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 dialogue took place on Facebook in 2013. The author John L Fox does not have an account on there. His views are expressed through his daughter, AF. All other names have been anonymised to initials and where names were used, these have likewise been replaced.

JK:

Is there a contemporary account that Richard III did indeed have scoliosis? We know of accounts of one shoulder higher than the other, but none of that would seem to indicate thoracic scoliosis?

CA:

Interesting to see that in some of the case studies people reporting things like being called "hunchback" at school.

AH:

A diagnosis in contemporary accounts would suggest they had modern medical knowledge, which they did not! It was simple to them- higher shoulder and maybe slightly crouched over with pain = hunchback

AF: 

The contemporary account (and the source cited by Leicester academics on the project) is from John Rous, who is notoriously unreliable. He changed the length of Richard's reign to make him the AntiChrist, his birth-date to make him a Scorpio, and claimed he was two years in the womb and came out with teeth and hair to his shoulders. He seemed pretty specific on these things!

JK:

AH, I agree that there would not be a contemporary account with a diagnosis of scoliois. I did not phrase that as well as I might have. However, one shoulder being higher than another does not necessarily equate with being a "hunchback" nor does it equate with scoliosis. I do not recall any accounts prior to Rous of Richard as Duke or King describing his shoulder uneveness as 'hunchback.

JK:

AF, it is a shame that the University chose to cite Rous as their source. He wrote great fiction and set Shakespeare up for immortality, but he is as fanciful as Geoffry of Monmouth. Didn't Rous also claim that Richard was weak in strength? Odd for a man who was his brothers right hand in battle and by all contemporary accounts a formidable warrior.

AL:

You don't have to be a "hunchback" (Kyphosis to give it it's correct term PLEASE) to have Scoliosis! My daughter's spinal curve was latterly 68% from the vertical before she had spinal rodding surgery and you could not tell just by looking at her dressed. The physical body of Richard found at Greyfrairs proves he had the condition from what I saw in the documentary, the only clue may have been a foreshortened torso, but that would have been it.

MB:

John Rous' Chronicle was very different before the catastrophe at Bosworth. Then he couldn't have been more complimentary about Richard and his wife, Anne Neville. The slanderous comments were written under Henry VII.

JK:

AL, thank you for the reminder of the correct terms for these conditions.

There is no doubt of the GreyFriars skeleton condition, my question to the researchers and investigators is simply where does the physical evidence of the skeleton meet with contemporary accounts of Richards description. They had permission to exhume six gravesites in the hope that one would be Richard III. When they uncovered this one and saw the condition of the spine and skull injuries they seemed to immediately 'assume' the possibility of the identity. Why did they not continue looking for other 'candidates' as well. Surely that was not the only grave in the choir area?

AF:

MB, either way Rous is unreliable. The only other source of evidence regarding the matter is Thomas More. He, of course, was not contemporary with Richard III and not an eye-witness. And if you still believe his account of Richard's shoulders, he has them the wrong way round compared with the skeleton in Leicester - and the opposite way to Rous. The academics at Leicester already believed these two - Rous and More - before they ever found the skeleton, so the identification was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

JK:

I find the use of More and Rous by the University very disappointing. It has long been known that More was writing for the Tudors- he was age 8 at Bosworth. Rous has been shown by his writings to be unscrupulous and untrustworthy. The Grey Friars skeleton has been described as gracile with weak muscle attachements. The University cites Rous's comment -Richard was "weak in strength' as additional evidence of the skeleton identity. How can a man who wielded medieval battle weapons from an early age have "weak bones'.

When they exhumed the mass grave at Towton the combatants had extremely strong bone density. There upper arms were well developed. If Richard III had trained in arms since an early age, would not his bone density been strong as well? http://www.economist.com/node/17722650

HF:

I always wonder about that, JK. If he wasn't, why wasn't he?

JK: 

HF, I am not sure I follow your question?

IB:

AL, how terrible you and your family must feel with media's stupidity........ Dr Jo A started this with her ill thought comment and people (uneducated and unfeeling) ran with it. I agree with JK and AF that Rous is unreliable and unethical. He changed his whole roll to suit the new regime. I mean who can take a guy seriously who makes a pregnancy last for two years! 9 months were more than enough for me! And more makes Ed4 53 when he died and gave R a limp and withered arm to boot. Need we say more?

"More". Stupid iPhone keeps changing stuff on me!

HF:

If he wasn't trained in arms, why wasn't he? We know that he could and did fight so he must have been trained to use them at some point but did he start his training later for some reason? 

IB: 

R started his knightly training when he was 9 at Warwick's household. He left at 12/13 and joined Ed4's household as a page and a trainee. So he was well versed in use of weapons and knightly skills. At Barnet and Tweksbury he turns the tide of the battle. We have no cause to believe he was "weak in strength"! I see him as the little wiry marathon runners who can out distance the hunky sprinters:)

JK:

We know that Richard was sent to the Earl of Warwick household fairly early in his childhoood- age 9 or so? There is no indication that Richard was to be given to the Church (as some youngest sons were) especially in the aftermath of Wakefield and Towton. It was customary for boys of noble birth to begin arms training early on. He was quite accomplished by age 17- so much so that Edward entrusted him with the command in his first battle- Barnet and the Vanguard at Twekesbury. I do not see any compelling reason or evidence that Richard began his arms training any later than his contemporaries, such as Francis Lovell who was also at Middleham in the household of Warwick at the same time.

HF: 

It is odd that his bones show no sign of that training. I'm fairly clear that as a woman if I undertook that kind of training my bones would show some evidence of the the consequent muscle development and someone using them from a very early age surely would. I probably wouldn't look like a beefcake but there would be sign of muscular development. Clearly he knew what he was doing but the skeletal evidence is odd.

JK:

Yes, the skeletal evidence is very, very odd. Rather contradicts known facts

JR: 

He may have lacked upper body development compared to some of the big bruiser warriors found at Towton, but that doesn't mean he was that 'weak' (as in feeble.) He could have been swift and lethal when he fought, having less bulk.

AF: 

I agree, IB. The line that Richard was "weak in strength" comes from Rous. The original Latin is open to wider interpretation. It is much more likely that it means "weakened" or "exhausted" - meaning that the battle of Bosworth had left him debilitated, rather than Richard having been a weak man in terms of his general physique. - JR, I take what you say about Towton, but all trained men were strong. They came from a heritage where the child had to carry a sword many times heavier than a real sword, to build up muscles. Then, when he came to use a real sword, he was so developed that he could not even feel its weight.

HF:

Wouldn't you expect that to show as evidence of muscle development on this skeleton, Abigail?

YNG: 

What Latin term are you referring to? Vis? It can mean both physical strength and masculinity and Dr Foxhall from Leicester University explains that in one of the documentaries. So they don't claim that he was weak; it could also refer to Richard being of delicate build, as has been reported by von Popplau, another contemporary source the university has quoted. Being of delicate build doesn't equal being physically weak or not a good warrior. I mentioned before that Asian mean are of more delicate build than Caucasian men but have a long tradition of being effective fighters (think Samurai).

HF:

In the second documentary it's explained as being 'not masculine' and that does fit with the build.

AF: 

YNG, I am referring to this line: "Attamen si eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus et viribus debilis, ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, sæpius se proditum clamans et dicens, Treson, Treson, Treson." In the documentary Prof. Foxhall herself translated "viribus debilis" as "weak in strength". This was used to support the idea that a gracile skeleton could be that of Richard III.

HF, I would expect there to be muscle development on the skeleton. There *should* be muscle development. It is reasonable - based on the evidence of Richard III as a soldier - to expect his skeleton to show signs of development. It is more reasonable to expect this than to expect a scoliosis, based on the unreliable evidence of Rous and More.

HF: 

Certainly they are the remains of a man who died in battle, who fits the description and matches the DNA. Are there any explanations that you can think of that would explain it?

AF: 

Yami, I seriously question your statement that "vis" has anything to do with masculinity in this context. "Viribus" ordinarily means force and strength. Rous *could* have been gratuitous, suggesting that Richard was a wimp. This we could discount, since Rous was untruthful about so many other things connected with Richard. The same would apply if he was referring to Richard's "masculinity" (an odd thought, in the middle of a death scene). There is another use of "viribus" - "troops". It is impossible to refute the possibility that Rous was describing Richard as the weak surrounded by troops, the one against the many. The Latin is certainly too open to interpretation and Rous is too unreliable to build any defence of the identification of this skeleton on this text.

JH: 

I have scoliosis. and I can't even contemplate myself wearing medieval armour and wielding their armour! Richard must have had considerable upper body strength to compensate for this curvature.

AF: 

Helen, DNA is not infallible. It can only prove a lack of connection. (I have not even seen evidence that it has been peer reviewed yet.) Nor has any statistical analysis shown how common this deviation is in the present British population, let alone in 1485. As for the battle injuries - the expert from the Royal Armouries claimed a superficial mark on the skull had been caused by a rondel. The whole idea of the rondel was to shove it with all your might *through* the skull into the brain. Clearly this had not happened. As to the major injury at the base of the skull, since Dr. Jo Appleby smashed the top with a mattock, how are we to know that this impact on the top did not crack the base of the skull? What we have is a skeleton with possible signs of violence, which does not fit the known physical description of Richard III. A body without feet could just as well match the Standard Bearer of Richard III, whose legs were cut from under him in the final slaughter.

JK:

JH, I agree. Yet the University calls the skeleton gracile, with not strong bone attachments. This would seem to suggest that there would not be strong musculature.

YNG:

On their website LU state that "In Latin ‘vis’ – ‘strength, vigor’ – is often a characteristically masculine quality" i.e. not applied to women, which is how Dr Foxhall explains it in the documentary. Jo Appleby paraphrased that "he fought surprisingly well given that he was lacking in masculinity". She and the NHS consultant said that his bones were "gracile" and that he probably was physically "less chunky" but I don't recall them claiming that he was physically weak. http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/history/meetrichard.html

IB: 

We still don't have the full analyses of the bones. They did even explain the full extent of the scoliosis. Foxhall did mention in one of the conferences that "the warrior had severe scoliosis but strong"! As of Von Populou he carried a lance that was extremely heavy and hard to lift. R was only one of few who could. If he lived longer maybe his condition would have gotten worse...... But at the time he died, we have no cause to suspect he was in any way disabled...

JK: 

Professor Foxhall admits that the few contemporary sources regarding Richard can be misleading as we do not know how much they were changed to suit Tudor sensibilities. She then seemingly quotes Rous as an authority, when we know he changed his description of Richard post Bosworth.

Using the description of Richard by Baron von Poppelau is somewhat disingenuous as well. The current source for that description was written in the 18c- more than enough time for it to have been possibly revised. Also we do not know what the Baron looked like- so it does not do much to know Richard was three fingers shorter. The Baron could have been 6 feet 4 inches as Edward IV was reputed to be. That would have made Richard around 6 feet tall. We do not how tall this skeleton would have been in life- the feet and part of a leg are missing. Richard is described by Rous as short in stature...by what standard?

YNG: 

Actually von Popplau says that Richard was 3 fingers taller than him, not shorter.

JK:

YNG- I stand corrected- thank you! but we still don't know how tall he was:-)

JR: 

The mtdna is a match in all three samples (not just haplogroup but specific markers), and is only found in a few% of the population--it is a rather rare group, a minor subclade of J. The chances of randomly finding a medieval body of the correct date and matching it to two obtained samples of a rare group is pretty remote. If the body's dna was contaminated, you would expect a total mismatch. You can get the skeleton's height by measuring the existing femur, and it is possible to deduce when damage occured on bones, whether ante mortem,peri mortem or post mortem (including modern damage.)

AF:

JR, you assume though that the dating of the bones is right. Anyone heard of Bayesian Statistics? Anyone know that it is based purely on BELIEF (that is the technical term) and not on what you would regard as Science. This underpins the radiocarbon dating - dating done upon the assumption that fish was such an enormous part of Richard III's diet to alter the results. I'm sorry, but by the time you have assumed the fish to assume the model to produce the right date for the bones, and by the time you have assumed a man with scoliosis was able to knock a champion off his horse, and by the time you have assumed that such a man could have strength with no muscle attachments on his skeleton, you are in danger of special pleading. All you have left is DNA. The academics at Leicester were not willing to make identification on the DNA alone. Neither am I.

YNG, which of Professor Foxhall and Dr. Jo Appleby are you citing as the Latin expert? I have consulted two Latin specialists, with 90 years of experience between them. They have both studied the passage of Rous and given their translation. I have more confidence in them than in a paraphrase from an uncited reference by Dr. Appleby.

YNG: 

I've just quoted what LU state on their website and in the documentaries. If you don't agree with their statements you should take it up with them.

CA:

I'm definitely interested to know more about the dating as well. I've only ever seen the correction for seafood diets before being used for strongly maritime populations, eg. coast of Greenland. Even there a higher amount of animal protein in the diet (as eaten by chieftans etc.) would cancel out a lot of the effect. Looking forward to reading more about the dating correction.

JK:

I thought the recalibrated carbon dating to account for the assumed fish consumption was a rather weak point. Professor Buckley said in the first documentary that they were looking for a date 'within 80 years'. When the three lab dates came back lower than he liked, but appeared to be within 80 years of 1485 he recalibrated to close the year gap. That is how I saw what occurred. Returning to the mass grave at Towton, the article previously referenced states the bodies were conclusively carbon dated to the Towton battle. That sounds like very accurate dating. Why was it necessary to recalibrate the data to reach the corrected date for the Grey Friars skeleton. There were only 24 years between Towton and Bosworth.

JOK:

 So much of the bodies disabilities do not fit the competent soldier Richard was! At even 17! Is it possible the scoliosis was caused by training at too early an age!? His father was sleight of build aso wasn't he?

JK:

The Towton Battle article: http://www.economist.com/node/17722650

JOK:

IB, yes! He had to be competent ! More than! Helen! Yes why don't these bones show the physical training he must have undergone?? 

JK, REALLY good point! Smells fishy to me! Sorry couldn't resist that! But you ARE right!

JT:

 You haven't even mentioned the peri-mortem injuries that match what Richard was said to have suffered. Plus the fact that his face is the twin of the person in the NPG portrait. Then there's the scoliosis, plus the DNA match. I believe they had the identities of the other six bodies that might have been buried. It is logical that Richard would have had a diet higher in protein that the average person in Leicestershire. And I believe they identified the percentage of protein based on the dental calculus. And the fact that people almost contemporaneous with him said he had one shoulder higher than the other -fits with the effect of the scoliosis. It is very likely that contemporaries of Richard who were not his body attendants or wife wouldn't have known of the scoliosis. In most cases scoliosis is not detectable when the person is clothed - after all, sufferers are not "hunchbacks" (forgive my use of the term). The curve in the spine is sideways not from front to back, and therefore it is not disfiguring. It's Richard!!

JK:

JOK, LOL good pun! You ask some very good questions. Idiopathic scoliosis is a condition that occurs around the time of puberty, so I doubt that weapons training would have caused it.

AMS:

If you doubt it is Richard! you won't mind him being buried at Leicester then ;~) one thing is for sure, he was no archer.

JK:

Quite a bit of this does not add up. Most of our 'evidence' is from the two documentaries. Those were obviously edited for time and the wow factor impact. We did not see the entire sequence of the DNA- did the entire sequence match? we really don't know. For a time Jo Appleby admits they were not even sure it was a male skeleton-it was that gracile,or as Dr Foxhall has referred to it as - gender ambiguous. Then we have the carbon dating recalibration. From the start of this project the dig team was given permission to exhume six graves in the hopes that one would be the King. When they discovered this grave and skeleton and saw the spinal curvature they quit looking for any other possibilities. Yes there were 'battle injuries", but as someone else pointed out earlier Jo Appleby admitted to damaging the skull during her excavation and could have caused the damage to the skull that we were shown. Then there is the scoliosis- if they had found a skeleton with the same characteristics but with no scoliosis would they have done testing? It seems to me that they saw the scoliosis and asssumed it was Richard III. To me that rather makes all their data tainted.

JT, I respectfully disagree with your point on one shoulder being higher than the other being conclusive with a diagnosis of scoliosis. Is it not possible that one could have hip displacement or one leg shorter than the other which could account for the uneveness? We do not know about the leg length of the skeleton since it is missing its feet and part of a leg. As you stated the contemporary reports do not seem to indicate a noticeable deformity.

CA:

The location of the grave is another point in favour of the identification. I do think all the data needs to be as conclusive as possible though if they're going to bury the remains as definitely being Richard III. Otherwise it's the Bones in the Urn all over again. The carbon dating recalibration is unusual to be necessary in the remains of someone who didn't spend their life living on the coast. Whether it's accurate or not it'll be interesting to read more details.

JOK:

So how could this new debate be concluded? Nothing seems to fit an almost female skeleton with a dreadful scoliosis. okay, but Richard was a hardened, skilled warrior! Surely that should show???? Even his enemies admitted that much of him! So how do you reconcile that?

Or was it literally blood, guts determination and his strength of character that carried him through? Yet still the skeleton shows no signs of the arduous training, and extensive fighting he MUST have done !

CA:

Physical descriptions have him as "short" and "small". So he may just not have been the beefy warrior type. If he suffered from scoliosis and it was a problem for him (and certainly going by the link posted above by the Society, it could have been), he may not have done much heavy training and never built up much muscle or strong bones. Contemporary references don't have him down as much of a fighting type, they just say he fought bravely and fiercely at Bosworth. Or otoh the remains might possibly belong to someone else. Hopefully more information will be released before too much longer and it might all get a bit clearer. Or not.

JOK:

As IB pointed out many comments ago Richard trained under Warwicks tutelage ! He would NOT have been give any favours despite the kinship! And again the Lancastrians would have noted it if he had! And Edward his brother trusted u. His ability at a very young age at Barnet and Tewkesbury! Like it or not Richard was a warrior! Yes he fought bravely at Bosworth, but he must have been much more competent for Edward to make him Lord of the North! 

Forget the u bit no glasses on! 

CA:

We don't actually know anything much about his training. He only fought in two major battles before Bosworth. Barnet, where his force was routed by Oxford, and Tewkesbury, where he did rather better. We don't know if he was involved in any serious fighting in his Scottish campaigns. So evidence regarding his physical military abilities just doesn't exist. That means it's perfectly possible that he wasn't a warrior type and that would fit with the identification of the remains and the contemporary descriptions.

MW:

Wrong about Barnet.

CA:

Nope. There's only one description of the battle layout at Barnet and that has Oxford facing Gloucester.

KH:

Found the personal stories very interesting. It is very apparent that Richard could have not only led a normal life, but one of the great acitivty of a soldier.

AF:

To go back to the original question that Judi asked at the start - on what basis was anyone looking for a skeleton with scoliosis? What makes people presuppose that such a skeleton *is* Richard III? Rous and More have been discounted. One contemporary account remains. A drunken schoolteacher called Burton called Richard a hypocrite, crook-backed and said that on his death he was left in a ditch. Rely on *his* evidence for the scoliosis to match the skeleton, and you must reckon with the fact that he had the skeleton in the wrong place - saying that he was "buried like a dog". You must also take seriously his accusation that Richard was a hypocrite. Do Ricardians want to go down this road? CA, you are already revising your view of Richard III as a warrior to match the skeleton. Where does this end? Probably citing Shakespeare as a historical source and deciding that Richard III was a charlatan, a killer and a usurper!

JT, I don't see any resemblance between the facial reconstruction and the portrait. I think it takes far too much imagination to base identification on that! In addition, the team doing the facial reconstruction were well aware of what they were working on (and who was paying them). If there *is* a resemblance then you cannot assert that it comes without bias. I assume that in citing contemporary sources for saying he had one shoulder higher than the other that you are clinging to Rous and More? Am I overlooking another account? Do you seriously think they are trustworthy? If so, you must take every slander they said against Richard III just as seriously!

YNG, the academics at Leicester have claimed that the remains are those of Richard III beyond reasonable doubt. Do you believe they are interested in questions? In our discussions with Dr. Jo Appleby we questioned the scoliosis. She cited More as proof. We pointed out that More describes the wrong shoulder being higher than the other, when compared with the skeleton. She agreed that point, but said that the explanation was simple - More, she said, like many senior academics she knows, probably muddled his right and his left. Such leniency in interpretation! You might trust these people to be open to questions in search of the truth, but I am not. We put our doubts to Dr. Appleby and she said she is not a Latin expert and didn't want to talk anymore.

JOK:

Good points, AF

WS:

Do I understand it right, that ... you assume the found body is not Richard?

AF:

WF, I'm not *assuming* anything : ) The burden of proof lies with Leicester University. I have raised questions. If those questions are not answered but simply brushed aside as though I am not a "believer", that is interesting. If the proof is so strong, it can withstand such questions. In fact, when I press too hard, people often reply that there are still more tests to be done on the skeleton. If there are still more tests to be done, why is everyone so convinced already about the identification? You can't have it both ways.

SB:

Phillippa langley said at the leicester conference that over 60 hours of filming ended up on the cutting room floor. There is still alot to unfold regarding the story behind the dig and alot more questions to be answered. This all takes time. The descriptions we have of richard are that he was lightly framed, as was his father who was also a warrior. Richard must have gone through knightly training, it was expected, but we know from records that he favoured a battle axe rather than a heavy sword. Many people who have a slight build have great strength so I believe that the remains found at greyfriars are richards.

AF:

Of course you are entitled to believe so, Susan. I think you'll be in the majority, especially on this site. People very much want to believe that the skeleton is Richard III. But that doesn't mean it must be so. How curious that we should expect the filming of the dig to provide the answers! In my contact with Leicester academics, I have been told to buy the magazine, which will contain the answers I seek on one issue. How many magazines must we buy? Why are they following this mercantile route rather than laying out the evidence?

JK:

AF, you bring up an interesting point regarding the University. IF they are still doing tests on the skeleton why then did they release the results in such a showy fashion? Why release them at all before all testing complete?? As I have noted previously it was obvious from the format that the documentaries were highly edited for effect and a television format. Susan mentioned that 60 hours of film were edited out. I find the research findings that we have been given thus far rather slippery and shoddy.

Regarding the facial reconstruction-- it was the culminating point of the documentary- the money shot if you will. They had steadily buit their case through out the hour-- the grave, the physical appearance of the skeleton, carbon dating and so on, to finally announce thier belief that it was Richard III. It is not surprizing that on a subliminal level we see a resemblence. Again, we did not see more than a minute or so of the reconstruction work. The artist admitted that she and her team used liscence when it came to the actual facial features. On a lighter note, I find the facial reconstruction better looking than the NPG portrait:-)

JOK:

Some good points SB! But again back to the issue that this skeleton shows no sign at all of the arduous training Richard would have undergone at Middleham! Even if he did favour an axe in battle more than the sword he would have trained with both regardless! Surely!??

MA:

Talking of battles and warriors ..I have to say I loved this intelligent blog which looks at how King Richard gives inspiration to another honourable and brave soldier~ Ned Stark from 'Game of Thrones'

Here's the link to the blog http://history-behind-game-of-thrones.com/2013/04/ned-stark-and-richard-iii/

JK:

JOK- good question! The Society wrote in their link that it was confirmed by the dig that Richard III had scoliosis. When, prior to the skeleton discovery did anyone think that Richard had scoliosis.?? I do realize there was not such a diagnosis in the 15c The Society, however, has spent the better part of a century refuting any claims of any physical 'deformity'- they even point to the altered later portraits as evidence of Tudor propaganda. Why did they only choose this skeleton to test? They had permission to exhume six graves.

AF:

It does make you wonder, JK - if the scoliosis was true, then the alterations on the paintings were not an act of malice against the memory of Richard III, but adjustments for historical accuracy. This leaves the Richard III Society in a dubious position for having criticised the altered paintings for so many years. In fact, there can be little left for the Society to say, if all knowledge about Richard III must come through the University of Leicester - from his physique and military ability (whatever the history books tell us) to his character.

JK:

Very true AF! I do remember in the documentary how shocked Ms Langley was at the discovery of the curved spine. Now we have no way of knowing what else may have transpired at that point since the film was edited. This would have been a pivotal point in the investigation. Why did they not go looking for additional skeletal 'candidates' that did not have curved spines?

CA:

AF - in what way am I revising my view of Richard as a warrior? Just to be clear - I've never believed he was physically a warrior as it's not borne out by contemporary evidence. The evidence from the skeleton (if the identification is correct) confirms the documentary accounts. I've also always believed there was some truth to the story of some kind of deformity or physical condition, showing as uneven shoulders. (Although I have wondered whether any alteration to the portraits of Richard III might have been done to make them look more fashionably like the actors who played the Shakespeare character, but I've found no evidence for that idea). It's possible that the commentators who mentioned Richard as a battle commander (sorry no quotes to hand) were referring to his tactical rather than physical prowess. Although if he was a good tactitian that seems to have failed him at Bosworth.

From what I remember in a comment by Dr Turi King she wasn't particularly happy about having to release information for the TV programme before it was properly reviewed. Hopefully there will be far more information in the upcoming articles that will help answer some of the questions.

AF:

Losing a battle does not mean you were not a good soldier! Richard's father had a lot of military experience before the Battle of Wakefield and yet he died. The common feature in Wakefield and Bosworth is betrayal - something you cannot compensate for by sheer military ability. Evidently you are not revising *your* view of Richard as a warrior, if you did not think him a great soldier before the skeleton's identification. Sorry for assuming that you just took the standard Ricardian line. However, your presuppositions are showing : ) If you believe (irrespective of the skeleton) that Richard III was not a good soldier, then you must have your own evidence for believing that to be so. I do not. What is your evidence for doubting his physical prowess? Even Rous, no friend of Richard III, praised his honour as a famous / noble soldier!

CA, we all have our presuppositions. These are some of mine for thinking that Richard was capable in his military role --- Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth 1485 by Michael K Jones p199: "He (Richard) reached Tudor's standard and cut it down, killing the standard-bearer William Brandon. ... A strong knight, Sir John Cheney, threw himself in Richard's way to protect his royal master. Richard flung him down. Tudor could only have been feet away. But now Stanley's men had arrived." Also (same book, p163): "The only foreigner of note in Richard's army was ... the experienced Spanish war captain Juan de Salazar. He was at Bosworth on Richard's invitation and given a prominent place in the royal division. ...Richard chose to have Salazar close by him and spoke with him as the engagement unfolded. The Spaniard later gave an account of the King's preparation of the cavalry charge ... His presence in a completely English army would have been noticeable." Richard was acting on advice of the Portuguese King and Queen and tried to emulate their successful cavalry charge at the Battle of Toro in 1476. His tactics and his ability - let alone his courage - are difficult to dismiss.

SB:

I think we need to wait and see what comes out of further examinations of the skeleton. Surely we can't doubt the dna evidence? The location of the burial must be a sure sign that this is richard? All the evidence we do have of richards build points to himbeing of slight build. This is a fact. And I don't think its fair belittling the teams work and I am sure phillippa langley, if there was any doubt this wasn't richard, would have spoken up before now!

JK:

SB, you are correct, we do need further research done on the skeleton, including the reports of the male lineage DNA. I don't think anyone is intentionally belittling the teams efforts, simply remarking on percieved inconsistencies. This is an archeological dig of remarkable historic significance. As to the location of the burial, yes, the team had gathered sufficent evidence to assure themselves they had found the choir of Grey Friars- a momentous achievement by itself. Rous tells us that Richard was buried in the choir area. What is not known is how many graves were in the choir area. Grey Friars was founded around the year 1230, so by the time of Bosworth it was close to 300 years old. The choir area of cathedrals etc were considered places of honor for high ranking individuals; does it not make sense that in the course of 300 years there might be several individuals resting in the choir area? The team chose to exhume this skeleton because of the location and apparent trauma to the skull, which could indeed been caused in battle. They also chose to examine the skeleton because of the curvature in the spine. I wonder, what they might have found if they had continued the excavation of the choir area.

WS:

The results for peer review will be properly published sometime around June in "Antiquity" and other publications. I have no doubt that gazillions of historians and scientists will try to tear their case apart , and the University will have to defend. I guess many of the questions raised here will be addressed then. You may remember that the UoL was under immense pressure of the public, so they decided to publish their results prematurely. And they were attacked for it by fellow historians.

JK:

WS, Thank you for the peer review publication date! I will be looking for it. Yes, I am sure there will be many questions and varying view points- that is the nature of inquiry I can understand that the University would be under pressure, but in a case of this significance, perhaps it would have better to have awaited independent confirmation of the findings.

AF:

SB, you speak of the "team's work" as though they are in this for the sake of the research. The University of Leicester became involved once there was a TV deal in place. And right now they are making the most of their spotlight. If I remember correctly, the press conference announcing the identification included university officials, the mayor of Leicester and someone from Channel 4. Philippa Langley's time-slot was halved (at the last minute) and she was on so late that the BBC streaming had ended before she came on! I find it strange that you would appeal to Philippa Langley. What makes you think she's in-the-know? She has been almost silent in public (with the exception of the conference) since the screening because she is writing a book. Behind the scenes, things look very different. For instance when she was accused in the press of not being committed to Richard's cause, she asked *me* to set the record straight on the newspaper's forum because she didn't want to go public. And I did. But it was clear to me then that she was trying to keep her nose clean and her image perfect for her publisher's sake. When everyone involved has so much invested in a particular conclusion - namely that the skeleton is Richard III - who is going to say otherwise? Objectivity is seen to be a myth.

WS, I think Leicester have been in control of information at every stage. I don't feel any of your pity for them, as they are making hay at present. And it seems, judging by the level of belief in them (especially as displayed by "Ricardians") that unless the Leicester academics recant en masse, the "faithful" will believe anything they say, no matter what opposition appears in the future. As the Richard III Society have invested too much in this project to criticise the conclusions made by the University of Leicester, so has every individual Ricardian who has swallowed it whole. Do you see many people on this thread willing to take a stand against the party line? I am only suggesting that people should think for themselves. Why do Ricardians suddenly want to wait for experts to sift the information for them? You might as well just take the Tudor version and be done with it!

JK:

This dig has been likened to the 1922 discovery and excavation of King Tutankhamun's tomb, with Professor Buckley in the role of Howard Carter. Recently the University Team was awarded a very prestigious archeological award for the discovery of the Grey Friars skeleton. Grants, book deals, and personal reputations are all on the line. Not the best situation for objectivity or research integrity.

AF, I agree that the University has had control of information from the start. It is rather ironic, since the University would not be basking in the glow of the discovery and its attendant benefits were it not for Ms Langley and the R3 Society. It appears to me that Ms Langley and the Society have been shunted to the side to play auxillary and minor supporting roles as the University team takes center stage. One might wonder why such a tight control over information? They do not like questions, I have noticed thier very short uninformative replies to posters on thier own website. The DNA questioning started that very day of the discovery as a matter of fact.

AF:

I also find it hard to accept that information is being reserved for those who subscribe to a magazine (and buy the books that will follow) when without the money of ordinary Ricardians, the dig would never have been funded!

SB:

AF, you seem to be "in the know"as it were. Are you saying then that this is not richard and the whole thing is not what it seems? Are you, in around about way, speaking on behalf of miss langley? I am sorry but I am finding all this very confusing..you make it sound as if we shouldn't believe any of it. I think I will retire from this debate and will wait with patience until the whole story unfolds.

AF:

Hi SB. No, I am not speaking on here for Philippa or anyone else on the team. I was inside some of the circles whilst working on the tomb side of the project, and I co-produced the video of the tomb, even though the Society would not find funds for it. I was involved in discussions about the dig before Leicester University became involved and I have watched with sadness as the Society have become increasingly sidelined. I am not telling you what you should or should not believe. I am worried that Ricardians are accepting *this* version of the truth in a way that disregards the previous concern of the Society for the well-documented evidence supporting the physical, religious and moral character of Richard III. Loyalty not longer seems to bind *them*.

JOK:

Well said! AF! There are SO many unanswered questions and the U o L Definately seem to be controlling all the information disclosure xx

WS:

AF, I don't understand what your point is, or better, what your points are, there seem to be so many.

JOK:

There needs to be more transparency and clarification of the information the UoL hold IMO! 

JN:

There needs to be more transparency about the info the uni , Society and council hold about how this all came about. I ve never seen a group so closed mouthed about a national issue - and to be sure the remains of a King are a national matter not just the business of a Local Authority, educational body or society. And the scientific issues re DNA etc will be scrutinized by academia all around the world once published so I sincerely hope it holds up.

AF:

WS, I was answering SB's question. She asked for context. I was clarifying that the fact I ask questions of the evidence is not representative of those I know, who have worked on the project - there is no conspiracy behind the scenes. I have raised many points but they are all based on the same problem. Most Ricardians are familiar with these sources and perhaps would have once quoted the same against those who hold a Tudor view of Richard III. It is important not to let go of what you once believed too rashly, in case the new belief is not all it seems. The truth could very easily become lost in the politics. I do not need to be right in asking many questions of the evidence regarding different aspects of the identification - one question is enough. No one has yet brought forward one credible contemporary account of Richard III having scoliosis. University Leicester seem more than satisfied with a body that conforms to Tudor propaganda. Ricardians should not.

WS:

I have a brilliant idea, no, really: If the UoL can be persuaded to resume the excavations, they can dig up 5 more burials, and then there would be enough skeletons to make other cities happy! Richard III.1 for Leicester, Richard III.2 for York, Richard III.3 for Worksop, Ri.... . 

CS:

A query from one who is not "academic" as other posters are. What are the odds of the remains not being those of Richard III? Given that there are so many "pointers" to it being him.

LM:

I understand what AF is saying, from a research point of view, and, like CS, I am not academic where these things are concerned, but I wondered about the reference to 'credible contemporary account' regarding scoliosis. I have heard Richard referred to as both 'huncback' and 'crookback', to me they have always meant slightly different conditions, the second being more in line with scoliosis (to my thinking). As I say, not academic so I don't have access to all the sources.

AF:

Hi CS. You shouldn't put yourself down - you asked just the right question. The judgments made by the Leicester academics rely on Bayesian Statistics. This operates on the premise that the academic has an idea of what to expect (for instance, scoliosis, fish diet). The academic then places a *bet* on how likely that is to be true. So "beyond reasonable doubt" means that the academic is satisfied that the odds of the presupposition being correct are in their favour. However, it all depends on what your presupposition is in the first place. You can use Bayesian Statistics to prove anything you like. John von Neumann was a brilliant Hungarian mathematician, who as a Jew escaped from Germany to the USA before World War 2, along with at least half a dozen other scientists. They held him in such esteem that the proverb ran thus: "Johnny can prove anything and whatever Johnny proves is right." Of course, in reality the Grand National winner last week had odds of 66 to 1. Those calling the odds are not always right, whilst those presenting the odds as statistical truth appear to have more credibility because they mask their gamble through the "science". You can judge the matter for yourself. You have to decide the odds on believing Rous, the odds on believing More and the odds on every other document.

Hi LM. The later Tudor historians - Hall and Hollinshead - both drew their portrait of Richard III from Sir Thomas More. He is the only one to call the King crook-back but the epithet stuck. (Remember "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?)

LM:

So all the references to his 'crookback' are after his life? Thanks AF. Yes I do remeber "Weapons of Mass Destruction" indeed! Just goes to show, with instant news the facts can become distorted, still occasionally hear folk refer to it as 'fact'!

CS:

Hi AF. You have raised a point which, on one level, has always bothered me. That being how a man with quite a severe deformity was capable of handling medieval weapons of war, which had to be quite heavy things to wield with any dexterity for any length of time. I have wondered if, therefore, he may have had them made lighter to suit his ability? Just a thought. 

Or, indeed, had such a disability at all. Are there any accounts of him actually fighting in the battles, as opposed to "commanding", important as that is? 

BG:

I heard tell that when armour was on it was quite easy to carry as it was spread about the body. Considering Richard's last, game attempt to reach Henry at Bosworth, all records recount how brave he was, carrying (and using) weapons. I think he must have been used to fighting and carrying armour and using weapons and feel that his scoliosis was 'normal' for him. The phrases he used in the books he had point to someone who wanted to be a warrior. An active, involved and fully participating warrior.

AF:

Hi again CS. Richard fought in two major battles before Bosworth - Barnet and Tewkesbury. In each of them he would have been fighting on foot. His most likely weapon would have been a pole-axe. This was a 6 foot piece of wood, mounted with a heavy axe blade on one side and possibly a spear at the top and a hammer / beak. As a commander of a division in each of these battles he would have men around him as a bodyguard. This did not prevent one of his squires, John Parr, from being killed whilst standing next to him at Barnet (in the hand to hand fighting). In combat, everybody fights but not necessarily all the time. At Barnet Richard received a wound probably to one of his arms. These men were trained from about 12 to function as warriors. No one with the disability of the Leicester skeleton would be allowed to fight, let alone lead! To reduce the weight of any weapon would reduce its effectiveness. Richard would be pitted against knights in similar full plate armour. The weight of the weapon was essential in its ability to penetrate, damage or immobilise (for instance, a pole-axe would be about 5 or 6 pounds in weight). A lighter sword in combat would shatter, when it clashed with an ordinary blade. And the swordless knight ends up dead. It's like tank warfare in the Second World War. Imagine an infantry man with a rifle taking on a German Tiger tank. It's not funny. Even the American Sherman tanks found the Tigers too much. But that's whom they were pitted against. Knights fought as groups - not as individuals. They protected the leader and they attacked another "fellowship" or household, as these squads were called. Richard could not avoid fighting anymore than his brother Edward, as King, at the same two battles. In fact, their leadership in the actual physical fight was essential for the morale of their men. Bosworth ended when Richard lay dead.

CS:

Yes. Armour was not as heavy as we imagine and had, of necessity, to be flexible. I have no doubt of his courage, especially with regard to his scoliosis but in the context of AF's thread, wondered what the non-Tudor biased accounts state.

AF:

I've just consulted the Wallace Collection book. They have full suits of armour from the 15th / 16th century. You're looking at between 20 to 27 kgs of weight - that's 44 - 60lb! Having that much additional weight on your body (however well distributed) would be difficult. Moving in it as though it is not there would be an indication of great strength. Think how much paratroopers carry on their persons today. A lady, much earlier in this thread, said: "I have scoliosis. and I can't even contemplate myself wearing medieval armour and wielding their armour! Richard must have had considerable upper body strength to compensate for this curvature." I am not in a position to contradict this lady's judgment of the difficulty involved. To accommodate the degree of scoliosis on this skeleton, the armour would require incredible modifications, which would have to be changed as the body. Complicated doesn't come into it!

WS:

AF, ok, now I probably got it . I agree that we need to be careful, and not believe everything just because it comes with a tag like "science" or "University" or something. But in this case, we have to make up our mind: either the skeleton is him or it is not him, there is nothing in the middle.

AF:

Absolutely, WS. I'd just like people to know the alternative : )

JOK:

Well! I am speechless! The DNA seemed to have bailed it. However the points raised are undeniable! I agree totally that skeleton does NOT fit with the facts we know about Richards ability as a warrior! So .............. Surely it can't be him? Can it?

Bailed = nailed sorry!

AF, something you said has really interested me. Why would Richard have been on foot at Barnet and Tewkesbury? 

AF:

Hi JOK, With the exception of Bosworth, the role of mounted knights in the Wars of the Roses was minimal. At Towton they functioned as a rearguard to prevent desertions, were lightly armed with spears, hence their name "Prickers". It was not the weight of armour that prevented knights functioning on horse-back, as in some Hollywood film versions of the Middle Ages. Rather it was a deliberate tactic. Each medieval army was composed of three "battles": the vanguard, the centre and the rearguard. The vanguard usually lined up on the right of the centre with the rearguard to the left, facing their enemies as a long line. Each of these "battles" (or battalions) was in charge of a senior noble, who would have his hand-picked men, loyal to him as the core of that battalion. These men would be armoured, like their commander, from top to toe, in plate. The bulk of the battalion would be far more mobile and lightly protected, wearing brigandines or jackets. These are the equivalent of the sort of padded body armour we see on modern police. They would often be archers, who had a limited number of arrows to fire at the start of a battle (about 20). Having loosed their arrows, they advanced *behind* the armoured men, with swords, spears and axes. The armoured knights would be grouped into "fellowships", with a commander in each. They spear-headed the attack against their opposite numbers. It was not that Richard was special - *all* the nobles in these combats fought on foot, as a team. So, when Warwick was defeated at Barnet, he had to flee on foot to reach his horse, a mile away, was caught and slaughtered by the foot-soldiers. At Bosworth, Richard and his household knights were out of the front line of combat. They watched as the men fought on foot and saw the Duke of Norfolk killed - on foot. As I mentioned earlier, the cavalry charge was executed by this core of about 200, when Richard saw Tudor and his bodyguard desperately trying to get to Thomas Stanley for help. The charge was always an option for him. He saw the opportunity and seized it. Combat is always risky. Men die, even a King.

TR:

That is incredibly interesting Abigail. Thank you so much for explaining it all. I've never seen the medieval battlefield explained so plainly and it is very nice to now understand the reasoning that was behind formations of men and weaponry and so on, at the time.

CS:

TR, you beat me to the punch there. Agree with your comment to Abigail. Fascinating stuff altogether.

AF:

Oh, you're both very welcome. Just glad it helped : )

CS:

AF, you've thrown a spanner in the works you might say. Is it Richard or not? Now I have doubts whether it is. Surely, with all the other factors put together, it has to be? 

KH:

Whilst I think the uni were premature in some respects in announcing the confirmation of identity, I do think it is Richard, without a doubt. Whilst the scoliosis might not have been evident visibly in life and may not have affected his ability to ride/do battle etc, the fact that he was described post-mortem as having some visible spinal curvature, connects with these remains. The injuries also connect, and the DNA connects, and the dental evidence suggests a connection too; as does the location.

AF:

Hi CS. I'm not sure what you want me to say! It depends what you mean by other factors. Whose evidence are you relying on to believe that Richard was buried in Greyfriars? David Baldwin trusts Rous in this. That is a gamble, which you might or might not be willing to take. Whose evidence are you relying on to believe the radiocarbon dating? Professor Buckley, on the unproven assumption that Richard III had a very high fish diet. Whose evidence are you relying on for the scoliosis? Rous, More and a drunken schoolteacher. A skeleton with terrible injuries is not conclusive. A skeleton with poor muscle attachments suggests it cannot be Richard. You will see that I would take a great deal of convincing. But whether or not you are convinced, or whether like others you want to wait and see if there is more information before judging for yourself, is entirely up to you : )

KH, can you cite the source of your statement that Richard was described post-mortem as "having some visible spinal curvature"? Who said this?

JK:

Rous has been proven unreliable in all his accounts, and indulged in flights of fancy disguised as 'history'. Richard being in his mothers womb for two years being one example. Why should he be trusted in his account of a burial at Grey Friars?

KH, what dental evidence are you referring to? I don't remember any of the documentaries talking about teeth- other than for a DNA sample? Maybe I missed it?

KH:

I meant the evidence (which I think came from the teeth) that the individual had a high-quality diet, rich in fish.

Described by Tudor writers, yes. But like many others, I am balancing Tudor writing against contemporary writing, against the finding of this skeleton, against the DNA testing. I come to a different conclusion to you, AF, and that's okay. I see everything indicating that this is indeed Richard.

WS:

"A skeleton with poor muscle attachments suggests it cannot be Richard." AF, what's the source for the "poor muscle attachment"?

AF:

Hi WS. The lack of strong muscle attachments was discussed in the documentaries - at the point where they were examining the skeleton and noting the gracile nature. It might have featured more in the second documentary than the first.

Hi KH. I don't have anything against reading Tudor authors. I do tend to read around a subject and not just cherry pick : ) I'd still be interested to know who you're referring to so I can judge for myself.

BG:

AF, thanks for the information about warfare. Real food for thought!

KH:

I'm sure you don't cherrypick. But I'm not here to provide you with every quote and background source for mentions in chronicles and histories referring to "hunchback/crookback etc etc" - these can be easily found via Wikipedia and Google.

AH:

What would the implementations of poor muscle attachments be? In terms of martial prowess? 

AF:

KH, you made an assertion as evidence for your belief in the identification. I have been questioned continually to substantiate *my* beliefs by other people on this thread. I have tried to do so. I have answered every time. I was actually giving you an opportunity to direct us all to your source of information, since it obviously is important (if not vital) to your conclusions. You imply I am being lazy. Leaving it vague just means that no one can challenge you or contradict you - and I cannot agree with you. For the record however, it is not found in John Rous, nor in Thomas More, nor in Polydore Vergil, nor in Hollinshead, nor in Hall. I was not aware of any other Tudor chroniclers and thought that you wanted to share your views, not just oppose mine. Please, you're not seriously directing me to Wikipedia as a reliable source of historical information?

Thanks, BG : )

AH, regular exercise develops visible points on the bone, where muscle attachments have stressed that part of the bone as the muscles have been used. The more the muscle is used, the more visible the point. (This is one of the ways used to distinguish a male skeleton from a female skeleton, as they are more obvious in the male due to the fact that men usually have greater physical strength.) These muscle attachments will be visible after death. So a skeleton which has been identified as male, and identified as a soldier ought to have visible muscle attachments as proof of his strength in life.

AH:

So either the skeleton isn't Richard, regardless of all the DNA and circumstantial evidence; or he wasn't quite the soldier some thought him to be? He was a younger son, likely destined for a career in the church, and we have evidence stating that although he was "small in body and weak in strength", which would back these findings.

KH:

This is the RIII Society FB page - here is the Society's page regarding Richard's appearance as described by a variety of sources - conflicting accounts to be sure - http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#intro

JK:

AH, your quote 'small in body and weak in strength' is attributed to Rous, who also wrote that Richard was two years in his mothers womb! He was laudatory to Richard while the King was alive and inflammatory after his death under Henry VII. Also, several posts up, Abigail had a very interesting post regarding the latin translation of that quote. I have copied it here for you: * The line that Richard was "weak in strength" comes from Rous. The original Latin is open to wider interpretation. It is much more likely that it means "weakened" or "exhausted" - meaning that the battle of Bosworth had left him debilitated, rather than Richard having been a weak man in terms of his general physique.*

KH:

I think that the original Latin is open to interpretation, but I don't think it "much more likely" that it means one thing than another. "viribus debilis" - can indeed mean "weak in strength" as well as "weakened in what strength he possessed".

AH:

Interesting point on the Latin- I'm an absolutely abysmal linguist so I can't possibly comment.

AF:

AH, Richard III was *not* routed at the battle of Barnet. The left wing of the Yorkist army was under the command of William Lord Hastings. He *was* routed by John de Vere, Earl of Oxford. So you are wrong in stating that Richard was routed. In fact, Richard had the far more dangerous and arduous task on the right wing of climbing out of "dead man's bottom" to attack Warwick's left wing. Read David Clark's "BARNET 1471: Death of a Kingmaker" and Peter Hammond's "The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury". As for martial prowess, you clearly have equally disparaging views of Edward IV, who placed his brother in the most difficult positions at both Barnet and Tewkesbury. One final thought - when John Rous described the death of Richard III, he didn't have many compliments for him. He did however say this: "Attamen si eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles". *Nobilis miles* Rous called Richard a noble/famous soldier. He was Richard's enemy. Why would he say this if in fact Richard was a wimp? Why would he not take another opportunity of destroying Richard's reputation? The fact is, no one would have believed him. PS - If you're still in doubt why not read the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology Vol. 3, page 175-176. They have no reason to promote Richard III as a warrior and yet they do.

Thanks, KH. I have looked at the quotes on the page you referenced and I don't see anything new. I can only assume that you are influenced by the line from the City of York's records? This was alleged to have been spoken by one man in retaliation for the other's accusation of slander. The supposed speaker was drunk at the time according to the Prior of Bolton Abbey. Surely you're not placing your case on the testimony of a drunk? --- I couldn't find anything on that page to back up your assertion that a contemporary described a visible curvature of the spine after Richard's death. However in Hollinshead and Vergil I found the usual texts, describing him slung naked over the back of a horse after death - an ideal position for everybody to have observed what you believe to be true. And yet, I cannot find a single text that records what you take to be fact.

By the way, if anyone still has a problem with a man below average height being a competent warrior perhaps Nelson and Napoleon should be remembered.

KH:

I did not assert that a "contemporary described a visible curvature of the spine after Richard's death" - I stated that "he was described post-mortem as having some visible spinal curvature" - that is the case - Rous, More, Vergil - I do not discount their accounts purely because they are writing in the Tudor period. You are free to disagree. EDIT: yes, I am interpreting "one shoulder higher than the other" "uneven shoulders" to correlate with the more scurrilous terms that have been used about Richard, but which also correlates with the remains discovered pretty much perfectly where the documentation available suggests Richard was buried.

AH:

I apologise if I got that wrong, I'm working from memory. But I was under the impression that Oxford had defeated Richard at one point. Also perhaps I used the wrong word 'soldier', more accurate would be warrior.

AF:

I don't discount them because they are writing in the Tudor period, Kim. I discount Rous because if you take what he said about the shoulders, you must take everything else he said about Richard III. It's a package - he was either right and honest in every detail or he was wrong. So if you go with Rous, you have to accept that he changed the length of Richard III's reign to make him the anti-Christ, that he changed his birth-date to make him an evil Scorpio, that he said he was 2 years in the womb, had a full set of teeth and hair to his shoulders. That's what he said - even though he had written better of him while he was alive. I don't know how you can pick truth from his words when he is so obviously fabricating at will and capable of holding opposite views. As for More - he describes Richard's shoulders the wrong way round compared to the Leicester skeleton so if you appeal to him you prove too much. The skeleton may have a scoliosis but it doesn't match More's explicit description of Richard III. As for Polydore Vergil, he adds nothing new to Rous and More. Instead he indulges himself in describing Richard as a lip-biter, who was constantly half-unsheathing his dagger. Since this Italian tax-collector didn't arrive on these shores until about 1502 (long after Richard was buried somewhere), he doesn't give a first hand account although he asserts himself with such arrogance you would have thought he knew Richard III all too well. The fact that Vergil makes no mention of Richard as being present at Barnet, poses you another problem. Does this mean Richard wasn't there? If the rumour is true, that Polydore Vergil burnt a wagon-load of English manuscripts, anyone would think he was trying to re-write history and erect his own "truth". By the way, I don't judge authors by their period. I judge them according to what we can tell of their character, as reliable or unreliable. Rous and More and Vergil should not be discounted because they are against Richard III - they must be discounted because they are liars.

KH:

I don't agree with your way of interpreting these historians, sorry. I am a Ricardian, have been for years, and have thought for a long time that there probably was some "shoulder issue" that was not necessarily noticeable during his life but was exposed in death and heavily exploited by Tudor writers - that for me is borne out by these remains. But everything else points to it being Richard too. It's okay to disagree on these things :)

AF: 

AH, Richard III knocked the champion jouster Sir John Cheney off his horse. Was this the act of a weak individual? Was this indicative of poor physique? He killed Sir William Brandon, Tudor's standard-bearer. Was this a lie? As for Nelson and Napoleon, they weren't born commanders. The fact that they survived to reach command vindicates their strength and prowess in their fields. It is possible for a man shorter than Edward IV to fight well. Field Marshal Montgomery, who defeated Rommel and Ord Wingate who waged unrelenting guerilla war against the Japanese show that size doesn't count. You seem pretty desperate to make Richard a wimp. I don't see that based on his size. I don't see that based on his military career. And if you're basing it on the lack of muscle attachments, then you're in danger of changing history to prove the identification, which is a slippery slope.

Hi KH. It sounds like you have got the answer you want in the Leicester skeleton. Nothing I say could possibly change that because your mind was obviously made up before the dig. So it makes any attempt at discussion pretty pointless. I wish you had been so upfront at the start, before I spent my evening answering your questions. I have other things to do.

KH:

What are you saying my mind was made up about? That there was very likely some "uneven shoulderness"? It was about as made up as any other Ricardian reading the same sources as you and I have both read and re-read. Was it a surprise to see those remains with that curve? Certainly. Did it make me think it was definitely Richard? It is one element of the evidence but not the totality. Did it make me think that everything Rous ever wrote about Richard was "true"? Not at all.

MC:

AF, thank you for your posts they've been very informative and helpful for me and many others here. But I think your comments towards KH particularly were quite rude.

AF:

I could count on one hand the number of people who have expressed any agreement, sympathy or support with my views during this thread. I have been grateful for each and every one, who has taken my words on board, whether or not they are willing to reach the same conclusion as me. I think it is sadly ironic that you reprimand me for being quite rude to KH. I have been waging this battle in a lonely corner. I have been pointing to source material meticulously. I have not criticised the tone of others, who have often scoffed and have not minded insulting my views. I have not demured from replying to people when I have already answered the same question before. In fact, I have done my utmost to respect other people and their views, whilst offering my own, every hour I have been awake and able to reach my computer. Please take this into account when forming a judgment of my words. This is my last posting on this thread. I will not be replying to any future comments here. This does not mean that I am retreating in my views or do not wish to discuss it any further. But I do judge that the hostility (and over-sensitivity) now on display detracts from any discussion on truth and history. How dare we sit in judgment on whether Richard III was a competent soldier, when we ourselves will not fight for the truth and cannot abide an honest word of exasperation without calling names.