Richard III discussion
Open debate room
>
Does it really matter where those bones get buried
date
newest »
newest »
He was a good king for the people, but it was a shame the nobles did not think so as they showed that at Bosworth. The same could be said how someone had some notion to dig him up and have his 'bones' on display. It is a sick hoax and a horrible thing to happen to someone's memory. Any honour for Richard is that they should do is to come clean and own up that is was a hoax and a vile and disgusting one at that. This is nothing to do with history. I have noticed that only a handful of people turned up in York for that march. I don't think York are that bothered about 'bones'.
As an American who only became seriously interested in Richard a few years ago, I was quite surprised at the intense positive responses I got from the handful of people I knew with roots in the north of England in my acquaintance when I told them I was reading a lot about Richard. I don't think it is a matter of not being bothered about the bones, as much as it is a lack of a desire to seem to be squabbling over them. The first responses I heard from people with an opinion was that York Minister seemed like an optimal choice--because of the positive links of Richard with York and the importance of the cathedral itself. As the discussion heated up, everyone I knew who cared were willing to concede to the Leicester proposal because the city and university supported the dig and did their part in trying to call attention to the manner in which history had treated Richard unfairly. So, it did not seem to be not being "bothered about the bones," but not wanting to bicker about the burial either.
I agree with you, Oshun. My first thought was that Richard III probably should be buried in Westminster Abbey, but as that's not an option, my second choice would have been Windsor with Edward IV. Obviously, that was never considered Since Michael Ibsen--the one known and confirmed collateral descendent--supports that Richard III be buried in Leicester, I do think this is the right choice.
Philippa Langley has claimed that she has past life memory of what has happened back then at Bosworth. Do you think she should have a say about anything? I think she has dug up enough can of round worms at Victorian toilets to merit it to be a hoax.
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure what you mean by it being a hoax. Do you not believe that the skeleton they dug up was Richard? I'm not being argumentative, I just want to understand.
Andrea, I have looked at your blog, and sorry, but I do not see any real evidence for your strong opinions. In your email exchange with Philipa Langley in the messages http://historum.com/blogs/crystal+rai... , it seems rather to convey a personal problem with her. By the way, from her allusions to "If you are who you say you are then think about this. Why do you not act like him-or think like him, in any way whatsoever?", it seems to imply that you also believe you had a relevant "past life."
It's a long story she wanted me to get regressed in that era. I had some therapist regress me and I did have past life regression but my past life was a Tibetan monk worrying about the Chinese invasion. When Philippa met me she thought I was Richard III. I did try to regress to that life time and I could not get anything I paid £65 for that and all that I could remember was Tibetan past life. This could be another thread, the people I had met though the Richard III society were very interested in reincarnation.
Oh dear, conspiracy theories abound. Sigh. The chances of this being a 'hoax' are about as likely as Stonehenge being built by aliens....
I know the case has been postponed for another couple of months, this has got me wondering who is paying for the expensive court case and the amount of time it taken to make a decision. This is a long drawn out drawl about where some bones are being buried is it really worth all this fuss in court.
J.P. wrote: "Oh dear, conspiracy theories abound. Sigh. The chances of this being a 'hoax' are about as likely as Stonehenge being built by aliens...."Thanks!!
I think that his bones should be buried close to where some of his family lies, and in a place that had some meaning for him. I understand that many of those places can be in disrepair, but he deserves some respect
I don't think for a minute they found him. It's a bit like saying that there is no such thing as global warming. The science was really bad just like awful historians that had anything to do with that dig. Its running out of any creditability it's a sad joke of a hoax.
Andrea wrote: "I don't think for a minute they found him. It's a bit like saying that there is no such thing as global warming. The science was really bad just like awful historians that had anything to do with t..."You are repeating yourself.
I am really torn about where Richard should be interred. I understand Leicester's desire to keep them there (and that it represents a little less handling and therefore is viewed by some as more respectful). And the original agreement to do the dig was that they would be buried in Leicester. However, Richard was so incredibly loved in the north... It would be like "coming home".
Oshun wrote: "Andrea wrote: "I don't think for a minute they found him. It's a bit like saying that there is no such thing as global warming. The science was really bad just like awful historians that had anythi..."Maybe it's because some people still think those were Richard's remains. I hope that Philippa picks up the expensive lawyers bill for having that brain fart in that car park in the first place.
Andrea wrote: Andrea Willers | 36 comments I don't think for a minute they found him. It's a bit like saying that there is no such thing as global warming. The science was really bad just like awful historians that had anything to do with that dig. Its running out of any creditability it's a sad joke of a hoax.
Andrea, what is your background and what research have you done to make such a statement?
My background is more or less scientific (I have a bachelor in engineering) and I've read the details on how how Joy Ibsen was identified as a direct collateral descendent of Richard III through the female line of his sister, Anne. Joy Ibsen would therefore have the identical mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) as Richard since the mother's mtDNA is passed down to the child intact. Several years prior to the dig--2005 IIRC--John Ashdown-Hill identified Michael Ibsen's mother for another project. Primary sources (Crowland) recorded that Richard had been buried in Greyfriers. John A-H researched city records and located the Greyfriers location. From there he was able to determine the most likely place for the choir and high altar. Fortunately, centuries of construction hadn't demolished this crucial bit of architecture, and Richard's remains were found just where Crowland had reported.
I find the research and evidence overwhelming to support that these are indeed Richard III's remains.
The Richard III Society has a channel on YouTube and the entire Leicester conference is available to the public. In particular, I heartily recommend John A-H's segment.
Kerri wrote: "I am really torn about where Richard should be interred. I understand Leicester's desire to keep them there (and that it represents a little less handling and therefore is viewed by some as more r..."
It's very interesting that a Yorkist was well loved in the North. Origially, the Lancastrians had their strongholds in the north and the Yorkists were in the South and Welsh Marches. For more background, read Fatal Colors. Fascinating background on the Wars of the Roses and the rise of Edward IV.
It's very interesting that a Yorkist was well loved in the North. Origially, the Lancastrians had their strongholds in the north and the Yorkists were in the South and Welsh Marches. For more background, read Fatal Colors. Fascinating background on the Wars of the Roses and the rise of Edward IV.
I just want him to have a dignified burial that befits a King of England...and it would be nice if it was done before I go to England in a year or two because I want to visit his grave. I'd prefer it to be in York since he had such strong ties there but he just needs to have his final resting place.
And I have to agree with Joan. DNA evidence is pretty unassailable. And there are far too many creditable researchers involved in this -- feel free to discredit one, but there are many others. I did some DNA and protein analysis in grad school (embarrassingly long ago LOL) and am absolutely over the moon that that early science has been used now in so many amazing ways. And my overwhelming feeling regarding Philippa's experience in that car park is simply that Richard just very much WANTED to be found. His skeleton alone put to rest some of More's and Shakespeare's cruel assertions. It's time to put much of ugly tradition aside and give the man the respect he deserved.
As a historian, I find it really hard to pass up not only the DNA evidence and matches that they have, but also the historical evidence as well. There are to many links for this to be anyone other than Richard III. I am avid Richard III fan, and have been doing quite a bit of research since my interest was peaked while reading "The Sunne in Splendor" by Sharon Kay Penman. I feel he should be buried where his seat of power was, York. He was very much a Northern lord, and the people of York loved him.
For some reason I tried to reply to this thread but I was not able to post. I am fed up with repeating myself anyway. I have been reading Mike Pitts blog and it is the first bit of common sense I have read for a while about this 'dig'. I can see Leicester university point of view now. The one thing which does annoy me is that the tax payer has to pay the court cost. Philippa Langley should pay for this as it was her brain fart that caused this mess in the first place.
Mod
To reply to a particular comment, just click on the 'reply' button on the bottom right hand side of the message you wish to reply to.
If you are having technical issues with the GR site, you would have to contact them via the Feedback group and/or email - that is out of my control.
I realize this is an issue that has varied opinions, and I'm all for open discussion, but I want to remind everyone to keep it civil and respect the opinions of others even if you disagree with them.
I'm a firm believer in DNA evidence - it took nigh on 20 years, but that was the final piece of evidence investigators needed to lock Gary Ridgway up for good.
I realize we picked up a lot of new members when a link to this group was posted on the FB page of the Richard III society, but I do not want this to turn into another group as contentious of some I've seen on FB.
I don't think Philippa was all that happy about the outcome on Friday. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-...
I don't claim I am an expert on DNA, but I do know a forensic student. I asked her if they could get exact DNA evidence from bones that are over 500 years old which has been cross contamination because of being exposed to Victorian toilets. She told me it was impossible.
I agree with you Misfit. I have no trouble believing the DNA results (coupled with the scoliosis, battle wounds, location of body); they got DNA from bones that had been burned and covered with acid (Romanovs). I just hope they get Richard buried so he can rest in peace. I plan on visiting his tomb-be it in York or Leicester. :) To bad it won't be settled by the time I (hopefully) go with my sister in law in late June! :)
Mod
Thanks Robin, hope you'll share pics with us. The Ridgway story is fascinating in a creepy sort of way. Yeah, they got his DNA, but with a prostitute lawyers could have tried to argue it off. It was the small bits of paint the found that nailed him. IIRC, it was a paint only used on Kenworth trucks in one plant in one town with one painter. Gotcha.
The stuff they can narrow down with forensic science is amazing. They test things that most of us wouldn't even think of, which is why is is so difficult for a criminal not to leave SOME sort of evidence. Fascinating. If you want to read something that is an cool combination of Victorian social history and forensic science (and things tested that I had no idea forensics could delineate), and deductive reasoning, check out Cornwell's Jack The Ripper. Whether you care for her conclusions, it's a really fun read.
Andrea wrote: "I don't think Philippa was all that happy about the outcome on Friday. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-...
I don't claim I am an expert on DNA, but I do know a forensic s..."
Andrea, perhaps your forensics student friend misunderstood you? There is a big difference between nuclear DNA (which can degrade in certain circumstances) and mitochondrial DNA, and mtDNA is in fact preferentially used in identifying older specimens (especially because it is a comparison ID-- it is passed down only on the maternal side so it tends NOT to change down the generations, whereas nuclear DNA does bc it is inherited from both parents). I am aware of cases where mtDNA was used to identify relationships that were a couple thousand years apart-- so the mere 400 or so with Richard is certainly achievable with accuracy.
Link for quote below with references)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mi...
"Human mtDNA can also be used to help identify individuals.[4] Forensic laboratories occasionally use mtDNA comparison to identify human remains, and especially to identify older unidentified skeletal remains. Although unlike nuclear DNA, mtDNA is not specific to one individual, it can be used in combination with other evidence (anthropological evidence, circumstantial evidence, and the like) to establish identification. mtDNA is also used to exclude possible matches between missing persons and unidentified remains.[5] Many researchers believe that mtDNA is better suited to identification of older skeletal remains than nuclear DNA because the greater number of copies of mtDNA per cell increases the chance of obtaining a useful sample, and because a match with a living relative is possible even if numerous maternal generations separate the two. American outlaw Jesse James's remains were identified using a comparison between mtDNA extracted from his remains and the mtDNA of the son of the female-line great-granddaughter of his sister.[6] Similarly, the remains of Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse), last Empress of Russia, and her children were identified by comparison of their mitochondrial DNA with that of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, whose maternal grandmother was Alexandra’s sister Victoria of Hesse.[7] Similarly to identify Emperor Nicholas II remains his mitochondrial DNA was compared with that of James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife, whose maternal great-grandmother Alexandra of Denmark (Queen Alexandra) was sister of Nicholas II mother Dagmar of Denmark (Empress Maria Feodorovna).[8]"
Kerri wrote: ... There is a big difference between nuclear DNA (which can degrade in certain circumstances) and mitochondrial DNA, and mtDNA is in fact preferentially used in identifying older specimens (especially because it is a comparison ID-- it is passed down only on the maternal side so it tends NOT to change down the generations, whereas nuclear DNA does bc it is inherited from both parents)...I agree, Kerri, but in addition, it is possible, though much more difficult, to piece together the nuclear DNA because it can be preserved in teeth and large bones. In fact, Neanderthal DNA has been identified and many clans of modern man contain bits of Neanderthal DNA. Also, barring mutation, the Y-chromosome is passed down intact from father to son, just as the child inherits an exact copy of the mother's mtDNA.
I have to say, I was thrilled to see how Richard III's mtDNA exactly matched Michael Ibsen's.
Joan-- yes, absolutely, sorry my comment was incomplete. I was just trying to respond to Andrea's friend's assertion, based on the specific DNA they used to ID Richard (which was the mtDNA only). However I am also aware that (at least according to what I have read on the Richard project) they are hoping for permission to extract nuclear DNA (using a tooth) for further testing.I also am hearing that this additional research is totally unprecedented, to use part of the remains (in a way that causes destruction of those parts) of an ordained king in scientific research (I'm a Yank and don't know much about royal protocols). I think the thought of it offends many, and I can understand this, tho I don't have the same gut reaction. But it also explains to me why Queen Elizabeth has not allowed DNA testing on the two children's skeletons found under the staircase in the Tower.
Kerri, yes, it does have to be destructive, but they already have done it to get the mtDNA. Also, before doing any destructive tests, the bones were MRI scanned (non-destructive), which is how they were able to reconstruct the head without having to use the actual skull. Interestingly, the skull fits the NPG portrait.I'm also a Yank, and really keen on the science, so I do hope it goes forward. Personally, I don't care where the remains are actually buried, as long as it is done properly. However, after reading John Ashdown-Hill's comment that because of who was found and because of Richard was an anointed king of England, that there should be a national debate and consensus, I find that I agree with the petition, but not necessarily York.
Yes, in the article I read someone was upset because the researchers were indicating they would have to use MORE of the skeleton. Now I personally felt (bc I too am fascinated by the science and what we can learn from it) that "we already used some, why not a little more?" And I loved that facial reconstruction, especially bc they made him look more age-appropriate. The NPG painting has, to me anyway, always made him look 50. I was shocked in my more recent reading to find that he was only 32 (33?) when he was killed. It was amazing to me that both he and Edward were commanding an army by the age of 18. I could barely put my boys in charge of a lawn mower at 18...
Hey they made him look crossed eyed and something like Lawrence Oliver. That was a joke.
Olivier? Ewwwww! Low blow LOL :). I loved the man, but not how he looked.
They make the eyes slightly tilted in most facial reconstructions because, apparently, it is too disconcerting to have them staring straight forward. The wig is bad, should have been a 'warmer' shade of brown, I think, and wavier but I can't see much resemblance to the much-older Olivier and his prosthetic nose! Facial reconstruction is not an exact science, obviously, but good enough to identify skeletons of missing persons and battlefield casualties, and Dr Wilkinson is one of the best known in the business.
J.P. wrote: "They make the eyes slightly tilted in most facial reconstructions because, apparently, it is too disconcerting to have them staring straight forward. The wig is bad, should have been a 'warmer' sha..."Omg that nose on Olivier was a prosthetic?? No wonder it looked so awful! Yes, I would have liked a better wig for Richard too, but I thought the facial reconstruction was lovely. Honestly, if Richard were alive today, he would have a fan club and draw screaming hoardes of young (and old lol) women. Especially lovely jawline. How incredible it must have been to do a recon on an actual historical person! This whole thing has made all my science synapses tingle.
Kerri wrote: This whole thing has made all my science synapses tingle.LOL--me too.
There is a chappie called Mike Pitts who has been following this 'dig' for a while now and he is about to publish a book called Digging for Richard III. He has also written some interesting blogs.http://www.mikepitts.wordpress.com/ta...
I have just found out that the 'dig' is being criticised by leading Scientists that the bones they found could be anybody's.http://www.historyextra.com/news/was-...
It's total bullpoop and they're not leading scientists. Furthermore, Michael Hicks, who seems to be behind this, is anti-Richard in the extreme. It would not surprise me in the least if Hicks is about to put another one of his books out and is using this for publicity.Frankly, the dig was transparent and the mtDNA was the cherry on the sundae. Even without the mtDNA, the team was certain within a fraction of a percent that it was Richard. That the skull conformed to the NPG portrait, that the location where Crowland said Richard was buried, that the bones were the right age, and that the wounds conformed to first hand battle accounts were sufficient for everyone involved.
I agree with you, Joan. I wouldn't be surprised to see Hicks pushing a new book bashing Richard (again) or the dig or whatever else he can think up to continue the horrible image of the King. Sounds like lots of people are trying to push their own anti-Richard books/writings/whatever.The evidence is sound enough for me. I am disappointed that I won't be able to join my sister-in-law in England in June (sob!!) but that gives them more time to properly lay him to rest, wherever that ends up being, and I'll be able to plan a visit when I do finally get to England.
Dna has always been about ruling people out rather than in, but when it's a rare type found in less than 2% of the population, it certainly strengthens the case.As for it being of another close relatives as Hicks tried to purport, someone has checked the lineages and there were only TWO others of Richard's maternal line at Bosworth, neither of whom were killed or buried in Leicester Greyfriars.Hicks is no geneticist, archaeologist or osteologist (and some would say a very biased historian) and has always had an agenda where Richard is concerned. Quite frankly, he hates him so much you would almost think they knew each other in a past life and were enemies,lol. The other Prof was really more concerned about no peer-reviewed papers being released before the announcements but in fact many will be released this summer. Interestingly, Prof Biddle was involved in the 'Alfred' dig and made some astounding comments about the 'wonders' they might find...considering they have only a fraction of pelvis from the correct date and absolutely nothing else to make any kind of ID possible.
I'm surprised Andrea quoted Mike Pitts if she believes the dig was all a 'set up'. Mike is the editor of one of the leading archaeology mags, is an archaeologist himself, and he firmly took Hicks/Biddle apart in a recent blog.
Past life enemies, Michael Hicks. It's an interesting theory as I can't help but think that people come back to jinx up history. Some people's actions and deeds have given me that there is some in this reincarnation thing. All you know who John Ashdown Hill chap is and he has written a few books and made a crown and was part of the master mind with that DNA thingy. Well interestingly enough he was doing a book signing at Tewkesbury Abbey on his latest book about George, Duke of Clarence. This is the place where the Duke of Clarence was buried. He had that naff fake crown displayed and a very good looking Anthony Woodville on display with fine detail. He left Richard in some corner forgotten. Meanwhile there was a bucket by the crypt where George and Isabel remains are reported to be and people were allowed to pay a fiver to gawp and take Photo's of remains. I have seen these photo's on face book and I was sicken by what I have seen. The bones are in a fish tank and someone had thrown a plastic container in it. It's time to give those bones a decent Christian burial with tomb and this should of been done a long time ago. As to those bones that they claimed to have found just bury them where they found them and just give Leicester their car park. I wish all you past life experts get a life and move on.
J.P. wrote:Quite frankly, he hates him so much you would almost think they knew each other in a past life and were enemies,lol.I don't think this was meant to be taken literally, Andrea. At the very least, the lol at the end of the sentence should have been the tip-off that it was meant to be sarcastic.
Mod
Thank you Joan. It is still early for me and I haven't had coffee yet, so I'm hoping it's more the case that I misinterpreted some recent comments. While this is an open debate thread, I do want to remind everyone to be respectful of other members. You can dis Alison Weir all you want :P
Thank you.
Richard will always be buried with my heart and love. No matter where those bones really are.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-...
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/mag...