Richard III (2 October 1452 – 22 August 1485)

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Emmily

Have they said why they won't allow the testing?

The Westminster Abbey (where the boys' bones are now) won't allow the tests on the basis that it could create a precedent for testing unlimited number of historical theories on all the famous people buried in the Church. Another reason is the fear the results will prove the boys are not in fact the Princes; obviously, they are, the bones will be put back but what will they do if the remains are of unknown people?

Why the Queen never gave her permission is not known but the Monarch's consent is required for any testing of any interred Royal (or suspected royal, as it were).

[Artemisia]

To bury Richard III in Westminster Abbey would finally give a proper national resting place to our most unfairly maligned monarch of all
I have a suggestion to make: the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the disinterment of the remains of King Richard III from under a car park in Leicester offer a superb opportunity to reconnect this country with its past. The Government — which is so keen to re-establish history at the forefront of the curriculum — should grasp this moment to light the imagination of the nation, by holding a state funeral for Richard III at Westminster Abbey. Instead of being treated like the remains of some Egyptian pharaoh and subjected to endless scientific tests, the bones of the last English monarch to die in battle now must be treated with dignity and venerated properly, as is only right for a former head of state.

500 years on, the grisly secrets of Richard III's lost grave are revealed: King discovered under car park was stripped, tied up and suffered 'humiliation wounds' after his death
To great fanfare and cheers, scientists yesterday announced to the world that the skeleton found under a council car park in Leicester is that of Richard III. It was, they said, a historic moment, finally ending the centuries-old mystery of what happened to the body of the last Plantagenet king. But the best was to come. Academics were also able to reveal details of how one of the nation’s most controversial monarchs met his end – and how appallingly he was treated in death after defeat at the hands of Henry VII at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. Stripped naked with his hands tied, and scarred by multiple ‘humiliation wounds’ inflicted as his body was paraded through Leicester, Richard III was dumped in a shallow grave with no coffin or shroud.

I really hope he suffered one of the fatal blows and didn't have to go through all those humiliations.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

The Westminster Abbey (where the boys' bones are now) won't allow the tests on the basis that it could create a precedent for testing unlimited number of historical theories on all the famous people buried in the Church. Another reason is the fear the results will prove the boys are not in fact the Princes; obviously, they are, the bones will be put back but what will they do if the remains are of unknown people?

Why the Queen never gave her permission is not known but the Monarch's consent is required for any testing of any interred Royal (or suspected royal, as it were).

That's a pity.

I don't understand the attitude however. Surely it's important to know, if possible, who is actually buried where. That IMO should go before disturbing the peace of the grave.
And I cannot imagine in our time that it would deminish the importance of the cathedral, should the remains turn out to not being that of the two Princes.
They would simply be reburied as unknowns then, with all due respect, I would imagine.

QMII gave her consent to exhume and examine the remains of a skeleton found under the floor of a church (in Jellinge to exact), some years ago. The remains were presumed to be that of King Gorm the Old, and the investigations confirmed that the person fitted the physical and age description of the king and also that he was in all likelihood buried in 958. Again fitting the contemporary information.
So he was reburied and the body is now officially considered to be that of the first in the line of Danish kings. (Which is not entirely correct, as there were kings of all of Denmark, or parts of it, depending on the political situation at the time, before King Gorm the Old).
QMII did not submit DNA for testing, and the technique wasn't that developed then anyway, I presume.
That would have been interesting as QMII is claimed to belong to the same (extended) family as Gorm the Old.

[An Ard Ri]

Richard III to be re-interred in major ceremony at Leicester Cathedral


Richard III to be re-interred in major ceremony at Leicester Cathedral - Telegraph

[rominet09]

I really hope we will see plenty of pix of the event.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Muhler

That's a pity.

I don't understand the attitude however. Surely it's important to know, if possible, who is actually buried where. That IMO should go before disturbing the peace of the grave.
And I cannot imagine in our time that it would deminish the importance of the cathedral, should the remains turn out to not being that of the two Princes.
They would simply be reburied as unknowns then, with all due respect, I would imagine.

The Abbey is not a cathedral. Westminster Cathedral is a separate building only about 120 years old while the Abbey dates back to 1066. The Abbey is CoE while the Cathedral is RC.

Disturbing the bones therefore wouldn't concern the cathedral at all as they aren't in the cathedral.

Disturbing bodies for no good reason is anathema to many Christians and The Queen is a devout Christian and sees no good reason to disturb these bodies - her church, her decision.

Westminster Abbey, like St George's Chapel, is a royal peculiar and so The Queen's permission is required to do anything.

[Baroness of Books]

Originally Posted by fearghas

Not being familiar with The War of the Roses, could someone explain simply why Henry Tudor had a claim to the throne? I know he was descended from Catherine of Valois and later married the sister of the Princes in the tower, but as far as I can tell he had no descent from the Platagents

It also helped Henry to solidify his hold on the throne by marrying the York princess, Elizabeth of York, who would have inherited the throne upon her brothers' death. Since he reversed the Titulus Regius, she was now the legitimate heiress and marrying her would have established his hold.

Originally Posted by Artemisia

I really hope he suffered one of the fatal blows and didn't have to go through all those humiliations.

It's a shame that Henry VII wasn't gracious in his victory and allowed Richard dignity in his death as a defeated monarch, but given that he dated the start of his reign the day before the Bosworth battle he certainly wasn't giving any quarter. He was out for blood, literally!

[padams2359]

I am not at all surprised by the world wide interest. The works of William Shakespeare have been translated into almost every language in the world.

[Emmily]

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS

For those of you who find the character of Richard III compelling, author Josephine Tey wrote a mystery years ago called THE DAUGHTER OF TIME about Richard's culpability in the disappearance of the Princes. If you are a fan of mysteries, the plot and writing are among my favorites,
Tey situates her detective in hospital, unable to move after injury and he takes a look at the mystery of the Princes in the Tower to keep his mind active. The characters in the supporting cast are well written and the plot compelling - despite the fact that no one is in danger and no one get hurt because the mystery is centuries old. Critics loved the plotting but niggled at the facts as Tey presented them. Even knowing that, to this day this is a favorite rainy day read.

I placed an order for this book after reading your post earlier. I've never heard of this author, but I'm looking forward to reading the book.

[fearghas]

[QUOTE=Baroness of Books;1514253]It also helped Henry to establish his hold on the throne by marrying the York princess, Elizabeth of York, who would have inherited the throne upon her brothers' death. Since he reversed the Titulus Regius, she was now the legitimate heiress and marrying her would have bolstered his hold.

QUOTE]

And so really it is through her that the tudors, and through them the Stuarts, Hanoverians etc have a legitimate descent.

[Baroness of Books]

Yes, and it wouldn't have been wise to leave Elizabeth of York unmarried for another contender to the throne to marry her and fight for her claim to the throne (and consequently his own). And that's why Henry VII had as much motive to murder the Princes as Richard; if they were still alive in the Tower, they would have been legitimate after he reversed Titulus Regius and Edward V would have been the rightful king. Henry would have to dispose of them to clear his path. Would he have reversed the act knowing they were still alive? That begs the question of the ages.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Emmily

I placed an order for this book after reading your post earlier. I've never heard of this author, but I'm looking forward to reading the book.

So did I. I imagine a lot of people will be looking more into the history of Richard III after this amazing discovery.

I've also ordered a copy of Dante's The Inferno to reread again as that is going to be the subject matter of Dan Brown's new novel due out in May. Ahhh... if only I had this kind of serious interest in history when I was in school.

[Baroness of Books]

^^^It's never too late for learning and many times we appreciate later in life those things we scoffed at when we were younger. I've revisited many a book that I blew off in my salad days.

[Vasillisos Markos]

Although it has been said on a separate thread, I think Henry VII killed the Princes in the Tower

[Spheno]

Originally Posted by Emmily

I placed an order for this book after reading your post earlier. I've never heard of this author, but I'm looking forward to reading the book.

I like this book too. Really good story.

[Iluvbertie]

This was one of the books I had to read at school in 1973/4. Our teacher gave it to us to read and then tried to convince us that Tey was writing hogwash and we turned the tables. Probably the only book I was forced to read in school that I enjoyed - strangely I was a great reader before starting high school but after 6 years of compulsory English and the books we had to read I rarely read any fiction now at all.

[wyevale]

'Christian-led but ecumenical [weasel word for multi-faith?] service.
Setting aside the question of the Princes, Richard was a King, a man and therefore a sinner. His burial, according to the evidence, was purfunctory.
Only a proper Requiem Mass, either of the Sarum or York Use, together with full royal honours, as appropriate for his time, will surely do.
The Richard III Soc. should be ashamed of themselves in, having found the body of their Prince, to allow without even a protest, this tawdry mockery of a real service.
"Of your charity, pray for the soul of the Most High and Mighty Prince Richard, the third of that name, our late Sovereign Lord of Most Noble and Famous Memory, sometime King of England and France, Lord of Ireland. Upon whom the Lord have mercy upon his soul".

[An Ard Ri]

The only surviving child of Richard III and Anne Neville was Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales.He died aged 10 in 1484 and is believed to be buried at the parish church at Sheriff Hutton.

[moby]

King Richard III Bones Found, Scientists Say
From the nat geo site:
By poring over historical records and documents, Schürer conclusively identified two of Richard III's living descendants: Michael Ibsen, a furniture maker in London, England, and a second individual who now wishes to remain anonymous.

Seems like there was another descendant whose dna helped resolve the issue. It's so wrong as of course the person wants his/her privacy but darn it I don't like secrets and now I'm more interested in who that could be.

[Baroness of Books]

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos

Although it has been said on a separate thread, I think Henry VII killed the Princes in the Tower

I wouldn't disagree with you there.