Richard the Third

[Pabmusic]

Unless I am much mistaken, nobody on this thread has used the term forensic evidence to indicate evidence obtained from forensic science.

Congratulations on your etymological awareness.

Not sure what your point is, Jean. How would use of the term 'forensic' have improved any point made? All forensic evidence is evidence, and that's the term we've been using. Much of the evidence is not 'forensic' in the narrow sense you use, but could probably be included in the wider sense of 'pertaining to law courts'.

[MrGongGong]

watched some of this
and thought it was a good story
it's TV
TV does narrative
academics don't always do narrative

but

they sometimes write poetry that

doesn't seem to be poetry at all



maybe the University could use the profits to start a music department ?

[jean]

Not sure what your point is, Jean.

My point is that all evidence suitable for being presented in a court of law is by definition forensic, not just the scientific stuff.

(I'm congratulating people on not using that much-misused term, not regretting that they didn't.)

[Pabmusic]

My point is that all evidence suitable for being presented in a court of law is by definition forensic, not just the scientific stuff.

Yes, I agree absolutely. This could all have been referred to as forensic evidence throughout.

[Pabmusic]

...(I'm congratulating people on not using that much-misused term, not regretting that they didn't.)

Now, where is that 'doh!' emoticon?

[Anna]

There is an article in The Guardian about the form of DNA they were testing, mitochondria, which is not the same as the main DNA. I will not attempt to elaborate, being no scientist!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/04/richard-iii-skeleton-bone-dna?intcmp=239

However, given what the article says about the DNA probably not being conclusive, I still believe that given the location, the wounds and the curvature of the spine that this is certainly Richard III. Also, it appears the skeleton has a very slight, effeminate, frame which also fits into historical descriptions of him. I would agree, as mentioned upthread, that he should be buried according to Roman Catholic rites (I think this has been done being when other pre-reformation skeletons have been disinterred and reburied on consecrated ground?) I have not as yet seen the C4 programme.

[teamsaint]

And as for asking whether we are going to learn anything from the discovery, I find that an astonishing remark from somebody with a degree in History. In these early days we've already learnt plenty- the manner of the King's death, the truth about his physical deformity- even his diet has been determined. Perhaps we should just have left TutanKhamun in his tomb as well, and not bothered with the Roman Palace at Fishbourne, just down the road from here. After all, they are just tourist attractions these days. [/QUOTE]

None of that really amounts to any real development of the history though, does it?
History surely is about studying why and how things happened. I can't really see what this adds, other than some interesting detail, to the understanding of the history.

[BBMmk2]

Would I dont think that such people as those academics would risk their reputation, to announce otherwise?

[teamsaint]

Surely academics publish controversial papers all the time?
Clearly they feel they have an arguable case. Doesn't mean they convince everybody.

[Anna]

None of that really amounts to any real development of the history though, does it? History surely is about studying why and how things happened. I can't really see what this adds, other than some interesting detail, to the understanding of the history.

No, it'll put straight some dreadful Tudor propaganda as to his appearance and proof of a lack of a withered arm and being a hunchback (merely a curvature of the spine), it will confirm the wounds he died from, etc. It cannot shed light on whether he did, or did not, murder the Princes in the Tower. It will probably have to alter the RSC's portrayal of him? Still very interesting though isn't it?

[BBMmk2]

No, it'll put straight some dreadful Tudor propaganda as to his appearance and proof of a lack of a withered arm and being a hunchback (merely a curvature of the spine), it will confirm the wounds he died from, etc. It cannot shed light on whether he did, or did not, murder the Princes in the Tower. It will probably have to alter the RSC's portrayal of him? Still very interesting though isn't it?

Indeed, anna. Perhaps the most interesting news of the decade? The painstaking research, that these academics took, iw quite breathtaking!

[teamsaint]

No, it'll put straight some dreadful Tudor propaganda as to his appearance and proof of a lack of a withered arm and being a hunchback (merely a curvature of the spine), it will confirm the wounds he died from, etc. It cannot shed light on whether he did, or did not, murder the Princes in the Tower. It will probably have to alter the RSC's portrayal of him? Still very interesting though isn't it?

Well, if it turns out to be very likely that it was him, then some things will have to change.
Honestly,I can't say it really interests me, but I don't want to be a party pooper, so I shall (try to) bow out of this thread as gracefully as I can, taking my scepticism with me .

[Anna]

Well, if it turns out to be very likely that it was him, then some things will have to change.
Honestly,I can't say it really interests me, but I don't want to be a party pooper, so I shall (try to) bow out of this thread as gracefully as I can, taking my scepticism with me .

Well, my take on it is: If it is King Richard III then he deserves a better resting place than being bunged back in the carpark to be probably dug up again in the future when an out of town supermarket is built there! Now, as to whether he was the Arch-Villain, we shall never know and, to be honest, I don't really care. As you said previously, the digging up of peasants in the 15th century and finding causes of disease or malnutrition or abuse is far more interesting to me.
Edit: And that is my last word on the subject!

[teamsaint]

Well, my take on it is: If it is King Richard III then he deserves a better resting place than being bunged back in the carpark to be probably dug up again in the future when an out of town supermarket is built there! Now, as to whether he was the Arch-Villain, we shall never know and, to be honest, I don't really care. As you said previously, the digging up of peasants in the 15th century and finding causes of disease or malnutrition is far more interesting to me.

whoever it is deserves a better resting place, so I agree. I hope he stays in Leicester, FWIW.
My absence was brief

[Mandryka]

No, it'll put straight some dreadful Tudor propaganda as to his appearance and proof of a lack of a withered arm and being a hunchback (merely a curvature of the spine), it will confirm the wounds he died from, etc. It cannot shed light on whether he did, or did not, murder the Princes in the Tower. It will probably have to alter the RSC's portrayal of him? Still very interesting though isn't it?

It won't make any difference (and SHOULD NOT make any difference) to productions of Shakespeare's play, where Rlll is portrayed as a sexy, charismatic villain and many references are made to his deformity ('bunch-backed toad, bottled-spider', etc.) In fact, WS even appears to suggest that Richard's deformity is his motivation for becoming a high-achiever, though he also demonstrates that he's adept at pulling the crumpet when the situation demands (cf: scene with Lady Anne).