"News: Body found under parking lot is King Richard III" Topic

link

(CNN) -- DNA tests have confirmed that human remains found buried beneath an English car park are those of the country's King Richard III.

British scientists announced Monday they are convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" that a skeleton found during an archaeological dig in Leicester, central England, last August is that of the former king, who was killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485.

Mitochondrial DNA extracted from the bones was matched to Michael Ibsen, a Canadian cabinetmaker and direct descendant of Richard III's sister, Anne of York.

Experts say other evidence -- including battle wounds and signs of scoliosis, or curvature of the spine, found during the search and the more than four months of tests since support the DNA findings.

The skeleton was discovered buried among the remains of what was once the city's Greyfriars friary, but is now a council car park.

Richard III's remains will be reburied in Leicester Cathedral, close to the site of his original grave, in a memorial service expected to be held early next year, once analysis of the bones is completed.

Read more: Richard III: The king and the car park?

Archaeologists say the man they found appears to have met a violent death: There is evidence of two severe blows to the skull, and it appears Richard's corpse may also have been mistreated.

Richard Buckley, the lead archaeologist on the project, said the unusual position of the skeleton's arms and hands suggested the king may have been buried with his hands tied.

Investigators from the University of Leicester had been examining the remains for months. Others got their first glimpse of the battle-scarred skull that may have once worn the English crown early Monday when the university released a photograph ahead of its announcement.

"The skull was in good condition, although fragile, and was able to give us detailed information," said Jo Appleby, a lecturer in human bioarchaeology at the university who led the exhumation of the remains last year.

Turi King, who carried out the DNA analysis, said it was a "real relief" when the results came through.

"I went really quiet. I was seeing all these matches coming back, thinking, 'That's a match, and that's a match, and that's a match.' At that point I did a little dance around the lab."

Michael Ibsen, whose DNA matched with that of the king's remains, said he reacted with "stunned silence" when told the closely-guarded results on Sunday.

"I never thought I'd be a match, and certainly not that it would be so close, but the results look like a carbon copy."

Supporters of the infamous king, including members of the Richard III Society, hoped the discovery would force academics to rewrite history, which they say has been tainted by exaggerations and false claims.

Screenwriter Philippa Langley, who championed the search for several years, told CNN she wanted "the establishment to look again at his story," saying she wanted to uncover the truth about "the real Richard, before the Tudor writers got to him."

"The trouble is we judge Richard by a pseudo-Victorian values system, but we judge others in the context of their time," she said.

"He was a medieval man. If you put him back into the 15th century, he's exactly as the others are -- princes, dukes, nobles, they're all doing exactly the same things, and he's better than some."

Also: link

TMP link

Well, that's a relief.

Actually, I do find it quite interesting.

Some pedant ALWAYS has to post a TMP link to show that he will not tolerate multiple postings of the same story. I expected you to post a lot nore, frankly.
Give it a rest please. Were I a similarly inclined I could post at least 3 TMP links, but I can't be bothered to.
But, hey! IF that is how you get your jollies, by all means, go ahead!

The House of York were morally superior to the Illegitimate house of lancaster. And had much better and more direct claims to the throne. Also, there is a lot of evidence that the two princes were not killed on Richards orders.

Dave
Past member Richard 3rd Society

Didn't the Richard IIIrd Soc used to reckon he wasn't hunch-backed as well?

The documentary is shockingly bad.

Do you guys have Burger Kings in England? That would have made they story even better.

I never really understood the fascination with Richard III, he was just another King who was deposed A King whose descendants usurped the throne through Matilda, and a line that included members who instituted the first genocide of the Jews, a King who spent about 20 minutes in the country and try to bankrupt the place to finance a crusade and a few other undesirables as well

In the end I think he was just all the other noble houses ..A right bunch of murdering power hungry bastards

79th………. I think that's where the phrase 'A horse A horse my burger franchise for a horse' comes from

Yes Steve, but they're OUR murdering, power hungry bastards.

Yep he was a man of his time,and had been through alot inthe wars of roses but he would have been a better king than the two tudor kings that followed after him.Get rid of Richard III and bring on the tyrant money grabbing Henry VII who executed the two leading nobles who helped him win battle of bosworth on trumped up charges of treason , all followed by a fat egotistic sadist who murdered so many on a whim including two of his own wives.

So when are we going to start looking properly for Harold Goodwinson

Some pedant ALWAYS has to post a TMP link to show that he will not tolerate multiple postings of the same story.

I thought the reason for posting links to previous TMP conversations on the same subject was so that the OP could see what had already been said on the subject elsewhere on TMP.

TMP link

Actually, I believe that Burger King started in the UK and moved to the US. I may be wrong on that.

Oh, Caesar, you imp!

Meh. Here in Boston they find bodies under parking lots every month of the year.
link

Of course, anyone think it's suspicious Whitey Bulger gets arrested, and suddenly we know where Richie Trio's body has been all this time.

Re Harold Godwinson, they had to get his fancy woman, Edith Swan-neck in to identify the bits of his carved up body, so finding it in a relatively identifiable form is a bit unlikely, even if you had a possible DNA match from who?

Re Harold Godwinson, they had to get his fancy woman, Edith Swan-neck in to identify the bits of his carved up body, so finding it in a relatively identifiable form is a bit unlikely, even if you had a possible DNA match from who?

Actually, a DNA match for Harold Godwinson might not be impossible. He was an earl, after all, and had relatives, and the records among the ruling classes are surprisingly extensive. I myself am descended from a Saxon thegn whose name is in the Domesday Book, and yes, there are genealogical references to prove it. For all I know, there might be a record of a connection to Harold in my family. I doubt it— my ancestors became earls, which suggests they were receptive of William's claim (or at least didn't significantly oppose him), so being a cousin of Harold isn't likely (unless there was some in-family strife— Harold certainly had a way of alienating family members, his brother Tostig coming to mind). But I'd say someone out there is probably his great-great-great-great-great-great-keep-adding-greats-great nephew or cousin or something. If so, there's probably a genetic marker that could prove a skeleton was Harold, if one could be found.

The dead giveaway was the way he left his car parked. Entitled prat.

TMP link

Didn't the Richard IIIrd Soc used to reckon he wasn't hunch-backed as well?

He wasn't hunch-backed, scoliosis is a curvature of the spine that goes from side to side, not front to back. At worse he would have looked shorter than average with possibly one shoulder slightly higher than the other. As far as I am aware no contemporary report speaks of Richard being a hunch-back and in an age where such deformities were said to be proof of an evil character it would have been a major issue and would certainly have been mentioned in the records of the time.

Personally whilst I have every sympathy for Richard I think his elder brother Edward IV is just as interesting a character but he often seems to get overlooked. He won 4 pitched battles (Mortimer's Cross, Towton, Barnet and Tewkesbury) but other than wargamers and history buffs very few people have heard of him.

Thomas B. Costain wrote that Richard III was given a ritual public bath as part of his crowning, which he would not have likely allowed if his body was deformed. So even way back then the "consensus" was that at most one shoulder was a little higher than the other, otherwise he was well enough formed….

It was hilarious how 'Mickey Mouse' the whole project was… Phillipa Langley provoked so many unintended comedy highs, from the osteologist's disgusted facial expressions & comments every time she was being fey, to the deliciousness of watching her, having spent decades promoting the 'article of the faith' that any suggestion of physical oddness was a cruel wicked pernicious Tudor lie, burst into tears on being shown a curved spine… & be told 'Yeah he was a hunchback'. (My 14-year old daughter has scoliosis, & thought that quite kewl!)

"Personally whilst I have every sympathy for Richard I think his elder brother Edward IV is just as interesting a character but he often seems to get overlooked. He won 4 pitched battles (Mortimer's Cross, Towton, Barnet and Tewkesbury) but other than wargamers and history buffs very few people have heard of him."

Dig him up. We need to test his mother's claims he was illigitimate?

I wouldn't call any of this earth-shattering, just Quite Interesting. What do we now know?
1) Some specifics about the injuries that killed him
2) The manner of his burial
3) Tudor propaganda was based on exaggeration not complete fabrication. That's possibly the most interesting of the Quite Interesting things.

Edward IV: "other than wargamers and history buffs very few people have heard of him."

Alan, other than wargamers and history buffs, very few people have heard of History.

It would be interesting to see if Edward IV was illigitamte.
Thats what his mother and Richard III claimed him to be, and his er father!!!! hardly had time for him.
If the group that found Richards remains aint interested in it get time team on the job

Who?

Next one isn't Harold, but Alfred the Great apparently.

It was a shame that the doc was spoiled by Philippa Langley having the vapours every five minutes for no reason. That's Channel 4 for you though – LeicesterEnders. Tony Robinson would have been the perfect choice – but I expect he wanted paying in cash, not buttons.

The skeleton didnt have scoliosis, it was just the effect of Richard spinning in his grave at the dump the Leicester city fathers had built around him……..

The university of Leicesters own Richard III website is excellent.

le.ac.uk/richardiii

It became a main UK news item last night and as such, a small bit of history was beamed into the homes of the nation, which considering the population at large are losing the significance of historical dates and events, even those as pivotal as 1066 etc, then ANYTHING that flashes across their eyes that promotes our history is potentially helpful.

As for the documentary, too often it seemed to lose focus on the subject itself (i.e. Richard) and concentrated instead on the 'project' and the emmotional impact of the find on P. Langley, who seems to have been a key person responsible for moving the project forward. A lost opportunity I believe.

You can imagine the joy of the camera guy, thinking he's saddled watching some lab coats dig up bits of tile in the rain… then he realises the one player is a grade-A Docudrama car-crash & they appear to be finding the maguffin. Media Christmas.

Seriously, Langley deserves an MBE if not a damehood. However cuckoo she is, she pulled off a commendable milestone in English heritage. You can't mock the diligence, vision & commitment just because she's eccentric & fey. But yeah, a documentary with more science & less of the characters would be awesome

Richard still the criminal king
link

Where does skeleton revelation leave legend of Richard III?
link

'criminal king' compared to the 5 Tudor monarchs, all of whom were very unpleasant people, or charmpots like James I?

Richard still the criminal king

That man claims to be a historian?

"Usurped the crown" and "murdered his nephews" are not statements of fact— they are opinions about fact.

Here are the facts:

1. Richard was declared king over the son of Edward IV. To me, this rather makes sound political sense, as the boy was 12, and therefore even in that day and age not in his legal majority and in any case certainly not capable of ruling a nation. A boy king is a huge risk to a nation, as any student of history knows, for the boy's "rule" will actually be the rule of whomever has the greatest influence over if not outright control of the boy king. So it makes a great deal of political and legal sense for a gifted, respected and intelligent adult to be given the political authority in the child's stead. If anything, the stability and security of a nation demands it— picture either the UK or the US with a twelve-year-old boy as Prime Minister or President; even if he's an absolute genius, that's a recipe for disaster, both from internal political infighting to external threats seeking to dominate the situation. Anyone with any wisdom at all would demand that the boy either be immediately replaced, or that a regent be placed over him. Under the circumstances, Richard was without a doubt the most logical choice, whether he sought the position or not. And making him king is actually the more secure and stable choice for the nation (and the political classes) than not.

2. The young king and his young brother were moved to the Tower of London.
This is often read by others that they were "imprisoned," but that too is opinion.
The Tower of London was as much a fortress as it was a prison. It is just as reasonable (if not more so) to suggest that the two princes were brought to the Tower of London for their own protection, as well as the protection of the nation. Again, we are back in the dangerous political realities of the boy king. A boy king is the perfect pawn— whoever has him can claim political authority, and twist the kingdom's power to their own ends. A boy king is a political megaphone, the "nuclear football" of his era— you have him, you have the kingdom at your command. Given the warfare of the previous thirty years, Richard knew this quite well. If his nephew were not secured and safe, then the wars would start up again. The Tudors were already plotting— what would they do with the boy king and his brother?
Keep in mind that the Tower of London was, in the end, a castle— the same as any other castle in a land filled with castles, and therefore as reasonable a home to two young princes as any other. It wasn't built as a prison at all; it was built as a fortress home— though the Tudors eventually made it a prison.
So were the boys "imprisoned" or merely "secured?"

3. The princes disappeared. This does not automatically mean "murdered." It means they disappeared. Which means that Richard could have had them secretly transported to a more secure and safer location. Or that someone else stole them out from under Richard, intending to use the boys as political pawns. Or, yes, that they were murdered by any of a number of motivated suspects— Richard, Henry Tudor, Richard's followers, Tudor's followers, or even other individuals wishing to destabilize English power (say, France, for one). Or it may mean that they died of natural causes, like disease (not at all uncommon) and that Richard kept it concealed for obvious political reasons. In any case, there are plenty of suspects with plenty of opportunities and motives, so it is not "factual" to say that they were murdered, much less by Richard. Is it a strong possibility? Yes. Are there other viable explanations? Yes. Are there reasons to think Richard would not have done it? Yes.

So there are the real facts. I'm not a member of the RIII Society, but that "historian" is playing just as loose with "the facts" as anyone he criticizes.

Agree with Parzival; I certainly won't be reading anything by Dan Jones, he sounds a terrible historian.
Also the Tower of London was still a royal palace at the time, and a suitable place for protecting the boys from possible plotters (including their mother). Henry Tudor never seems to have been concerned about them, so perhaps he knew something…although Buckingham, Constable of the Tower of London, could be the guilty party, and he had a claim to the throne.

As for Harold II, our current monarch QEII is descended from him. I believe that many years ago they discovered a dismembered skeleton (missing a leg and head) hidden in Bosham church (can't recollect the book/footnote that I read this in); maybe he was interred at his family church by the sea?

I read Turi King has offered to match the DNA from Richard to the supposed bones of the 'princes in the tower' enurned in Westminister Abbey. The Queen has declined permission & the Abbey is against it – even if it proved the bones were the boys', it would not prove how or when they died & if shown to be bogus it would create a dilemma for the abbey of what to do with them, & create a tricky precedent – apparently there is doubt over whether the stiff in Richard II's tomb there is indeed the late king…

I also noticed Henry accused Richard of 'shedding infant blood'. No mention of 'royal infant blood' so either Tudor believed the boys were illegitimate (the modern view seems to be Cecily was indeed telling the truth about a dalliance with an archer begatting Edward IV, rather than evil usurping Crookback Dick forcing his poor old mum to bastardise her grandkids ) or he didn't dare admit that fact as he wasn't sure they were safely dead. Strange Thomas More could reckon he knew where they'd been buried but Tudor never searched for them to give them royal burial, this righting wrongs supposedly perpetrated by his twisted predecessor?

And negating the power of pretenders pretending to be Richard of Shrewsbury?

To the tune of the Vineyard worship song 'Humble King':

You were the last Plantagenet
So perfectly parked
You were absent for centuries
but the Uni's dug you up.
Your Society weren't thrilled to find
You were a hunchback after all,
You were the king in the car park,
You are the Car Park King
You are the Car Park King

In Robert Silverberg's TO THE LAND OF THE LIVING in the afterlife Richard has to live down all the 'great lines' Shakespeare wrote for him, now he has the car park bay on top of that.

Loughborough Uni are making a perfect copy of the skeleton for the Visitors' Centre. So the skelly will be 'on display', although as ersatz as Lascaux II.

To the tune of the Vineyard worship song 'Humble King':

You were the last Plantagenet
So perfectly parked
You were absent for centuries
but the Uni's dug you up.
Your Society weren't thrilled to find
You were a hunchback after all,
You were the king in the car park,
You are the Car Park King
You are the Car Park King

Scoliosis is a side to side curvature of the spine not front to back so the evidence actually proves why nobody at the time mentioned a hump, he didn't have one. It would make one shoulder higher than the other though so what seems to have happened is that portrait painters have exaggerated that defect (some portraits were actually altered later) and through time and Shakespeare that has morphed into a hunchback.

It would seem that here in York the Minster have given up on the idea of having Richard brought back home; link

Nobody wants to see a squabble between the two cities about Richard's remains and there's certainly a legal argument in Leicester's favour but I can't say I'm comfortable with deliberately disregarding the wishes of somebody concerning their final resting place. The available evidence we have does point to his wishing to be buried in York Minster but if the Chapter of York do not wish for that to happen then that would seem to be the end of the matter. Hopefully Leicester Cathedral will give Richard a respectful Catholic burial service as he would have wanted and a fitting tomb.

Sorry, anyone got a reference to the source where he stated 'I want to be buried in York Minister'? Why did he bury his wife & son in other locations?

York University could have sent an archaeological expedition. They didn't. York has masses of tourist draws. Leicester, though full of fascination, has little stuff it markets well. Richard hopefully will the beginning of a new era.

Wargaming visitors may enjoy the remarkable bath-house ruins & many exceptional Roman finds at Jewry Wall Museum, Saxon St. Nicholas' church, the 17th 'Tigers' regimental museum at Newarke Houses museum, which also has a couple of Sebastopol cannons, the Magazine Gateway that Richard's corpse returned through, the only major Jain Temple in Europe… worth visiting at the time of the Castle Park festival each summer when you can access the Leicester Castle Hall, a modern looking building but containing the hall where De Montfort held the first representational parliament, next to St. Mary de Castro where Chaucer got married & Henry VI was knighted. Victoria Park has a huge memorial to the Boer War & a stone to the 82nd Airborne. (US visitors may enjoy the bronze Boer War memorial in Town Hall Square – nothing to do with America but its mournful aspect incited locals to drape a stars & stripes & flowers there after 9/11) Just down the road from there is a Duke of Wellington theme pub. Handy for Bosworth Battlefield, & Smockington Hollow, a plausible site for the battle of Watling St.
Leicester should market its Civil War trail, just like Newark does with a simple booklet & a few plaques. Missed opportunity there.

Hi Steve here's a quote from the link I posted;

Professor AJ Pollard, the most respected living historian on the Wars of the Roses, had this to say:

"In 1484, as king, he initiated the foundation of a grandiose college of 100 priests within the Minster of York, on which work had started before his death. This was to have been a chantry, dedicated to Our Lady, St George and St Ninian, to pray for his and his kindred's souls. At the time, he almost certainly intended to be buried in this mausoleum. Had he enjoyed a long reign, he may well ultimately have preferred Westminster, or St George's Windsor. But he did not. If the king's own last known wishes are to be honoured, his remains should be reburied in York Minster."

His son is buried in Sheriff Hutton just outside York, he was crowned Prince of Wales in York Minster. As to Richard's reasons for placing his loved ones where he did, who can say? It's not possible to state with any certainty what the thought processes were of somebody who passed over in 1485.

As I said before, I think somebody's last wishes, or in this case admittedly probable last wishes, should come before tourism. I have nothing against Leicester but other than his having the bad luck to have been killed near there Richard doesn't seem to have had much connection with the place and it seems an odd interpretation of human nature to assume anyone would want to have their last earthly resting place where they were killed rather than home, which for Richard was York and Yorkshire.

Anyway, it very much looks as though he will be buried in Leicester and I am sure the Cathedral there will treat his remains with dignity and respect.

He had been a fairly frequent visitor to the city, probably for no other reason than moving from north to south in his kingdom, but he seems to have always got on OK here.

Has there been any comment from his everso-great grandson in Australia? Michael Ibsen seems to support the Leicester burial.

It'd be his ever so great nephew Steve, Mr Ibsen is a descendant of Richard's sister Anne of York. I did find this quote from him;

"As long as he has a decent burial space and people are respectful to his memory then I'm happy wherever he goes."

The York vs Leicester debate is over. It's Leicester. That was the pre-req for being allowed to excavate and exhume Richard.

Richard was already regent and protector for the two princes before they all reached London. I do think that the Woodvilles were trying to cut him out, and possibly do him in, but Hastings did the decent thing and informed him of Edward IVs death so Richard was able to get the drop on them. He slew the key Woodville/Rivers rivals almost out of hand. He also did in Hastings pdq, who was someone who would not have let him steal the throne which Edward had left to his son.

The illegitimacy of Edward V and Prince Richard would need Church court approval as well as legislative approval to be legal. Richard didnt go for that; he settled just for the approval of a maleable sub set of Parliament.

The Princes disappeared, their mum went into sanctuary. If the princes had been kept alive and spirited away, why did she come out of sanctuary and turn her support to Henry Tudor's cause?

Its all good stuff this. Better than TV drama. When you add further intrigues with & by his elder brother George, possible poisonings of Richard's only son by the Woodville faction, the further convenient death of Anne, Richards wife and Queen shortly after Rich's accession and his plans to replace her with his young niece Elizabeth of York, Edward IVs daughter…… all good stuff.

And if Edward IVs children were indeed illegitimate what is the value of Elizabeth of York that would prompt richard to want to wed her?

Interesting times!

btw, if they hadnt dug up Richard round about now, the tracable validating DNA sources would not have been possible in a decade or two, These matches are the last of the line.

Now that would make the present incumbent choke on her cornflakes!

That was a reference to HM having confront the issue that her predecessors in the job were Catholics.

Given the lengths those in power have gone to in order to avoid that happening again (the odd Dutchman and sundry Germans) I doubt that would be welcome.

Neither apparently is the suggestion of DNA testing on the supposed Princes, the Crown having opposed the idea the last time it was raised in the 1990's.

I dare say that when your own line of accession is as tenuous as was that of Henry Tudor, you don't want it waved about in public.

Her Majesty may claim an unbroken linage but we all know that particular line is as straight as Hampton Court maze!

'criminal king' compared to the 5 Tudor monarchs, all of whom were very unpleasant people, or charmpots like James I?

Indeed, the only thing that can be said about the Tudors is that the Stuarts were a disaster!