It IS Richard III: scientists find 15th century king's body

Post Reply New Topic

I think that detail (an arrowhead in the spine) came out immediately as they removed the skeleton so it was probably a bit over-enthusiastic, considering all the other pointers they had.
It could have just been lodged in the earth caked around the spinal bones as they were removed - the archaeologists would have paid more attention to safe removal than cleaning and accurate identification at that stage so it's probably an easy mistake to make.

Oh, and the rest!
A large chunk of skull missing from the back was the likely instant cause of death, but there are several other wounds that wouldn't exactly have helped keep him alive. Many of the others though were postmortem "humiliation" injuries - armour would have prevented those if they were attempted while he lived, and records from the time state his body was stripped and slung across a horse when removed from the battlefield.
It would have been hacked about, no doubt...

I get the impression it became clear it was a nail after X-Ray analysis. IIRC they were saying it was probably Roman in origin and anded up where it did through ground disturbance, presumably during the burial.

It's extremely good supporting evidence for all the other accurate and verified details - the spine deformity, wounds consistent with battle and with some being humiliation wounds made after death, the age of the bones at death, the "gracile" build (unusual in males at that time and confirms contemporaneous descriptions of Richard's build), the burial location (in the choir, by a door: an extremely prestigious location) and the status of the building it was in, etc.
While the DNA alone doesn't necessarily prove conclusively it's him, when included with everything else it's way beyond reasonable doubt that this is Richard III.

Oh, wow. Although my dogs are diggers and one a collector, they never comes across anything interesting. Sometimes I play gardeners with them. That's a game I made up where I watch them as they dig. Sometimes I'll pick something up and dig with them, much to my parents' fury. Mostly kibble they bury. Rocks and roots, too. Although not too long ago, as my dog was digging in the rocks, he came across a really weird plastic barrier thing. He managed to rip through it to find even more dirt. Since then he's been digging and digging deeper and ripping up the plastic until this weekend, that my dad decided to remove all of it and put the rocks back in place.

Cornflake,

Yeah, I was reading that a halberd or some other pole-arm got him off his horse, then the subsequent beat-down commenced, what with the sword or other bladed weapon that sliced off the rear of his skull (as you mention). Nasty wounds melee weapons cause.

I kinda thought it was odd that an arrow wound was possible, especially with the armor he would have been wearing; even a bodkin point from a warbow could only penetrate so far into the armor back then at close range (only the head made it through), and the padding and whatnot under the armor helped stop that too. The wounds from such an arrow wouldn't have been "too" bad, all considering (not enough to sever the spine). Only really chainmail and less kinda sucked against arrows.

I believe it was on CNN where they said Richard had been stabbed in the buttocks (a humiliation wound). Very reminiscent of Qaddafi.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

^ Yes - almost exactly the same thing, including avoiding damage to his face so people can recognise him and see he's dead.
The wounds to the pelvis are mentioned on the university site IIRC, along with all the other dings and scrapes on the bone that would have been prevented by armour. I think it was also there where they say the wound to the buttocks was only really possible while he was slung across the horse, dead.
It's quite tragic really and makes a horrifying, savage picture.

He has already had a funeral. It would be canonically improper to hold another.

What is more likely, I expect is a non-sacramental ceremony led by an ecumenical group of clergy to mark his reinterment.



Because the historical record is very good, and had the Duchess of York delivered twins, it would have neen a subject of note. At a minimum we would have expected him to have been created a Duke of the Blood Royal in the same fashion as his older brother, George, was created Duke of Clarence.

England had bad experiences with boy kings; two of them led to and fuelled the wars of the Roses. The ouster of the first one, Richard II, led to the two competing lines for the throne, and the weakness of the second one, Henry VI, led to the two factions fighting each other. Had they kept Edward V there that would have been another boy king seen as under the influence of queen's family and they had many enemies. Moreover, there was proof that the marriage of Edward IV and the queen was illegitimate, thus making Edward V illegitimate. These things made Richard III the logical choice to rule England at the time and many supported him.

speaking as one with scoliosis, his spinal curvature [at the same spinal level as my own] looked absolutely painful!

My AP Euro teacher showed this to us yesterday.

There was also the rumor that Edward IV himself was not the son of the Duke of York. That Cecily had had an affair, or something, and Edward was not her husband's son. Of course, that was Clarence who started that, but Richard could well have used it, as well as that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth was not valid.

True, he was very popular, until people began to suspect he'd murdered his nephews. Of course, that's still a mystery. I'm more partial to that Richard might have murdered them, or at least they died during his reign. Or maybe they escaped or were rescued. I definitely don't think Henry VII killed them, or even found them. He was always having trouble with pretenders. I think he genuinely feared that the princes were still alive, and would claim his throne. And he did say that Edward's children were legitimate, so he could marry Elizabeth of York. If he'd found the princes and killed them himself, there would be no need to worry, as he'd know they were dead. He might even have given them a funeral and everything, for people to see that they were definitely dead. I don't think they escaped, though. I'm more a supporter of the theory that either they died of natural causes or were murdered during Richard's reign. He could probably very easily have won back his popularity by showing them to the people for them to see they were still alive, and he had not killed them.

I also wonder if perhaps his niece, Elizabeth was in love with him. Some people said that was so. If only that they found his remains could answer some of these questions. Of course, unfortunately none. Although I don't believe Richard was the monster some people say he was. I'm not saying he was like an angel and did everything he did out of the goodness of his heart, or anything, but I do believe he has been greatly maligned.

The princes were last seen in the Tower in the summer of 1483.
The two missing princes' bodies/skeletons were found under a stone staircase in the tower in 1674.
In 1933, the bones were examined, and declared to be the remains of the princes.
The bones were placed in an urn, given a funeral, and the urn placed in Westminster Abbey.

February 7, 2013, 12 noon, an official announcement was made that, in accordance with the wishes of Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England, the bones will NOT be given DNA tests to determine their actual lineage.

I personally believe that this is the wrong decision.
The two children, whoever they are, deserve to be known/identified once and for all.

Sylkat

You have a bone to pick with the Queen?

ruveyn

O course, for those of us who have watched The Black Adder, we know the truth about Richard and his nephews!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You might find this (and the rest of the site) interesting - I certainly did.
http://www.richardiii.net/2_5_0_riii_co ... hp#princes

A space! A space! My kingdom for a space!

ruveyn