Richard III - body found???

[MattBackHome]

Only NSC could turn this into a Plantagenet/Tudor Binfest

What was he thinking, pushing two princes up front with no defensive Lord to hold the fort ?

Love this.

 

[Lawson]

You're doing exactly what the Richard III Society are doing - using pre-conceived notions to prove or disprove a theory.

Your evidence to show that the scientists at University of Leicester is flimsy, bordering on non-existent.

While it's always wise to have an open mind on this sort of thing, I don't think you're displaying any such thing; only using a polar counter-argument to make a case on the back of your own prejudice. In short, you're dismissing the evidence because (a) it doesn't tally with what you believe and (b) it uses a branch science which, by your own admission, you don't understand.

no im perfectly open to the prospect of it being him and i hope it is because it will open a new discourse within the current historiography, however i am skeptical until i am able to read the evidence in a paper or book, and other historians are able to scrutinise their arguments. The main thing i am critical of is their lack of historical practice regarding this situation, they clearly stated yesterday that they were going to re-read the sources to attempt to match the descriptions give in the sources to the skeleton. You do not attempt to make the evidence fit the preconceived conclusion, you make your conclusion based on the evidence. Of course i didn't expect them to adhere strictly to historic practice as they were entering the realm of public history with their tv programme and press conference, and that realm has its own issues. Its just important to be skeptical until the evidence is plainly layed out and historians outside of the research can clearly analyse their findings, before it was announced yesterday everyone was 99.9% certain it was going to be the skeleton and alot of that is media pressure. The disappointment and effect on reputation if they suggested that this was not the skeleton they had looked for and already declared this could be Richard III's body. Whilst i have an open mind, for the sake of good historic practice i am skeptical until i see the irrefutable evidence that will lead me to the same conclusion they took and that is the right of any historian or ordinary person for that matter. What i do know about the DNA is that because of interbreeding and migration the bloodline has been inevitably blurred as to make it inconclusive, and that is a prominent criticism. It is always important to play devil's advocate otherwise we might accept anything someone with 'dr' before their name tells us.

 

[The Large One]

no im perfectly open to the prospect of it being him and i hope it is because it will open a new discourse within the current historiography, however i am skeptical until i am able to read the evidence in a paper or book, and other historians are able to scrutinise their arguments. The main thing i am critical of is their lack of historical practice regarding this situation, they clearly stated yesterday that they were going to re-read the sources to attempt to match the descriptions give in the sources to the skeleton. You do not attempt to make the evidence fit the preconceived conclusion, you make your conclusion based on the evidence. Of course i didn't expect them to adhere strictly to historic practice as they were entering the realm of public history with their tv programme and press conference, and that realm has its own issues. Its just important to be skeptical until the evidence is plainly layed out and historians outside of the research can clearly analyse their findings, before it was announced yesterday everyone was 99.9% certain it was going to be the skeleton and alot of that is media pressure. The disappointment and effect on reputation if they suggested that this was not the skeleton they had looked for and already declared this could be Richard III's body. Whilst i have an open mind, for the sake of good historic practice i am skeptical until i see the irrefutable evidence that will lead me to the same conclusion they took and that is the right of any historian or ordinary person for that matter. What i do know about the DNA is that because of interbreeding and migration the bloodline has been inevitably blurred as to make it inconclusive, and that is a prominent criticism. It is always important to play devil's advocate otherwise we might accept anything someone with 'dr' before their name tells us.

I've no idea what you're on about with DNA. Various documented records indicate who is whom. Michael Ibsen, these documents state, is a direct descendent of Richard's sister. There is a DNA match. Where does inter-breeding come into this? The DNA isn't conclusive on its own to match Richard with Michael, as those bones could be anyone from that family line, but is a part of the jigsaw which builds a picture.

The historians' evidence is arguably going to be the flimsiest, as the contemporary accounts are at best contradictory, or in some cases, have been re-written.

It's your prejudice which is dictating that this is media-driven. They could easily have come out and said 'we can't be sure that these are Richard III's bones', but you've decided to dismiss that notion, believing that there is pressure.

By all means examine the evidence, but you're assuming that it hasn't been. What irrefutable evidence would you like to see? They're not offering 'irrefutable' evidence, they're offering 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Oh, and put a paragraph break in now and then.

 

[Return of the Rev]

I've no idea what you're on about with DNA. Various documented records indicate who is whom. Michael Ibsen, these documents state, is a direct descendent of Richard's sister. There is a DNA match. Where does inter-breeding come into this? The DNA isn't conclusive on its own to match Richard with Michael, as those bones could be anyone from that family line, but is a part of the jigsaw which builds a picture.

The historians' evidence is arguably going to be the flimsiest, as the contemporary accounts are at best contradictory, or in some cases, have been re-written.

It's your prejudice which is dictating that this is media-driven. They could easily have come out and said 'we can't be sure that these are Richard III's bones', but you've decided to dismiss that notion, believing that there is pressure.

By all means examine the evidence, but you're assuming that it hasn't been. What irrefutable evidence would you like to see? They're not offering 'irrefutable' evidence, they're offering 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Oh, and put a paragraph break in now and then.

WELL SAID

 

[Lawson]

I've no idea what you're on about with DNA. Various documented records indicate who is whom. Michael Ibsen, these documents state, is a direct descendent of Richard's sister. There is a DNA match. Where does inter-breeding come into this? The DNA isn't conclusive on its own to match Richard with Michael, as those bones could be anyone from that family line, but is a part of the jigsaw which builds a picture.

The historians' evidence is arguably going to be the flimsiest, as the contemporary accounts are at best contradictory, or in some cases, have been re-written.

It's your prejudice which is dictating that this is media-driven. They could easily have come out and said 'we can't be sure that these are Richard III's bones', but you've decided to dismiss that notion, believing that there is pressure.

By all means examine the evidence, but you're assuming that it hasn't been. What irrefutable evidence would you like to see? They're not offering 'irrefutable' evidence, they're offering 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Oh, and put a paragraph break in now and then.

You are probably right i am being quite cynical before i have seen the results and methodology written up. Though the DNA usage has already been scrutinized by some historians.

Yes the accounts are potentially compromised by their context; having been written in Tudor England and in the case of Polydore Virgil, being written with patronage from Henry VII. However they utilized select accounts to support their skeleton whilst neglecting others without giving justification other than to say this account matches the skeleton the others don't.

Historians can frequently get caught up with a media frenzy, and this will be the most prominent discovery of their careers that will enable them to get higher funding and high rated research. But at the same time i suppose the fallout from this if they were found to breach historical practices could be worse, however it seemed premature to announce this could be the skeleton amongst the media before the research was conducted. Medievalists are a passionate and often bitter bunch, as demonstrated by the Richard III society and they have a tendency to make arguments or criticise others work without considerable evidence.

What i mean by irrefutable evidence is substantial evidence to make me reach the same conclusion that this is probably his skeleton. I want to read their methodology, choices for favouring one type of evidence over another etc. They appear to have been quite thorough and broad in their scope that should make the argument more compelling.

Apologies for the paragraphing, grammar and the like, it is my weak point.

 

[Doc Lynam]

A horse, a horse my Kingdom for a horse.

Facial reconstruction from skull.

 

[Leighgull]

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

Although if it weren't for her attachment to Richard he would still be under a car park in Leicester.

Emotional cripple she may be but, like it or not, she was right.

 

[glasfryn]

Although if it weren't for her attachment to Richard he would still be under a car park in Leicester.

Emotional cripple she may be but, like it or not, she was right.

this
a life times work and ambition and seeing him laid out like that I think I might have cried as well
it was the bloke that got up my nose

 

[Tricky Dicky]

this
a life times work and ambition and seeing him laid out like that I think I might have cried as well
it was the bloke that got up my nose

3 years - she may have done well to get it that far, but she was still incredibly annoying.

 

[Return of the Rev]

this
a life times work and ambition and seeing him laid out like that I think I might have cried as well
it was the bloke that got up my nose

SHE WAS A NUTTER END OF

 

[kevo]

this
a life times work and ambition and seeing him laid out like that I think I might have cried as well
it was the bloke that got up my nose

They were both really annoying and irritating!

Do you not think it a little bit weird to get emotionally attached to someone who lived over 500 years ago...?! The Ricardians assessment of him as a 'good king' (whatever that is) is just as judgmental as those who brand him a tyrant. He had to be ruthless and almost certainly had the children in the tower killed to claim the throne. History (and Shakespeare) may have done him a bit of a disservice but their view of him comes across as very naive.

 

[Giraffe]

They were both really annoying and irritating!

Do you not think it a little bit weird to get emotionally attached to someone who lived over 500 years ago...?! The Ricardians assessment of him as a 'good king' (whatever that is) is just as judgmental as those who brand him a tyrant. He had to be ruthless and almost certainly had the children in the tower killed to claim the throne. History (and Shakespeare) may have done him a bit of a disservice but their view of him comes across as very naive.

She might argue it's a bit weird to get emotionally attached to eleven men running round a bit of grass kicking a ball. Each to their own I say.

 

[kevo]

She might argue it's a bit weird to get emotionally attached to eleven men running round a bit of grass kicking a ball. Each to their own I say.

Haha, true!

 

[Tricky Dicky]

You are probably right i am being quite cynical before i have seen the results and methodology written up. Though the DNA usage has already been scrutinized by some historians.

Yes the accounts are potentially compromised by their context; having been written in Tudor England and in the case of Polydore Virgil, being written with patronage from Henry VII. However they utilized select accounts to support their skeleton whilst neglecting others without giving justification other than to say this account matches the skeleton the others don't.

Historians can frequently get caught up with a media frenzy, and this will be the most prominent discovery of their careers that will enable them to get higher funding and high rated research. But at the same time i suppose the fallout from this if they were found to breach historical practices could be worse, however it seemed premature to announce this could be the skeleton amongst the media before the research was conducted. Medievalists are a passionate and often bitter bunch, as demonstrated by the Richard III society and they have a tendency to make arguments or criticise others work without considerable evidence.

What i mean by irrefutable evidence is substantial evidence to make me reach the same conclusion that this is probably his skeleton. I want to read their methodology, choices for favouring one type of evidence over another etc. They appear to have been quite thorough and broad in their scope that should make the argument more compelling.

Apologies for the paragraphing, grammar and the like, it is my weak point.

I was worried about them fitting the findings to match the facts. An alarm bell rang whilst watching it when they said "clearly, his face is intact because they wanted to prove it was him", and I could just as easily imagined them saying, if his face was damaged "clearly they wanted to oblitate his features to mark him as vanquished", some of them were reading into it exactly what they wanted to see. All in all, I felt it was probably him though

 

[Winker]

They were both really annoying and irritating!

Do you not think it a little bit weird to get emotionally attached to someone who lived over 500 years ago...?! The Ricardians assessment of him as a 'good king' (whatever that is) is just as judgmental as those who brand him a tyrant. He had to be ruthless and almost certainly had the children in the tower killed to claim the throne. History (and Shakespeare) may have done him a bit of a disservice but their view of him comes across as very naive.

I take it you're not religious then!!

What I thought was freaky was that the bones were found in the first trench on the first day, on Time Team they are lucky to find a 'bit of pot' after the first two.
I suppose it helped though that someone had written a large 'R' on the car park to show where he was

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I take it you're not religious then!!

What I thought was freaky was that the bones were found in the first trench on the first day, on Time Team they are lucky to find a 'bit of pot' after the first two.
I suppose it helped though that someone had written a large 'R' on the car park to show where he was

They would have known basically where the grave was from maps and documents detailing the area where they buried persons of high stature near the Friary. They found the footprint remains of the Friary last year.

 

[withdeanwombat]

What I thought was freaky was that the bones were found in the first trench on the first day, on Time Team they are lucky to find a 'bit of pot' after the first two.

On day three they smoke it,then they'll believe any damned thing.

 

[highway61]

personally i reckon it was the monarchs disability parking sticker that gave the game away

 

[Phat Baz 68]

Well turns out it is him folks fascinating documentary last night on ITV .
That lady had a real passion for him to and wanted him treated with respect, my cappeth is doft
to you Ma'Lady x

 

[HovaGirl]

oh dear i said Sheffield... i meant Leicester!
The age and DNA match fit however i do not know enough about archeology to know the true significance or possible lack of decisive significance, its just the 16th generation of daughter seems a bit loose due to cross breeding and it will be interesting to see what results the male line will show.

As far as I understand it, MtDNA does not change from woman to woman, just as yDNA does not change from man to man. So any female descendant of RIII's sister will have exactly the same MtDNA. A woman can pass this on to her son, but he cannot pass it on to his son. Hence the DNA match from the son of a woman directly descended from RIII's sister in the female only line.