Top
Book

History of the Book

We were made aware of the dig in Leicester when it was still in the planning stage. We were commissioned to produce a promotional video of the original tomb design before there was even a skeleton. On the basis of the still images and video, thousands of people donated money towards the tomb. At that time, we spoke with some of the architects of the project and knew what plans they had made to preserve the dignity of any remains that were discovered in Leicester - chiefly that one polaroid would be taken and only shared with academics who had sufficient reason to look. All this, like so much, went out of the window when the tourist bus drove into Leicester.

We were never part of the Looking for Richard team and while for some years we fought their corner, loyalty did not bind them to us any more than it did to Richard III. But the truth matters more. Not just the truth about Richard III, but religious truth, which alone gives us a window through which to see and understand all of history.

This blog is an archive of posts from 2013, as details of the dig in Leicester emerged.

The identification of the remains in Leicester as Richard III left many questions unanswered. The essays and articles on this page ask questions about the evidence and the conclusions. Please note that the burden of proof lies with those who assert that the skeleton is Richard III beyond reasonable doubt. To refute this claim it is only necessary to show that there is reasonable doubt. 

Entries in George Neville (1)

Saturday
Feb092013

Is there really something fishy about Richard III?

DateFebruary 9, 2013

Updated on February 14, 2013 by Registered CommenterAbigail J. Fox

Updated on February 25, 2013 by Registered CommenterAbigail J. Fox

Updated on February 27, 2013 by Registered CommenterAbigail J. Fox

Updated on March 12, 2013 by Registered CommenterAbigail 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 ...

AuthorAbigail J. Fox Comment9 Comments
tagged , , , , , , , , , in ,