Posted on 12/29/2012 12:47:51 AM PST by nickcarraway
Search for infamous monarch’s remains is the latest in the rush to dig up the dead and famous
For centuries, William Shakespeare seemed to have the last word. His Richard III glowered and leered from the stage, a monster in human form and a character so repugnant "that dogs bark at me as I halt by them." In Shakespeare's famous play, the hunchbacked king claws his way to the throne and methodically murders most of his immediate family—his wife, older brother, and two young nephews—until he suffers defeat and death on the battlefield at the hands of a young Tudor hero, Henry VII.
(Related: "Shakespeare's Coined Words Now Common Currency.")
To shed new light on the long vilified king, a British scientific team has tracked down and excavated his reputed burial spot and exhumed skeletal remains that may well belong to the long-lost monarch. The team is conducting a CSI-style investigation of the body in hopes of conclusively identifying Richard III, a medieval king who ruled England for two brief years before perishing at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. Results on the investigation are expected in January.
But the much maligned monarch is not the only historical heavyweight to be exhumed. Since the 1980s, forensic experts have dug up the remains of many famous people—from Christopher Columbus (video) and Simón Bolívar to Jesse James, Marie Curie, Lee Harvey Oswald, Nicolae Ceausescu, and Bobby Fischer. Just last month, researchers in Ramallah (map) disinterred the body of Yasser Arafat, hoping to new glean clues to his death in 2004. Rumors long suggested that Israeli agents poisoned the Palestinian leader with a fatal dose of radioactive polonium-210.
(Read more about poisoning from National Geographic magazine's "Pick Your Poison—12 Toxic Tales.")
Indeed, forensic experts have disinterred the legendary dead for a wide range of reasons—including to move their remains to grander tombs befitting their growing fame, collect DNA samples for legal cases, and obtain data on the medical conditions that afflicted them. Such exhumations, says anatomist Frank Rühli at the Centre for Evolutionary Medicine, University of Zurich, always raise delicate ethical issues. But in the case of early historical figures, scientists can learn much that is of value to society. "Research on ancient samples provides enormous potential for understanding [questions concerning our] cultural heritage and the evolution of disease," Rühli notes in an emailed response.
Franciscan Resting Place?
Archaeologists from the University of Leicester began actively searching for the burial place of Richard III this past August. According to historical accounts, Tudor troops carried Richard's battered corpse from the Bosworth battlefield and displayed it in the nearby town of Leicester before local Franciscan fathers buried the body in their friary choir. With clues from historic maps, the archaeological team located foundations of the now vanished friary beneath a modern parking lot, and during excavation, the team discovered the skeleton of an adult male interred under the choir floor—exactly where Richard III was reportedly buried.
The newly discovered skeleton has scoliosis, a curvature of the spine that may have resulted in a slightly lopsided appearance, and this may have inspired Shakespeare's exaggerated depiction of Richard as a Quasimodo-like figure. Moreover, the body bears clear signs of battle trauma, including a fractured skull and a barbed metal arrowhead embedded in the vertebrae. And even the burial place points strongly to Richard. English armies at the time simply left their dead on the field of battle, but someone carted this body off and interred it in a place of honor.
Taken together, these early clues, says Jo Appleby, the University of Leicester bioarchaeologist studying the remains, strongly suggest that the team has found the legendary king. Otherwise, she observes, "I think we'd have a hard time explaining how a skeleton with those characteristics got buried there."
But much work remains to clinch the case. Geneticists are now comparing DNA sequences from the skeleton to those obtained from a modern-day Londoner, Michael Ibsen, who is believed to be a descendant of Richard III's sister. In addition, forensic pathologists and medieval-weapons scholars are poring over signs of trauma on the skeleton to determine cause of death, while a radiocarbon-dating lab is helping to pin down the date. And at the University of Dundee in Scotland, craniofacial identification expert Caroline Wilkinson is now working on a reconstruction of the dead man's face for a possible match with historic portraits of Richard III. All this, says Richard Buckley, the lead archaeologist on the project, "will help us put flesh on the bones, so to speak."
Digging Up History
Elsewhere, teams digging up the historic dead have contented themselves with more modest goals. In Texas, for example, forensic experts opened the grave of Lee Harvey Oswald in October 1981 to identify beyond doubt the man who shot President John F. Kennedy. A British lawyer and author had claimed that a Soviet agent impersonated Oswald and assassinated the American president. To clarify the situation, the forensic experts compared dental x-rays taken during Oswald's stint in the United States Marine Corps to a record they made of the body's teeth. The two matched well, prompting the team to announce publicly that "the remains in the grave marked as Lee Harvey Oswald are indeed Lee Harvey Oswald."
More recently, in 2010, Iceland's supreme court ordered forensic experts to exhume the body of the late world chess champion Bobby Fischer from his grave in Iceland in order to obtain DNA samples to determine whether Fischer was the father of one of the claimants to his estate. (The tests ruled this out.) And that same year, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez ordered forensic experts to open the casket of Simón Bolívar, the renowned 19th century Venezuelan military leader who fought for the independence of Spanish America from colonial rule. Chavez believes that Bolívar died not from tuberculosis, as historians have long maintained, but of arsenic poisoning, and has launched an investigation into the cause of his death.
For some researchers, this recent spate of exhumations has raised a key question: Who should have a say in the decision to disinter or not? In the view of Guido Lombardi, a paleopathologist at Cayetano Heredia University in Lima, investigators should make every effort to consult descendants or family members before proceeding. "Although each case should be addressed individually," notes Lombardi by email. "I think the surviving relatives of a historical figure should approve any studies first."
But tracking down the descendants of someone who died many centuries ago is no easy matter. Back in Leicester, research on the remains found beneath the friary floor is proceeding. If all goes according to plan, the team hopes to announce the results sometime in January. And if the ancient remains prove to be those of Richard III, the city of Leicester could be in for a major royal event in 2013: The British government has signalled its intention to inter the long-maligned king in Leicester Cathedral.
Shakespeare took no more liberty with the truth than our "entertainment media", really, and there was no gain in ticking off the powers that were--but much could be lost, including one's head.
We do not know the particulars surrounding the Play, but I'd wager the accuracy is about on the level of an Italian Indian riding up and saying "How!" in an American Western flick, and of little more significance.
Aside from using plots based in the foibles of human nature, that his plays have been preserved for so long may be an unintended consequence of pleasing the people in power. Note, too, that Bowdler subjected the plays to some severe editing. Apparently no one is immune to PC revision.
Richard III took the throne over Edward V, not by deposition, but by virtue of being of age. Given that Edward IV was likely poisoned by the Lancastrians, it was a legitimate fear. Both Richard and Edward were Yorkists! Having Richard on the throne would protect the kids.
The problem for Henry VII, is that his wife was junior to Edward V and his younger brother Richard. With them out of the way, Elizabeth of York became the senior claimant.
Edward IV died in 9th April of 1483, from a protracted illness, possibly poisoning. Edward V in his will was designated his heir, while the then Richard of Gloucester (later Richard III) was designated the Protector. Edward V was never coronated - Richard took over as King, 22nd of June. The Princes were last seen that summer, but we don’t know when they died.
Follow with me here.
December of 1483 - Henry Tudor agrees to marry Elizabeth of York.
Richard III dies in Bosworth in 22 August of 1485, after just two years on the throne.
Henry takes the throne and then states that the princes were murdered in the tower, and blames Richard III. Of note - he did not state this until after he acceded to the throne after Bosworth. No bodies were produced, nothing. It is possible that the boys were still alive in the tower when Henry VII came to the throne in August of 1485, just two years after the accepted date of their death.
Henry VII would have been 26 in 1483, and 28 when he came to the throne. Elizabeth would have been 17 in 1483.
So, it all fits. Poison Edward IV. Pledge to marry his oldest daughter the year later. Defeat, and kill Richard III, in battle. Kill Edward V and Richard in the tower, before you marry their sister, after Bosworth. Claim, after Bosworth that the boys were missing and that Richard III was responsible.
Ir all fits together, and it makes what happened in this extraordinary 3 year period make sense.
There was no motivation for Richard to kill the princes that his brother left in his will for him to protect. There was every motivation for Henry VII to kill them after his accession.
Shakespeare wrote during the reign of Elizabeth I, granddaughter of Henry VII. I don’t think it would have helped Shakespeare’s career by writing the Elizabeth’s family came to the throne through illegitimate means. The worse Richard III looked, the better for the Tutors, grandfather or granddaughter.
I don’t believe for one second the nobles who turned against Richard the Third did it because he “killed” his nephews. After all, when Richard took Lord Stanley’s son hostage during Bosworth, sending Stanley a message that he would kill his son if he didn’t throw in with him, Stanley replied: “I have other sons.” Those nobles were cold! (Richard did not kill the kid, by the way.)
The nobles, especially the Stanleys, changed sides constantly. They were never satisfied with what they had and so always threw in with the “usurper.” Richard apparently did not do enough for some of these guys; that’s why they turned against him.
Richard, of course, in his short tenure, was an excellent king as he had been a duke. He legislated that all laws were to be written in English rather than Latin, set up courts of justice for poor people and established the Royal College of Arms.
Henry VII, was a miserly, reclusive monarch who gave the world the horrible Henry the VIII.
I don’t believe for one second the nobles who turned against Richard the Third did it because he “killed” his nephews. After all, when Richard took Lord Stanley’s son hostage during Bosworth, sending Stanley a message that he would kill his son if he didn’t throw in with him, Stanley replied: “I have other sons.” Those nobles were cold! (Richard did not kill the kid, by the way.)
The nobles, especially the Stanleys, changed sides constantly. They were never satisfied with what they had and so always threw in with the “usurper.” Richard apparently did not do enough for some of these guys; that’s why they turned against him.
Richard, of course, in his short tenure, was an excellent king as he had been a duke. He legislated that all laws were to be written in English rather than Latin, set up courts of justice for poor people and established the Royal College of Arms.
Henry VII, was a miserly, reclusive monarch who gave the world the horrible Henry the VIII.
:’) I have — “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” — John Harington
Performance of Shakespeare’s “treason” section of Henry VI pt III (includes “take the crown, and, with the crown, my curse”) was prohibited in Elizabethan times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harington_(writer)
http://www.searchquotes.com/search/None_Dare_Call_It_Treason/
(wrong:) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1255809/posts?page=8#8
“The last truly legitimate King was Henry VI, who was much too kind and decent a man to hold onto his crown.”
Who inherited it from the son of Usurper Bolingbroke.
Really, the last legitimate king was Richard II, King of England, son of the black prince.
It’s best to understand things from the perspective of Edward III - everything revolves around him. The other important king is Charles I, oddly enough. Despite his execution, every one of his 5 children, were either King/Queen (in that order), or are the current senior heirs to the King of England.
Edward III
.Edward the Black Prince
..Richard II (Deposed and killed)
..Lionel of Antwerp Duke of Clarence
...Philippa of Clarence 5th Countess of Ulster
....Roger Mortimer 4th Earl of March
.....Edmund Mortimer 5th Earl of March (died of Plague)
.....Anne Mortimer Countess of Cambridge
......Richard Plantagenet 3rd Duke of York
.......Edward IV King of England
........Edward V King of England (killed in tower)
........Richard of Shrewsbury (killed in tower)
........Elizabeth of York Queen of England
.........Arthur Prince of Wales (died on marriage)
.........Henry VIII King of England
..........Edward VI King of England (died in teens)
..........Mary Tudor Queen of England (died without kids)
..........Elizabeth Tudor Queen of England (never married)
........Margaret Tudor Queen of Scotland
.........James V King of Scotland
..........Mary I Stuart Queen of Scots
...........James VI/I King of Scotland and England
............Henry Duke of Wales (Died of Typhoid)
............Charles I King of Scotland and England
.............Charles II King of Scotland and England
.............James VII/II King of Scotland and England
..............James Francis Edward Stuart (Test act)
...............Charles Edward Stuart
...............Henry Benedict Stuart
.............Henry Stuart Duke of Gloucester(smallpox)
.............Princess Mary of Orange (no kids)
.............Princess Anne of England (no kids)
.............Henrietta Marie of Orleans
..............Marie Louise of Spain (no kids)
..............Anne Maria Queen of Sardinia
...............Victor Amadeus Prince of Peidmont(smallpox)
...............Charles Emmanuel III King of Sardinia
................Victor Amadeus III King of Sardinia
................Charles Emmanuel IV King of Sardinia
.................Victor Emmanuel I King of Sardinia
..................Maria Beatrice of Savoy
...................Francis V Duke of Modena
...................Archduke Ferdinand of Austria
....................Maria Theresia Queen of Bavaria
.....................Rupprecht Crown Prince of Bavaria
......................Albrecht Duke of Bavaria
.......................Franz Duke of Bavaria (alive today)
TRUNCATING HOUSE OF SAVOY
...........Elizabeth of Bohemia
............Henry Frederick Prince Palatine (drowned)
............Charles I Louis Elector Palatine (no kids)
............Prince Rupert of the Rhine (no kids)
............Prince Maurice of the Palatine (drowned)
............Edward Count Palatine of Simmern (Test Act)
.............Luise Marie of Salm
..............Louis Otto Prince of Salm
...............Dorothea Agnes Princess of Salm
TRUNCATE HOUSE OF SALM
............Elizabeth of Bohemia (Nun)
............Louise Hollandine of Bohemia (unmarried)
............Henriette Marie of Bohemia (died young)
............Sophia Electress of Hanover
.............George I King of Great Britain
..............George II King of Great Britain
...............Frederick Prince of Wales
................George III King of Great Britain
.................George IV King of Great Britain
.................Frederick Duke of York (no kids)
.................William IV King of Great Britain (no kids)
.................Edward Prince of Kent
..................Victoria Queen of the United Kingdom
...................Edward VII King of UK
....................George V King of UK
.....................Edward VIII King of UK (abdicated)
.....................George VI King of UK
......................Elizabeth II Queen of UK
There’s a few other Plantagenet lines out there that are still in existence. The present lineage is the third most senior line, behind the Jacobins and the Salm branches.
Agree with you about the nobility of the period. A pretty dishonorable bunch.
The nobles, however, were leaders. Couldn’t accomplish much of anything if large numbers of people chose not to follow.
After Bosworth the nobles appeared to lose their ability to mobilize sufficient popular support to launch effective armed rebellion. Didn’t stop noble intrigues and such, but it moved to another level. Generally competition for the favor of the king rather than competition against him.
Of course there are alternate explanations for the loss of aristocratic independence. My personal favorite is artillery. As long as effective armies consisted largely of mobilizing men, horses and personal weapons, the aristos (if enough of them got together) could go one on one with the King.
When an effective army required efficient artillery, they lost this potential. Artillery cost too much for local lords. And even if you could get the guns and men together, you couldn’t practice with it in secret. And effective artillery requires a lot of practice.
BUMP
You would probably know more about this than me but I believe Richard the Third owned one of the first “hand guns” in England (I may not have the right term, lol!). He was a big fan of artillary but didn’t like the gun because of its kickback.
Who inherited his crown by descent from the Conqueror, who won the throne by invasion and conquest.
Which leads us to the interesting question of how descending from a conqueror can provide a better title than being a conqueror yourself.
Richard II and Henry VI lose their thrones, and eventually their lives, because they were unable to hold onto the allegiance of a sufficient number of the political nation of their time.
We often think of hereditary monarchies as not having politics in the sense we think of them, but of course all leaders have to keep enough people on their side to maintain their power. No elections just means the political struggle isn't in the open, it doesn't mean it goes away.
During most of the absolute monarchy early modern period, the political struggle was carried on by who had control of the Guards, in sort of a modern version of the Praetorian Guards of the Roman Empire.
Seen most obviously in the Russian and Ottoman Empires, where losing control of the Guard often resulted in a dead monarch, but generally playing out in all the others.
And don’t forget that Richard did not harm his brother George’s child who was third in line to the throne. Why would he spare the third while killing the first two?
Of course, it was Henry VII who killed George’s son...
Not so.
Edmund Ironside (House of Wessex)
.Edward Atheling (Wessex)
..Edgar Atheling (Wessex) no children
..St. Margaret of Scotland (Wessex)
...Edgar King of Scotland(Dunkeld) (No kids)
...Alexander I King of Scotland(Dunkeld) (No Kids)
...David I King of Scotland(Dunkeld)
....Henry of Scotland Earl of Huntingdon
.....Malcolm IV King of Scotland (No Kids)
.....William I King of Scotland
......Alexander II King of Scotland
.......Alexander III King of Scotland
........Alexander Prince of Scotland (died young)
........Margaret Queen of Scotland
.........Margaret Maid of Norway (drowned)
......Margaret Countess of Kent
......Isabella Countess of Norfolk
.....David 8th Earl of Huntingdon
......John of Scotland Earl of Huntingdon (no kids)
......Margaret of Huntingdon
.......Christina of Galloway (no kids)
.......Devorguilla of Galloway
........John Balliol King of Scotland
.........Edward Balliol of Scotland
........Eleanor Balliol of Scotland
.........John II Comyn
..........John III Comyn
still have work to do, but TRUNC
...Matilda of Scotland(Dunkeld)
....William Adelin (Died in White Ship)
....Matilda I Empress of England (Anjou)
.....Henry II King of England (Plantagenet)
......Henry the Young King (killed)
......Richard I King of England
......Geoffrey II Duke of Brittany
.......Arthur I Duke of Brittany
.......Eleanor of Brittany
......John I King of England
.......Henry III King of England
........Edward I King of England
.........Edward II King of England
..........Edward III King of England
From what I can see:
From David 8th earl of Huntingdon:
Margaret of Huntingdon -> Comyns -> Lancastrians -> John of Gaunt and then merge with the subsequent lineage.
This lineage is the senior lineage to Wessex.
John of Gaunt
.Philippa of Portugal
..Edward of Portugal
...Afonzo V of Portugal
....John II King of Portugal
.....Afonzo Prince of Portugal
..Ferdinand Duke of Viseu
...Manuel I Duke of Portugal
....
Margaret of Huntindgon Duke of Norfolk, both lines still in existence. The Comyns are at present
Isobel of Huntingdon -> Stuarts -> Merges back into the Jacobins. :)
Okay, then why wasn't the last legitimate Richard II? Why was Henry IV, "more legitimate," than Henry VII?
Has this account been discredited or just conveniently overlooked?
Has this account been discredited or just conveniently overlooked?
No. Records show the Chamberlin having receiving three handguns from Ralph Hutton in 1386, a century earlier.
Disagree. The Tudors were very concerned with maintaining the legitimacy of the dynasty, because of the circumstances of Henry VII coming to power and Henry VIII's inability to produce a healthy male heir.
Henry VIII had Edmund de la Pole, Duke/Earl of Suffolk, who was the leading Yorkist pretender, executed.
While the reign of Elizabeth was brilliant, she was always nervous about the crown being worn by a woman with no children. She carefully balanced the various powers and factions to maintain her own power, but it was a sufficiently delicate matter she felt she could not marry. I would concede, however, that her problem was no longer Yorkists, but other threats to her throne.
Richard III was part of the "Tudor Myth," the story that the Wars of the Roses had been a time of anarchy and bloodshed that was brought to an end by the Tudors and their reign of strong monarchs, peace and prosperity. The Tudor Myth sanctioned the reign and legitimacy of Elizabeth. Richard III was very much intended to glorify the Tudors and the public in the day would have been very aware of how it played into the story of the Tudors and the reigning Tudor/Stuart monarchs.
Of course, we should not overlook the fact that the Myth was just the foundation for one of Shakespeare's greatest plays that explores issues such as kingship, morality, God's role in the succession, good and evil, and many more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.