Post by Morreion on Feb 5, 2013 12:31:31 GMT -5
OK, I'm geeked out by all of this- I'm a history buff and have read multiple biographies of Richard III and books about the Wars of the Roses. Richard III was the last English king to die in battle, and he has been portrayed by Shakespeare as evil incarnate who killed the young princes in the Tower of London. The Richard III Society exists today to try to rehabilitate him, because there were several good things about him- he was loyal, a valiant warrior, a wise ruler for his brief 2 years on the throne who genuinely loved his wife (not common among nobility in his age). The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
A good place to start on reading more about Richard III and his times are Alison Weir's biography of him, and her books about the Wars of the Roses (which George R.R. Martin modeled his A Song of Ice and Fire series upon, really dramatic stuff).
Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are king's (BBC)
A skeleton found beneath a Leicester car park has been confirmed as that of English king Richard III.
Experts from the University of Leicester said DNA from the bones matched that of descendants of the monarch's family.
Lead archaeologist Richard Buckley, from the University of Leicester, told a press conference to applause: "Beyond reasonable doubt it's Richard."
Richard, killed in battle in 1485, will be reinterred in Leicester Cathedral.
Mr Buckley said the bones had been subjected to "rigorous academic study" and had been carbon dated to a period from 1455-1540.
Dr Jo Appleby, an osteo-archaeologist from the university's School of Archaeology and Ancient History, revealed the bones were of a man in his late 20s or early 30s. Richard was 32 when he died.
His skeleton had suffered 10 injuries, including eight to the skull, at around the time of death. Two of the skull wounds were potentially fatal.
Richard III: The mystery of the king and the car parking lot (CNN)
"I didn't think it was likely to be him at first," explains bioarchaeologist Jo Appleby, who excavated the remains. "The skull didn't seem to be in quite the right place -- now we know that's because of the scoliosis -- but it didn't seem to 'go' with the legs.
"When I lifted the skull and saw the injury, a little alarm bell started to ring, but I told myself perhaps someone had dug into the grave at a later date and hit it with a spade, so I thought 'Don't say anything yet.'
"I cleared the arms and legs, and then went up the spine, hunting for vertebrae, [but] they weren't there, they weren't where I expected them to be. Instead they went in completely the wrong direction. At that point, I thought 'Hang on!'"
"Someone came over and said 'I think you need to see this,'" Buckley says. "We were looking at something else, so I said 'I'm a bit busy at the moment,' and they said 'No, no, you really need to see this.'"
They were stunned to discover the remains were in surprisingly good condition - particularly given the fact they were apparently laid to rest in a simple shroud, with no coffin to protect them.
"There have been so many changes to the site over the years that the chances of finding the remains were so slim," says local historian David Baldwin. "It wouldn't have been at all surprising had they been destroyed."
Graphic: how King Richard III's grave was discovered (The Telegraph)
Richard III: The Royal Armouries' Bob Woosnam-Savage on the violent death of the King in battle (Culture24)
Richard was described as leading a mounted charge against Henry Tudor in an attempt to kill him.
Cutting down Tudor’s standard bearer, Sir William Brandon, there is the possibility Richard’s momentum was stalled by marshy ground, a feature confirmed by the recent archaeology of the Bosworth battlefield.
His horse stuck, or slain, Richard, fully armoured, continues fighting manfully on foot, maybe only a few feet away from his intended target, Henry Tudor.
However, the tide of battle had seemingly already begun to turn as Stanley’s forces decided to side with Tudor, and they came down upon the Plantagents and Richard.
Tudor’s own bodyguard would have been defending him as well and so, within a very short space of time, Richard could have found himself outnumbered and in the press of his enemies. But then what?
His armour, successfully protecting him up to this time, probably began to fail under ferocious attack.
There is no evidence to say how long this sustained attack lasted, but at some point it would appear that his helmet was forcibly removed – possibly cut or ripped away.
At this time, Richard immediately receives more blows; a number of individual wounds from bladed weapons to the head, particularly to the top and rear of the skull, indicate a sustained and repeated attack on an unprotected head, one particularly massive blow possibly proving fatal.
That particular blow could well have been delivered by a staff weapon such as a halberd.
Other blows, including a penetrating wound to the top of the skull, and another to the base, both again probably dealt to an unprotected head, appear to have been perhaps delivered either near, or at the point of, death, with Richard possibly finally keeling over in a kneeling position or even lying semi-prone on the ground, although the body position must remain speculative at this time.
Richard III: The twisted bones that reveal a king (BBC slideshow)
This is a fantastic slideshow showing Richard III's remains.
Richard III: Is this the face that launched 1,000 myths? (CNN)
Caroline Wilkinson, Professor of Craniofacial Identification at the University of Dundee led the reconstruction project.
In a statement, she said Richard III's facial structure was based on "anatomical assessment and interpretation, and a 3D replication process known as stereolithography."
"The final head was pained and textured with glass eyes and a wig, using the portraits as reference, to create a realistic and regal appearance."
Janice Aitken -- from the Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design at the University of Dundee -- said CT scans of the monarch's skull had been used to build the reconstruction, 70% of which was within 2mm accuracy.
Aitken then painted his face.
"He is just a human being. Human beings have certain characteristics -- you can use artistic licence to make assumptions."
Back from the grave, King Richard III gets rehab (CNN)
Shakespeare's Richard III is a "rudely stamp'd," "deformed, unfinish'd" villain who ordered the deaths of anyone who stood between him and the throne, including his two young nephews.
"So wise so young, they say, do never live long," Richard III says in a sinister aside as he dispatches Crown Prince Edward, 12, and brother Richard, 9, to their deaths in the Tower of London.
"Off with his head!" Richard shouts in Act III, sending Lord Hastings to the chopping block.
Shakespeare's story evolved from a history penned by Sir Thomas More more than two decades after Richard died in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. It was the last fight in the War of the Roses, which ended with the ascension of Henry VII and the Tudors.
The Tudors, who controlled More's world, had a vested interest in disparaging Richard and bolstering their family's claim to the throne.
The Richard III Society has "been working since 1924 to secure a more balanced assessment of the king and to support research into his life and times," according to the society's website.
Where does skeleton revelation leave legend of Richard III? (CNN opinion)
Richard III was no saint but neither was he a criminal. All but one of the so-called crimes laid at his door can be refuted by the facts. The one that cannot is the disappearance of his nephews, the "Princes in the Tower" and the answer to that question is simply that no-one knows what happened to them. All that follows is conjecture - they just disappeared. Richard had no need to kill them; they had been declared bastards. Henry VII needed them out of the way, but he got so scared whenever a pretender appeared that it is likely that he knew they were alive at the time Richard died at Bosworth. Did they die in 1483 or 1485 or were they spirited out of the country to their aunt, the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy? We will probably never know.
Richard still the criminal king (CNN opinion)
Richard III got a rep for a reason. He usurped the Crown from a 12-year old boy, who later died.
This was his great crime, and there is no point denying it. It is true that before this crime, Richard was a conspicuously loyal lieutenant to the boy's father, his own brother, King Edward IV. It is also true that once he was king, Richard made a great effort to promote justice to the poor and needy, stabilize royal finances and contain public disorder.
But this does not mitigate that he stole the Crown, justifying it after the fact with the claim that his nephews were illegitimate. Likewise, it remains indisputably true that his usurpation threw English politics, painstakingly restored to some order in the 12 years before his crime, into a turmoil from which it did not fully recover for another two decades.
So the discovery of Richard's bones is exciting. But it does not tell us anything to justify changing the current historical view of Richard: that the Tudor historians and propagandists, culminating with Shakespeare, may have exaggerated his physical deformities and the horrors of Richard's character, but he remains a criminal king whose actions wrought havoc on his realm.
A good place to start on reading more about Richard III and his times are Alison Weir's biography of him, and her books about the Wars of the Roses (which George R.R. Martin modeled his A Song of Ice and Fire series upon, really dramatic stuff).
Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are king's (BBC)
A skeleton found beneath a Leicester car park has been confirmed as that of English king Richard III.
Experts from the University of Leicester said DNA from the bones matched that of descendants of the monarch's family.
Lead archaeologist Richard Buckley, from the University of Leicester, told a press conference to applause: "Beyond reasonable doubt it's Richard."
Richard, killed in battle in 1485, will be reinterred in Leicester Cathedral.
Mr Buckley said the bones had been subjected to "rigorous academic study" and had been carbon dated to a period from 1455-1540.
Dr Jo Appleby, an osteo-archaeologist from the university's School of Archaeology and Ancient History, revealed the bones were of a man in his late 20s or early 30s. Richard was 32 when he died.
His skeleton had suffered 10 injuries, including eight to the skull, at around the time of death. Two of the skull wounds were potentially fatal.
Richard III: The mystery of the king and the car parking lot (CNN)
"I didn't think it was likely to be him at first," explains bioarchaeologist Jo Appleby, who excavated the remains. "The skull didn't seem to be in quite the right place -- now we know that's because of the scoliosis -- but it didn't seem to 'go' with the legs.
"When I lifted the skull and saw the injury, a little alarm bell started to ring, but I told myself perhaps someone had dug into the grave at a later date and hit it with a spade, so I thought 'Don't say anything yet.'
"I cleared the arms and legs, and then went up the spine, hunting for vertebrae, [but] they weren't there, they weren't where I expected them to be. Instead they went in completely the wrong direction. At that point, I thought 'Hang on!'"
"Someone came over and said 'I think you need to see this,'" Buckley says. "We were looking at something else, so I said 'I'm a bit busy at the moment,' and they said 'No, no, you really need to see this.'"
They were stunned to discover the remains were in surprisingly good condition - particularly given the fact they were apparently laid to rest in a simple shroud, with no coffin to protect them.
"There have been so many changes to the site over the years that the chances of finding the remains were so slim," says local historian David Baldwin. "It wouldn't have been at all surprising had they been destroyed."
Graphic: how King Richard III's grave was discovered (The Telegraph)
Richard III: The Royal Armouries' Bob Woosnam-Savage on the violent death of the King in battle (Culture24)
Richard was described as leading a mounted charge against Henry Tudor in an attempt to kill him.
Cutting down Tudor’s standard bearer, Sir William Brandon, there is the possibility Richard’s momentum was stalled by marshy ground, a feature confirmed by the recent archaeology of the Bosworth battlefield.
His horse stuck, or slain, Richard, fully armoured, continues fighting manfully on foot, maybe only a few feet away from his intended target, Henry Tudor.
However, the tide of battle had seemingly already begun to turn as Stanley’s forces decided to side with Tudor, and they came down upon the Plantagents and Richard.
Tudor’s own bodyguard would have been defending him as well and so, within a very short space of time, Richard could have found himself outnumbered and in the press of his enemies. But then what?
His armour, successfully protecting him up to this time, probably began to fail under ferocious attack.
There is no evidence to say how long this sustained attack lasted, but at some point it would appear that his helmet was forcibly removed – possibly cut or ripped away.
At this time, Richard immediately receives more blows; a number of individual wounds from bladed weapons to the head, particularly to the top and rear of the skull, indicate a sustained and repeated attack on an unprotected head, one particularly massive blow possibly proving fatal.
That particular blow could well have been delivered by a staff weapon such as a halberd.
Other blows, including a penetrating wound to the top of the skull, and another to the base, both again probably dealt to an unprotected head, appear to have been perhaps delivered either near, or at the point of, death, with Richard possibly finally keeling over in a kneeling position or even lying semi-prone on the ground, although the body position must remain speculative at this time.
Richard III: The twisted bones that reveal a king (BBC slideshow)
This is a fantastic slideshow showing Richard III's remains.
Richard III: Is this the face that launched 1,000 myths? (CNN)
Caroline Wilkinson, Professor of Craniofacial Identification at the University of Dundee led the reconstruction project.
In a statement, she said Richard III's facial structure was based on "anatomical assessment and interpretation, and a 3D replication process known as stereolithography."
"The final head was pained and textured with glass eyes and a wig, using the portraits as reference, to create a realistic and regal appearance."
Janice Aitken -- from the Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design at the University of Dundee -- said CT scans of the monarch's skull had been used to build the reconstruction, 70% of which was within 2mm accuracy.
Aitken then painted his face.
"He is just a human being. Human beings have certain characteristics -- you can use artistic licence to make assumptions."
Back from the grave, King Richard III gets rehab (CNN)
Shakespeare's Richard III is a "rudely stamp'd," "deformed, unfinish'd" villain who ordered the deaths of anyone who stood between him and the throne, including his two young nephews.
"So wise so young, they say, do never live long," Richard III says in a sinister aside as he dispatches Crown Prince Edward, 12, and brother Richard, 9, to their deaths in the Tower of London.
"Off with his head!" Richard shouts in Act III, sending Lord Hastings to the chopping block.
Shakespeare's story evolved from a history penned by Sir Thomas More more than two decades after Richard died in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. It was the last fight in the War of the Roses, which ended with the ascension of Henry VII and the Tudors.
The Tudors, who controlled More's world, had a vested interest in disparaging Richard and bolstering their family's claim to the throne.
The Richard III Society has "been working since 1924 to secure a more balanced assessment of the king and to support research into his life and times," according to the society's website.
Where does skeleton revelation leave legend of Richard III? (CNN opinion)
Richard III was no saint but neither was he a criminal. All but one of the so-called crimes laid at his door can be refuted by the facts. The one that cannot is the disappearance of his nephews, the "Princes in the Tower" and the answer to that question is simply that no-one knows what happened to them. All that follows is conjecture - they just disappeared. Richard had no need to kill them; they had been declared bastards. Henry VII needed them out of the way, but he got so scared whenever a pretender appeared that it is likely that he knew they were alive at the time Richard died at Bosworth. Did they die in 1483 or 1485 or were they spirited out of the country to their aunt, the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy? We will probably never know.
Richard still the criminal king (CNN opinion)
Richard III got a rep for a reason. He usurped the Crown from a 12-year old boy, who later died.
This was his great crime, and there is no point denying it. It is true that before this crime, Richard was a conspicuously loyal lieutenant to the boy's father, his own brother, King Edward IV. It is also true that once he was king, Richard made a great effort to promote justice to the poor and needy, stabilize royal finances and contain public disorder.
But this does not mitigate that he stole the Crown, justifying it after the fact with the claim that his nephews were illegitimate. Likewise, it remains indisputably true that his usurpation threw English politics, painstakingly restored to some order in the 12 years before his crime, into a turmoil from which it did not fully recover for another two decades.
So the discovery of Richard's bones is exciting. But it does not tell us anything to justify changing the current historical view of Richard: that the Tudor historians and propagandists, culminating with Shakespeare, may have exaggerated his physical deformities and the horrors of Richard's character, but he remains a criminal king whose actions wrought havoc on his realm.
