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
Saru

King Richard III skeleton find confirmed

69 posts in this topic

The final resting place of the former English King has been rediscovered after more than 528 years.

A skeleton found under a council car in Leicester has been confirmed “beyond reasonable doubt” as that of King Richard III who died in the battle of Bosworth Field in 1485.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The War of the Roses was a nasty war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So will he be given a formal state funeral now? I would think that he is entitled to one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So will he be given a formal state funeral now? I would think that he is entitled to one...

I'm not so sure about a full formal state burial, but if everybody's happy about these findings, then I would expect at the very least, a cermonial interrment. Perhaps York Minster would be suitable? (Appropriate - if nothing else).

But who am I? I still think Perkin Warbecq really was Richard of Shrewesbury, Duke of York (One of the Princes in the tower!)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure about a full formal state burial, but if everybody's happy about these findings, then I would expect at the very least, a cermonial interrment. Perhaps York Minster would be suitable? (Appropriate - if nothing else).

But who am I? I still think Perkin Warbecq really was Richard of Shrewesbury, Duke of York (One of the Princes in the tower!)

I thought York Minster would have been ideal but he's going to be reinterred in Leicester Cathedral, it would seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought York Minster would have been ideal but he's going to be reinterred in Leicester Cathedral, it would seem.

Yes, I've just heard that on the news. I assume it's because his original resting place was the Greyfriars Church in Leicester. I can't forsee any great ceremony happening though. Apparently, a Richard III museum is to be opened nearby. Anything for a bit of tourism, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great news but while we now know that him having a hunchback wasn't merely a propaganda ploy by his opponents, how they think that this will correct his image as the murderer of the two Princes in the Tower is beyond me. It certainly wasn't Henry VII! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ealdwita.. you seem to be fairly conversant with that period of English history... What is your take on Richard III's reign? I've heard conflicting things about whether he was an evil person, or just the victim of vicious propaganda...

The main point of those that say he was an evil sort seems to have been the two princes disappearance and supposed murders... And of course Shakespears account is open to being suspect since he wrote his plays with the ruling Lancastrian monarchs in mind (propaganda for the sake of buttering up potential sponors?)... Not to say ol' Will didn't have it right... just room for suspicion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is him, regardless of wht he ws life in life, he gets to be buried in a Chapel of rest. So many orphans and "degenerates" human-beings all, don't get theat privelege.

Edited by Mistydawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So will he be given a formal state funeral now? I would think that he is entitled to one...

Someone who murders two children - one of them being the king - should never be entitled to a state funeral.

It also seems that the Tudors WERE actually correct when they described him as being a hunchback and that it wasn't merely propaganda from them, including Shakespeare. Richard's skeleton has a condition called scoliosis which, even though it isn't actually a hunchback, would have made him appear to contemporaries as a hunchback. Most of them would not have known the difference. After all, the Hunchback of Notre Dame also had scoliosis rather than being a real hunchback.

Channel 4, 9pm, Tonight - Richard III: The King in the Car Park.

When a skeleton was reported found under a Leicester council car park in September 2012, the news broke around the world. Could it be the remains, lost for 500 years, of England's most infamous king?

In a world exclusive, Channel 4 has the full inside story of the hunt for Richard III.

The discovery of the body and the battery of scientific tests to establish its identity have been carried out in complete secrecy, with no footage of them seen by anyone but the investigating team.

But this programme - made by the only team allowed to follow the scientists - tells every step, twist and turn of the story.

It unveils a brand new facial reconstruction made from the skull and - in scenes shot just hours before broadcast - reveals the results of the final tests that confirm or deny the body's identity.

Of course, we now know the results of the tests. The news conference this morning which confirmed that the remains are indeed those of the king will probably be shown on the documentary, but I think it'll still be worth watching.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buried under a parking lot? Sounds like something that happened to Jimmy Hoffa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many orphans and "degenerates" human-beings all, don't get theat privelege.

So what? What do you want me to do about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've just heard that on the news. I assume it's because his original resting place was the Greyfriars Church in Leicester. I can't forsee any great ceremony happening though. Apparently, a Richard III museum is to be opened nearby. Anything for a bit of tourism, I suppose.

Richard III is to be reinterred at Leicester Cathedral, England's fourth-smallest Anglican cathedral, in 2014. The cathedral already has a memorial stone to the king.

250px-Leicester_Cathedral_panorama.jpg

Preparations are underway for a major Christian reinterment ceremony. David Monteith, Leicester Cathedral Canon Chancellor, said that because it would have been "unheard of" for the King not to have received a formal burial at the time, he could not be buried again so it would be a service of remembrance.

So, for probably centuries to come, those wanting to see the remains of Richard III will just have to go to Leicester Cathedral.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? What do you want me to do about it?

Pretty sure there is nothing you can do.

Doesn't detract from the fact that this is only news for people with money and social standing and not for those who don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't detract from the fact that this is only news for people with money and social standing and not for those who don't.

Last time I checked this is news for everybody.

Go and take your silly left-wing whining elsewhere and stop ruining this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I checked this is news for everybody.

Go and take your silly left-wing whining elsewhere and stop ruining this thread.

Left-wing? what's that? I don't understand your reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone who murders two children - one of them being the king - should never be entitled to a state funeral.

It also seems that the Tudors WERE actually correct when they described him as being a hunchback and that it wasn't merely propaganda from them, including Shakespeare. Richard's skeleton has a condition called scoliosis which, even though it isn't actually a hunchback, would have made him appear to contemporaries as a hunchback. Most of them would not have known the difference. After all, the Hunchback of Notre Dame also had scoliosis rather than being a real hunchback.

I thought it was undetermined if he actually did have anything to do with the princes' deaths... Granted he is a likely suspect... but I thought there was some doubt (small perhaps)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great news but while we now know that him having a hunchback wasn't merely a propaganda ploy by his opponents, how they think that this will correct his image as the murderer of the two Princes in the Tower is beyond me. It certainly wasn't Henry VII! :P

Probably not, but he did have a motive. If the Princes were alive, the the Tudors had no claim whatsoever to the throne of England. (Not that they had much of a claim anyway)

Other suspects.....

Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham - Richard's brother in law, but also cousin to Henry Tudor and third in the Lancastrian succession behind Henry and his mother. Stafford supported Richard, while secretly plotting with Tudor. Stafford may have killed the boys to discredit Richard, thus furthering his cousins ambitions, and his own eventual rise to power. Or, Richard may have ordered Buckingham to kill the princes in order to solidify his own claim to the throne.

James Tyrell - perhaps the instrument of the prince's death if not the person behind the murders. Tyrell was a bit of an unsavoury character, given to plotting and underhanded dealings. In 1502 he was in prison for treason against Henry VII. Under torture Tyrell confessed that he had killed the princes, though he supplied no information as to why or under whose influence he had acted.

Perhaps the princes did not die in the Tower at all. In 1491 a young man named Perkin Warbeck claimed that he was Richard, youngest son of Edward IV. Over the course of several years Warbeck gathered support from abroad, and landed in England in 1497. Henry VII easily defeated Warbeck's scanty troops, and had him thrown in prison, where he was subsequently executed.

An earlier pretender to the throne - though not one of the princes - was Lambert Simnel. This boy of about 10 claimed to be the son of George, Duke of Clarence, Edward IV's brother. Supported by Irish and Flemish troops, Simnel's 'army' landed in Lancashire, where they were easily defeated by Henry VII. Simnel was pardoned as an unwitting pawn in the designs of scheming adults, and given a job in the royal kitchens. It's highly unlikely that Simnel was Edward of Warwick, because it's widely believed that the real Edward was mentally retarded.The Simnel cake is attributed to young Lambert.

ealdwita.. you seem to be fairly conversant with that period of English history... What is your take on Richard III's reign? I've heard conflicting things about whether he was an evil person, or just the victim of vicious propaganda...

Richard, by the standards of the time, was an able King and liked in general by the populace (especially in the North where he set up the Council of the North to improve government control and economic prosperity, to benefit the entire area of Northern England. Richard was its first Lord President from 1472 until his accession to the throne.

He and his wife, Anne founded King's College and Queen's College Cambridge and founded the College of Arms which to this day, oversees the granting of titles and grants of Arms.

I believe it's highly likely that he had a hand in the murder of the Princes, but it'll never be conclusive, just who the culprit was. (See list above.) Deposition or forced abdication was invariably a sentence of death (Edward II and Henry VI for example)

Whether Richard had a 'formal burial' at the time is not clear. The historian Polydor Vergil tells us that in 1495 (10 years after Bosworth), Henry VII paid "£50 for a marble and alabaster monument", which apparently, was still visible in 1612.

I think we still owe Richard's perceived personality to Shakespeare's play, which wasn't as accurate as it should have been IMO!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I checked this is news for everybody.

Go and take your silly left-wing whining elsewhere and stop ruining this thread.

What part of her posts leaned to the left wing whining?

So what? What do you want me to do about it?

Was she asking you in particular to do something about it? From what I can see her post was not aimed at you or anyone else..

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of her posts leaned to the left wing whining?

Was she asking you in particular to do something about it? From what I can see her post was not aimed at you or anyone else..

Becky thank you so much for your voice.

I apologise for being want in all things historical. I know I need to read more.

It was so NOT my intent to irritate other UMers.

I was trying to draw the eye to the countless babies and those too outside of societies norms, in other words the POOR who were buried outside of the Churches bounds.

To draw the fact that although the historical and archelogical find is pretty awesome, the fact that it may be a Royal, has to tempered with the knowledge that the "average guy" dug up, would be just if not more significant. Or should be.

As what countless people endured under one Reign or another often seems less improtant and seemingly more boring, or just nominally interesting compared to what the Royals did, I just felt I needed to show a little less enthusiasm towards the fabulous find of the possible skeletal remains of Englands finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buried under a parking lot? Sounds like something that happened to Jimmy Hoffa.

I'd wager there's more than a few Richard the Thirds buried in strange places.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

study it to see what else we could find!its worth studying it and etc who knows you might find something interesting and exciting at the same time.i would personally study it.of course there might be some people that might say don't disturb the skeleton because of some religious crap/reasons or you might wake up or disturb their spirit.i do believe in that and etc but I'm sure id that was my body or at least was since i moved on and longer need it why would i stay around where my ex-body is at and linger that would be boring for one thing most people wouldn't be able to see me or etc.screw religious reasons or etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly very interesting from a historical standpoint and I'm interested in it as I love history. Many centuries after the death of the two princes in the Tower the bones of a couple of children were found.These were put into an urn and placed in Westminister Abbey during the time of Charles the 2nd,King of England. Would be intersting to see if dna testing could be done on their bones to see if there was any connection to Richard and the royal family of the time.If these bones in the urn are the two princes,it maybe that Richard or someone else had them murdered.

After the young princes went into the Tower of London they were seen playing and then one day,no one saw them any more.

Richard's mistake was never showing them to the people,either alive or dead.Even if he or Stafford had them killed,Richard could have produced their bodies and shown them blaming Henry Tudor for the crime and arranged a fancy funeral for the boys. If I was Richard, that's what I would have done,is shown one and all their poor little corpses and blamed Henry Tudor or someone else for the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you ealdwita...

I did a bit of reading up on him (wikipedia mostly - so it's suspect) today and they mentioned that the marriage of the boys parents (the former King and Queen) was declared null and void as the King was already married (I forget her name)... And the boys were thus - illegitimate and therefore outside the line of succession... It mentioned that the annulment and illegitmacy of the boys was recognized by Parliment (I think you officially had a Parliment back then - though I could be wrong)...If this is true, it is one more reason why Richard might not have killed them as they were legally no threat to his position...

Of course he could have had them killed anyway, just because they were inconvienent, and to prevent future uprisings with them as figureheads - similar to the case of Simnel... Though it does seems as though Henry Tudor had as much to gain by their deaths as Richard did...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as how he was almost covered by a toilet...........................

shouldn't he be known as King Richard the Turd ?

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.