General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKing Richard III, paved over in a parking lot!
Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
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.
Interesting link on who was King Richard III ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/21261553
Siwsan
(26,289 posts)John Knox, a leader in the Protestant Reformation and the man who reformed church to Scotland, is buried beneath parking spot #23, behind St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh. I am going to assume that the crypts extend that far, underground, but perhaps I'm just putting a kind spin on the location. There is a plaque in the parking spot.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)frogmarch
(12,158 posts)your thread before I started mine. I'll delete.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)And both Shakespeare and More maligned Richard to please the Tudors.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Ever see their take on this?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)check out the behavior of the Tudors who ousted him sometime.
Siwsan
(26,289 posts)I think the thing that puts Richard in such a notorious category is the death of the two young princes. Although I have no doubt he didn't kill them, himself, I also have no doubt he order the killings. These people were ruthless, and had to be, to gain and hold on to power.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)A place to start might be "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey, a whodunit / modern look at the alleged crimes of Richard III.
Was he as enlightened as the book portrays him? Maybe not, but I bet--on the basis of his actual policies and actions--that he was not the monster that history claims, whereas the Tudors' ruthlessness was well-documented. Smearing and murdering a rival to the throne was right up their alley.
Siwsan
(26,289 posts)I'm reading "Winter King" by Thomas Penn, about the beginning of the Tudor Dynasty. Very interesting. Henry VII was quite a character. I've read, pretty obsessively, about Henry VIII and his children, and am well aware of their bright and dark sides but this is the first book I've read on Henry VII.
Absolutely fascinating people but I think the only thing that's changed, over the centuries, is that, for the MOST part, the powerful leaders now destroy each other with words instead of swords. But they are just as dangerous, devious and power hungry.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)regarding Richard and the murder of the princes. Haven't been able to locate a link to that, but I did find this, from 1997:
http://www.r3.org/trial/trial2.html
central scrutinizer
(11,659 posts)SoCalNative
(4,613 posts)it would have made more sense that they were killed by Henry VII, as the princes were the ones standing in his way of the throne, not Richard III's.
Siwsan
(26,289 posts)Their uncle, Richard, was made their 'protector' and had separated them from their mother and put them into the Tower. They stood in the path of him, not in the path of Henry.
Henry was descended from an entirely tree. His grandfather married the widow of Henry V and his grandmother was descended from the family of Edward III. His claim to the throne was tenuous, at best, and he's more a king by conquest, rather than inheritance.
I believe that Henry was, quite literally, hiding in France under the protection of the Duke of Brittany, when the princes were murdered.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)ananda
(28,873 posts)Why Laurence Olivier of course. Best performance by an actor I've ever seen, bar none.
Of course, I also believe that Shakespeare's Richard III has very little to do with the real one, and the same with Macbeth and Duncan. But they do make for great drama.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Kingdom for a Rolls" doesn't have quite the same ring -- a bit too 1%er-ish
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)See what I did there?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Interesting historical find.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)something eerie in it all ... maybe in eons people will look back on these times and find them eerie too.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)They didn't bother to dig one long enough to lay him flat, just took the "eh, good enough" approach when he mostly fit.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)maybe they will do it right this time.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Even with recent UK laws to reduce "booting" by private parking operators, the parking business in the UK is pretty aggressive.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)AnnieBW
(10,450 posts)n/t
KatyMan
(4,209 posts)and put up a paaaaarking lot (with apologies to Ms Mitchell!)