CSI Leicester. Fuck Kennedy and a grassy knoll! this real history.

[KingOrfeo]

Originally Posted by SeaDaddy1

After reading all of this, I'm still wondering how the hell do you lose the body of a King of England and forget where the grave site is?

They've had rather a lot of kings . . . even keeping them numbered, it's hard to keep track of them all.

[Sean]

The guy has been dead for twice as long as your country has existed.

[about_average]

Originally Posted by shoulderblade

This actually strikes me as a bit of a stretch though I suppose if you have legitimate decendants and enough matches you could reach a pretty tight conclusion. All things considered it probably is him, though I don't think "proof" really applies here.

It's not too far fetched. The had a guy who has genealogical information that says he's a decedent, and his DNA "matches" that of the remains they believe to be Richard III.
It wasn't not like it was just a totally random search of DNA, found a match, then tried to tie the person back to Richard III.

[mark197205]

Originally Posted by SeanH

They were using Apple Maps.

Pahaha.

[SeaDaddy1]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

What kind of car did he drive?

An F-350 hay wagon?

Originally Posted by KingOrfeo

They've had rather a lot of kings . . . even keeping them numbered, it's hard to keep track of them all.

They didn't know what dementia was back then, did they?

Originally Posted by SeanH

The guy has been dead for twice as long as your country has existed.

Good point. The way things are going in my country now, it wouldn't surprise me if our selective memory loss gets twice as bad as your country's is now.

Your Kings inherit leadership until death. Our Presidents can do it four years and say "Fuck it, I'm done w/this shit." Then the taxpayers support them until they die - lucky bastards.

[oggbashan]

Originally Posted by SeaDaddy1

After reading all of this, I'm still wondering how the hell do you lose the body of a King of England and forget where the grave site is?

Because his successor wanted him and his memory obliterated. The winner's propaganda, which extended into Shakespeare's play, made that defeated King wholly evil. That sort of postmortem character assassination wasn't new. The Egyptian Pharoahs practised it and so did the Roman Emperors. All tried to destroy all records of the 'evil' ones.

It was known that Richard III was buried at that monastery, but the monastery was destroyed by me (as Henry VIII) and the graveyard was built over.

He was the only 'missing' monarch in England's history.

[trysail]

Originally Posted by shoulderblade

Well he did not reign long and may not have been popular wih he locals, or anyone else for that matter.

If the grave was not "honoured" it might well disappear from public memory. It seems it did in this case.

I did not even know the body was missing until this story broke.

It's not particularly surprising that the gravesite was forgotten.


In the aftermath of Bosworth and the public display of Richard III's mutilated body, the corpse was given over to a small local friary for discrete disposal. When Henry Tudor's son closed the monasteries and confiscated their property, no record or memory would remain.


The investigation, discovery and research is a fascinating bit of history. It's certainly an object lesson in how fact is easily twisted and forgotten. Shakespeare's play and Olivier's cinematic portrayal are revealed as clearly invented works of fiction.


Bosworth itself is a frightening example of chance, randomness, fate, betrayal and opportunism. Henry Tudor's forces were in deep trouble and he was fleeing. Were it not for Northumberland's dallying and Stanley playing false, Richard would have easily prevailed.


Richard's decision to pursue Henry Tudor was, obviously, fatal.


The discovery that Richard was a victim of adolescent onset scoliosis leads to the assertion that: so this is not a condition Richard had from birth. Much of his character and many of his relationships would have been solidly established before the ‘crook-back’ became apparent.

‘Intolerance to uncertainty’ (IU) is a recognised condition occurring to varying degrees in many people. Richard was born into a world of conflict, a world where decisions were made and orders given, a world where execution, exile or imprisonment – or death in battle – could change the political landscape at a stroke.

IU is often characterised by rigid moral values, a strong belief in justice and the law, and a general view of the world as ‘black and white’. This is reflected in the changes Richard made to the legal system in his twenty-six months on the throne and is consistent with his actions as Lord Protector and King right up to his final ill-fated charge on Bosworth Field

Without the usual evidence available to forensic psychologists, Dr Boon and Professor Lansdale’s analysis of Richard’s personality is perforce limited and cautious. Richard III undoubtedly lived in interesting times, but he was a complex human being and consideration of him as such, rather than as a monstrous caricature, takes us a few small steps closer to understanding the motivations behind the actions by which history remembers him.


http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/psychology.html

It really is riveting stuff; no wonder the Bard found it inspiring.

[shoulderblade]

Very interesting material. I can well imagine that in an age of sudden twists and turns in History and virtually no communications the "erase" function was easily available.

The fact that evidence can surface centuries later is pretty amazing.

Originally Posted by about_average

It's not too far fetched. The had a guy who has genealogical information that says he's a decedent, and his DNA "matches" that of the remains they believe to be Richard III.
It wasn't not like it was just a totally random search of DNA, found a match, then tried to tie the person back to Richard III.

True. I think it is just the fact that I am not an expert on genetics that makes me hesitate. Put together with the rest of the evidence I think the identification could be considered conclusive.

[SeaDaddy1]

Originally Posted by oggbashan

Because his successor wanted him and his memory obliterated. The winner's propaganda, which extended into Shakespeare's play, made that defeated King wholly evil. That sort of postmortem character assassination wasn't new. The Egyptian Pharoahs practised it and so did the Roman Emperors. All tried to destroy all records of the 'evil' ones.

It was known that Richard III was buried at that monastery, but the monastery was destroyed by me (as Henry VIII) and the graveyard was built over.

He was the only 'missing' monarch in England's history.

That's some intriguing and interesting history.

Was Henry VIII trying to destroy evidence of Richard III or keep his legacy alive? Sorry, I haven't read any links on it. My knowledge of England's history is rusty.

[oggbashan]

Originally Posted by SeaDaddy1

That's some intriguing and interesting history.

Was Henry VIII trying to destroy evidence of Richard III or keep his legacy alive? Sorry, I haven't read any links on it. My knowledge of England's history is rusty.

Henry VIII probably didn't care. He was more interested in getting the land, property and money owned by the Church. When he came to the throne, the Church had more assets than he did.

Henry was descended from the winner of Bosworth. He wouldn't have preserved Richard III. He had many relics of saints destroyed to get the gold and jewels from their shrines. If he could do that to sacred relics, he wouldn't be bothered about the grave of a King who lost a battle.

[oggbashan]

Originally Posted by shoulderblade

...

True. I think it is just the fact that I am not an expert on genetics that makes me hesitate. Put together with the rest of the evidence I think the identification could be considered conclusive.

One of the research team put it well:

The evidence would be compelling enough in a civil court that would decide on the balance of probabilities, but would not be conclusive enough for a criminal trial when 'beyond reasonable doubt' is required.

It was known that Richard III was buried in that area. The deformity of the skeleton, the indications of how that person was killed, and the DNA make it almost, but not completely, certain that this skeleton is Richard III.

[KingOrfeo]

‘Intolerance to uncertainty’ (IU) is a recognised condition occurring to varying degrees in many people. Richard was born into a world of conflict, a world where decisions were made and orders given, a world where execution, exile or imprisonment – or death in battle – could change the political landscape at a stroke.

IU is often characterised by rigid moral values, a strong belief in justice and the law, and a general view of the world as ‘black and white’. This is reflected in the changes Richard made to the legal system in his twenty-six months on the throne and is consistent with his actions as Lord Protector and King right up to his final ill-fated charge on Bosworth Field.

Without the usual evidence available to forensic psychologists, Dr Boon and Professor Lansdale’s analysis of Richard’s personality is perforce limited and cautious. Richard III undoubtedly lived in interesting times, but he was a complex human being and consideration of him as such, rather than as a monstrous caricature, takes us a few small steps closer to understanding the motivations behind the actions by which history remembers him.


http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/psychology.html

N.B.: Shakespeare's Gloucester/Richard is a complex character, not a monstrous caricature. He is admirably brave, of considerable ability, and has a few pet-the-dog moments in the Henry VI plays. He has a certain hubristic nobility. He is not a villain who is evil-for-evil's-sake, like Iago, or Aaron the Moor. He is not so much malicious as obsessed. It is not that he has no conscience, but that he has firmly resolved to put it on a shelf while he fulfills his single-minded ambition. E.g., at the beginning of Richard III, he is whining about how no woman could ever love such a deformed creature as he, and that is why he is determined to be a villain and seek the crown at all costs. Then, when a very short time after his famous soliloquy, he actually manages to win Lady Anne's heart with the greatest of ease through boldness, guile and charm -- then he does not pause to reconsider his position; it's too late, he already is set on the course he has chosen. Obsessed.

Of course, he's still a villain and knows it. If the above psychological analysis is anywhere near the mark, the real-life Richard III probably saw himself as the good guy -- "rigid moral values, a strong belief in justice and the law, and a general view of the world as ‘black and white’" -- see Knight Templar. Even if he had the Princes in the Tower done away with, he would have been convinced it was the right thing for the good of England. (Interesting to speculate what Shakespeare might have done with that sort of character.)

There are two Shakespeare plays where the villain and the hero are the same character: Richard III, and Macbeth.

[ACTORS: EEEEOOOOAAAUGGHHHG! Hot potato, off your drawers, Puck will make amends!]

[shoulderblade]

Originally Posted by oggbashan

It was known that Richard III was buried in that area. The deformity of the skeleton, the indications of how that person was killed, and the DNA make it almost, but not completely, certain that this skeleton is Richard III.

In other words proven as well as possible under the circumstances. I wonder here if the DNA evidence is compelling in the simple fact that there are no obvios disjoints between his sample and the decendant or it is some kind of Y chromosome trace.

In any case if the searchers are convinced they will stop looking and no competeing specimen will be found. Good to go.

[oggbashan]

Originally Posted by shoulderblade

In other words proven as well as possible under the circumstances. I wonder here if the DNA evidence is compelling in the simple fact that there are no obvios disjoints between his sample and the decendant or it is some kind of Y chromosome trace.

In any case if the searchers are convinced they will stop looking and no competeing specimen will be found. Good to go.

The descendant's DNA is from Richard's sister.

[vetteman]

Interesting!

[about_average]

Originally Posted by trysail

Were it not for Northumberland's dallying and Stanley playing false, Richard would have easily prevailed.

My wife is from Northumberland, now I know why she enjoys dallying with me It's genetic.

[shoulderblade]

Originally Posted by oggbashan

The descendant's DNA is from Richard's sister.

So much for the Y chromosome theory. I read that too.

All the evidence than can be mustered indicates yes so we pretty well have to go with it. A considerable amount of work has been done to put this all together.

[hobbit.]

[quote=oggbashan;43224294]

It was known that Richard III was buried at that monastery, but the monastery was destroyed by me (as Henry VIII) and the graveyard was built over.
QUOTE]

you really are convinced that you are henry viii

[oggbashan]

Originally Posted by hobbit.

you really are convinced that you are henry viii

Of course. And King Og of Bashan.

Just as you are a Hobbit.

[KingOrfeo]

Originally Posted by oggbashan

Of course. And King Og of Bashan.

Just as you are a Hobbit.

Well, yes, he's three feet tall, never wears shoes, and eats six meals a day.

[mark197205]

[shoulderblade]

Originally Posted by oggbashan

In Richard III's position in history (thanks to Shakespeare), buried under a car park seems about right.

Can you imagine what he would have owed in parking fees if they had known he was there.

[oggbashan]

Originally Posted by KingOrfeo

Well, yes, he's three feet tall, never wears shoes, and eats six meals a day.

But unlike Hobbit, I have appeared in character as Henry VIII - on stage, TV, in the local press, and on tourist information leaflets.

No one yet has asked me to appear as King Og of Bashan.

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by oggbashan

But unlike Hobbit, I have appeared in character as Henry VIII - on stage, TV, in the local press, and on tourist information leaflets.

No one yet has asked me to appear as King Og of Bashan.

Will you appear as King Og of Bashan?

[gotsnowgotslush]

Lovely Mr. John Burns, from the NY Times, is giving the USA the big picture. I am so glad, there was a DNA match.