On the news programme she was demanding for the 'facts' to be told as if she knew them and others didn't know what they were talking about, she came across as a sort of David Icke.
Some of her 'facts' were blown out of the water by example the curvature of the spine. From the conversations we saw with other members of the Richard III Society, I can understand why the programme makers included her so much.
I believe if she had not been included throughout a 'conspiracy theory' probably would have arisen, by taking her along and getting her to accept evidence that overturned her 'facts' there was no wiggle room for the Richard III Society.
BUT, give it a month or two and they'll come up with some undisclosed 'facts' that gets their theories make on track.
Yes she was but from her research she may have a different take on it after all finding a Skeleton after all these years of Richard 111, i would be surprised even with academics if you asked two the same question you would probably get two diferent answers,yes i get the connection with David Icke.:D
I do appreciate though from her research she probably had a certain take on what they might find,but was proved wrong which is what archeology is all about.
Who knows what the exact facts are though as even academics will be arguing over this let alone the Richard111 society for many years i suspect.:)
Yeah I had to chuckle at Phillipa's "R marks the spot" piece, as I worked in the Grey Friars Leicester Social Services Building about 8 years ago and if I remember rightly the R stands for reserved ( probably a Director's parking space).
What also amused me is that the car parking attendant seemed as if he hadn't moved from his little hut in the eight years I have been gone. Looked exactly the same! Come to think of it I do remember the car park attendant shouting a lot about "King Dick" when cars nearly got stuck in the narrow entrance coming into the car park. Shoulda listened to him back then and here's me just thinking he had a potty mouth. Perhaps he knew all along.....:D
An interesting TV programme although they drew it out too long. I found the woman from the society really irritating as well but you have to admire her tenacity.
Not bad then which is a shame ch4 are endiing Time Team there is a market for this type of tv programme but the way Time Team have been mucked about in the scheduling and the row with Mick Aston ch4 lost a lot of viewers and they did it themselves.
An interesting TV programme although they drew it out too long. I found the woman from the society really irritating as well but you have to admire her tenacity.
I agree her emotions were overplayed to an annoying degree and more of a Time Team format would have been better. I thought it would be more about the dig but that was only a relatively short part. Perhaps an intermingling of David Starkeys programme would have been good to get more of the whole story to make your mind up on Richard. It was a very complicated story and times. Everything is up to interpretation.
I watched the last half hour after Lewis and it seems I didn't miss much. I agree that Phillipa was very annoying. It turns out that Richard was bit effeminate.
Another who thought it was better than some of the ott comments have made it seem.
And as to Philippa's behaviour, I would think anyone who has taken this project from day one, having to cajole unwilling archaeologists, and almost certainly had to live with people thinking her bonkers, a little emotion is utterly understandable.
There is an article about her in the Daily Record. It is easy to write off intuition but things do happen that are difficult to explain.
Philippa, who is secretary of the Scottish branch of the Richard III Society, recalled the visit which prompted the dig yesterday, saying: “It was a hot summer and I had goosebumps so badly and I was freezing cold.
“I walked past a particular spot and absolutely knew I was walking on his grave.
“I am a rational human being but the feeling I got was the same feeling I have had before when a truth is given to me.”
She appeared more upset that he had a deformed spine, when she and others in the society had built this image of a perfect specimen of manhood. Their fantasy was crushed.
I wondered the same about the DNA but then I'm not a scientist and have no idea how they explain this.
I've also always been a bit dubious about carbon dating.
I don't think she was upset that it did not fit with the idea of him having now deformity, it was just the shock of it fitting with descriptions of him. They said after the programme that Scoliosis is not a disability, it is a condition. Usain Bolt has it and does not seem to do too bad on the track!
They only have the mtDNA result, they are still waiting for the Y-DNA which takes longer.
Even in criminal cases, DNA evidence cannot give a positive identification. It just says there is a high probability that the two people are related but a negative result can say that there is a very low probability of the two people being related.
It was the build up of lots of bits of evidence which all fitted with it being him, I saw someone trying to claim it was wrong purely because the arrowhead turned out to be a Roman nail!
When I researched my family history it took me two years to find the correct personwho was my gt gt grandfather. I did all thecking through from parish registers and census information but the day that I received his death certificate I actually cried as though he was someone that I really knew.
It's amazing how wrapped up you can get in someone's life. Have people never watched Who Do You Thnk You Are and seen how emotional people get over the story of the people in their own families?
Richard had become real to her in the same way as her fmaily and friends and she wept for him as she would have done for one of them.
I can empathise will everything you say. But the trouble is, that her personal feelings should have been kept - in the main - off camera. It was definitely over exposed and brought some ridicule into it which is unhelpful if you, as an R3 Soc.member, are trying ot raise more serious awareness of the historical character Richard 3rd. Historians tend to regard Ricardians as hysterical romantics anyway and this programme simply confirmed that impression. I fear she/ the editors may rather have simply created potential for a whole wad of jokes.
Some of the documentary was fascinating, particularly the doctor explaining the curved spine and his likely physicality, the art historian on the adjustments to his portrait for propaganda purposes, the facial reconstruction, and the battle wound analysis. However, I agree with a lot of people that the programme could have done with a lot less Philippa. I admire her tenacity and passion, so credit where it’s due and I think she should have been included, but there’s seeing the emotional pay-off and then there’s crazy-pants hysteria. When the scientist had to break-off in the middle of their report on their analysis when she started crying (again) and the programme switched from them to her, it was incredibly frustrating. Just let her go and cry and compose herself off-camera. I think the documentary makers really screwed up with the tone and focus.
Worth watching, but could have done with a heavy edit.
Tony Robinson imo would have been just as bad, I switch off when he appears.
Tony Robinson would have been better than the chap who did it but someone with a history background would have been idea. So they could ask the right questions at the right time. I am not doubting that an overwhleming case was made for the skeleton being that of Richard III but the right person asking the right questions at various stages could have reinforced the case. Perhaps none of them wanted to get involved because of preconceptions that it was not going to result in anything being found.
I wonder if some of the more serious history programmes were offered the chance and turned it down so Channel 4 cobbled together a few people just for the programme?
Yeah I had to chuckle at Phillipa's "R marks the spot" piece, as I worked in the Grey Friars Leicester Social Services Building about 8 years ago and if I remember rightly the R stands for reserved ( probably a Director's parking space).
What also amused me is that the car parking attendant seemed as if he hadn't moved from his little hut in the eight years I have been gone. Looked exactly the same! Come to think of it I do remember the car park attendant shouting a lot about "King Dick" when cars nearly got stuck in the narrow entrance coming into the car park. Shoulda listened to him back then and here's me just thinking he had a potty mouth. Perhaps he knew all along.....:D
I'm hoping you're on to something there . As a Leicestrian by adoption rather than birth, I'm always struck by the down to earth, undemonstrative ways of the natives, even the waves of immigrants from all corners of the world seem to pick it up, part of the reason the place has become reasonably well integrated in modern times .
My theory is that the city had enough with the various rampagings of the Romans, Vikings, Danelaw, Simon de Montfort, Richard III, and the Civil War, and just settled down to a life of uneventful peace and quiet, and knew damn well where the stiff was. Maybe they were all saying "Eyup medick" all the time.
... Some of her 'facts' were blown out of the water by example the curvature of the spine. From the conversations we saw with other members of the Richard III Society, I can understand why the programme makers included her so much.
She disputed the propaganda image of a hunchback which turned out to be true. He had Scoliosis, curvature of the spine, but it was said that it would not be noticeable when fully clothed. I saw someone asking about armour with the condition but presumably he would have armour custom built to fit him. Usain Bolt was born with Scoliosis (presumably less severe) and no one calls him a hunchback!
I wish you'd stop saying this, she did not personally fund it, she helped raise the money for the dig.
Personally I don't think she did her society any favours, she and the few others featured made them appear a bunch of nutters, when I suspect many of them are not.
This is true and I'm glad you say so. I used to be a member of the R3 Society. I stopped membership as I just couldn't devote enough time to the various visits and trips they do. But in my time with other Ricardians I met plenty of people who were very interested in the historical details of the times, not only in the person of Richard, and many of them cirumspect and not at all 100% convinced of his innocence. And like many interest-groups, it is great fun to talk about and muse upon the various views about "the Princes" with others who are well informed and keen on debate.
If you know the whole background story, if you also consider the fact, once he was king, that Richard tried his damndest to do a good job, then you can't really write him off as a tyrant. It is more complicated than that. Actually he was quite enlightened for his day (introduced the right to bail for example) and, speculation though it may be, I for one wonder if he may not have been a better monarch in the long run than that scheming, penny pinching absolutist, Henry 7th.
Strikes me that when Channel 4 started filming this, there wasn't a flicker of suspicion that Richard III's body was actually going to be found. What they had was a mad dig and an entertainingly obsessive woman, and they probably planned to make a mildly comical documentary about a non-event. No point bringing in a serious academic, or a presenter who was anywhere near famous or expensive.
Once they'd started that way, with the limp presenter being filmed doing his mildly interested, weakly humorous bits to camera, they were stuck with that approach. All their filmed bits were doubtless of Phillipa emoting damply. They couldn't go back in time and redo it with a serious team and a presenter with gravitas. They were probably half-hoping that the scientists would announce that it was the body of an 18th century fishwife who died of consumption.
Hence result.
There really is a story in a woman being utterly convinced that a king's body is buried in a specific location, raising money to find out, persuading archaeologists to do it, AND THEN BEING EXACTLY RIGHT, I'd be pretty spaced out too, if I were her.
What a good post - i'm sure you're absolutely right.
This is true and I'm glad you say so. I used to be a member of the R3 Society. I stopped membership as I just couldn't devote enough time to the various visits and trips they do. But in my time with other Ricardians I met plenty of people who were very interested in the historical details of the times, not only in the person of Richard, and many of them cirumspect and not at all 100% convinced of his innocence. And like many interest-groups, it is great fun to talk about and muse upon the various views about "the Princes" with others who are well informed and keen on debate.
If you know the whole background story, if you also consider the fact, once he was king, that Richard tried his damndest to do a good job, then you can't really write him off as a tyrant. It is more complicated than that. Actually he was quite enlightened for his day (introduced the right to bail for example) and, speculation though it may be, I for one wonder if he may not have been a better monarch in the long run than that scheming, penny pinching absolutist, Henry 7th.
So what did happen to the Princes in the Tower? Richard had the most to gain from their death.
So what did happen to the Princes in the Tower? Richard had the most to gain from their death.
Well that's the multi dollar question. And because they disappeared on his watch he gets the ultimate blame because he should / must have known what was going on, even if he didn't give the order himself. They were so closely guarded that nobody could have got at them without his permission - except maybe the Duke of Buckingham who was Constable of the Tower. He is also a suspect BTW.
The important thing to consider is maybe not so much whether he did it but why. The apologists accept that he probably did do away with them but there are mitigating circumstances if you accept that he would have been quickly destroyed by the new king's family. That part of the tale always gets left out by traditionalists.
So they were debarred from inheriting the throne. The one who had also had a lot to gain from their deaths was Henry Tudor. Look at Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, Warbeck especially, whose rebellion was a serious danger to Henry VII.
The real mystery is why Richard III didn't produce the children in London if they were still alive.
I also think it's fairly obvious that we are missing knowledge of a key sequence of events from around the time Hastings was executed. Something must've happened or Richard III discovered something or was told something that made him act the way he did. All we have is the effects of the information and not the information itself. I guess we'll never really know.
So they were debarred from inheriting the throne. The one who had the most to gain from their deaths was Henry Tudor. Look at Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, Warbeck especially, whose rebellion was a serious danger to Henry VII.
The real mystery is why Richard III didn't produce the children in London if they were still alive.
I also think it's fairly obvious that we are missing knowledge of a key sequence of events from around the time Hastings was executed. Something must've happened or Richard III discovered something or was told something that made him act the way he did. All we have is the effects of the information and not the information itself. I guess we'll never really know.
Could that be the death of George Neville (same day R. brought Ed5 into London) ?
When the last Neville heir died, Ricahrd had to return all his Neville estates to the crown, i.e the Woodvilles.
Could that be the death of George Neville (same day R. brought Ed5 into London) ?
When the last Neville heir died, Ricahrd had to return all his Neville estates to the crown, i.e the Woodvilles.
Possibly so!
I have a hard time believing that RIII simply wanted the throne for himself for the sake of pure power so there must've been a reason for it, and a good reason too. I wonder if he hadn't discovered the pre-marital contract with Eleanor Butler and genuinely believed it to be true.
I have a hard time believing that RIII simply wanted the throne for himself for the sake of pure power so there must've been a reason for it, and a good reason too. I wonder if he hadn't discovered the pre-marital contract with Eleanor Butler and genuinely believed it to be true.
The thing that alawys comes out of any docu etc. is that Richard was a good guy before Ed4 died, then suddenly morphed into a bully. I don't go for that one because all the years of his brother's reign, Richard wasn't even interested in London and court affairs.
His sudden change had to be connected to his own survival. I reckon he must have felt he had to act on the spot or risk his whole existence and that of his family. If all the Neville lands had returned to the crown, he would have lost Middleham therefore his whole power base. He would have been totally isolated up north.
In May - June 1483 he was, imho, faced with a ghastly dilemma.
Comments
They wished to remain annoymous, so maybe we should respect their wishes?
Apparently the second descendent asked to remain anonymous.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2273164/Richard-III-Scientists-reveal-DNA-results-confirm-kings-body-car-park-Leicester.html#axzz2Jp9psrou
Yes she was but from her research she may have a different take on it after all finding a Skeleton after all these years of Richard 111, i would be surprised even with academics if you asked two the same question you would probably get two diferent answers,yes i get the connection with David Icke.:D
I do appreciate though from her research she probably had a certain take on what they might find,but was proved wrong which is what archeology is all about.
Who knows what the exact facts are though as even academics will be arguing over this let alone the Richard111 society for many years i suspect.:)
What also amused me is that the car parking attendant seemed as if he hadn't moved from his little hut in the eight years I have been gone. Looked exactly the same! Come to think of it I do remember the car park attendant shouting a lot about "King Dick" when cars nearly got stuck in the narrow entrance coming into the car park. Shoulda listened to him back then and here's me just thinking he had a potty mouth. Perhaps he knew all along.....:D
Not bad then which is a shame ch4 are endiing Time Team there is a market for this type of tv programme but the way Time Team have been mucked about in the scheduling and the row with Mick Aston ch4 lost a lot of viewers and they did it themselves.
Yes I remember them saying that .
I agree her emotions were overplayed to an annoying degree and more of a Time Team format would have been better. I thought it would be more about the dig but that was only a relatively short part. Perhaps an intermingling of David Starkeys programme would have been good to get more of the whole story to make your mind up on Richard. It was a very complicated story and times. Everything is up to interpretation.
She did remind me of Katie Price.
There is an article about her in the Daily Record. It is easy to write off intuition but things do happen that are difficult to explain.
I don't think she was upset that it did not fit with the idea of him having now deformity, it was just the shock of it fitting with descriptions of him. They said after the programme that Scoliosis is not a disability, it is a condition. Usain Bolt has it and does not seem to do too bad on the track!
They only have the mtDNA result, they are still waiting for the Y-DNA which takes longer.
Even in criminal cases, DNA evidence cannot give a positive identification. It just says there is a high probability that the two people are related but a negative result can say that there is a very low probability of the two people being related.
It was the build up of lots of bits of evidence which all fitted with it being him, I saw someone trying to claim it was wrong purely because the arrowhead turned out to be a Roman nail!
I can empathise will everything you say. But the trouble is, that her personal feelings should have been kept - in the main - off camera. It was definitely over exposed and brought some ridicule into it which is unhelpful if you, as an R3 Soc.member, are trying ot raise more serious awareness of the historical character Richard 3rd. Historians tend to regard Ricardians as hysterical romantics anyway and this programme simply confirmed that impression. I fear she/ the editors may rather have simply created potential for a whole wad of jokes.
Worth watching, but could have done with a heavy edit.
Tony Robinson would have been better than the chap who did it but someone with a history background would have been idea. So they could ask the right questions at the right time. I am not doubting that an overwhleming case was made for the skeleton being that of Richard III but the right person asking the right questions at various stages could have reinforced the case. Perhaps none of them wanted to get involved because of preconceptions that it was not going to result in anything being found.
I wonder if some of the more serious history programmes were offered the chance and turned it down so Channel 4 cobbled together a few people just for the programme?
I'm hoping you're on to something there
My theory is that the city had enough with the various rampagings of the Romans, Vikings, Danelaw, Simon de Montfort, Richard III, and the Civil War, and just settled down to a life of uneventful peace and quiet, and knew damn well where the stiff was. Maybe they were all saying "Eyup medick" all the time.
She disputed the propaganda image of a hunchback which turned out to be true. He had Scoliosis, curvature of the spine, but it was said that it would not be noticeable when fully clothed. I saw someone asking about armour with the condition but presumably he would have armour custom built to fit him. Usain Bolt was born with Scoliosis (presumably less severe) and no one calls him a hunchback!
This is true and I'm glad you say so. I used to be a member of the R3 Society. I stopped membership as I just couldn't devote enough time to the various visits and trips they do. But in my time with other Ricardians I met plenty of people who were very interested in the historical details of the times, not only in the person of Richard, and many of them cirumspect and not at all 100% convinced of his innocence. And like many interest-groups, it is great fun to talk about and muse upon the various views about "the Princes" with others who are well informed and keen on debate.
If you know the whole background story, if you also consider the fact, once he was king, that Richard tried his damndest to do a good job, then you can't really write him off as a tyrant. It is more complicated than that. Actually he was quite enlightened for his day (introduced the right to bail for example) and, speculation though it may be, I for one wonder if he may not have been a better monarch in the long run than that scheming, penny pinching absolutist, Henry 7th.
What a good post - i'm sure you're absolutely right.
So what did happen to the Princes in the Tower? Richard had the most to gain from their death.
Well that's the multi dollar question. And because they disappeared on his watch he gets the ultimate blame because he should / must have known what was going on, even if he didn't give the order himself. They were so closely guarded that nobody could have got at them without his permission - except maybe the Duke of Buckingham who was Constable of the Tower. He is also a suspect BTW.
The important thing to consider is maybe not so much whether he did it but why. The apologists accept that he probably did do away with them but there are mitigating circumstances if you accept that he would have been quickly destroyed by the new king's family. That part of the tale always gets left out by traditionalists.
He didn't really though. The princes had already been declared illegitimate by an Act of Parliament, the Titulus Regius:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titulus_Regius
So they were debarred from inheriting the throne. The one who had also had a lot to gain from their deaths was Henry Tudor. Look at Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, Warbeck especially, whose rebellion was a serious danger to Henry VII.
The real mystery is why Richard III didn't produce the children in London if they were still alive.
I also think it's fairly obvious that we are missing knowledge of a key sequence of events from around the time Hastings was executed. Something must've happened or Richard III discovered something or was told something that made him act the way he did. All we have is the effects of the information and not the information itself. I guess we'll never really know.
Could that be the death of George Neville (same day R. brought Ed5 into London) ?
When the last Neville heir died, Ricahrd had to return all his Neville estates to the crown, i.e the Woodvilles.
Possibly so!
I have a hard time believing that RIII simply wanted the throne for himself for the sake of pure power so there must've been a reason for it, and a good reason too. I wonder if he hadn't discovered the pre-marital contract with Eleanor Butler and genuinely believed it to be true.
The thing that alawys comes out of any docu etc. is that Richard was a good guy before Ed4 died, then suddenly morphed into a bully. I don't go for that one because all the years of his brother's reign, Richard wasn't even interested in London and court affairs.
His sudden change had to be connected to his own survival. I reckon he must have felt he had to act on the spot or risk his whole existence and that of his family. If all the Neville lands had returned to the crown, he would have lost Middleham therefore his whole power base. He would have been totally isolated up north.
In May - June 1483 he was, imho, faced with a ghastly dilemma.