Richard III - body found???

[pastafarian]

You'd not know it from your contribution to the discussion.

you can work all that out from me saying Richard will not be overly fussed where he is re buried and also saying i do care where he is re buried

 

[pastafarian]

It's a valid question given who he was and the fact he's going to have to be interned somewhere relevant to the man and his background.

its only valid if you are thinking about medieval values.

its 2013 for god sake,i see the bitch fight has started between the religions as to where he should be buried,how very bloody predictable and pathetic.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

you can work all that out from me saying Richard will not be overly fussed where he is re buried and also saying i do care where he is re buried

Well of course. If you'd cared to add t the discussion you could have suggested and option to which one could reply "good suggestion pastafarian, you're probably onto something there".

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

its only valid if you are thinking about medieval values.

I'd think it's valid from a historical point of view.

its 2013 for god sake,i see the bitch fight has started between the religions as to where he should be buried,how very bloody predictable and pathetic.

I've not seen that discussed yet, who's debating it in the media?

 

[pastafarian]

Well of course. If you'd cared to add t the discussion you could have suggested and option to which one could reply "good suggestion pastafarian, you're probably onto something there".

ok ill bite

the only reason i give a toss as to where he is buried is because i presume eventually there will be a cracking museum that will spring up alongside with info about this whole episode.i hope its not leicester that would be a hike,i would prefer goring by sea but i am not hopeful of this happening.

i feel all options on this based on religion are outdated.

no doubt as a catholic you are pushing for a catholic burial .....personally i dont think it matters what religion buries him

as i said he is not particularly bothered about it

 

[pastafarian]

I've not seen that discussed yet, who's debating it in the media?

rather than send you a load of links(i hasten to add i am not saying do your own research like a conspiracy theorist) google richard iii catholic ......you will get a shed load of opinions for and against on this issue from the media and catholic organisations.

i find it unrefreshingly sad

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

ok ill bite

the only reason i give a toss as to where he is buried is because i presume eventually there will be a cracking museum that will spring up alongside with info about this whole episode.i hope its not leicester that would be a hike,i would prefer goring by sea but i am not hopeful of this happening.

i feel all options on this based on religion are outdated.

no doubt as a catholic you are pushing for a catholic burial .....personally i dont think it matters what religion buries him

as i said he is not particularly bothered about it

Well you'd think York and Westminster would be the two prominent suitable choices given his history.

I don't actually think where he's buried has any religious issue, both churches were RC in his time anyway so they are multi-faith in their history.

I was more asking from a legality point of view. If a royal can't marry a Catholic and still be considered an heir to the throne maybe there's other laws that prohibits Catholics being interned into CoE cathedrals.

 

[pastafarian]

Well of course. If you'd cared to add t the discussion you could have suggested and option to which one could reply "good suggestion pastafarian, you're probably onto something there".

how about Westminster Abbey along with other kings,f*** the religion part of it

maybe just acknowledge that this story has become maybe surprisingly incredibly interesting to millions,and re bury the bloke but keep all the religious bullshit out of the equation....

large ask i know considering how many idiots there are on the religious soap box

 

[pastafarian]

I was more asking from a legality point of view. If a royal can't marry a Catholic and still be considered an heir to the throne maybe there's other laws that prohibits Catholics being interned into CoE cathedrals.

i agree......well pointed out.....religions are stupid

 

[pastafarian]

It's a valid question given who he was and the fact he's going to have to be interned somewhere relevant to the man and his background.

I'd think it's valid from a historical point of view.

I don't actually think where he's buried has any religious issue,

i think its make your mind up time

should he have a catholic burial in accordance with his background or does where he is buried not have any religious issue?

you undecide!

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

i think its make your mind up time

should he have a catholic burial in accordance with his background or does where he is buried not have any religious issue?

you undecide!

Well the easiest way is to hold a multi-faith service.

They happen all the time all over the world. That way everyone's happy.

 

[Brovion]

It doesn't matter what service is used or where he's buried. There was no 'protestant' or 'catholic' split in England when Richard died so he wouldn't even have known what you were talking about. I believe his death even pre-dated Martin Luther's proclamation (can't be arsed to google it, could be wrong but it certainly wasn't a factor in England that it obviously later became).

 

[Tricky Dicky]

presenter with the big hair is quite amusing but the woman from the Richard 3rd society is so fake it's unbelievable, trying far too hard with her mock emotional attachment. I mean when she had to walk out of the room when she saw the skeleton to compose herself was such a contrived reaction, you could almost sense the experts thinking, "what a stupid cow".

I thought the program was pretty poorly done TBH - TimeTeam it certainly wasn't. If the story hadn't been so interesting, the woman from the Richard III society would have made me turn off, she was sooo annoying. Playing up to the camera, over-dramatising everything, trying to make the facts fit the story she had in her mind, arrrrgh -and that business with draping the colours over the box, what a fecking idiot. You could see what the professionals thought of her.

 

[Return of the Rev]

i thought the program was pretty poorly done tbh - timeteam it certainly wasn't. If the story hadn't been so interesting, the woman from the richard iii society would have made me turn off, she was sooo annoying. Playing up to the camera, over-dramatising everything, trying to make the facts fit the story she had in her mind, arrrrgh -and that business with draping the colours over the box, what a fecking idiot. You could see what the professionals thought of her.

The woman from the dickie iii society reminded me of those loonies that attach themselves to prisoners on death row, surprised she didn't attempt a mock wedding with the bones

 

[Lawson]

Sheffield?

Look at the evidence:
1. The skeleton was buried in a high status area of the Friary, approximately where expected
2. The age of the skeleton tallies with the endo age. (However, I'm wondering about the skewing because of the presumed high-protein diet. Rather a circular argument.)
3. The skeleton had the kind of injures you'd expect of a warrior, but not a Friar, and the face remained untouched, consistent with necessity of public display.
4. The skeleton had curvature of the spine, which won't please the Ricardians, who were hoping disprove the hump and all the other so-called propaganda
5. The skeleton was the right age group, late 20s-early30s. Richard III was 32.
6. For what it's worth, the MtDNA is a match

In what ways do you think the evidence was shaped to fit the theory?

oh dear i said Sheffield... i meant Leicester!
Yes the location certainly would suggest some prominance though i would like to know exactly where in the church grounds he was buried, because there didn't seem to be mention of any casket so it seems he was buried in a common grave.
Yes they can trace the skeleton to within a hundred years of death i think they said so at least we know they are in the right period, however hundreds of nobles died in this period with the Wars of the Roses on and off for 30 years.
The part where they discuss the warrior's injuries just seemed a little too circumstantial; i found in none the less interesting because they identified it was probably a hauberk that made the gash that fatally wounded him at the back of the skull. However they mentioned wounds that should have been protected by a helmet.. they then went on to say this must mean he lost it at some point in the battle, but surely that just seems a bit convenient and the wound analysis didn't seem to contribute much. Although i suppose if this is him it means we know how he died, i was wondering if perhaps he had no helmet or morale reasons to show he had not fled the battlefield in an attempt to rally his men.
Yes the scoliosis is like you say quite funny because it has been frequently dismissed as purely Tudor propaganda so it makes you wonder, if indeed this is the skeleton, to what extent these sources are actually more reliable than first thought.
The age and DNA match fit however i do not know enough about archeology to know the true significance or possible lack of decisive significance, its just the 16th generation of daughter seems a bit loose due to cross breeding and it will be interesting to see what results the male line will show.

In regards to organising the evidence it was largely their use of the accounts such as Rous that seemed convenient.. it was ironic that they utilized a quote from him to match the skeleton... whilst also sidestepping the fact he mentions in his accounts that Richard was in the womb for 2 years and came out with a full set of teeth and long black hair. Although its hard to digress in a press conference they purely presented a narrative that matched entirely their skeleton. My criticism/skepticism could be resolved with the publishing of papers in journals or a book, however it will also be interesting to see the backlash and criticism against it, my lecturer Michael Hicks is fervently against this being the body and critical of the Richard III society. I felt that those working on this project were influenced by the media with so much at stake, and i have little respect for the Richard III society who idolise and seek to challenge any claims of his crimes without evidence but rather just saying all the sources are inherently anti richard.

 

[Lawson]

The woman from the dickie iii society reminded me of those loonies that attach themselves to prisoners on death row, surprised she didn't attempt a mock wedding with the bones

this is certainly an apt description, Richard III society members are a little bit looney.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

The best part had to be where she wanted to drap the royal colours over the cardboard box and ceremoniously carry it to the car.

She was expecting some event with pomp but the other woman (I think her name was Jo) just refused and pointed out that they didn't even know it was him at that point.

Oh and then when she HAD to sit down upon seeing the curve in the spin as it was all "too much"

Oh and THEN when she walked out the room crying at seeing a skeleton even though she's already seen it before.

Oh and THEN when, upon seeing the reconstructed face, she said "Well, he doesn't look like a tyrant".

Bloody hell.

 

[Biscuit]

Opposite to the Tories then...

But probably related to half of them

 

[Twinkle Toes]

The woman from the dickie iii society reminded me of those loonies that attach themselves to prisoners on death row, surprised she didn't attempt a mock wedding with the bones

Thanks for thet, Rev. You've given me a laff at the start of the day.

ps I did find the programme really fascinating - which was possibly due to it's somewhat 'hammy' construction & 'unique' characters. I love history, but I'm increasingly turned-off by the the dreary Time Team; or the sensationalistic/high-brow approach to programme making that seems to be the mainstream televisual norm.

I thought Simon Farnaby's witty asides provided a nice counterpoint to the obsessed & rather dislikable Ricardian bint that the programme used as its living focus. Fair play to her though for locating the spot of Dickie's remains in such an uncannily accurate styleee. There was evidently some method to her madness.

 

[The Large One]

oh dear i said Sheffield... i meant Leicester!
Yes the location certainly would suggest some prominance though i would like to know exactly where in the church grounds he was buried, because there didn't seem to be mention of any casket so it seems he was buried in a common grave.
Yes they can trace the skeleton to within a hundred years of death i think they said so at least we know they are in the right period, however hundreds of nobles died in this period with the Wars of the Roses on and off for 30 years.
The part where they discuss the warrior's injuries just seemed a little too circumstantial; i found in none the less interesting because they identified it was probably a hauberk that made the gash that fatally wounded him at the back of the skull. However they mentioned wounds that should have been protected by a helmet.. they then went on to say this must mean he lost it at some point in the battle, but surely that just seems a bit convenient and the wound analysis didn't seem to contribute much. Although i suppose if this is him it means we know how he died, i was wondering if perhaps he had no helmet or morale reasons to show he had not fled the battlefield in an attempt to rally his men.
Yes the scoliosis is like you say quite funny because it has been frequently dismissed as purely Tudor propaganda so it makes you wonder, if indeed this is the skeleton, to what extent these sources are actually more reliable than first thought.
The age and DNA match fit however i do not know enough about archeology to know the true significance or possible lack of decisive significance, its just the 16th generation of daughter seems a bit loose due to cross breeding and it will be interesting to see what results the male line will show.

In regards to organising the evidence it was largely their use of the accounts such as Rous that seemed convenient.. it was ironic that they utilized a quote from him to match the skeleton... whilst also sidestepping the fact he mentions in his accounts that Richard was in the womb for 2 years and came out with a full set of teeth and long black hair. Although its hard to digress in a press conference they purely presented a narrative that matched entirely their skeleton. My criticism/skepticism could be resolved with the publishing of papers in journals or a book, however it will also be interesting to see the backlash and criticism against it, my lecturer Michael Hicks is fervently against this being the body and critical of the Richard III society. I felt that those working on this project were influenced by the media with so much at stake, and i have little respect for the Richard III society who idolise and seek to challenge any claims of his crimes without evidence but rather just saying all the sources are inherently anti richard.

You're doing exactly what the Richard III Society are doing - using pre-conceived notions to prove or disprove a theory.

Your evidence to show that the scientists at University of Leicester is flimsy, bordering on non-existent.

While it's always wise to have an open mind on this sort of thing, I don't think you're displaying any such thing; only using a polar counter-argument to make a case on the back of your own prejudice. In short, you're dismissing the evidence because (a) it doesn't tally with what you believe and (b) it uses a branch science which, by your own admission, you don't understand.