Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

Is Richard III buried under council car park?

68 posts in this topic

I'm a bit confused as to whether the location they are excavating is actually the site- all sounds rather ambiguous to me. Have they found actual evidence that the site was there?

Also- if they do find remains, who will they use for a DNA comparison?

Facinating, nonetheless :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.........

Edward the Elder.....Saxon........AD924.......killed leading an army against a Cambro-Mercian rebellion at Farndon

Harold Godwinson of course at the battle of Hastings

William the Conquerer......1087....died from injuries at the Siege of Mantes

Richard I (Coeur de Leon) .....1199....killed at the Siege of Chalus-Charbrol in France.

Then lastly, Richard III.

Dang... Forgot about Richard I... And I knew he was killed by a crossbow bolt in France... Never heard of Edward the Elder... I'll have to read up on him... Thanks

Of course there was also Arthur Pendragron... But then again he never really died did he... ;)

Edited by Taun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When they buried him was it originaly a horse drawn carriage parking area before they made it into a car park. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there was also Arthur Pendragron... But then again he never really died did he... ;)

You've been reading too much Geoffrey of Monmouth and watching too many Shrek films!

s9157.gif

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've been reading too much Geoffrey of Monmouth and watching too many Shrek films!

s9157.gif

It's impossible to read too much Geoffrey of Monmouth (or TH White for that matter) or watch too many Shrek films!...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ealdwita,I`m not sure that your claim that Edward the Elder was been killed in battle is correct, I can find no authority that says he was. All that seems to be known of his death is that he died at Farndon-on-Dee while on his way to supress a Mercian-Welsh rebellion. However it is widely believed that Aethelred the first, the elder brother of Alfred the Great and his predecessor as king, died of wounds he received in battle

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's impossible to read too much Geoffrey of Monmouth (or TH White for that matter) or watch too many Shrek films!...

Ah good ol' TH White (The Once and Future King) - I like to think of him as the Lewis Carroll of history!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ealdwita,I`m not sure that your claim that Edward the Elder was been killed in battle is correct, I can find no authority that says he was. All that seems to be known of his death is that he died at Farndon-on-Dee while on his way to supress a Mercian-Welsh rebellion. However it is widely believed that Aethelred the first, the elder brother of Alfred the Great and his predecessor as king, died of wounds he received in battle

Welcome to the site Mc and thanks for your input.

Let's deal with Aethelred first. Here's an excerpt from the AS Chronicles for AD871.........

"...after this fight [Alfred's defeat at Mardon 22 March] came a vast army in the summer to Reading. And after the Easter of this year died King Ethered [23 April]. He reigned five years and his body lies at Wimburn-minster."

Admittedly, the possibility exists that he died of his wounds, but there's no solid evidence to back it up.

As for Edward, William of Malmesbury in Gesta Regum records his death "obj.suus.vulnus" which to me, indicates some sort of injury. (Dear God, I'm tying meself in b****y knots here!)

Anyway, as far as 30 years of very bored history students are concerned, Edward the Elder died in battle!

Thanks, Mc - I enjoyed that!

s12623.gif

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Blackadder accidently cut his head off? Seriously though. Examining his skeleton would be interesting to see the extent of his deformity (if he had one)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Blackadder accidently cut his head off? Seriously though. Examining his skeleton would be interesting to see the extent of his deformity (if he had one)

I don't think he had a (visible) deformity... everything I've read (other than Shakespeare) says he was of slight build, but athletic... Even Shakespeare acknowledged his courage and martial abilities.... Ol' Willie (Shakespeare) invented the deformities to paint a physical image of how 'evil and corrupt' he was (by Tudor standards)... Sort of like in 1950's American Westerns... The bad guy always wore a black hat and had a thin mustache...

Shakespeare created an instant image so the audience would recognize 'the villain' at first sight...

Oh and I would like to second ealwita's welcome to you Mc... Don't be shy - just jump right in!

Edited by Taun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Blackadder accidently cut his head off? Seriously though. Examining his skeleton would be interesting to see the extent of his deformity (if he had one)

No smoke without fire eh?

It's possible there may have been a certain asymmetry in his body, due to the fact that he was a slim man and constant practice since boyhood with his favourite weapon (the battlehammer) may have caused overdevelopement on the right side of his body, like a longbowman of his time or a tennis player of today. Stories of 'deformity' didn't appear until many years after his death. The earliest portrait we have of him (1520) shows no abnormalities.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Ealdwita I fully appreciate that there is no solid evidence that Aethelred died in battle or of wounds sustained in it, and that he may have died a "natural" death. And not being a scholar of Latin I bow gracefully to the interpretation you make of William of Malmesbury`s words and fully accept that Edward died of wounds, I`d just never heard of it before.. My own copy of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles merely states that "King Edward passed away, in Mercia, at Farndon, and his son, Aelfweard very soon after..." Thank you for broadening my knowledge of our wonderful Anglo-Saxon past.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much of the 'early' part of English history is nebuluous and can be interpreted in different ways. To me, that's what makes it so fascinating. At the end of it all, either of us could be right or both totally wide of the mark! I enjoyed our interaction very much.

Do you know of 'Richard of Eastwell' as a matter of interest?

Edited by ealdwita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you`re "talking" to me Ealdwita, I don`t. If you`re not "talking" to me, I still don`t know him!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies Psychic Spy I never saw your welcome there, thank you. It just so happens that both Anglo-Saxon history and the life of Richard III happen to be among my favourite historical subjects, (which include Napoleon, the Southern Confederacy, the Spartans, the Zulu wars and Jack the Ripper,) I certainly will be paying more visits now I realise there are like minded people on this site. Thank you for the welcome, I look forward to more interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you`re "talking" to me Ealdwita, I don`t. If you`re not "talking" to me, I still don`t know him!!

OK, just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Zulu wars..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A most shameful episode in British colonial history. I used to think when I was a child how wonderful and brave the British were during that war, with the last stand at Ishandlwana and the defence of Rorke`s Drift....then I started to read the "true" story of the war. The number of arguments I`ve had with people whose only knowledge of it is through watching the film "Zulu!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A most shameful episode in British colonial history. I used to think when I was a child how wonderful and brave the British were during that war, with the last stand at Ishandlwana and the defence of Rorke`s Drift....then I started to read the "true" story of the war. The number of arguments I`ve had with people whose only knowledge of it is through watching the film "Zulu!"

On this we are in agreement. IMO 'Zulu' is on a historical par with 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot'!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I`m afraid I can`t watch so-called"historical" films without being critical of all the inaccuracies. In my own humble opinion the worst example has to be "Cromwell," an absolute travesty of known facts. My own father was furious when the Lord Protector was portrayed by Richard Harris, who he ever afterwards considered a traitor who had sold his country and its history for money!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A most shameful episode in British colonial history. I used to think when I was a child how wonderful and brave the British were during that war, with the last stand at Ishandlwana and the defence of Rorke`s Drift....then I started to read the "true" story of the war. The number of arguments I`ve had with people whose only knowledge of it is through watching the film "Zulu!"

Welcome.

The British were defeated at Isandlwana and hung on by the skin of their teeth defending Rorke`s Drift why do you dismiss their bravery? there wasn't much fighting after these events with colonial divide and rule working very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A most shameful episode in British colonial history. I used to think when I was a child how wonderful and brave the British were during that war, with the last stand at Ishandlwana and the defence of Rorke`s Drift....then I started to read the "true" story of the war. The number of arguments I`ve had with people whose only knowledge of it is through watching the film "Zulu!"

It was a good film and it did have some parts correct to how it happened they just didn't put in the before the during and the after parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hetrodoxly, my post doesn`t deny the bravery of the British soldier during the war, of which both sides showed ample examples I merely mention the fact that the WAR was a shameful episode in British colonial history. As for your comment that "there wasn`t much fighting after these events," that is most certainly wrong. Ishandlwana and Rorke`s Drift were just the opening blows of a major campaign that saw serious engagements at places such as Hlobane, Nyezane, Giginlodhvu, Ntombe River and Eshowe as well as the death of France`s Prince Imperial, Louis Napoleon, son of Emperor Napoleon III, before the Zulu`s were finally defeated at Ulundi, a campaign that saw Britain having to draw on resources and men from across the Empire. And your final comment that the maxim divide and rule "worked well" is even more incorrect as the Zulu nation remained utterly loyal to King Cethswayo until their final defeat and only began intriguing after his deposition and exile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just thank everyone for the warm welcome I have received, it is much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome.

The British were defeated at Isandlwana and hung on by the skin of their teeth defending Rorke`s Drift why do you dismiss their bravery? there wasn't much fighting after these events with colonial divide and rule working very well.

As an ex-Serviceman, never in a million years would I dismiss the bravery of the individual soldier. I question the politics that led up to the Zulu uprising, all the time bearing in mind the 19th.Century mindset in which those events took place. IMO, much of the blame should rest on the shoulders of men like Sir Henry Bartle Frere and Lord Chelmseford who acted without Government authorization.

The film 'Zulu' was inaccurate in many details and characterizations, and this (as Mc rightly says) has formed the general public's vision of the Zulu wars. 'Zulu Dawn' - concerning the action at Isandlwana was a little better IMO.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.