Richard III's remains....

41 to 60 of 92 messages
04/02/2013 at 20:04

like most archaeological and historical finds, they are mainly guessing...but it makes for a fun story

Blisters    pirate
04/02/2013 at 23:02

Call me a sceptic, but if they gave the fascial rebuilder a a picture of Gerard Depardieu and said that skeleton was a relative the outcome would look like the King Frog.

....and in breaking news, they have discovered from a microscopic trace of DNA that the skeleton is related to a biological technician in Leicester.....

05/02/2013 at 08:05

Great programme. The face recreation was a pile of pony but rest was very interesting. My favourite bit was when the mad lady wanted to cover the box of bones with the King's standard and the clever scientist lady said she didn't want to do it, quality look on her face when she said it.

05/02/2013 at 08:34
the dude abides wrote (see)

like most archaeological and historical finds, they are mainly guessing...but it makes for a fun story

 

Um..no they aren't Dude, modern archaeology relies on scientific evidence. And the bottom line is that experts are experts for a reason. If a significant number of them agree on something then they are probably right. If a single piece of evidence had countered what they found it would have been game over. They would lose their entire academic credibility if they made a claim for something they knew to be untrue.  

Maxpower North West wrote (see)

Great programme. The face recreation was a pile of pony but rest was very interesting. My favourite bit was when the mad lady wanted to cover the box of bones with the King's standard and the clever scientist lady said she didn't want to do it, quality look on her face when she said it.

 

I actually thought it was a bit dumbed-down with not enough time devoted to the science and the historical context and I didn't like the presenter one bit but Philippa Langley was the highlight for me - amazingly dedicated but totally potty, bless her.

I quite agree with the you about the bit with the standard, but the best bit for me was when she got all teary in the lab. The osteologists were looking at her like she'd gone completely bonkers! 

I'm not sure the reconstruction can be dismissed entirely. The woman who does them is the absolute expert at it and has remodelled unknown murder victims that have later been identified. Given that she had near contemporary portraits to work with, she actually had more information than she usually does so I'd say it was reasonably accurate.

 

05/02/2013 at 08:56

Given the potential for this programme, I thought it was rubbish. Having been an Archaeologist many moons ago, I still love the scientific evidence building into a hypothesis. The emotions of those involved should not really form part of the picture, other than a bit of excitement.

05/02/2013 at 09:22

ok screama. I'm just going by what wor lass says. and she's an archeologist. i'll tell her.

05/02/2013 at 09:37
Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

Correct me if I'm wrong but my guess is Windsor castle (no relation) has been there a while, when was it built anybody? so the flight path was probably no more than a dirt track then.

I thought the programme was interesting, but could have done without the weepy Philippa.  I did want to slap her several times.

05/02/2013 at 10:09
Barkles wrote (see)

Given the potential for this programme, I thought it was rubbish. Having been an Archaeologist many moons ago, I still love the scientific evidence building into a hypothesis. The emotions of those involved should not really form part of the picture, other than a bit of excitement.

To be fair, it was only Philippa Langley who was like that. It wouldn't surprise me if the archaeologists thought she was a bit annoying too - but, since it was her pet project and she had raised the funding I expect they just had to put up with her beathing down their necks and going all gooey.

I'm slightly surprised that a screenwriter has such a high profile in the Richard III society but, having been a member I know that, for a lot of people, their interest in Richard is very personal so it's only right that side should be represented as well as the more academic side. I have a foot in both camps.

Interestingly, the actor Richard Armitage also has a pet project involving a drama series about Richard III that he's been working on for some time, so we could well be deluged with interesting stuff soon.

05/02/2013 at 10:12
Screamapillar wrote (see)
 

Interestingly, the actor Richard Armitage also has a pet project involving a drama series about Richard III that he's been working on for some time, so we could well be deluged with interesting stuff soon.

Depends on your definition of interesting I suppose

05/02/2013 at 10:41
the dude abides wrote (see)

Breaking: Ed Miliband calls for an independent, judge-led inquiry to determine how many more Monarchs lie underneath car parks.

Well if it turns out there are any more they'll be easy to spot, just look for their initial in the parking space!!!

05/02/2013 at 11:14
Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)
Screamapillar wrote (see)
 

Interestingly, the actor Richard Armitage also has a pet project involving a drama series about Richard III that he's been working on for some time, so we could well be deluged with interesting stuff soon.

Depends on your definition of interesting I suppose

 

Mine's not the same as yours I suspect.

Edited: 05/02/2013 at 11:15
05/02/2013 at 11:30

No it isn't. Dave likes caravans 

05/02/2013 at 15:29

Did anyone catch the David Starkey prog Monarchy about Rich 3. Turns out all the apologists for him saying he is much maligned and not a nasty man after all, were a bit misled. He was a tyrant and killed whom so ever got in his way. 

"But he killed those little boys" you cant apply modern morals, to the Medieval thinking.

Interestingly they noted he got a dagger in the Ar$e 

05/02/2013 at 16:10

No but I do know that Starkey is not a Ricardian so I'm not surprised by the content of the programme.

I expect he conveniently skipped over the bits which prove his contemporaries actually behaved in much the same way  - Edward IV not only having Henry VI murdered but also his own brother for instance? Or the prisoners of war  Margaret of Anjou had executed after St. Albans, despite her husband ensuring their safety and her repeated assasination attempts against the Duke of York? 

They were all at it. Richard was, at worst, no different. 

The lesson of the Wars of the Roses was if that you didn't get rid of your rivals, a faction would gather around them who would come back with an army and fight you. In a sense Henry VII got lucky - once he came along there were very few people left alive with any real claim to the throne. Had Richard won at Bosworth his monarchy would probably have been secure. 

Edited: 05/02/2013 at 16:36
05/02/2013 at 16:49

Yes hes not a fan but.I didnt really know much about Rich 3 so it sort of filled in some gaps about him and his brothers

It seems anyone with the name Edward, Richard or Henry were tyrannincal. Interesting how the two side Ricardian and Tudor lovers cant seem to meet a common ground. Basically they were all ba$tards from ancient times to the end of the Victorias reign.History is always open to personal view point. I get the feeling he was just as nasty as all of them but was caught up in a Tudor spin machine

08/02/2013 at 14:20

Trouble with being buried under a car park for a long-time is that they will tow you away,

I see York have now pitched in saying he should be buried in the Minster and not Leicester Cathedral.

Yorkists kicking off again. Plus ca change.

08/02/2013 at 15:27

Yes, I agree with them too.

At first I was OK with the Leicester thing and then I came to the conclusion that if you were going to give him a "multifaith" service AND bury him in a building that didn't exist at the time he was alive then you might as well put him back under the car park.

At least York Minster is a building had a connection with in his lifetime. 

11/02/2013 at 10:05

I'd be surprised if they are really his remains.

11/02/2013 at 13:35

Whose do you think they are then? Given that there's a DNA match?

11/02/2013 at 14:01

he probably thinks they're related to the guys who say that Neil Armstrong never landed on the moon

Edited: 11/02/2013 at 14:02
41 to 60 of 92 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump