Richard III discussion

last year they had announced that they found Richard done his DNA and a cross eyed face reconstruction. Leicester university have announced it is to do some more testing to extract what they say is more information. There is a group that is up in arms about this called the Plantagenet Alliance and they have organised petitions against this testing. In less than two weeks this will be in court about where the bones are going to be interred. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Andrea, great to see concern about this on Goodreads, but I hope you don't mind me just correcting a couple of things. Yes, the Plantagenet Alliance has spoken out about the further testing, but the petitions haven't been organized by them. They have been set up by two members of the Richard III Society, although independently and not acting under the Society's auspices. The petitions (one that can be signed by anyone anywhere ( https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/...) and one for UK citizens/residents only (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petit...)) have however been endorsed by Dr John Ashdown-Hill who is a leading member of the Looking for Richard project team which organized and funded the dig. The LFR team have spoken out against the further testing and have called for their original agreement with the university to be honoured: http://looking-for-richard.webs.com/ news. The Plantagent Alliance are a group of some 30+ (I believe now) collateral descendants of King Richard who are contesting the right of Leicester University to decide what to do with Richard's remains.If you care about what happens to King Richard's remains, please sign the petitions and ask your friends to also. Many thanks

I'm just looking at this as an outsider and I think this has a weirdness all of it's own. I have just read in a newspaper that the 'dig' team have been to Buck house and met betty.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/...

I think that there is something weird going on and when they done that 'dig' they had dug themselves a can of worms. I have tried to tell the Plantagenet Alliance that the 'dig' is a hoax.

http://www.historum.com/blogs/crystal...
I just want the truth

Why do you believe it to be a hoax, Andrea?

I have written blogs on what I know and what I have been told. One of my blogs contains a conversation between me and Philippa before the dig was about to go ahead. She was going to do that 'dig' on the anniversary of Bosworth until I pointed out about the anniversary. The whole thing has been a sham and no respect to Richard's memory has been taken in account. all they have done is flap their gums about curvature of the spine. There is too much about Shakespeare related remarks. You also have ask your self why isn't York cathedral made any comment on wanting shrine up in York. Leicester's plans are not that grand either. No doubt they will have some Shakespeare freak show going on. The day I had announced I was going to publish my book they announced the next day that Richard had round worm. It smacks of agenda and not a nice one.

Andrea wrote: "I have written blogs on what I know and what I have been told. One of my blogs contains a conversation between me and Philippa before the dig was about to go ahead. She was going to do that 'dig' o..."

I am turning back to this old discussion,because recently we discussed on another thread the Visitor Centre in Leicester --I started that one 'Is Richard ill-treated...?
I find it very interesting that several --perhaps many--people think that the Visitor Centre doesn't honour Richard,it only makes propaganda to Leicester University.
Now my question is this: can we be sure that the bones buried in Leicester Cathedral are those of Richard? Were they tested by independent scholars,or only by Leicester University ? They had a vested interest in identifying the remains as those of Richard.
I don't really mind if the bones are not his,we honoured HIM during the reinterment week and there were beautiful moments.It could have been done without any physical remains.
Still,the world attaches too much importance to the material remains, and I suspect that Leicester University,the Visitor Centre and others take advantage of it.
If anyone else also suspects that something is not quite right here,I'd like to know

I've always found it a remarkable coincidence that they hit upon the bones almost as soon as they started digging, it seemed far too good to be true. That and the weird Langley woman standing in the car park and knowing exactly where the body was.

All right, I don't think that 'the weird Langley woman' is a bad person. She sincerely loves Richard,but it seems that others took advantage of her naive ideas.Of course, I was also surprised that she accepted the MBE. Didn't she and the historian notice that the establishment wanted to neutralize them with the hollow award? If the remains are really those of Richard,they were treated without respect (so long in the lab,with disgusting articles in the pro-establishment press that they should stay there!),and now that section in the Visitor Centre which shows the dig-site with the skeleton (I saw it on the internet,I don't go there)
I repeat that a week of solemn ceremonies celebrating Richard,the person,not the bones, could have been held without this circus around some physical remains.
I still don't know whether or not the bones were tested by somebody else,or only by Leicester University.
Does anyone know?

I have just finished David Baldwin's book about Richard--and I didn't like it at all.This is the worst 'Ricardian' book I have read so far--and the author --a professor of Leicester University--was the one who 'foretold that Richard's remains would be found at the site of the church. Strange.
Though poor Baldwin died this year

Daisy wrote: "I have just finished David Baldwin's book about Richard--and I didn't like it at all.This is the worst 'Ricardian' book I have read so far--and the author --a professor of Leicester University--was..."

There is nothing strange about people 'predicting' where Richard would be found. All you needed was to know the historical facts, use your brain, and not be one of those historians who are far too in love with Ricardian mythology and unable to let go off the myth about how an angry mob supposedly dug out Richard's remains and flung them into the river. (Like Michael Hicks, who still can't let go off that myth, because he wants to believe that Richard was so hated.) It was well known that Richard was buried at the Greyfriars monastery in Leicester, because it was recorded in chronicles at the time (by John Rous, for instance, writing a few months or so after Bosworth). The issue was just finding the remains of the Greyfriars, which, like so many other monasteries, was destroyed by Henry VIII during the dissolution of the monasteries. In fact, the myth about the body in the river was started in 17th century by John Speede, a cartographer who tried to look for Richard's remain, but made a mistake and searched for the site of Blackfriars instead of Greyfriars, and then had to explain his lack of success somehow. (This is described in more details in John Ashdown-Hill's book "The Mythology of Richard III".)

The Leicester University wasn't even the one who pushed for searching for Richard. It was Philippa Langley, Ashdown-Hill and other people who formed the Searching for Richard project. The Leicester University needed some convincing as they didn't think Richard could be found, and they were more interested in looking for the remains of the monastery itself.

And no offense, but doubting that the remains are Richard's is on par with the bizarre conspiracy theories that NASA faked the landing on the Moon. It's been proven beyond any doubt that they belong to Richard. Absolutely everything matches him, and can only match him. The mitochondrial DNA tested on two different contemporary descendants of his sister who have the same mitochondrial DNA, the period as established by carbon dating, the age, the build, the facial reconstruction, the fact the analysis of his nourishment confirms his high status in society, the place where he was found, the wounds - exactly fitting the description of the battle by contemporary chroniclers... Not only does it all match Richard, there is no other individual that all this can match.

In fact, since Michael Hicks has been too stubborn to accept defeat and keeps insisting that the bones are not proven to be Richard's because only mitochondrial DNA matched but not the Y chromosome (which means nothing, except that there was some infidelity and false paternity in the family line either of Plantagenets or more statistically probable, the Somersets, over 19 generations), Ashdown-Hill wrote an appendix to his above mentioned book where he listed all the males from the time period determined by the carbon dating (app. 1475-1530 ) who had the same mitochondrial DNA (descendants of Katherine de Roet/Swynford through straight maternal line), and then eliminated them one by one by virtue of their time of death, manner of death, place of death, and/or age at the time of death. It shows that there's even theoretically no one that those bones can belong to, except Richard.

What I suggested ,was precisely a little ironic conspiracy theory,but it may be true. What you say is absolutely well-known.But I'm not interested in Michael Hicks,I'm interested in David Baldwin and other,really Ricardian authors. Baldwin 'foretold' that the remains would be found there. But we know that the Catholic Church was destroyed by Henry VIII,many centuries ago. Weren't there any constructions since then ?I don't know how a car park is constructed,but at the time of its construction modern machinery could be used to destroy a skeleton. But they found a perfect skeleton .
This is why I'm a little suspicious. Perhaps Mr Baldwin's colleagues at Leicester University grabbed the occasion when Philippa started her naive campaign,and took advantage of Baldwin's supposition,though Richard's skeleton had been already destroyed by a construction at the site. So they used a substitute.
The author of the Shakespeare book I sometimes meet at a bus stop,has very strong and original views,still,she believes that the remains are those of Richard.
I met her yesterday again,and she dismissed my idea that the remains could be fake. Just like you.
The bullshit about the river doesn't matter,of course,it is Tudor propaganda,and I don't mind whether or not the remains are authentic. We celebrated Richard's memory last year during the reinterment week.
Still, Teillard De Chardin,a priest,is said to have falsified archeological artefacts in his time. A priest! This makes me suspect that if all the details that you mention fit so perfectly,and ONLY Leicester University tested the bones,the university that knew about all these details,all about Mr Baldwin's theory,they could perfectly well follow T. De Chardin's example.
The facial reconstruction could be made on the basis of Richard's portraits.
The reinterment week had its glorious moments,but Leicester University was already celebrated , and as I see it is still celebrated in the Visitor Centre. This is not of good taste. Independent institutions should have checked all those perfectly--too perfectly?-- fitting details you mention.

Of course she dismissed it. Because it makes as much sense as the idea that NASA faked the Moon landing.

Like I said, Leicester University isn't the one that insisted on the dig in the first place; it was easy to predict where the bones would be, since there are actual chronicles about where he was buried, and info about where the Greyfriars was. The facial reconstruction wasn't made according to the portraits, it was made according to the skull. Caroline Wilkinson, who made it - and who's from the University of Dundee, BTW - wasn't even told whose skull it was before she made it (minus the hair, coloring etc. which was added later). The skeleton wasn't "perfect", the feet were missing. And there's nothing odd about finding 500 year old remains that are almost intact - hundreds of them were found at the site of the battle of Towton, for instance. Was that maybe faked, too?

And Baldwin is hardly someone I'd call a Ricardian. More like a Woodvillian, from what I've read of him.

Yes,Baldwin wasn't a real Ricardian. This is why I don't like his book,he wanted to be so unbiased that he somehow lost credit,as I see it.
It was Philippa who insisted on the dig,but the University could take advantage of the occasion.
I don't like the way they make themselves celebrated,that's all. That's why I just toy with the thought:what if...?
But don't take it too seriously. Worse is that Philippa hasn't achieved what she really wanted--to make Richard's true story be tter accepted,Tudor lies more rejected by the wider public.
I have the impression that this hasn't changed.
The celebration of Leicester University doesn't help much.

If I may jump in here ... 1)The bones weren't discovered years ago because the parking lot paved over the original foundations - no digging. 2) I do believe that Philippa's efforts have made a difference - I was just in England and people I spoke with (academics as well as normal blokes) have a much clearer understanding of who Richard was -- not a hunchback and not evil incarnate as portrayed by Tudor propaganda. He is viewed in a more balanced way ... but he was also a monarch, under enormous pressure, with enemies all around him. The ongoing mystery of whether he killed the princes or not is still there ... and while I personally don't believe he did it due to his loyalty to his brother, I won't dismiss the possibility that he did. He knew they could only cause trouble as they came to maturity. Young Edward had been so prejudiced by his Woodville relatives it was not likely Richard would be able to change his mind, especially with others continually feeding those biased opinions, So, to sum up ... the bones were officially determined to be his through extensive DNA testing, he was reinterred as befitting a monarch, and the mystery still exists.

O. K. I'm delighted if you are right. This whole discussion started with you and I talking in positive terms about the reinterment,but feeling that Leicester University should not be in the focus of everybody's admiration.
About Richard's nephews I think writers like my favourite,Annette Carson,my bus-stop friend,Eva,with her Shakespeare book in which she suggests very interesting theories in connection with this and even the much more cautious Matt Lewis offer solutions.Check out them,if you don't know them

Daisy wrote: "O. K. I'm delighted if you are right. This whole discussion started with you and I talking in positive terms about the reinterment,but feeling that Leicester University should not be in the focus o..."

To be honest, even if it is not Richard, who else who shares DNA with a descendent of Richard's eldest sister Anne could be buried there who suffers the curvature of the spine - can't spell the name of the disease or disability- who is buried at the same time and is roughly the same age as Richard and also buried without coffin and even a shroud. Moreover , most royals at the time were buried either in Westminster Abbey or St Georges' chapel at Windsor. To me it is a foregone conclusion. It has to be Richard. He is known originally to be buried at Greyfriars in Leicester. If you think it's not then who do you suggest it is? Before you insist it isn't, you could do some research to find someone else with all the medical complaints Richard suffered and who were about the same age as him and also with all the battle wounds his skeleton had shown and appear to have fought with him seemingly at Bosworth Field. Maybe there is a rumour that he had a twin brother who fought with him and suffered the same fate? Anyway, I haven't yet heard about a twin brother of Richard III but it wouldn't surprise me if there is such a rumour already out there. According to the book the Mysteries of Richard III by John Ashdown Hill, the rumours about Richard keep coming up.

There is no contemporary document about Richard having suffered any complaints. The Tudors called him a hunchback and similar nonsense.
So,IF,and only if the University had done what T. De Chardin,e.g. falsify things,they could have hidden a skeleton,at least they had the decency that it was not that of a hunchback,but of a person with scoliosis,a condition that is practically invisible,but that would explain how Tudor lies were invented.This skeleton would be of an unknown person. But of course,this is just toying with ideas.
Yesterday I posted my comment in a hurry,now I edited it,and I'd like to add that if I sell you a fake Monet, I don't try to sell a Renoir. I sell a worthless thing which looks like a Monet. If Leicester University having found that of Richard's skeleton only a few bones had survived previous constructions,had decided to hide and with great publicity 'find' a skeleton,it would not be that of any member of a royal family.And if the reconstruction of the face was also a hoax using Richard's portraits,they would lie that it was made using the skull of this skeleton.
Only toying with possibilities because I don't like the way they celebrate themselves...
This is a readers' forum,isn't it? This is why I think the issue on Matt's history blog--that of Matthew Lewis-- is more interesting. He dismisses the ideas of those who defend her and keeps on taking seriously the possibility that Henry Tudor's mother was behind the killing of the Princes.