I have found this completely fascinating Henry and found myself checking online at lunch to see the findings, I was a bit dismayed that I had so little reaction from the teaching staff :eek: A learning opportunity happening now and involving our history snuffed out like it did not matter, well bar one ........oh well :rolleyes: What a great opportunity for children to see modern media/archaeology and history rolled into one and then missed.
He looked no different to the painting, I was hoping he wouldn't look like that for some reason.
I was thinking that before they showed the model..They could have had the painting in mind when they did it..I can understand why Philipa was upset though.Suppose if you spend four years on an emotive subject and see it all come alive must bring a few tears
But the bones show scoliosis of the spine which the Tudors always said he had. The Ricardians claim that was mythology designed to make him horrible.
Won't be long before the icardians are saying it's all fake.
Scoliosis is not a 'hunchback'. That is kyphosis. The Tudors picked up on the spinal issue and turned it into evidence of monstrosity.
I have found this completely fascinating Henry and found myself checking online at lunch to see the findings, I was a bit dismayed that I had so little reaction from the teaching staff :eek: A learning opportunity happening now and involving our history snuffed out like it did not matter, well bar one ........oh well :rolleyes: What a great opportunity for children to see modern media/archaeology and history rolled into one and then missed.
I'm on another witter
It has been fasinating. Lovely how the past came be brought to life.
I must admit that although it possibly came across as a little bizarre I did get where Phillipa was coming from. She had strived for this, to find Richard's grave and to her he wasn't just a chapter in a History book but a person. She had invested so much and until certain moments it could have been anyone. I know two small bodies were unearthed in the Tower of London during Charles II''s reign but were they ever later DNA matched? Or just buried under the presumption that they were the two Princes In The Tower.
Still think that Richard III was given a unfair write-up in the Tudor years. Monarchy back then was cut-throat and ruthless. It was still late into the Tudor times, Elizabeth I ordering her cousin Mary's death. Henry VIII ridding himself of the De Pole family etc.
I must admit that although it possibly came across as a little bizarre I did get where Phillipa was coming from. She had strived for this, to find Richard's grave and to her he wasn't just a chapter in a History book but a person. She had invested so much and until certain moments it could have been anyone. I know two small bodies were unearthed in the Tower of London during Charles II''s reign but were they ever later DNA matched? Or just buried under the presumption that they were the two Princes In The Tower.
Still think that Richard III was given a unfair write-up in the Tudor years. Monarchy back then was cut-throat and ruthless. It was still late into the Tudor times, Elizabeth I ordering her cousin Mary's death. Henry VIII ridding himself of the De Pole family etc.
Indeed, particularly the Countess of Salisbury, a niece of Richard III. The old woman was dragged to the scaffold and the executioner botched the job in a very grisly manner.
Are the contributors to the Richard III Society going to get their £10k funding for the dig reimbursed by the government, seeing as this discovery is of national heritage?
You say odd, I say passionate and she's obviously not the only one.
She raised over £10k to dig up a council car park on a bit of research and a hunch and found a lost king.
Was that intentional ?
My uncle had the same condition as Richard , commonly called a wry neck. It 's not a hunchback look , but one of the shoulders is tucked under your chin. It is noticable. If he was a perfect physical specimen why would later generations claim he had some form of disability. They may have exaggerated his looks , but there must have been something there .
Why do you think there are no records going back to the fifteenth century? How do you think we know about The Battle of Hastings, the Battle of Stamford Bridge, the War of the Roses, the lives and deaths and issue of every notable person in English (no, world) history going back over a thousand years?
This is a woman who was sister to Edward IV and Richard III, and aunt to Edward V. She was also aunt to Henry Tudor's wife (Elizabeth of York), therefore great-aunt to Henry VIII, so of direct lineage to our current Royal Family. The British Royal Family probably has the most traceable family tree in history - every king and queen (plus their brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, councillors, ladies-in-waiting, best friends, dogs etc) going back to long before William the Conqueror is known, so why on earth do you think that it may be inaccurate?
There's no need to trace back from this Canadian guy and some forms he has filled in, there's no need to disbelieve any claims he is making - just trace forward from Richard, Duke of York, through his children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren and you'll arrive at Michael Ibsen. No doubt about it.
Good post, family history research can be a fascinating and yet sometimes frustrating hobby and much easier these days with so many online records available. For those of you who've not delved into your own family history I assure you, its a wonderful and often surprising way of spending some of your time Got my fathers side pretty much pegged down to @1590
But the bones show scoliosis of the spine which the Tudors always said he had. The Ricardians claim that was mythology designed to make him horrible.
Won't be long before the icardians are saying it's all fake.
I have to admit I was chuckling a bit during the program.
It looks as if Richard III was slight and a bit twisted.
And was killed in the way that was recorded.
I don't see how the Ricardians can see this as a triumph exactly.
Seems to show that the 'blackening' was based on a lot of truth.
I can't believe they were allowed to dig up a council/social services car park like that. Where did local authority staff park during their work hours (i.e. 11-12 and 2-3, 2:30 on a Friday)?
Comments
There's been quite a lot of research done on that over the years...
http://www.le.ac.uk/lahs/downloads/BaldwinSmPagesfromvolumeLX-5.pdf
http://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/greyfriars
...apart from the whole jaw line being different?
I have found this completely fascinating Henry and found myself checking online at lunch to see the findings, I was a bit dismayed that I had so little reaction from the teaching staff :eek: A learning opportunity happening now and involving our history snuffed out like it did not matter, well bar one ........oh well :rolleyes: What a great opportunity for children to see modern media/archaeology and history rolled into one and then missed.
I'm on another witter
Richard III arrested for sexual offences 500 years ago!!!!
I was thinking that before they showed the model..They could have had the painting in mind when they did it..I can understand why Philipa was upset though.Suppose if you spend four years on an emotive subject and see it all come alive must bring a few tears
Scoliosis is not a 'hunchback'. That is kyphosis. The Tudors picked up on the spinal issue and turned it into evidence of monstrosity.
It has been fasinating. Lovely how the past came be brought to life.
What a horrible way to die, and stripped naked on public display
Still think that Richard III was given a unfair write-up in the Tudor years. Monarchy back then was cut-throat and ruthless. It was still late into the Tudor times, Elizabeth I ordering her cousin Mary's death. Henry VIII ridding himself of the De Pole family etc.
Indeed, particularly the Countess of Salisbury, a niece of Richard III. The old woman was dragged to the scaffold and the executioner botched the job in a very grisly manner.
Was that intentional ?
My uncle had the same condition as Richard , commonly called a wry neck. It 's not a hunchback look , but one of the shoulders is tucked under your chin. It is noticable. If he was a perfect physical specimen why would later generations claim he had some form of disability. They may have exaggerated his looks , but there must have been something there .
Non of these face reconstructions are true.
They just make them and everyone belives it.
Thanks for the links.
So Phillipa was no more than a source of funding to carry out a dig long believed to be where Richard was buried?
Good post, family history research can be a fascinating and yet sometimes frustrating hobby and much easier these days with so many online records available. For those of you who've not delved into your own family history I assure you, its a wonderful and often surprising way of spending some of your time
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00380/121283618_richard_I_380829c.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/66/Guydelabed.jpg/428px-Guydelabed.jpg
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00380/121283618_richard_I_380829c.jpg
http://hairstyles.thehairstyler.com/hairstyle_views/front_view_images/4675/original/Kiera-Knightley.jpg
....but why did they make him crosseyed??? :eek:
I have to admit I was chuckling a bit during the program.
It looks as if Richard III was slight and a bit twisted.
And was killed in the way that was recorded.
I don't see how the Ricardians can see this as a triumph exactly.
Seems to show that the 'blackening' was based on a lot of truth.
i was just about to ask that!!!