Richard III - body found???

[Rodney Thomas]

Indeed. Awful TV (tar presenter wasn't too bad but when he mentioned drawing a monobrow on Richard III he lost me). Shame it wasn't on the BBC really, it would have been a lot more interesting.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Interesting programme but curious that no big name presenter or historical experts were fronting it, maybe a deliberate approach to avoid embarrassment in case it all went pear shaped - or reflects doubts by the establishment?

The first hour was all a bit low key and amateurish at times with centre stage given over to leading people from the Richard III Society who clearly had a vested interest in the outcome. I was concerned when the very first excavation conveniently found the skeleton and thought the forensic archaeologist who accidentally sliced open the skull was clumsy and unprofessional. However she redeemed herself by refusing to dignify the placing of the flag over the box of bones.

Having said that I hope the findings are sound and are validated. The DNA match seems to be highly significant. Will be interesting to see if there is now a wider debate by 'experts' following todays formal announcement.

 

[HovaGirl]

The only issue is that in that period genetics have crossed over massively and the research can never prove conclusively that it was him. I am extremely skeptical over this whole investigation because some of the Richard III society were involved who fervently defend Richard against his incest and murder of the princes (although the latter is still unproved). Furthermore Sheffield seem to have clearly been impacted by the media fixation, and it will mean higher grants for their department, higher prestige for the university, and place their research quality high up. My main qualm comes from the fact they provide a collection of evidence that fits. The evidence was selective and highly circumstantial.. and it will be interesting to read their inevitable book on the subject. A key issue i had with their presentation was the way in which they mentioned how the Tudor accounts of Richard III were colourful, or something similar i can't remember their precise words, and that this means the depiction in the sources needs to be reapproached. They stated their intent is to re-read the evidence with the skeleton in mind and reinterpret sources to see if it fits the skeleton now they have it. This is a clear breach of historic practice; you make conclusions based on evidence but here they displayed clear intent to shape the evidence to the skeleton.

Sheffield?

Look at the evidence:
1. The skeleton was buried in a high status area of the Friary, approximately where expected
2. The age of the skeleton tallies with the endo age. (However, I'm wondering about the skewing because of the presumed high-protein diet. Rather a circular argument.)
3. The skeleton had the kind of injures you'd expect of a warrior, but not a Friar, and the face remained untouched, consistent with necessity of public display.
4. The skeleton had curvature of the spine, which won't please the Ricardians, who were hoping disprove the hump and all the other so-called propaganda
5. The skeleton was the right age group, late 20s-early30s. Richard III was 32.
6. For what it's worth, the MtDNA is a match

In what ways do you think the evidence was shaped to fit the theory?

 

[8ace]

Great to see Uncle Peter back on our screens

 

[HovaGirl]

presenter with the big hair is quite amusing but the woman from the Richard 3rd society is so fake it's unbelievable, trying far too hard with her mock emotional attachment. I mean when she had to walk out of the room when she saw the skeleton to compose herself was such a contrived reaction, you could almost sense the experts thinking, "what a stupid cow".

It was a great mistake to focus this programme on this emotional woman. We didn't need her reactions - it detracted from the far more interesting story.

 

[RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased)]

Sheffield?

Look at the evidence:
1. The skeleton was buried in a high status area of the Friary, approximately where expected
2. The age of the skeleton tallies with the endo age. (However, I'm wondering about the skewing because of the presumed high-protein diet. Rather a circular argument.)
3. The skeleton had the kind of injures you'd expect of a warrior, but not a Friar, and the face remained untouched, consistent with necessity of public display.
4. The skeleton had curvature of the spine, which won't please the Ricardians, who were hoping disprove the hump and all the other so-called propaganda
5. The skeleton was the right age group, late 20s-early30s. Richard III was 32.
6. For what it's worth, the MtDNA is a match

In what ways do you think the evidence was shaped to fit the theory?

Hmmm, I like girls and history. is it wrong of me to find your posts sexy

 

[catfish]

Would have been ideal material for a Time Team special. That woman from the Richard III Society annoyed the hell out of me.

 

[HovaGirl]

Hmmm, I like girls and history. is it wrong of me to find your posts sexy

 

[kevo]

Would have been ideal material for a Time Team special. That woman from the Richard III Society annoyed the hell out of me.

Or History Cold Case... which does exactly what they did in this programme - look at what the evidence of the skeleton tells them, and at the end, reconstruct the face (in fact, they used Dundee University to do that part, just as they do in that series).

This was typical TV dumbing down... the presenter was annoying but the woman from the Ricardian Society even worse. As Hovagirl said, to centre the programme around her obsession and her weird emotional attachment was a big mistake.

Hopefully the BBC will make a more professional programme which treats the whole topic a bit more seriously.

 

[AlbionRob]

BBC News - Richard III dig: Facial reconstruction shows how king may have looked

Looking at the facial reconstruction, I think they've discovered Lord Farquaad, but wasn't he swallowed by a dragon?

 

[pastafarian]

I'd assume it would be a catholic burial ceremony given his persuasion.

i doubt he really gives a shit.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I actually think facially in that reconstruction he looks French, which ties in well with his background.

 

[pastafarian]

nevertheless a fascinating bit of TV

 

[pastafarian]

I actually think facially in that reconstruction he looks French, which ties in well with his background.

how very scientific of you

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

i doubt he really gives a shit.

You mean you don't.

It's a valid question given who he was and the fact he's going to have to be interned somewhere relevant to the man and his background.

 

[pastafarian]

You mean you don't.

actually i do

 

[AlbionRob]

You mean you don't.

It's a valid question given who he was and the fact he's going to have to be interned somewhere relevant to the man and his background.

I think they'll bury him in Duloc, a land far far away.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

actually i do

You'd not know it from your contribution to the discussion.

 

[AlbionRob]

You'd not know it from your contribution to the discussion.

I'm sure he'll drink to that...

 

[pastafarian]

You'd not know it from your contribution to the discussion.

you can work all that out from me saying Richard will not be overly fussed where he is re buried and also saying i do care where he is re buried