Richard III - yes, it's him : Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:32 pm  

Well, it seems they are very confident the skeleton is that of the much-maligned Richard. Doesn't throw any light on the "Princes in the Tower" story either way but does show he had a probable slight curvature of the spine not the crookback of Shakespeare's excellent fiction, so he could have capered nimbly in a ladies chamber after all. The winter of my discontent isn't made glorious summer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/21261553

Well, it seems they are very confident the skeleton is that of the much-maligned Richard. Doesn't throw any light on the "Princes in the Tower" story either way but does show he had a probable slight curvature of the spine not the crookback of Shakespeare's excellent fiction, so he could have capered nimbly in a ladies chamber after all. The winter of my discontent isn't made glorious summer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/21261553

Re: Richard III - yes, it's him : Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:44 pm  

"Probable slight curvature"? Mate, his spine is like a question-mark! Reckon old Shakespeare had it spot on, especially "crookback" and not "hunchback"

Re: Richard III - yes, it's him : Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:47 pm  

I did mishear the sideways curvature as "slight" curvature, apologies for that ... but, nonetheless, they are saying it was a sideways thing (scoliosis rather than the kyphosis that you'd have expected if Richard had been crookbacked or hunchbacked) giving him one shoulder visibly higher than the other, not a crooked back.

So the portrait showing him with a "hump" was not accurate and the stories put around in Tudor times about his appearance were not true either.

What we would need next would be the examination of a) the bones found in the Tower of London and b) the bones in coffins found in Windsor Castle ... to DNA test to see if they are the bones of the Princes (nephews of Richard, i.e. Edward IV's sons) and to see if any cause of death is evident.
Can't see it happening though as it requires the Queen's say-so and, as she is descended from Henry VII (whose army slew Richard), why would she want to?

[Durham Giant]

Re: Richard III - yes, it's him : Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:10 pm  

It is entirely possible that Henry VII killed the princes and then blamed Richard.
thats Lancastrians for you.

Re: Richard III - yes, it's him : Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:11 pm  

honestly, what a total waste of money, time and effort.

[Durham Giant]

Re: Richard III - yes, it's him : Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:17 pm  

Standee wrote:

honestly, what a total waste of money, time and effort.

Is that what your parents said to you after you turned 18

Re: Richard III - yes, it's him : Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:25 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Is that what your parents said to you after you turned 18

No, but thanks for your concern, idiot.

Re: Richard III - yes, it's him : Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:28 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

It is entirely possible that Henry VII killed the princes and then blamed Richard.
thats Lancastrians for you.

Tudors mate, not Lancastrians.
Henry VII's claim to be descended via the Lancastrian line from John O'Gaunt was, erm, putting it kindly, tenuous.

Re: Richard III - yes, it's him : Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:35 pm  

Standee wrote:

honestly, what a total waste of money, time and effort.

Blimey, what have you got against this then?
No profit in it for multinationals or something?

Re: Richard III - yes, it's him : Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:03 pm  

Now we want to know: was Edward IV a legitimate son of Richard Duke of York and so entitled to be Duke of York/King of England?