A Tomb for King Richard III

An archaeological dig is now underway to determine whether the mortal remains of King Richard III are under a car park in Leicester.

Over a year ago, Lost in Castles were invited to make the preliminary computer impressions for a potential tomb to re-bury the remains of King Richard, should they be discovered. The design has undergone several changes and is now being finalised.

BBC coverage is inevitably pro-Tudor: BBC and Richard III

The Search for the Remains of King Richard III

News is coming in from the dig in Leicester ...

From the BBC

From the Daily Mail

This has been a long-term project for Dave, Wendy and Philippa. The team on the ground sound to be doing a fantastic job.

More information to follow after the Press Conference today.

The Latest News from the Dig in Leicester

On Friday 31st August 2012 the University of Leicester applied to the Ministry of Justice under the 1857 Burials Act for permission to commence the exhumation of human remains found at the Grey Friars site in Leicester. Exhumation commenced on Tuesday 4th September 2012 and has continued to this morning. The work was conducted by Dr Turi King from the University’s department of Genetics and Dr Jo Appleby & Mathew Morris of our School of Archaeology & Ancient History. We have exhumed one fully articulated skeleton and one set of disarticulated human remains. The disarticulated set of human remains was found in what is believed to be the Presbytery of the lost Church of the Grey Friars. These remains are female, and thus certainly not Richard III.

Click to read more ...

University of Leicester

Video courtesy of the University of Leicester

If this is Richard ... why is there an arrow in his back?

According to the initial report from the archaeologists excavating Greyfriars Church in Leicester, the skeleton that they suspect is that of King Richard III has: "A barbed metal arrowhead {was} found between vertebrae of the skeleton’s upper back." Full report It seems quite unlikely that the arrow entered the body after death. We know that Tudor paid scant regard to the rights due to a dead King. But if the body had been used for target practice after death, there should be more evidence in the form of nicks to ribs and other bones and possibly more arrowheads at the site where the skeleton was found. According to Charles H. Ashdown, Medieval archers had 2 types of arrow in their bag. "The flight-arrow was lightly feathered, had a short head (or pile), was a yard in length and with proper elevation could kill at 240 yards or more." (Armour and Weapons in the Middle Ages, page 156f) This type of arrowhead was termed a "bodkin", was square or triangular in cross-section and proved very effective in piercing plate armour. This would be the arrow of choice in the opening rounds of a battle, as at Towton. The other kind of weapon was called a SHEAF-ARROW which "had heavier piles, required but slight elevation, was often shot at point blank range and was essentially for close fighting." (opsit, page 157) The heavier arrowhead was frequently barbed. This made it more damaging to withdraw from a wound. It was also flat and roughly triangular in shape, designed to slice through flesh and blood vessels, causing major internal bleeding. As such, the barbed arrowhead was, and still is, popular among hunters of game (see page 176 - 181 of Longbow by Robert Hardy).

Click to read more ...

Parliamentary Debate on the (possible) Remains of King Richard III

Transcript of the answers given in the House of Commons on October 25th 2012

John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the potential Church sites available for the reburying of King Richard III. [124677]

Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab): What discussions the Church Commissioners have had on laying to rest the remains of King Richard III at Leicester Cathedral. [124683]

Sir Tony Baldry: The remains that are thought to be those of Richard III are at present with Leicester city council’s museums department and the university of Leicester’s archaeological department, which are carrying out tests to see whether it can be demonstrated that the remains are indeed those of Richard III. Once those tests are concluded, the nature, place and marking of any reinterment will need seriously to be considered.

John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman let it be known to the warring factions of York and Leicester and to the Church Commissioners of the Church of England that the great priory of Worksop, which is halfway between the two cities at the end of the road through the forest, and which is at the centre of the kingdom of Richard III, can provide the most appropriate final resting place for the king?

Sir Tony Baldry: I can see that there will be quite a lot of competition. If there is conclusive evidence that these are the remains of Richard III, the tradition would be that they would be reinterred in the nearest Christian church or cathedral, which happens to be Leicester cathedral. In such circumstances, I hope it would be possible to arrange a meeting with the dean of Leicester to see how that could happen.

Jonathan Ashworth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer to my hon. Friend. I am sure that Worksop has many fine qualities, but given that it was the Grey friars who took the body of Richard and buried him at what was then the Greyfriars church—a site just a stone’s throw from Leicester cathedral—and that he has been in Leicester for 500 years, is it not most appropriate that he should be finally laid to rest at Leicester cathedral?

Sir Tony Baldry: I understand that point of view, and once we know the provenance of the remains I shall seek to use my best offices to arrange a meeting with the dean of the cathedral and others to ensure that this can be done in a proper and timely way.

I was concerned about how many other kings might come up, as I never thought my career would involve the question of how we might bury kings. I am glad to say that the Church can account for all of them. I am afraid to say that the head of Charles, king and martyr, is still separated from his body, but they are both at St George’s, Windsor. The only one still missing is Henry I, who seems to have got lost somewhere in Reading after the dissolution of the monasteries. I can account for all the other kings and queens being properly and Christianly buried.

Mr Speaker: That is greatly reassuring both to the House and, I am sure, to the nation.

Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab): I must say to my dear and hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that it is not 500 years but 527 years since Richard was killed. Despite that passage of time, he is still very well regarded in York. [ Laughter . ] We have a museum to Richard III—

Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Is he still on the electoral roll?

Hugh Bayley: Do not tempt me down that path.

—and we respect him enormously. But to argue on the Floor of this place over his mortal remains is more like medieval cathedrals fighting over saints’ relics. I do not think it is appropriate. I have heard what the spokesman for the Church Commissioners says, and they are wise words.

Sir Tony Baldry: That is very wise advice from the hon. Gentleman.

(http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2012-10-25a.1070.0)

(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121025/debtext/121025-0001.htm#12102523000029)

Richard III Dig in Leicester - latest

Photo courtesy of University of LeicesterIt's looking as though results of the DNA testing to determine whether the remains discovered in Leicester are those of Richard III will be released in January 2013.

Source: BBC News

Source: University of Leicester

It also appears to be a very likely that should they be proved to be the remains of Richard III, a reburial will take place in Leicester Cathedral as the church nearest to his previous burial ground, disappointing those who had worked so hard on a petition to have the reburial in York.

Source: BBC News

February Press Conference about Richard III Dig in Leicester

The latest official news about the dig in Leicester ...

The Search for King Richard III: Announcement of media conference

Issued by University of Leicester Press Office on 9 January 2012

The University of Leicester has today announced that it plans to reveal the results of a series of scientific investigations into human remains – which are suspected of being that of King Richard III - in the first week of February.

The University of Leicester is leading the search for King Richard III, in association with Leicester City Council and the Richard III Society.  At a press conference in September, the University announced that it had found human remains with evidence of what was believed to be scoliosis and battle trauma. The University said that these remains would need to be subject to rigorous scientific analysis in order to confirm their identity.

You can access the September Press Conference and other media materials here:

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii

Since that discovery, University experts have subjected the remains to a series of tests to determine the identity. You can read an overview of the  scientific tests here:

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii/features/step-by-step-the-science-of-the-search-for-richard-iii

The University is expecting results of the series of tests in the next few weeks during which period the results will be analysed. The University aims to announce the conclusions of its investigations at a press conference provisionally scheduled for the first week of February.

Details of the date/time/venue for the conference and other logistical arrangements will be announced in due course.

Source:

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii/press-updates/the-search-for-king-richard-iii-announcement-of-date-for-media-conference

Objectivity: Fact or Fiction?

More4 has just broadcast their programme "Richard III: Fact or Fiction?"

As usual this presented the establishment version of events through the mouth of Tony Robinson, who explicitly stated that Richard murdered his nephews. He said this in the same breath that he admitted that the meagre evidence against the King was only circumstantial.

The programme illustrated that objectivity is a complete myth. The historians Dockray and Pollard - both of whom in close up are far more scary than Richard III - were the spokesmen of the enlightenment, presiding god-like over the "wicked" King. Clearly their view must be right, since gods do not err.

When we produced our DVD on Sandal Castle, several reviewers were shocked by my lack of "objectivity" in uttering a precise and passionate condemnation of Henry Tudor, the upstart Welsh traitor. 

Let us be clear. 

There is no such thing as objectivity. 

All men and women are inextricably biased. 

Our loyalties bind us as surely as they did Richard.

~ John L. Fox

The Life, Love and Loss of King Richard III

The Life, Love and Loss of King Richard III has been specially composed by Abigail J. Fox to mark the occasion of the dig in Leicester. 

This piece is written in honour of the truth about King Richard III. It begins with life at Middleham. It transitions into the love theme of Richard and Anne Neville. After life and love follows loss - both of those he loved and also the loss of his own life on Bosworth field. Lying, facing the sky he hears the song of Middleham on the wind and then begins the life after death.

The Remains of King Richard III in Leicester

Grave site:

• Sloping sides
• Concave Base
• Too short for the individual

Body Condition:

• Feet missing
• Hands and sternum damaged
• Scoliosis (not from birth - due to grave being too small?)
• No withered arm (both used normally)
• Slender build
• Skull damaged in excavation

Preparation:

• No coffin
• No shroud
• No clothing in evidence

Position: 

• Lower limbs fully extended
• Hands crossed right over left at hip (unusual - were hands tied?)

Observations:

• Very slender build
• Late 20s - 30s
• 5 foot 8 inches without curvature of spine

Injuries:

• None overlapped
• 1. Skull: small penetrating wound on top of head - direct blow from weapon rather than arrowhead - not fatal
• 2. Skull: large wound to base of skull at back - slice cut off skull by bladed weapon - could have been fatal
• 3. Skull: bladed weapon - wound 10.5cm - could have caused loss of consciousness and death
• 4, 5 and 6. Skull wounds on outer surface of vault - shallow - blade sword or halberd shaved off small area of bone - not fatal - blood loss
• 7. Skull: small rectangular injury on cheek bone - cause unknown - dagger - pierced cheek, came out on side of face 
• 8. Skull: cut mark on lower jaw - bladed, knife or dagger - not fatal
• Helmet lost by this stage in order to have such injuries. Attacks to face less severe than other battle victims- were they done after death to humiliate?
• 9. Cut mark on rib - blow did not penetrate rib cage. During battle protected by plate armour. Stripped after battle, rib in back exposed.
• 10. Right pelvic injury - blade from weapon, knife or dagger, from behind, upward movement - reconstruction of pelvis indicates thrust into right buttock - protected in battle
• Possible when thrown over a horse, buttock exposed

Unanswered Questions

Updated on February 4, 2013 by Abigail J. Fox

Following the evidence presented in Leicester this morning: 1. Richard III did not have a withered arm and a hunchback. Paintings of him were known to have had been amended to show these and historians have been more than willing to accept both features as true. Now that the withered arm has been showed to be a lie, and the hunchback a false conjecture at best, will the historians responsible be regarded as suspect from now on? 2. What has happened to the arrowhead in the back? This was announced early on in the project, but was not mentioned in the evidence today.

Click to read more ...

What is Idiopathic Structural Scoliosis?

This condition begins in childhood or adolscence (often 10 to 12 years) and tends to increase progressively until skeletal growth is complete. It can lead to severe deformity, especially when the chest (thoracic) region is affected. In adults with longstanding deformity it may be accompanied by pain.

The skeleton (from the photographs) exhibits mainly a thoracic scoliosis with the curve to the right. This would be accompanied by rotation of the vertebrae on a vertical axis, thrusting the ribs backwards on the convex side, increasing the appearance of the deformity.

The cause is unknown.

~ Dr. F. J. Fox

How do we determine identity?

It is an old adage that fossils are dated by the rocks in which they are found and the rocks are dated by the fossils inside them. It is a flaw and difficult to overcome. Our preconceptions colour our conclusions and we are fools to think it is otherwise. The evidence from Leicester today raised one problem in my mind: did preconceived ideas contribute to the conclusions? If DNA is accurate enough to produce a reliable conclusion, then why were other factors so important? Why were the age of the bones, the height of the man and the presence of the curvature necessary to prove the identity of the remains as King Richard III. The answer of course is that the DNA tests are not sufficient.

Click to read more ...

A Shadow of a Doubt

The history of mathematics is riddled with good practitioners, who were convinced that they had proved a theorem, only to find a fatal error buried in their algebra. So, when the University of Leicester announces that the skeleton on display is "beyond reasonable doubt" that of King Richard III, this mathematician reaches for a bottle of caution. Proof is a tricky business. Poor Timothy Evans was hung by the neck for murdering his wife and child, because a jury were convinced of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. What must they have felt, when it transpired that they had executed the wrong man?

Click to read more ...

What now remains?

From the research findings released by the team at the Richard III Project we discovered that there was a strong possibility the body recovered from the Grey Friars Priory was submitted to at least one humiliation injury after death. The injury described is that of having a dagger of some form rammed into his pelvic area with such ferocity as to leave a mark in the bone of the pelvis. We should not really be surprised by this. Only a few years previously we know that Richard's father, the Duke of York, and his elder brother Edmund were both submitted to far worse humilitiation after the Battle of Wakefield in 1460. Their heads were struck from their bodies and carried to the nearby city of York, where they were placed on spikes above Micklegate Bar, the Duke of York's head adorned with a crown of paper or straw in cruel mockery.

Click to read more ...

Making Monsters out of Men

Updated on February 9, 2013 by Abigail J. Fox

This essay is not about Richard III. And yet it is. It is about a man who has suffered similar damage to his legacy, a man whose name - just like that of Richard III - has been attached to an unchallengeable stereotype, and yet a man who would very probably have been a better neighbour and more loyal friend than most. William Cowper was an athletic youth. He excelled in every sport at school. He was bright. He liked girls, at least the few the schoolboy knew. He was inclined to make pranks on them and had sufficient charm to be forgiven. When Cowper was still a young man, he encountered more problems than he could handle. His father died. His best friend drowned. He and his fiancee were separated by her father. On the plus side, Cowper received a job through sinecure, so at least he would be well placed as a new member of the Bar. But Cowper did not like the job he was given. It was too public, too important, too serious. He wanted another man's job. He wished the man would die to create a vacancy. And then the man died!

Click to read more ...

The Judgment of Richard III

We lose sight of our purpose in pursuing the life and character of Richard III, when we make such a fuss about whether his bones have, or have not, been found. The Lord God Almighty knows where the remains of his child are laid and will raise him to glory at the last day.

What matters is the truth. Digging out bones does not tell us whether he was a malicious deceiver, who engineered the death of his brother, Clarence, stabbed Henry VI to death with his own hand, murdered his nephews, stole the crown, poisoned his wife, lusted after his niece and died manfully fighting those, who had betrayed him.

These, and these alone, make the man. And these elements are outside the competence of pseudo-scientific methodology. These matters cannot be decided with mattocks and DNA.

~ John L. Fox

Is there really something fishy about Richard III?

Updated on February 14, 2013 by Abigail J. Fox

Updated on February 25, 2013 by Abigail J. Fox

Updated on February 27, 2013 by Abigail J. Fox

Updated on March 12, 2013 by Abigail J. Fox

In Richard III: The King in the Car Park, aired on Channel 4 last Monday, the radiocarbon dating of the remains discovered in Leicester gave the "wrong" result, for those who wanted them to be the remains of Richard III. One test suggested 1430-1460 and another 1412-1449, both well outside the actual year of the King's death, in 1485. Professor Buckley swiftly changed the result to give the dates 1475-1530, with a 69% confidence. He did so by stating that it was all to do with fish. Radiocarbon dating of marine organisms can be out by up to several hundred years, and this effect can occur to a lesser degree in terrestrial life where sea-food forms part of the diet. The mass spectrometry of the Greyfriars bone samples reveals that the individual in question had a high-protein diet including a significant proportion of seafood. This would seem reasonable for a medieval nobleman, and certainly for a member of the royal family. http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/carbondating.html Now the radiocarbon dating is not the only test of the remains. But, as the University of Leicester site states: What it does is remove one possibility which could have proved that these are not Richard’s remains. http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/carbondating.html This begs certain questions.

Click to read more ...

Was History Horrible?

At one point in Richard III: The King in the Car Park, the presenter, Philippa Langley and two Leicester Scientists stand around the remains discussing wounds. And the conversation eventually settles upon one word: brutal. It is passed around as not only a comment on the way the body was treated (before and after death) but as an indictment upon the time. It is a judgment that fits in well with the general tone of history today and is popularised by the children's series Horrible Histories, which is nothing but playground whispers ... Did you know what they ate? Can you imagine? Do you know what they believed? What morons! Did you hear what they did to one another? So inhuman!

Click to read more ...