Richard III found buried under parking lot!


Goober
+1
#2
Probably take about 500 years to find Hoffa's body.
 
Blackleaf
#3
Yeah. It was confirmed live on TV at 10am this morning that the skeleton is indeed that of Richard III. What an amazing bit of news.



It also seems that the Tudors WERE actually correct when they described him as being a hunchback and that it wasn't merely propaganda from them, including Shakespeare. Richard's skeleton has a condition called scoliosis which, even though it isn't actually a hunchback, would have made him appear to contemporaries as a hunchback. Most of them would not have known the difference. After all, the Hunchback of Notre Dame also had scoliosis rather than being a real hunchback.

His remains are to be permanently interred in Leicester Cathedral - England's fourth smallest Anglican cathedral and where there is already a memorial stone to the king - in 2014.

Preparations are underway for a major Christian reinterment ceremony. David Monteith, Leicester Cathedral Canon Chancellor, said that because it would have been "unheard of" for the King not to have received a formal burial at the time, he could not be buried again so it would be a service of remembrance.

It is not known whether the Royal Family will attend.

So, for probably centuries to come, those wanting to see the remains of Richard III will just have to go to Leicester Cathedral.


Channel 4, 9pm, Tonight - Richard III: The King in the Car Park



When a skeleton was reported found under a Leicester council car park in September 2012, the news broke around the world. Could it be the remains, lost for 500 years, of England's most infamous king?

In a world exclusive, Channel 4 has the full inside story of the hunt for Richard III.

The discovery of the body and the battery of scientific tests to establish its identity have been carried out in complete secrecy, with no footage of them seen by anyone but the investigating team.

But this programme - made by the only team allowed to follow the scientists - tells every step, twist and turn of the story.

It unveils a brand new facial reconstruction made from the skull and - in scenes shot just hours before broadcast - reveals the results of the final tests that confirm or deny the body's identity.

Of course, we now know the results of the tests. The news conference this morning which confirmed that the remains are indeed those of the king will probably be shown on the documentary, but I think it'll still be worth watching.
Last edited by Blackleaf; Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:41 AM..
 
taxslave
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Probably take about 500 years to find Hoffa's body.

who really wants Jimmy's body though?
 
Spade
+2
#5
The British are boning up on their royalty.
 
Walter
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

who really wants Jimmy's body though?

Certainly not the Kennedys.
 
petros
+2
#7
If it's IMPark, I can see the Royals getting a huge bill. Thank goodness he wasn't buried at the airport. Parking rates there are a sin.
 
Spade
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

If it's IMPark, I can see the Royals getting a huge bill. Thank goodness he wasn't buried at the airport. Parking rates there are a sin.

Especially if he were double parked.
 
petros
+3
#9  Top Rated Post
With scoliosis, it would be a double wide handicapped spot.
 
coldstream
+1
#10
It still sounds like a stretch. There is a society somewhere dedicated to rehabilitating the reputation of Richard III and the restoration of the Plantagenet monarchs, of whom Richard was the last. Even by the accounts of his enemies he died bravely in battle. But the unearthing of two childrens' skeletons in recent years from beneath the Tower of London and dated to the period, likely those of the 'little princes' and heirs to the throne before Richard.. seems to have worked against his case.
Last edited by coldstream; Feb 4th, 2013 at 01:56 PM..
 
petros
+2
#11
The Royals are pigs.
 
Nuggler
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

The Royals are pigs.


Inbred bleeder pigs at that. Specially prince philly. A condescending dork of the first order.


There's a rule that one must never touch the queen. Why would ya wanna?!
 
damngrumpy
+1
#13
Petros I loved the bit about MPark, he has been there a long time the government
could counter with a charge of allowing a body to remain hidden away under a
parking lot for the governments are as bad as MPark. They just have a different
way of shafting people.
 
petros
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

Inbred bleeder pigs at that. Specially prince philly. A condescending dork of the first order.


There's a rule that one must never touch the queen. Why would ya wanna?!

Diana was just broodmare whose bloodlines were truly inherent of the Crown.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Petros I loved the bit about MPark, he has been there a long time the government
could counter with a charge of allowing a body to remain hidden away under a
parking lot for the governments are as bad as MPark. They just have a different
way of shafting people.

I won't use an IMPark lot. It's cheaper to park illegally and get a ticket.
 
karrie
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Richard's skeleton has a condition called scoliosis which, even though it isn't actually a hunchback, would have made him appear to contemporaries as a hunchback. Most of them would not have known the difference. After all, the Hunchback of Notre Dame also had scoliosis rather than being a real hunchback.

.

What does a 'real hunchback' have?
 
petros
#16
Spina bifida.
 
Nuggler
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Spina bifida.

sometimes
 
petros
+2
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post


But this programme - made by the only team allowed to follow the scientists - tells every step, twist and turn of the story.

It unveils a brand new facial reconstruction made from the skull and - in scenes shot just hours before broadcast - reveals the results of the final tests that confirm or deny the body's identity.

Artistic rendering based on facial reconstruction just released.

 
Spade
+2
#19
Used to play a lot of poker, but never held a royal flush.
 
JLM
+2
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Used to play a lot of poker, but never held a royal flush.

Even using "spade" as a wild card? -
 
Spade
#21
Well yes, when hooks, crooks, and one-eyed jacks were wild.
 
SLM
#22
"A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!"

Too late now.
 
taxslave
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

Inbred bleeder pigs at that. Specially prince philly. A condescending dork of the first order.


There's a rule that one must never touch the queen. Why would ya wanna?!

So you can get royally screwed.
 
Cliffy
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

So you can get royally screwed.

Lots of peasants did.
 
gopher
-1
#25
He wanted a horse and got an entire stable (of cars).
 
Blackleaf
#26
The face of Richard III was unveiled on the Channel 4 documentary "Richard III: The King in the Car Park."

His face was reconstructed from the skull found beneath a social services car park that was confirmed as that of the last Plantagenet king.


Revealed: This is the face of King Richard III, reconstructed from 3D scans of his skull after the positive identification of his skeleton found beneath a social services car part in Leicester last year. Archaeologists discovered Richard III's skeleton in September on the spot where a church once stood.

The facial reconstruction was released following the confirmation that the skeleton unearthed in Leicester was that of the king killed in battle more than 500 years ago.

The image is based on a CT scan taken by experts at the University of Leicester, who discovered the king's skeleton with the help of the Richard III Society during an archaeological dig last September. Richard was buried in Greyfriars Church in Leicester with his hands bound together after his death in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. Ten years later, Henry VII, the victor of the battle, paid for a tomb 'of many-coloured marble' to be built, the location of which, until Richard's skeleton was found in September, was a mystery. The tomb is presumed to have been demolished along with the Church following its dissolution after 1536. Today a social services car park occupies the spot.

The facial reconstruction was officially unveiled on 5th February, but it was broadcast on 4th February - the day that Leicester University confirmed that the skeleton is that of Richard III - in the Channel 4 documentary on the find.

It reveals the controversial king had a more pleasant, younger and fuller appearance than period portraits reveal - a face far removed from the image of the cold-blooded villain of Shakespeare's play.

The 'calm and apparently thoughtful' face is in contrast to the many portrayals of Richard III, showing contorted facial and bodily features some say were created for political reasons following his death.

However, with its slightly arched nose and prominent chin, the essential features of the slain king are largely similar to those shown in portraits of Richard, of whom no contemporary portraits exist.

Richard III was killed in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, deposed at the age of just 32 after just two years on the throne by the forces of Henry Tudor, who became King Henry VII, the first Tudor monarch.

His body was discovered in a shallow grave just 2ft beneath the concrete car park following a search instigated by Philippa Langley, a member of the Richard III Society.

'It doesn't look like the face of a tyrant. I'm sorry but it doesn't,' she told the documentary on the search last night. 'He's very handsome. It's like you could just talk to him, have a conversation with him right now.'


Posthumous portrait: With its arched nose and prominent chin, the features are similar to those shown in this picture of Richard painted in 1520, 35 years after his death

Historian and author John Ashdown-Hill, an expert on Richard III's reign, told the BBC that the reconstruction largely matched the prominent features in posthumous representations of the king.

'All the surviving portraits of him - even the very later ones with humped backs and things which were obviously later additions - facially are quite similar [to each other] so it has always been assumed that they were based on a contemporary portrait painted in his lifetime or possibly several portraits painted in his lifetime,' he said.

The reconstruction comes after University of Leicester academics yesterday revealed the the king's remains bore the marks of ten injuries inflicted shortly before his death.

More gruesome, however, was evidence of ‘humiliation’ injuries, including a cut to the ribcage and a pelvic wound likely caused by an upward thrust of a weapon through his buttock whilst his corpse was being paraded on horseback after the battle.

However, what appeared to be a barbed iron arrow head lodged between two vertebrae is believed to be a Roman nail.


Richard III was found under a letter R




Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2K2Ip1Rkh
Last edited by Blackleaf; Feb 11th, 2013 at 01:25 PM..
 
WLDB
#27
Looks like he did in the Olivier film. My personal favourite Shakespeare adaptation.

They must have really disliked him to do that kind of damage to him.

Will they be reburying him with the other monarchs now?
 
Blackleaf
#28
More about the 1485 Battle of Bosworth and the events leading up to it, a part of the Wars of the Roses, which saw Richard III become the last English king to die in battle.

According to Shakespeare, as he lay on the ground the king uttered the immortal words ‘My horse, my horse, my kingdom for a horse!’ as Henry's men came upon him to finish him off.

It is believed by many that he uttered those words in real life, but reality was, in fact, very different...

Treason he cried as he charged into the carnage: David Leafe recreates a war hero king's last hours



By David Leafe
5 February 2013
Daily Mail


Leicester councillors show that they have a sense of humour

With the sun glinting off their swords and their giant steeds raring to charge down the Leicestershire hillside and into battle, Richard  III’s troops must have looked a terrifying sight indeed.

They outnumbered by two to one the forces of Henry Tudor, gathered in the valley below them on that August morning in 1485, but still the King seemed unduly troubled as he prepared to defend his crown near the town of Market Bosworth.

‘He had seen dreadful visions in the night, in which he was surrounded by a multitude of demons, as he himself testified in the morning,’ wrote a chronicler of the time.


End of the line: An artist's impression of the Battle of Bosworth, 22 August 1485, shows the last Plantagenet king, Richard III, on white horse

‘He consequently presented a countenance which, while always drawn, was on this occasion more livid and ghastly than usual.’

The King’s fears would prove well-founded. At sunset two days previously he had been on horseback, leading his troops towards Leicester, when his stirruped foot struck the parapet of a bridge.

Legend has it that an old woman in the crowd prophesied that his head would strike the same stone on the way back.

And she was said to have been proved right when, following his catastrophic defeat at Bosworth, with his naked corpse flung across the back of a mule, his dangling head smacked against the stonework of the same bridge.


The villain king: But there are those who suggests Richard III's bad reputation is more down to Tudor propaganda than his actual actions

Whether Henry Tudor was aware of this detail of his opponent’s final indignity we do not know. But, if so, he would surely have applauded it, because for his enemies it was not enough that Richard should merely die.

They wanted to humiliate him, too, as became clear this week when scientists revealed the manner of his death.

His death was probably caused by one of two injuries to the base of the head, possibly inflicted by a halberd.

This fearsome-looking double-bladed axe was fully capable of slicing through the skull, as early investigations suggest may have happened to the King.

Perhaps the most disturbing wounds, however, were what the archaeologists described as ‘humiliation’ injuries, including a pelvic wound most likely caused by an upward thrust of a weapon through the buttock after death.

The idea that his killers went far beyond what was necessary to dispatch the King is consistent with gory contemporary reports of a battle which changed the course of English history, bringing about the start of the Tudor reign and the huge influence on national life of monarchs such as Henry VIII (Richard III's great-nephew) and Elizabeth I.

Many would argue that Richard, the last of the Plantagenets, got exactly what was coming to him, a view encouraged by Shakespeare’s portrayal of him as a Machiavellian hunchback who stopped at nothing in his craving to become King.

Born in 1452, he was a member of the House of York (along with the House of Lancaster it was a branch of the Plantagenet royal dynasty) and the younger brother of King Edward IV, who died in 1483 and who was succeeded by his 12-year-old son King Edward V.

That same year, Edward V's uncle Richard seized the throne, having both Edward V and his younger brother declared illegitimate and imprisoned in the Tower of London where, it was alleged, he had them murdered (the fate of the two Princes in the Tower remains a mystery).

But the Princes in the Tower scandal made Richard highly vulnerable to the scheming of Henry Tudor, a descendant of the rival House of Lancaster — and a pretender to the throne.

Five years Richard’s junior, the Welshman Henry had lived in France since 1471, but in the summer of 1485, accompanied by 2,000 French mercenaries, he set sail across the Channel to Wales, where his family wielded its greatest influence, to fight for the English throne.


The hunchback king: The skeleton, unearthed in a dig last September, showed evidence of the same curvature of the spine and battle injuries thought to have been suffered by the last Plantagenet king

Richard, who had been King for barely two years by then, had laid contingency plans for just such a move.

These included a misguided attempt to enlist the support of the hugely wealthy Stanley family, which commanded a great private army and in effect had the power to win the coming battle for either side.

To guarantee their co-operation, Richard took hostage Sir Thomas Stanley’s son, Lord Strange — a move which would later contribute to his undoing.

As Henry Tudor marched through Wales and into the Midlands, consolidating an army of 5,000 men along the way, Richard was massing a force of 12,000 soldiers moving towards them from the south.

Like all battles of the time, the outcome would depend primarily on hand-to-hand combat, with weapons designed to maim and kill and none of the chivalric courtesies shown to opponents in tournaments.



The face of a king: There were cheers from media who had gathered from around the world as the announcement was made at the University of Leicester this morning

Ironically, although the discovery of his skeleton suggests that Richard suffered from curvature of the spine, as has been suspected for so many centuries, he was in some ways better equipped for the fray than Henry.

Small and slender, he may not have had the robust physique associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors.

But he was said to have enjoyed rough sports and activities that were considered manly and, unlike Henry, he had previous experience of the battlefield.

When they met at Bosworth on the morning of August 22, the inexperienced Henry handed command of his army to the Earl of Oxford — a veteran of many conflicts — and retired behind the front line with his bodyguards.

His men had the double disadvantage of fighting up the grassy hill upon which Richard had gathered his troops, and also being hemmed in by marshland.

But there was a crucial element that both commanders knew could be decisive: on rising ground on the far side of the battlefield stood the 6,000-strong army commanded by the Stanleys.

They had pledged their allegiance to the King, but they were known to be fickle, often watching the progress of a battle before they decided which side they would support.

True to form, they kept their troops back as the two sides prepared to fight.



The fatal blows? This image of the skull shows where Richard III was injured


‘One of the Welshmen came after him,’ wrote one historian of the time, ‘and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging, as one would bear a sheep.This X-ray tomography image shows the two injuries which could have killed Richard: The area in the middle marked A is where the spine meets the skull. There are two injuries to the left (B) and right (C) of this that could have led to death if inflicted in life. The right hand injury, possibly from a halberd would have damaged the cerebellum. The left hand injury was probably caused by a sword and could also have been fatal

When Richard - who was wearing his crown during the battle - sent a message to Stanley, telling him his son would be executed if he did not join the attack on Henry, Stanley replied that he had other sons (in the event, his son’s life was spared).

With the Stanleys still undecided, the Earl of Oxford ordered Henry Tudor’s men to advance in a single tight formation, flanked by their horsemen. Manoeuvring away from the marsh, they held their position on firmer ground.

High on his hilltop, Richard gave the order to advance. As the opposing archers exchanged fire, hails of arrows pierced even chain-mail, and men fell screaming and dying in the front ranks of both armies.

As the first blood was drawn, the King’s men thundered downwards, some 1,500 mounted knights engaged in the last great cavalry charge of the medieval era.

Seeing this writhing wall of steel and horseflesh galloping towards him, Henry appeared briefly dumbstruck, but recovered his faculties as his men formed a tight knot and braced themselves for the impact.

Over the next two hours, with nobles and foot soldiers alike fighting hand-to-hand in a sea of severed limbs, Henry’s men held their own and the King’s troops looked for reinforcements as men were hacked or clubbed to death where they stood. Others gave up the fight and ran.


As they were found: The remains of King Richard III were found in a hastily dug grave beneath a council car park in Leicester last September, in what were once the precincts of Grey Friars church

Fearing a defeat, the King, never one to lead from the rear, seized the initiative and threw himself into the battle. Finally, he saw a chance of winning outright — by killing Henry.

As he and his mounted knights charged, the King’s lance pierced the armour of Henry’s standard-bearer Sir William Brandon and snapped in half. But still Richard fought on, unhorsing one of his burliest opponents and dealing him a blow on the head with his broken lance.

He might have succeeded in killing Henry himself, but the press of men and horses carried him off course as the tide began to turn against him.

One of his supporters, Sir Percival Thirwell, lost his legs in a spray of blood, but continued to hold the Yorkist banner aloft until he was hacked to death, while the King’s horse became mired in soft ground and he was forced to continue his fight on foot.


The skull of the king as it was found by archaeologists: Trauma to the skeleton showed the king died after one of two significant wounds to the back of the skull - possibly caused by a sword and a halberd


Hunched in death as he was in life: The skeleton was found in good condition with its feet missing


This, of course, is the point in the battle immortalised by Shakespeare in the phrase: ‘My horse, my horse, my kingdom for a horse!’

Yet in reality, though the King’s followers offered him their steeds to escape, Richard refused, even after the Stanleys finally agreed to lead their men into the fighting at Henry’s side and, with his army disintegrating, he found himself outnumbered by his foes.

Shouting ‘Treason! Treason! Treason!’ according to reports of the time, he soon met his end.

‘One of the Welshmen came after him,’ wrote one historian of the time, ‘and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging, as one would bear a sheep.’

As we now know, it seems likely the 32-year-old Richard also suffered a series of other horrific injuries before he was carried back to Leicester and buried in a local monastery.

This week’s announcement will rekindle debate about whether he was a good king or bad, but what has never appeared to be in doubt is that he was a brave soldier.

The evidence of his skeleton appears to confirm that — bearing the injuries of a man never afraid to be at the thick of fighting, right until his brutal end.



A plaque and the Royal Standard mark the spot where Richard was slain. After the battle, Richard's crown was found, probably by one of the Stanleys, in a hawthorn bush and it was placed on Henry Tudor's head.





Read more: Treason he cried as he charged into the carnage: David Leafe recreates a war hero king's last hours | Mail Online

Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Looks like he did in the Olivier film. My personal favourite Shakespeare adaptation.

They must have really disliked him to do that kind of damage to him.

Will they be reburying him with the other monarchs now?

He is to be interred in Leicester Cathedral in 2014.
Last edited by Blackleaf; Feb 11th, 2013 at 02:36 PM..
 
L Gilbert
#29
Why is this in the "news" section and not in the "history" section?
 
JLM
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Why is this in the "news" section and not in the "history" section?

\

Wouldn't finding the remains qualify as news?
 

Similar Threads

2
Parking wars
by Locutus | Apr 22nd, 2012
7
Boy Found Buried In Concrete
by mentalfloss | May 12th, 2011
no new posts