There will be a press conference today (February 4) to reveal the results of DNA tests on the skeleton believed to be that of Richard III, which was discovered last year at the long-lost site of the king's burial. It is my understanding that the circumstantial evidence points very strongly to these remains belonging to Richard (the manner of death, the age of the man whose bones they are, a curve of the spine that would have lowered his right shoulder as contemporary accounts described him).
Are there any other history buffs who are very, very excited for this new information to be released (even if the remains aren't Richard III)?
Last edited by RoyalTRider; Feb. 4, 2013 at 12:08 PM.
This is so funny - I literally just got through about an hour's worth of reading the latest articles on the subject! I've been following the story since the excavation was first announced and it was so exciting that they 1) actually found the church and 2) actually found the skeleton that matched the description.
Can't wait to hear the full results of not just the DNA test, but also all the other tests. They released a picture of the skull and by the size and shape of the jaw, it certainly could be RIII (just to be an overt optimist).
And, yes, I'm a total nerd - studied Anthropology and always had a yearning to be an archeologist. But of course, this is not the normal way archeology is carried out, except maybe in Egypt where you might be looking for a particular tomb/burial. Most of the time, you're just looking for settlement patterns rather than a particular individual.
"If I am fool, it is, at least, a doubting one; and I envy no one the certainty of his self-approved wisdom."
They announced he would be reburied in a nearby cathedral. I am curious what kind of ceremony he'll have. The British seem to do everything big when it comes to their royals. It might be interesting to watch.
He was a brute, though. Didn't he murder two princes and have a surprising amount of unrest during a short rule? Will they still give him full honors?
Yes, he was a freak of nature, killed his nephews to put himself on the throne, killed others too, not loved, short rule. There's a reason he made a good Shakespear play. They found the skeletons of twin boys their age buried under rubble under stairs they beleive are probably the boys. If I were british I wouldn't be all that thrilled to have him reburied with much ceremony, but I would imagine there probably aren't alot of kings who weren't tyrants, so meh. It is interesting though. I'll have to look it all up.
...I am now at the stage of wine-surfing COTH
Thanks for this info, I studied Shakespeare in college and if you want to see something really well done find a movie called "Looking For Richard" with an all star cast most importantly Al Pacino. It's a docudrama and is really good.
RIP Kelly 1977-2007 "Wither thou goest, so shall I"
"To tilt when you should withdraw is Knightly too."
Don't be so quick to condemn him. There is lots of evidence out there that he was framed after his death. Remember that he was the last of his line, and that the Tudors took the throne. It was Tudor and Elizabethan historians who wrote the histories, and that Shakespeare play, that determined how he was remembered. If history is written by the winners, then it is only natural that they would place their defeated enemies in the worst possible light.
Anglophile that I am, I did a paper in college (OK, I used the same paper for a couple of different courses, changing it to fit the requirements) about the subject. It's really a fascinating example of the twisting of events to suit the tale that you want to be told.
For those of you who want to know more, but don't want to suffer through some dry as dust texts, there is an excellent novel out on the subject. Check out "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey.
Originally Posted by Alagirl
We just love to shame poor people...when in reality, we are all just peasants.
Well funnily enough I just read a discussion about the guy, involving a gal from Yorkshire who says Richard III is quiet the hero their.
Shakespeare did not write historical accurate plays - besideds, his ultimate boss was a Tudor...her grandfather followed Richard on the throne (and had btw a stronger motive to kill the princes....)
but the losers are always treated harshly in history...
Originally Posted by Bristol Bay
Try setting your broomstick to fly at a lower altitude.
Here's an interesting link with a video showing the excavation and very clear shots of a fantastic curvature of the spine - amazing someone could go around with that deeply S spine. Anyway, nice summation of the find and excavation
As for him being a loser, I think most of his ugliness he managed to show before Tudor came along to dispossess him of the throne. There is alot of contemporary writing of him before he lost the battle with Henry which casts doubt on him being any kind of a good human, but that's my opinion. I don't agree with the Richard III society people.
...I am now at the stage of wine-surfing COTH