Richard the Third

[mangerton]

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.

Could we please have some consistency in the numbering of kings and queens? It is not helpful to call our present monarch "Elizabeth 2" and then refer to "James 2".

"James 2" was killed by an exploding cannon at the siege of Roxburgh Castle in 1460, and was buried in Holyrood Abbey. "James 2 and 7"..... I've no idea.

[Sir Velo]

As somebody else suggested....follow the money.

I'm not an historian but I presume that these findings are subject to peer review? If historians resemble any other corps of academics I assume they won't be slow in digging out any holes in the work of their colleagues.

[teamsaint]

I'm not an historian but I presume that these findings are subject to some kind of peer review? If historians resemble any other corps of academics I assume they won't be slow in digging out any holes in the work of their colleagues.

They are subject to peer review, but haven't been yet.

[Sir Velo]

They are subject to peer review, but haven't been yet.

In that case one would expect the evidence put forward to be compelling, otherwise they and their reputations will be ridiculed.

[gingerjon]

Could we please have some consistency in the numbering of kings and queens? It is not helpful to call our present monarch "Elizabeth 2" and then refer to "James 2".

"James 2" was killed by an exploding cannon at the siege of Roxburgh Castle in 1460, and was buried in Holyrood Abbey. "James 2 and 7"..... I've no idea.

Isn't he referred to as "VII and II" in the Scottish histories, following on from "VI and I"?

[Pabmusic]

Could we please have some consistency in the numbering of kings and queens? It is not helpful to call our present monarch "Elizabeth 2" and then refer to "James 2".

"James 2" was killed by an exploding cannon at the siege of Roxburgh Castle in 1460, and was buried in Holyrood Abbey. "James 2 and 7"..... I've no idea.

Elizabeth is called Elizabeth II because of the system Churchill introduced, namely where English and Scottish numberings are different (i.e.: usually) the higher of the two competing claims is used. The system was not made retrospective, but if it were we would have James VI and James VII.

[teamsaint]

In that case one would expect the evidence put forward to be compelling, otherwise they and their reputations will be ridiculed.

With evidence like this , I dare say there is likely to be a case to be argued either way.There is surely a case for healthy scepticism here.By the time rigorous peer review is completed , it might well be the case that the money(wherever it comes from) is safely banked.
The fact that there is peer review, clearly doesn't always stop dubious research appearing. Not saying this is dubious, just saying that it is a long from convincing me.

[Historian]

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.

We know where Henry I was buried; under the North Transept of Reading Abbey. However, his tomb was destroyed at the Reformation. I seem to remember reading that James II (of England)'s bowels might have been preserved although the rest of his remains disappeared during the French Revolution.

[Nick Armstrong]

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.

I have to say that having seen part of the C4 programme about it, I'm inclined to be rather more sceptical... A number of the individuals involved, especially a blond lady who emotes the whole time, seem to have too much invested in the whole thing, and to be a bit too smily to be entirely trustworthy. The thing also seems to be very orchestrated... 90 minute TV programme ready for broadcast the say of the announcement. There's some heavy PR involved.

The main archaeologist from the University - another Richard - is the encouraging factor: he too seems sceptical, and not a man to be hoodwinked. And yet he presented the finding at the press conference.

Nothing wrong with scepticism.

[Sir Velo]

When R3 is finally relaid to rest.

I know Breakfast and Essential Classics are weak stuff but surely things haven't got this bad?

[amateur51]

Nothing wrong with scepticism.

A sceptic is merely one who tells the truth in an unpalatable form

[Nick Armstrong]

whenever R3 is reinterred

I also thought you were make a point about Radio 3 as I read back through the thread last night...

[Mr Pee]

I have to say that having seen part of the C4 programme about it, I'm inclined to be rather more sceptical... A number of the individuals involved, especially a blond lady who emotes the whole time, seem to have too much invested in the whole thing, and to be a bit too smily to be entirely trustworthy. The thing also seems to be very orchestrated... 90 minute TV programme ready for broadcast the say of the announcement. There's some heavy PR involved.

The main archaeologist from the University - another Richard - is the encouraging factor: he too seems sceptical, and not a man to be hoodwinked. And yet he presented the finding at the press conference.

Nothing wrong with scepticism.

Well, the "blonde lady" is Phillipa Langley, the member of the Richard III society who inititiated the entire project; you can hardly blame her for becoming emotional as the scale of her discovery became clear. "Too smily to be trustworthy"- I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. She also gave a speech at the press conference and it is quite clear that this project means a huge amount to her. I think therefore a little emotion and a few smiles are forgiveable!

And CH4 have been following the project from the beginning, haven't they? There has been a fair wait for the DNA samples to be matched, and the announcement of the results was always going to be ASAP after that, so there was plenty of time to edit the programme and prepare it for transmission. On a find of this magnitude, there is nothing wrong with a bit of heavy PR- you can hardly blame the University and indeed the City of Leicester if they want to make the most out of this.

I agree there is nothing wrong with scepticism; however there is a fine line between scepticism and a wilful disregard of the facts, which I think teamsaint is guilty of because this is not "his" kind of history.

[teamsaint]

A sceptic is merely one who tells the truth in an unpalatable form

Interesting, Ams. As in "Euro sceptic"?
sorry, OT.

[teamsaint]

Mr Pee, please illustrate where I have shown a wilful disregard for "the facts."