Richard the Third

[Ferretfancy]

Yes, I believe that's right.

I don't think it's true of this case, but many early battle burial sites have skeletons that are missing feet and lower legs. It was often the best target in the days of a shield-wall, or well armoured foot soldiers. One swipe with an axe or two-handed sword...

We can easily forget how savage mediaeval battles were. More than twenty thousand died at the battle of Towton, and the fields are still yielding remnants there.
It must have been an exhausting business wielding such heavy weapons, and it's interesting that in proportion nobles were more vulnerable than foot soldiers, as their heavy army weighed them down if they fell from their horses.
Orson Welles conveyed this rather well in his film Chimes at Midnight, where the soldiers up to their knees in mud, struggle to lift their swords.

[vinteuil]

Richard should have a Catholic burial...

Surely Hooker was not the only theologian who argued that the Church of England was in continuity with the pre-Reformation "Catholic" church ( and that presumably it was the later papists who were aberrant... ) - therefore Richard III was an Anglican avant la lettre and sans le sçavoir ... clearly a Church of England funeral and re-burial wd be appropriate...

[jean]

Yes, but they're just wrong, aren't they?

I was just going to mention these people, because there's a letter from one of them or something similar in today's Guardian.

(Where's scotty when you need him?)

[Nick Armstrong]

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.

I have now watched the whole programme, and continued to find the manner of Ms Langley and the 'comedian actor' Simon Farnaby who presented the programme offputting and ultimately irritating. I could understand her being emotional of course - but it was too much, too odd. His contributions I found just crass and entirely jarring. I felt more inclined to discount than accept his opinions on anything.

The reviewer in the Telegraph put his finger on exactly what I mean:

Foremost among the intrepid archaeologists was Philippa Langley, an avowed “Ricardian” whom by the level of emotion she had invested in every twist and turn, you could have mistaken for the dead king’s widow.

Proof of Richard’s curved spine had her fleeing the lab room in tears, to the evident bewilderment of the forensic consultant. Once she’d wiped away the tears, she confided that “I don’t see bones… I see a living breathing human being.”

...

In her defence, no less out of his depth was the programme’s unkempt presenter Simon Farnaby, a self-styled “comedian actor”... His most meaningful contributions seemed to be the odd admittedly decent one-liner – after assessing the various tell-tale wounds pockmarking Richard’s skeleton, which had originally been buried in a friary chapel, he pondered: “If that isn’t Richard III, that is one unlucky monk.”



PS: I was interested to read this later in the present thread:

Philippa Langley would appear to have had a sudden revelation in the car park that he was burried under the spot marked with an R - in reality she is "currently writing a film script about the real Richard III"

[Pabmusic]

I have now watched the whole programme, and continued to find the manner of Ms Langley and the 'comedian actor' Simon Farnaby who presented the programme offputting and ultimately irritating. I could understand her being emotional of course - but it was too much, too odd. His contributions I found just crass and entirely jarring. I felt more inclined to discount than accept his opinions on anything. ...

Quite agree. I watched the documentary two or three days ago and was rather put off by Philippa Langley, who seemed to be a person ill-prepared and led by her emotions (or else someone playing to the gallery).

As for the presenter, I tend to ignore them anyway because they are generally not experts, are often unkempt, and speak sloppily (heavy accent preferred). Their job is often little more than to help the audience 'emote'. It's a cliché of course, but programme-makers can't resist it. I blame Nigel Kennedy.

Fortunately, there was something else to concentrate on - the work of the people who understood what they were talking about. The pathologist wore a lab coat - his choice or the producer's? - because we have to 'know' he's a scientist, and the historian was a gift to any producer, of course, but they were a reasonably 'normal' bunch. And what they said was interesting.

[BBMmk2]

Although I actuially enjoyed watching the programme itself, it was a pity that Phillipa Langley was rather melodramtic(but I can also see her point as to why she was like this), and it was a pity that they had that unlempt man as a prenter.This whol;e prpogramme could have been much better. A wasted oppurtunity, I think, in retrospect?

[MrGongGong]

it was a pity that they had that unlempt man as a prenter.

you been channeling Sid ?

I blame Nigel Kennedy.

Why single him out ?

I blame Brian Sewell

(and the clowns in Brussels of course)

[jean]

they...speak sloppily (heavy accent preferred)...

(Speaking with an accent, even a 'heavy' accent, is not the same thing as speaking sloppily.)

[Pabmusic]

(Speaking with an accent, even a 'heavy' accent, is not the same thing as speaking sloppily.)

No it isn't. That's why I didn't say so.

[JimD]

Although I actuially enjoyed watching the programme itself, it was a pity that Phillipa Langley was rather melodramtic(but I can also see her point as to why she was like this), and it was a pity that they had that unlempt man as a prenter.This whol;e prpogramme could have been much better. A wasted oppurtunity, I think, in retrospect?

I have some sympathy with this point of view, but it needs to be remembered, and others have observed, that it was the enthusiasts, in something resembling the old sense of that word, that largely motivated and funded(?) the whole thing. It is therefore legitimate (perhaps even desirable) that their perspective should be represented. Ditto the tension between enthusiasts and professionals, which was mainly allowed to show through rather than being explicitly commented on. The choice of presenter was a bit of a mystery, though an authoritative or even 'serious' presenter would probably have made the neutrality I have just alluded to difficult to maintain. Anyway I too enjoyed the programme, despite the various irritations.

[Mr Pee]

I have some sympathy with this point of view, but it needs to be remembered, and others have observed, that it was the enthusiasts, in something resembling the old sense of that word, that largely motivated and funded(?) the whole thing. It is therefore legitimate (perhaps even desirable) that their perspective should be represented. Ditto the tension between enthusiasts and professionals, which was mainly allowed to show through rather than being explicitly commented on. The choice of presenter was a bit of a mystery, though an authoritative or even 'serious' presenter would probably have made the neutrality I have just alluded to difficult to maintain. Anyway I too enjoyed the programme, despite the various irritations.

[MrGongGong]

The choice of presenter was a bit of a mystery,

really ?

Simon Farnaby is well known (amongst younger folk than us ?) from the Horrible Histories series on TV
which probably says something

[Pabmusic]

...Simon Farnaby is well known (amongst younger folk than us ?) from the Horrible Histories series on TV...

Suddenly everything falls into place.

[MrGongGong]

Suddenly everything falls into place.

Now had it been Giles then most folk in here would have known straight away !

[Mr Pee]

Suddenly everything falls into place.

Oh yes, of course it does.

The multiple award-winning Horrible Histories has probably done more to get kids interested in the subject than pretty much anything else in recent years. Heaven forfend that this programme should make an effort to do the same.