Richard the Third

[Pabmusic]

If Mr Michael Ibsen is directly descended from Richard III's sister - doesn't he have a better claim to the throne than Liz and her Germanic ancestors ?

Not unless he's a protestant descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover (Act of Settlement 1701).

[Mr Pee]

It's always a good idea to embrace scepticism, but this is silly. The only explanation that remains to give the lie to this story is that a group of lecturers at Leicester have conspired to make it up. But they've been very open about it all.

Short of anything like this, what are we left with? The bones were buried in the area they were believed to be. The person was male, slightly built and with a crooked back - very much as expected. He died violently, with injuries consistent with death in battle. The date of the bones was consistent with death at Bosworth. The mitochondrial DNA obtained from the skeleton matches two known descendants of Richard III. (The results of the male-line DNA are still awaited.)

Mmm - looks like a duck [tick]; walks like a duck [tick]; sounds like a duck [tick]. I'm not convinced...

I find it impossible to understand how anybody could doubt that this is all completely genuine.

[scottycelt]

Not unless he's a protestant descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover (Act of Settlement 1701).

Wouldn't that be outrageous state discrimination against Catholic descendants (and Atheists, Jews, Moslems etc as well) and run wholly counter to Dave's brave new plans for 'equality and fairness' ... ?

I'm sure Dave will be utterly shocked and have words with Nick to bring in urgent new 'equality' legislation before the next election?

[Pabmusic]

Surely the last English monarch was Harold ?

No actually. Here's what I posted earlier (no. 13):

Or even Edgar the Ætheling, who reigned after Hastings and before William's lot reached London. Yes, I suppose so, though given the effective takeover by the Normans, you could regard the Plantagenets as being 'new' English. That's not something you can really say about the Welsh, Scots or Germans.

Edgar was proclaimed king by the Witanagemot after Harold's death, but he wasn't crowned before too many Anglo-Saxon leaders deserted to William (he was only 15, so probably wasn't a good choice in the circumstances). He lived until 1126 and married into the Norman royal family. His Saxon niece Edith, known as Matilda of Scotland, married Edward I.

But in any case, it's difficult not to count the Plantagenets as 'English'.

[AjAjAjH]

As someone who has be fascinated by the Wars of the Roses for years, I am delighted that this story has occured in my life time. The finding of R3's remains however does not answer questions as to who murdered the princes in the tower and why R3 usurped the throne.

Assuming Edward 5 and his brother Richard of York were dead when R3 died, the rightful heir to the throne was Elizabeth of York. She reigned as Henry 7's Queen Consort (She should have been Elizabeth 1) so the throne returned to it's rightful claimant in Henry 8. If the succession had carried on as it should, Elizabeth of York would have been Elizabeth 1, Henry 8 would have been Henry 7, Elizabeth 1 would have been Elizabeth 2 and our present queen Elizabeth 3.

When R3 is finally relaid to rest, the final resting place of James 2 will be the only unknown of all the English/British monarchs since the Norman Conquest.

[AjAjAjH]

Further to my thread above, whenever R3 is reinterred, it should be done by Roman Catholic Rites as the Reformation and the sunsequent establishment of the Church of England had not taken place when he died. I believe this courtesy was given to the bodies found on the Mary Rose when it was raised.

[Flosshilde]

so is Richard 3 the only one of our monarchs of whom we hadn't thus far known the burial place? or are there others to find ?

Apparently there were 2 monarchs whose whereabouts were unknown - R3 was one, & I can't rmember the other . But as one of the Princes in the tower succeeded his father (Richard's brother) before being killed, & their bbodies haven't been found it's possibly him.

[Pabmusic]

Wouldn't that be outrageous state discrimination against Catholic descendants (and Atheists, Jews, Moslems etc as well) and run wholly counter to Dave's brave new plans for 'equality and fairness' ... ?

I'm sure Dave will be utterly shocked and have words with Nick to bring in urgent new 'equality' legislation before the next election?

The Government recently announced changes to the royal succession, getting rid of male primogeniture, and allowing marriages to Catholics in some circumstances! But they also said that they were not altering the 'Protestant' rule for the monarch.

Yes, its discriminatory and I imagine challengeable, but it's unlikely to be tested without a Catholic (or other) claimant to the throne who's prepared to take the matter to court.

There should, of course, be no religious requirement for any state office.

[scottycelt]

Further to my thread above, whenever R3 is reinterred, it should be done by Roman Catholic Rites as the Reformation and the sunsequent establishment of the Church of England had not taken place when he died. I believe this courtesy was given to the bodies found on the Mary Rose when it was raised.

That would be a very nice and genuinely tolerant touch on behalf of the appropriate authorities, AjAjAjH ...

[scottycelt]

There should, of course, be no religious requirement for any state office.

... of course.

[Nick Armstrong]

Good job he wasn't found in a multi-storey.

That would have been wrong on so many levels.







I'll get my dressing gown...

[Pabmusic]

...When R3 is finally relaid to rest, the final resting place of James 2 will be the only unknown of all the English/British monarchs since the Norman Conquest.

And there's not much chance of finding him. He was buried in Chapel of St Edmund, in Paris, but his bones disappeared when the place was looted in the Revolution.

Which reminds me that the bones of several Saxon kings (and Canute) are in mortuary chests in Winchester Cathedral, but these were broken open and scattered by Cromwell's army. They were later gathered up and replaced willy-nilly in the chests. Quite how much of whom is in any one chest now is unknowable.

[teamsaint]

It's always a good idea to embrace scepticism, but this is silly. The only explanation that remains to give the lie to this story is that a group of lecturers at Leicester have conspired to make it up. But they've been very open about it all.

Short of anything like this, what are we left with? The bones were buried in the area they were believed to be. The person was male, slightly built and with a crooked back - very much as expected. He died violently, with injuries consistent with death in battle. The date of the bones was consistent with death at Bosworth. The mitochondrial DNA obtained from the skeleton matches two known descendants of Richard III. (The results of the male-line DNA are still awaited.)

Mmm - looks like a duck [tick]; walks like a duck [tick]; sounds like a duck [tick]. I'm not convinced...

Its only silly if you want to see it that way. There is a story, a script here. They may be the bones of R3. The DNA is far from conclusive at this stage. The rest of the "evidence" is, well,circumstantial at best. Even if they actually are his bones, I really don't see the historical interest. It may be interesting as a discovery, for tourism, to Leicester Uni, but are we really going to learn anything from it?
Too much distraction, too much focus on the precious bones of an elite, not enough on real stories, real history, and its lessons.
The list of things that we were told were facts, and turned out not to be, is very long, and there are always people with motives behind the story.

[Pabmusic]

Its only silly if you want to see it that way. There is a story, a script here. They may be the bones of R3. The DNA is far from conclusive at this stage. The rest of the "evidence is, well,circumstantial at best. Even if they actually are his bones, I really don't see the historical interest. It may be interesting as a discovery, for tourism, to Leicester Uni, but are we really going to learn anything from it?
Too much distraction, too much focus on the precious bones of an elite, not enough on real stories, real history, and its lessons.
The list of things that we were told were facts, and turned out not to be, is very long, and there are always people with motives behind the story.

No. You dismiss the evidence as part (it seems) of your own dislike of this type of history. I share your view that, at the end of the day, it doesn't amount to a historical discovery that tells us very much that we didn't know already, but why do you dismiss it so readily? The DNA evidence shows that the skeleton is an ancestor of the two living comparators - significant, as they are descendants of Richard III. The male-line DNA is still to be announced. The other evidence is partly circumstantial, but most evidence is anyway. But it's not circumstantial evidence to say that the skeleton had a crooked spine of battle-wounds - we can see all that - the circumstantial part comes with the lack of a name-tag ('Property of Richard Plantagenet') or anything like that. It is the amount of circumstantial evidence, matching the known facts as it does, coupled with the molecular genetics, that gives us rather more evidence for this that there usually is for anything.

I can understand your point about "too much focus on the precious bones of an elite" (although dear old Dave Spart seems to be hovering), but not the strong antipathy to the evidence.

[teamsaint]

Pab, I am sceptical, but I didn't dismiss the evidence , just very dubious about it. The way it has been presented is important. It would be possible to present all the evidence in a far more negative way, that could convince a lot of people that these weren't the bones.
There are plenty of people who want us to believe this story, and perhaps not for the best of motives. And yes, I understand the excitement..if they really are his bones, its certainly a notable moment, in some ways.
My scepticism may be born out of what you call " a dislike of this kind of history", but "This kind of history " is the problem.
As somebody else suggested....follow the money.