nearby nursery school will also be searched.

Nearly four years ago, archaeologists discovered King Richard III's grave under a parking lot in Leicester about 100 miles northwest of London, on the site of a former monastery.

Henry I, who ruled from 1100 to 1135, reportedly died after eating lamprays, a kind of jawless fish. A son of William the Conqueror, who ascended the throne after the death of his elder brother William II, Henry has been described as a usurper because he seized the crown while another elder brother was away on a Crusade. Henry also had a reputation for cruelty; he is said to have the tips of the noses of two of his granddaughters cut off. But he is also credited with strengthening the monarchy and putting in place efficient -- if sometimes oppressive -- administrative policies.

John Mullaney, a historian who is on the team undertaking the search, said archaeologists knew "within a few yards" where Henry was probably buried. He said the team would use ground-penetrating radar to search the area around the prison and the nursery school. We know from burial records that Henry was buried in front of the high altar in the old abbey," Mr. Mullaney said in a telephone interview. "The aim is to find the footprint of the old abbey. We don't know if his remains will still be there."

As to whether a former monarch would roll in his grave at the prospect of spending eternity under a parking lot, Mr. Mullaney was philosophical.

"I'm afraid that England is a nation of car drivers," he said. "We are a small country, and most people travel by cars, so we need lots of car parks. Henry was a reforming king and would have been fascinated by the idea of cars and transport and may well have liked being buried under a car park."

The historian's wife, Lindsay Mullaney, a linguist and amateur historian who is also involved in the search, said Henry was a ladies' man who fathered 24 children outside of marriage. "He was addicted to lust," she said by telephone. He died in Normandy, which at that time was part of his realm. His decaying body was brought back to Britain, and he was buried in Reading Abbey, which, she said, he hoped would become the mausoleum of future kings.

Mr. Mullaney said Henry, as a man of learning, would have preferred being buried under a school or, even better, in a place of worship: "He was a religious man, and so I think he would have preferred being buried in a church."

Until Richard III's bones were discovered in Leicester, his grave was unmarked for over 500 years. He was buried by men who had killed him at the battle of Bosworth. The bones were transferred, with much ceremony, to a new tomb in Leicester Cathedral in March 2015."

Henry I's predecessor, William II or William Rufus, is the king who died because (while out hunting) he was "mistaken for a deer", possibly one of the most suspicious deaths in English history - and one that resulted (an oddity given it's date in 1100) in no punishment to anyone involved.

Henry I's son and heir drowned with many court retainers and courtiers, and his sister, in the wreck of the "White Ship" in 1120. I am curious if any serious effort to find that wreck's remains has ever been (or ever will be) attempted. Supposedly, after hearing of the death of his son, and daughter, and the "White Ship"'s passengers and crew, King Henry never smiled again.

[Robert]

They may find Henry, but after all this time he's bound to have been clamped.

[GUT]

How come they don't toe all these dead kings that overstay the parking limits?

[Mayerling]

How come they don't toe all these dead kings that overstay the parking limits?

I guess the Kings have political pull to fix their parking tickets.

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

Why do Brits say "car park" and Yanks say "parking lot"?