E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Dan Kitwood / Getty Images
A facial reconstruction based on the skull of King Richard III is unveiled by the Richard III Society, in London on Feb. 5, 2013.
The face of England's King Richard III was revealed for the first time in more than 500 years on Tuesday following a reconstruction based on a skull unearthed from a parking lot in the city of Leicester.
After carrying out a series of scientific investigations on bones exhumed from the site last year, the University of Leicester announced on Monday that the remains belonged to Richard III, who died in battle in 1485.
Justin Tallis / AFP - Getty Images
Michael Ibsen, a descendant of England's King Richard III, poses for pictures with a plastic model made from the recently discovered skull of the king, during a press conference in London on Feb. 5, 2013.
As detailed by NBC News Science Editor Alan Boyle, DNA was extracted from bone samples and compared with modern-day mitochondrial DNA from two direct descendants of Richard III's family, including Michael Ibsen, a Canadian-born cabinetmaker who is a 17th-generation descendant of Richard III's eldest sister, Anne of York.
The skeleton's relatively delicate structure was consistent with descriptions of Richard III's physical appearance, University of Leicester historian Lin Foxhall said.
The bones of Richard III, who reigned for two years, have been discovered in Leicester, England, and they indicate that his spine was twisted by scoliosis and that he received eight head wounds in battle. NBC's Stephanie Gosk reports.
Leave a Comment:
It's interesting that they found him at all considering that he was buried under a parking lot, and they found him the very first dig at the site.
I think it is great to be able to have a piece of their history back given so much speculation about the King, they can look into his face, and maybe give him the proper burial that he deserves.
Hail to the King.
I'm thinking they dug up a woman's skeleton.
I think what he deserves would be quite the opposite as he was a murdering scum bag!
I'm thinking it was near miraculous that they found him at all, considering that very spot was dug up at least three times before -- and the "remains" were nearly destroyed each time.
And it wasn't the very first dig at the site. It was the third trench they dug while looking for the church -- not just specifically for him.
Red Sailor must have known him personally, to KNOW that he was a "murdering scum bag" -- and not just another Mediaeval king who did what was considered "business as usual" at that time.
From the movie Poltergeist real life files:
They moved the headstone but not the grave ... According to the LA Times. They say the horse Seabiscuit is buried under a parking lot too. Cheap skates!
Don't believe everything you read in the story books, Red Sailor. Much of what was handed down through history was little more than Tudor mudslinging. Such as the myth that Richard murdered his nephews. There is no evidence (then or now) to support that contention. Shakespeare was a supportor of the Tudors and, as such, was pretty much the "press secretary" and political flack of the family. His descriptions of Richard, in keeping with the Tudor attitudes, were overly harsh and denegrating.
He was a king. As such, he deserves to be treated with the dignity of his status, regardless of whether any one person may or may not like him (albeit by historical reputation only). And, since we have little to go by as to whether or not he was as bad as his Tudor conquerors made him seem in the pages of history, we must accept that much of what has been handed down is nothing more than the aforementioned political mudslinging. He deserves a dignified burial.
Long die the king!!!
wow...he looks like a hunched back fudge packer!
Good King Richard....bad King Richard....For sooth....I hope further research will show if the family had a ...skeleton.... in the closet.....every family has one. Then maybe ...lay the story...to rest.....If only we could say.....I knew him well....!
There was a good novel called "The Sun In Splendour" that gave an alternative spin on Richard, Elizabeth Woodville and the lot. It was fictional, but so are all the accounts that vilified them. Interesting read.
I hope they are able to recover other relics around the site that will give way to the period.
I heard on CNN that they are planning a proper burial "Fit for a King". I would hope that HHR would get behind it, show respect for her countries heritage in honor of a former King.
So...this is what King richard may have looked like eh?....Looking at the above photo...I don't think the glasses are the correct time period , nor is the striped shirt!
starsailing - you obviously aren't current on Medieval GQ- the black North Face Jacket and wireframe glasses were all the rage back then! It's the hair that they got wrong. They used much more product back then.
Y'know, Rocket, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, you should just remain quiet!
So are we to believe that 15th Century white men didn't have beards,....or were they quick to rock "Ye Old Bic Razor".
I first heard this story on NPR a couple of days ago. NPR had "experts" talking about the DNA and how it matched a known relative. Isn't science wonderful? I think his picture looks like Johnny Depps character "Charlie" from the chocolate factory. To be honest, my education is lacking regarding this time period. I was not sure there really was a King Richard. I kind of put in with Camelot!
I woulld like to relate a true story, I heard on NPR, some months ago.
In 1951, a baby girl was born to a woman, who was soon after, diagnosed with a deadly cancer. Doctors at the time, were not able to pin point, the where the primary site was nor did they have a treatment for the young mother. The doctors had taken cells from different sites but the young mother, died a very painful death. Her daughter, listened to the stories, her mothers sisters told. They said they tied the mother in bed and let her bite on a pillow, because she was, in such horrific pain. The mother would scream and fight because the pain was intolerable. (Thank God for hospice care.) Finally, the young mother died.
The girl was raised by the aunts and seemed to be doing well. And then, news had come, that in England they were able to clone a sheep named Dolly. When the daughter heard this, she was inconsolable. She cried and would not sleep or eat. After seeking help, the aunts were able to get the reason for the girls, dismay. She had heard the aunts talk so much about her mothers pain and she also knew, doctors had taken cells from her mother, to be diagnosed, when technology was developed. The girl believed, her mothers cell, were crying in pain because they were still alive, like Dolly's cells. A reporter, heard about her story and started to document the girls predicament. She witnessed the girls tearful and inconsolable rantings.
Finally, a doctor at a teaching hospital looked into the old records and found slides of the mothers cells. They had been sent there to be identified. The doctor contacted the reporter and arrangements were made, to bring the young girl to the laboratory, where her mother's cells, had been kept for years.
First the doctor explained, when cells are removed, from a persons body, they are no longer alive. Unlike Dolly's cells, in which wwere kept viable.. And then he asked if she would like to see her mothers cells. He placed them up on the screen. If you do not know about slide of cells, they are dyed with red or green, in order, for the pathologist to see the structures in the cells. The young mother's cells had been dyed green. When they came up on the screen, the daughter thought they looked like angels because the green tinting, gave them an aura. She quited down after that and was finally at peace, knowing that her mothers cells were not in pain.
When I listened to this story, I realized, this girl had, to have been in her twenties. She should have had some kind of education. And more importantly, no one thought to tell her, the cells could not feel or that they were dead. The reporter should have known that much. At any rate, I was able to look up a part of the story at NPRs site.
And here is my point, knowledge is a wonderful thing. Education should be a priority for everyone. This young girl, lived in hell, just believing her mother's cells were suffering. That is the results of ignorance. I cannot say I know everything, I am ignorant too. The exception is, I know where to find out information. Or, I do not care enough, to do the research. Besides feeding our children and keeping them safe, I believe education for all, is essential, for the people of the world, to find peace. Learning another culture or finding out, about someones history, could make us understand and create, at the very least, empathy. Like I said, I am the last one to talk, I'm lazy about doing the homework regarding the ways of different cultures or why they believe, what they believe and practice those beliefs.I think once every human investigates the WHY, maybe we would not be so quick to judge.
So.......they found King Richard?
Tag, Tag, Tag, read a real history book my friend. There are several very good books out there on the period of the Wars of the Roses. They are based on the letters, diaries and personal writings of people at the time and they are universal in their condemnation of Richard III as a murdering, scheming, despot who slandered and murdered his own nephews to become king.
I still say they should put him back in the hole where they found him and pave over him.
It's good enough for him.
typo in my last post *HHR
HRH
Fair to say a "Smug Mug"
It IS more then likely that Richard had his nephews murdered, though I doubt he did the deed himself.. He was worried that they would be used, sooner or later, as the stepping stones to a rebellion, even though both princes were declared illegitimate by an Act of Parliament of 1483 known as Titulus Regius..
Richard was hardly a popular king and he knew it, however, it would have gone to his favor if he had, at the very least, opened an investigation into the 'missing' boys.. Since he refused one can only assume it was because HE had had a hand in their disappearance and subsequent murders.. In 1674, the skeletons of two children were discovered under the staircase leading to the chapel, during the course of renovations to the White Tower. At that time, these were believed to have been the remains of the two princes, and on the orders of Charles II the remains were reburied in Westminster Abbey. In 1933, the grave was opened to see if modern science could cast any light on the issues, and the skeletons were determined to be those of two young children, one aged around seven to eleven and the other around eleven to thirteen.[
James Tyrrell confessed, under torture, that he had, at Richard's behest, murdered the boys and there were other toadies currying favor with the new king, that had reason to want the boys dead as well.. But using torture as a means of getting a confession is highly unreliable, considering most people will admit to anything if tortured long enough..
However, unless some new, written evidence comes to light (which I sincerely doubt) that points a definitive finger at someone else, I'm going to leave said finger pointing right where history feels it belongs, at Richard III..
Why did they have to make him look like a "tranny"?
Considering history & Shakespeare is wrong on Richard III. Richard was hunched, but was a benevolent king. He didn't murder his nephews. Henry of Richmond wanted to become king and spread lies and rumors about Richard III. The only murdering he is really found to have done is on the battlefield.
In 500 years your look will be considered ridiculous too.
Hell, in 30 years....
No, they didn't have Bic razors back then - just good old straight razors. Take a look at Henry VIII (8th if your Roman Numerals are dodgy) - all the portraits of him show a partial beard.
Judy The Ornery: You may have heard of HeLa cells. Read the book "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks." It will make you think about cells that have been removed.
Made war against Scotland? He can stay paved over. Alba gu bra'th!!
Pretty much everything written about Richard III was written or approved by the court of Henry VIII. Because the Tudors and the Plantagenet were rivals, nothing good was written about Richard III and anything that was written prior that did not meet the specification of the court was destroyed. William Shakespeare wrote during the reign of Elizabeth I, who was a Tudor. It's not known whether by that point they were still stopping the writing of positives about Richard III or if they just believed all the negative publicity. It's not known whether his killing his nephews was factual or not. However, he wouldn't be the first or last monarch to kill anyone who was a threat to his reign.
"Why did they have to make him look like a "tranny"?"
More like: Y did they have 2 make him look so CREEPY. (shudders)
Judy, while that story was very interesting, you may want to check the date or something. Dolly was cloned in 1996 so if the girl were born in 1951 she would have been 45.
Thanks Deb.
I admit I tune into the program after it had already started. It was so sad and made me wonder why the daughter was not told the truth. I was a hospice nurse for many years. A large part of my job was tending to the patients loved ones. I will take a look at the book, you recommended.
I started to listen to the program, in progress. But I was able to find a story relating to the cells, that supposedly began in 1951. If you read the end of my post, I am assuming the daughter was not given an education. She sought help from a cousin who helped her pray after he went into a "trance and spoke in tongues." I will try to find more at NPR site. My point was I felt sorry for this girl because she thought a cell that had been dyed, frozen and then preserved in alcohol or some other chemical, was alive and could feel. This reporter, I would think would have eased her pain by, telling her " cells" are not living.
Deb,
Thanks for the information. I looked up the story on NPR. That's what I get for tuning in at the middle of an interview. But I KNOW I heard during the discussion, that Henrietta's daughter Deborah believed the cells were in pain and she was taken to John Hopkins to see her mothers cells. They wwere not alive but used to show Deborah the cells were not in pain. Apparently, the cervical cells originally removed from Henrietta were alive and continue to grow.
The sadness here is, Deborah was not educated and did not understand science. That was the point of my post. People, who do not have the opportunity, to be educated or who choose, to believe everything they have been told but, ignore the facts or refuse to educate themselves, are one of the reasons, people will never find peace.
He kinda looks like Charming from Shrek
I think it is just so amazing what can be done now with science. Being able to look at a face that is probably really close to what Richard looked like is just incredible.
He looks like a villain. I don't know if he was evil or just wrongly maligned, but he certainly looks like a bad guy. I think all those Kings and Queens back then had a dark side anyway. It really was the only way they could obtain and maintain power. Unfortunately, someone didn't like poor Richard...they got rid of him early in life as often occurs.
he only ruled for two years, 8 head wounds, and they cut off his feet and buried him in an unmarked grave........man they must have been really pissed at him when they killed him!!!
the face of EVIL
He looks like the short prince form shrek!
This is a major event for English history and it confirms that often legends and rumors have some validity to them. The sculpters rendition is just like his picture, of course it helps to have a picture to go by. It makes you wonder what the outcome of his face would have been like without the picture to go by.
Carl, they have done these reconstruction without pictures...they end up being quite accurate. There would be no reason to "make it look like the picture", history and scientifically, it is better for it to look....like he really looked.
Yes, I agree, it kind of does -- and I am sure that might have very well been on propose on the part of the movie makers -- Richard III (mostly thanks to Shakespeare --and the "War of the Roses" victors writing the history -- Richard was the loser and was killed in that conflict) have long made him a small, deformed child-killing blood-thristy villian. The bones found might proven some of that as being correct -- but some of the facts might not be true.
I was going to say he same exact thing about him looking like the guy from "Shrek".
You can tell by looking at the skeleton photo that King Richard was not too smart.....because he was a bonehead......
He DID murder his nephews - or cause to have them murdered.
Forget these revisionists or this Richard III Society.
99% of everyone in the court KNEW he did it. Not to mention he killed Hastings immediately without any kind of trial, on trumped charges, because Hastings & Buckingham together would've been too powerful, and they were going to join forces once Hastings realized that his intention was not to rule as Regent, but to usurp the throne and "do away with" his nephews.
This TYRANT accused his MOTHER of having an affair and that Edward IV was really illegitimate.
This guy deserves his place beneath the parking lot.
Uhh, you are speaking from experience, right?
Oh! That was supposed to be funny! Does the phrase, don't quit your day job mean anything?
And, Amye, if you could please cite your references? I'm sure the rest of us would like to set the record straight for ourselves.
First thing I thought of was Jack Black...
thewordsmith.....what's the matter?...No funny bone ? Just like the skeleton...we can see right through you....your arrogance shows.
Gods bodykin......!....Was this Shakespeare's clue to us when King Richards body was to be found...to use his kin to confirm the king was indeed Richard.....????
wordsmitty...I parry...and then thrust home the blade that skewers your words of criticism leaving the worthless taunts of yourn in days gone by! Your need to take center stage because of your feeling of inadequacy is only missing your shout...My Kingdom for a ...head!
Sing along with the scarecrow fom the Wizard of Oz......if you don't have a clue yet!
I know a dective who may assist you in your search....go a....head....and contact Sherlock Bones....He does a body good.....er ....well.....!
So R3 may (or may not) have had his nephews executed and he is a villain. So why are the blood thirsty Tudors heroes? Henry VII imprisoned the Duke of Clarence's son at the age of 10 and executed him in his twenties. Henry VIII had 52,000 to 70,000 people executed during his reign and he is an English hero.
If R3 had not taken the throne, the power hungery Woodvilles would have killed him and his infant son. In the end, his son died young and R3 was killed at Bosworth Field anyway. Still in 1483, the choice was simple, take the throne or perish.
Yawn. Oh, I'm sorry, starsailing. Did you say something of import? No. I thought not. You make assumptions on me just as you do with Richard III. Rein in your indignation and your limp humor.
And, oh yeah. Although I found your comments on Richard's being ignorant not funny under the circumstances, with the exception of your comments on my 'arrogance', THIS post actually WAS funny! I guess 50/50 ain't bad.
Y'see, starsailing, some people are down right witty and others are just half wits.
Lot's of people here seem sensitive to the insults towards his majesty. If you think just because they inherited their seat of power they deserve respect then all hail Kim Jong il.
"The lady doth protest too much!" Alas poor Smitty....."All the worlds a stage," "What's in a name?' So you are a half wit..."To be or not to be" "be not afraid of greatness" "O Villain, oh villain, smiling, Damned villain."
"The man hath no music in himself" "This thing of darkness" "So wise so young, they say never live long"
"Get thee to a nunnery!" I am "Done to death with a slanderous tongue, "Give me my robe, give me my crown," "Out damned spot!"........."Lord...what fools these mortals be."
"That man that hath a tongue, I say is no man!" But the wordsmith lives in "the winter of our discontent"
Et tu .....wordsmith?" "The green-eyed monster."
In Honor of King Richard III and to all British subjects, please read the book "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey: It has been proven that King Richard III was a great King, the last of the Plantagenet Royal line, that the little Princes, his brother children, were still very much alive when Richard died in battle at Bosworth and that William Shakespeare was at the service of the Tudor family, fifty plus years after Richard's death. So, who killed the two children? One dead man or the one that usurped the crown, Henry VII Tudor? We need to rewrite the History Books on the War of Roses, and call Mr. Shakespeare any name you want for writing a tragedy so falsely based.
....and I need to add that over eighty years passed after Richard III died at Bosworth, when Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564 and he was made important member of the Lord Chamberlain entourage in 1594....after writing his famous tragedy "Richard III", consolidating the image of a murderous Uncle and Villain, interpreted by drama historians as Shakespeare's way of justifying the origins of the Tudor Dynasty, so you figure!
Mario, how do you know this stuff?
I have a difficult time understanding the language of Shakespeare. I think thou doeth protest too much. Why couldn't he just say, stop complaining? I know Shakespeare didn't say that, right? It's all French to me!
The quote is "The lady doth protest too much,methinks", meaning that Hamlet's mother thinks the Player Queen in "Hamlet" is over-acting, not that the PQ is complaining. This is totally irrelevant to the article about Richard III, of course, but so many of the other comments are equally irrelevant, so what's one more?
Hal........... I had my prior post collapsed by the community. I ran of subject there, as well.
As I said, I cannot understand Shakespeare and most the time, I cannot understand people with an English accent. That does not make me stupid. I was a wonderful caring nurse. I am a wonderful caring person, who knows very little about literature. So sue me!
there is no argument in my mind he was a villain. All of those who claimed to be god appointed monarchs were villains. I don't care if he murdered his nephews, look at how his citizens lived... enough evidence for me to condemn these evil and conniving folk who call themselves royalty. We need to stop worshipping these dictators of the past. i do not care that it was "the norm" back then, to hold a dictatorship as they did evil deeds were required. England needs to catch up with the rest of the modern world and kick the royal family out of their palaces and sell off the jewels to start taking care of the people.
Isn't this the guy who killed his nephews so that he could be King. What a scum ball.
Who cares about this tyrant.
ifinley, you would never had made a leader in those days. What he did was common practice among royalty and nobles. He was a man who knew what he wanted and did not allow anyone to stand in his way. People who know what they want, and trodden down others to get it, in America are known as leaders and great people. You don't have to literally kill anyone to achieve ones goals like he did now days.
There is evidence now that his sister, Elizabeth, who married Henry VII... after Richard's death, went to visit the young princes. It is much more likely that Henry had the princes killed in order to cement his hold on the English Throne. Richard had no reason to kill the boys, they had been declared ineligible by the Pope before Richard's death.
Lisa - I agree that it was more likely Henry, rather than Richard.
The killing of the princes, which really has never been proved, was more likely done by the tudors. It wasn't until long after Richard's death that anyone noticed they weren't there.
History does my friend, history does! His nephew's remains could have been found under a stairwell in the White Tower in 1810 or so, and reinterned in Westminister, they were examined in 1933. There is also two unidentified lead coffins interned with their parents remains, these could be examined as well. However, that would take the approval to the Queen to do.
History is written by the victors. I doubt anyone dared to accuse Henry VII to be a murderer. Don't forget Henry VIII formed his own religion/church. I'm sure he would have written his own bible had he lived long enough. King James' bible was according to who's ideas?
Whether that is true or not is up for debate. History is written by the victors, and as you can see, Richard did not come out on top at the end of his reign. There are scholarly types who will argue that he was characterized as a tyrant and murderer by the Tudor's in order to help legitimize their claim to the throne. Shakespear certainly didn't do King Richard any P.R. favors in his play. Regardless of what you believe about him, it is a great discovery, and may help uncover some of the mysteries around this particularly volitile period of European history.
Mary P, obviously you don't know your history. As EARLY as August 1485, they were known to have been killed.
But that doesn't mean Richard killed them. they did not appear after 1483.
I wonder ?????hmmmm if either of the Clinton's or both even , come from the same gene pool as Richard the 3rd ???...the personality traits of all 3 are quite similar in their lust for power according to the history books...they all have a philosophy of .lie , cheat or deny it..to obtain it...because someone will believe it if its a big enough lie to become a false truth...Josef Goebels said something of that nature , I believe...just a passing thought , I thought I would share
shmoe, how did the Clintons lie their way to power? You must mean Bush and his sketchy brother in f
Florida. And if you think Clinton was a bad president you must have not enjoyed the prosperity under his administration and enjoyed the destruction of our economy under Bush.
Some astute posts here. but a few, not so much!
I think at the time, "a nunnery" was in fact a whore house?
I find it interesting that people can take a skull and decide what the skin around it looks like, and then pronounce it to be true to form. What arrogance. The only thing we can ascertain from this skull is that the person had an underbite.
Actually, Citizen, there are a lot of norms by which a forensic reconstructionist can determine much of how a person might have looked. The size of the nasal opening will suggest the size and contours of the nose itself. The size and shape of the orbital bones will tell much of what the eyes looked like (were they sunken? protruding? small? large?) We know the skin of various areas of the face is of different depths and, calculating certain mathematical variances in body size overall, this is pretty much standard for everyone (so much for 'thinskinned'). Therefore the facial contours can be calculated with a certain degree of certainty. The skull itself will describe the underlying bone structure which will, in turn, give us the shape of cheeks, jaw, chin, etc. A highly skilled reconstructionist can give an accurate reproduction of a face to within 10% accuracy. So, yes, a good reconstructionist CAN "take a skull and decide what the skin around it looks like ..."
this is now an art and a science.... it is known what muscle and skin thicknesses attach at which points to the skull... Read up on it...it is fascinating. Otherwise, if you just want to sit back and throw stones...you only prove that you are a fool and a troll....
Citizen #109582-0 - Actually if you've ever seen a forensic anthropologist reconstruct a face from a skull before, and then later after the subject is identified, the resemblence is often nothing less than uncanny. That's because they can tell a great number of things from the shape of the skull. Their race, how their lips likely rested on their face, etc. All these things can be found out by the shape of the skull. And many other things like the exact shape of the nose, the size of the eyebrows are educated guesses which often turn out to be right because the anthropologist has such a feel for which bone structures result in which looks. I'd be very surprised if this reconstruction wasn't shockingly similar to what King Richard really looked like.
Yes, some of it, like skin texture is guess work, but they never said it wasn't. They never said 'ok we know for a fact that this is what his skin looks like'. They're pretty up front about the fact that it's an estimation of his likeness.
Citizen,
You are 'Ignorant' to modern techniques... Usually the Forensic Anthropologist, which do this type of reconstruction are pretty, 'Spot On' when they finish... This has helped ID many missing people from there skeletal remains, after which, Dental Records and or DNA was used to confirm the case...
It's easy to dismiss something you know nothing about than to educate yourself so you don't look like a fool
Citizen, they reconstructed a skull of a young man found in colonial Jamestown, they had the cousin, direct decendant come in to compare...they looked like siblings. They also do this to identify bones of unidentified bodies. Relatives and friends have been able to identify their loved ones from these reconstructions.
In the move Braveheart. William Wallace sacked York.
In this thread the people sack Citizen.
Ka Boom!
Ignorance is bliss.
What I found most helpful are the people who gave me some information about modern forensic techniques with patience and help. Thank you for that, for those of you who responded with helpful information. What I find least helpful are those who assume I am a troll and resort to other name calling.
There was a Russian,I think his name was Gerasimov,who probably was the greatest forensic reconstructionist from skulls ever. He did a reconstruction of a Neanderthal from the skull of a youth of about 17 at death. The face was sort of homely but that of a man and looks European. Much more handsome than the typical magazine or textbook idea of a Neanderthal.
Citizen, I think your statement may be more correct than those responding to you. They should read "Whose Smile Is It, Anyway?" on slate.com.
From the article:
The reconstruction of King Richard III's face may be close to what it actually was, but those who knew him might not be able to recognize it.
That is why I am being cremated. As amazing as this is they are disturbing his grave and I don't want anybody to dig me up in the future.
Citizen, if you've watched the History channel or read up on Forensic Anthropology you will see that they can be very close in reconstructing faces. They have the facial bones to work with, and with pictures or direct descendants they can do wonders.
The only tricky part would be eye and hair color which can be estimated by nationality quite often.
I find this story fascinating. Whether you believe Richard a murderer or not his legacy is a part of history. His remains belong in Westminster Abbey.
Citizen, perhaps it was wrong for some people to come down hard on you, but you were in the wrong, too, with your initial post. Rather than dismiss something you didn't understand, why didn't you research the subject matter so you would know what you are posting about? You have a computer, and access to the internet...use them.
TnDan, I have no problem being corrected. I stand corrected with my original thoughts about forensic science. That is not my problem. My problem is the way our culture has become incredibly rude by making nasty comments intended as personal barbs, all while hiding behind cyber-anonymity. To me that is cowardice and childishness. I challenge these people to stick to the topic at hand.
He's a former king of England. He needs to be buried in Westminster with the rest of the monarchs....
Not all English Monarchs are buried at Westminster... heck...Richard the Lionheart is buried in France!... But, he is deserving of a royal burial...
The English law is they should be buried near to where they fell....he was buried in a Monestary/Abby close to where he fell originally, Henry VIII took over the Monestary and it was torn down, and lost it's location over time. Richard is to be re-buried in the nearest cathedral.
Once they are done analysising his bones, his remains are going to be rested at Leicester Cathedral - close to the site of his original grave.
I was very happy to hear that he is going to be given the proper burial he deserves.
Being a bit of a British History nut, I know that what most people believe what they think is true about Richard the Third - as anyone can easily see from reading the comments here - that they believe in the Tudors' propaganda and slander; Shakespeare having been a supportor of the Tudors only helped spread the lies with his play of him.
He was a King and fought to his dying breath, he deserves a proper burial.
Richard the Lionheart spent very little time in England what with the third Crusade machinations. He also was less a hero than reputed. Just think, "spin" has been around since.....Well, forever!
Woodysr...just shows you how we have romanticised Richard the Lionheart.... He actually spent very little time in England... didn't really like England at all.. Spoke French... not English...
EIGHT wounds to the head. Damn! Those Tudors sure wanted to be sure he was dead, didn't they? They were usurping the king and taking over the throne whatever it took, right down to regicide! I want it, I'm taking it. So there!
Well, technically they would have been usurping the usurper, wouldn't they? If they killed a usurper, should it be called "regicide"? I understand that it's never been proven beyond a doubt that he had a hand in the disappearnce of his nephew (the real king), and the Tudors were bound to put the darkest spin possible on his reign, but by all accounts he was as ruthless as they come. Before his nephews disappeared, he made dam sure that there were some trumped up charges to make them "illegitimate", then they conveniently disappeared.
That being said, it was pretty much the way most kings and nobility acted back then. It was make them disappear or be made to disappear yourself, lol. No messy elections or campaigns or anything like that, lol.
sounds like someone was ticked off doesn't it?
And don't forget the one in the Buttocks when he was abused, he was strewn over the horse after recovering the body to take back to Leicester and a arrow head found in the Back.
Actually technically Richard had a much better claim and was in the line of succession. Henry on the other hand was not.
ifinley,
That was one theory of what happened to the princes; however, it is not definitive and many scholars contest that supposition. There were multiple individuals who had reason to remove the princes.
ifinley obviously knows nothing abut English history and proves it by displaying his ignorance. But I suppose he comes from the culture that believes every Hollywood "historical" film is true. So it is no stretch to assume that Shakespeare wrote true history even though he was the arch propagandist for the Tudor usurpers.
Or just a good story teller, lol. People telling storys take liberties with the truth all the time. Shakespeare never said he was a journalist or making documentaries.
I believe he definitely put some spin on the stories to satisfy some sponsors, of course, but by all accounts there was some truth to his portrayal of Richard as ruthless power-hungry leader. But then again, weren't nearly all of them back then? So much propaganda from both sides, we'll probably never have the real truth.
I love history as much as the next nut out there but you know may-be he did kill them and then again he didn't. We wern't there so how can we say he did or didn't. Untill someone comes up with a flipping time machine............STHU. The man is dead there fore he can't say a dam thing in his defence. No matter how he got to be king he was a king. And as a king he deserves his props. And by the way Shakespeare wrote plays and stories just like anyother author. So what if he was in with the royals of his time. In that time that was the place to be if you wanted to be rich if you were born poor. If you were an artist of any kind you needed a rich sponsor just to make it. So lay of shakespeare he's dead too and can't defend himself either.
Holy crap! It's Lord Farquaad!
OMgee! I was just about to say the same thing! Bahahahaha! The King of Far Far Away! Where's Shrek?
I thought he looks like Q from Star Trek.
http://www.startrek.com/database_article/q-aliens
When the workers were uncovering the bones and skull, one of them remarked..."We have bones over here, bones over there, a skull over here, bones scattered everywhere. Could this be King Richard?"
A voice from the grave answered, "Yep, that's me all over!"
*groooaaannn* he may haunt you for that! ;-)
King Richard was just head over heels that he was finally disovered......
See? Now THAT's some funny stuff!
Was watching Grocho Marx TV shows last night."You bet your life"....the effects have not worn off yet.
Actually I am a historian, specialize in Dakota Indian and pioneer history in Minnesota. Three yrs ago in the newspaper there was a small story about archeologists finding a skull on an island in the Red Cedar river area in Wisc. Gave approx time(Late 1700's) they thought the man had lived and noted a projectile had gone through the skull. Skull found on highpoint of 2 acre Island. I knew the story from William Warren's book from 1850 time period, "History of the Ojibway People", of the battle that took place there. I sent the page from the book to them and it matched perfectly to be the Ojibway chief Father of "Little Wolf." Archeologists were thinking they would have work for the summer $$$$ trying to figure out everything.....
So I am making light the story above in remembrence of Groucho.
Rather Chumly, Dare Say So!
studio!! your comment is da bomb!!
A wonderful find....and the facial reconstruction, with comparison to the portraits painted of him in his time, appears to be spot-on. This is spurring the Brit historians to "re-examine" his life and activities. I know they want to see if they can improve his rep a little, but there were still too many accurately recorded mysterious deaths that took place which just happened to clear the way for him to grab the crown. I doubt that old Richard Plantagenet will end up looking any finer a human being than he has for so long. Too many monarchs throughout history have taken that path to secure power for themselves. But a marvelous find, and I'm glad about it. I just wonder why he wasn't found sooner? The site seems ineresting in itself in view of its earlier context and history....but who can say?
They have a couple of options to see where and how the two nephews died. There were bones of two children found in 1810-12 under a stairwell in Tower of London, these bones are in Westminister now. There were also discovered somewhere along the way, two unmarked lead coffins of children with RIchards' brother Edward IV and his wife, that was believed to be George (2 years old) and Mary (14) siblings of the two missing princes. However, two children's lead coffins marked George and Mary were found someplace else. But to exam all of these bones, it takes the Queen's approval.
Is it just me, or is there a striking resemblance to Robert Pattinson....
It's just you--He looks more like Daniel Day Lewis
I think Greta van susteren w/ black hair.
At least it's not another Nicholas Cage doppleganger.
He is a major suspect in the disappearance of the two young princes. Two small skeletons were found at the foot of some stairs at the old tower (I think) where the boys were kept as prisoners.
I read somewhere years ago that one of the bodies was a girl. It would be the smart thing for Henry VII to get rid of them because he had no legal right to the thrown and he did get rid of all the other contenders, so why not the boys.
Mary, they can't tell the sex without DNA....they were discovered first in 1810-12 during renovation of the White Tower in the Tower of London...the bones were examined again in 1933...determined to be one between 11-14 year old child, and the second betweeen 9-11 year old child. These bones are still in Westminster Abbey and require the Queen to approve any further exumation and scientific examination.
you don't need DNA to tell the sex.... you can tell by the pelvis or the skull...
.
Of course they can decide what he looked like. Not only can the determine the shape of his face using standard skin depths, etc. it's even easier in this case because they already know who he is. Knowing the general features of the family line would even be a bigger help.
Also, anyones DNA can be used to find their 'Ethnic Family Tree'. I wouldn't rush out and join one of the many companies claiming to be able to do it or some that even have home test. But I would trust professionals using advanced technical processes to do a pretty good job.
What lead them to dig there? This is very interesting and I'm just wondering if they had clues he might be there or what. Now he can have a proper site with the other kings. And as so many have said it was fairly common to use whatever means necessary to gain the throne--or the pope's chair. Poison was also fairly common. Now it's lies, scandel, whatever to kill a person's reputation. Same differance, same result.
It had been written that Richard was buried...either beneath the park at Grey Friar's or just behind the building... the park still stands... the building had been razed years ago to put in the parking lot..
Pave paradise and put up a parking lot....
Before this story was released the DNA was done and by the curvature of the spine he must have walked with a limp. I am so glad to see the reconstruction and yes, by the wounds to the skeleton, he was hacked up pretty bad. I think it so cool that science and forensics can do things like this.
his hair is to clean, funny how a scum bag from days past gets all this press & yes he does look like the prince from Shrek...lol....I still want to know where Hoffa is...
lol, his teeth, such great teeth, hahahahaha, esp considering the stereotype about the english n their teeth :)
Suzannnn he was like, 32 when he died, no time for the teeth to get all English, however, he had quite a few of his own teeth still in his head (look at the skeleton) and they looked pretty good for having been buried for over 500 years.
i love this, so cool... i have read a lot about the tudors, n also the wars of the roses... this is so exciting if it is indeed richard III
This is the kind of thing I studied Anthropology for... I am glad that the British will be re-examining Richard's role in history. There is much evidence that he enacted law that helped the common man in the courts, etc. Maybe, not worthy of sainthood...but, certainly not a monster, either. But... Shakespeare's #1 patron was Queen Elizabeth I, and it was not wise to insult her family...
I am possibly a descendant of Elizabeth his sister but as a commoner I am suspicious of undocumented genealogy. Outside of French Canadians who uniquely can track their ordinary ancestors back 400 years to a time when some of them had real titles and historic records; unless you currently have a title there probably is a records gap between you and ancient nobility. This is like the Sally Hemming's Thomas Jefferson claim in that they are overstating the DNA evidence to bolster historical conjecture. The claims of commoners today to descent from famous people in the past is mostly unprovable. In addition mitochondrial DNA merely indicates they had a common descent from a distant female and does not establish direct descent from any particular other descendant from that ancestral female. This is a nice story but a lot of people in the Middle Ages died violent deaths and if this is in the battlefield vicinity there would have been thousands of similar bodies in the area.
They could compare his DNA to other known Plantagenet males... just don't know if Parliament would be willing to open up a coffin or two to see if there are other skeletal remains to do the comparison...
Wasn't one of the living descendants they sampled from Canada? I'm sure they used people who's line was pretty clearly drawn. You wouldn't want to make assertations about something like this unless you had pretty rock solid evidence of family ties. As far as "thousands of bodies" is concerned, they would not have taken the time to bury them individually. Most bodies would have likely been carted off and burned or put in mass graves. They did not make this discovery by sampling hundreds of human remains in this spot. They found a skeleton in the place Richard was supposed to have been buried. Based just on that it wouldn't be a huge leap to say maybe this is Richard. There is certainly enough circumstancial evidence (cuts, deformity of the spine, foot removal,etc...) to suggest that it probaly is. With the DNA evidence it is pretty air tight.
They used two descendants, one is English, but wishes to remain anonamous. This was a body found on a piece of battle field, it was located at the locations of the original monestary where Richard III was buried after his death, (and being mutilated by Henry VII's troops) THey also found this body by the remains for the church, the place in the church where they chronicles said he would be. Let me guess, you dont' believe they landed on the moon either do you?
My ex-batturd husband fathers side of the family was related to one of the royals back in the day I forgot wich one and the only thing that stuck in the back of my mind that I didn't forget was he said that thier family coat of arms was stricken of the books and so was thier family name. He said that the ansestor was really,really bad as bad as or as worse then The Marquis de Sade. Makes me glad we didn't have kids
The cabinet maker should claim his right to the British throne... right now! Hail to the King!
It should say "artists rendition". Skull shapes vary, but by no means are there as many different skull shapes as there are different looking people. He looks like he may have some "oriental" characteristics around the eyes. Whatever...
Okay, he looks like he has Asian features. I wonder what ethnicity is he truly?
You think he looks Asian? Not me perhaps it is the hat influencing your view.
With features like his....English of course!
The hair was not as dark. The cheeks had less meat on them.
Pretty close likeness to the Portrait.