Well, it seems they are very confident the skeleton is that of the much-maligned Richard. Doesn't throw any light on the "Princes in the Tower" story either way but does show he had a probable slight curvature of the spine not the crookback of Shakespeare's excellent fiction, so he could have capered nimbly in a ladies chamber after all. The winter of my discontent isn't made glorious summer. www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/21261553

Well, it seems they are very confident the skeleton is that of the much-maligned Richard. Doesn't throw any light on the "Princes in the Tower" story either way but does show he had a probable slight curvature of the spine not the crookback of Shakespeare's excellent fiction, so he could have capered nimbly in a ladies chamber after all. The winter of my discontent isn't made glorious summer. www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/21261553

"Probable slight curvature"?

Mate, his spine is like a question-mark! Reckon old Shakespeare had it spot on, especially "crookback" and not "hunchback"

I did mishear the sideways curvature as "slight" curvature, apologies for that

... but, nonetheless, they are saying it was a sideways thing ([iscoliosis rather than the kyphosis that you'd have expected if Richard had been crookbacked or hunchbacked[/i) giving him one shoulder visibly higher than the other, not a crooked back.

So the portrait showing him with a "hump" was not accurate and the stories put around in Tudor times about his appearance were not true either.

What we would need next would be the examination of a) the bones found in the Tower of London and b) the bones in coffins found in Windsor Castle ... to DNA test to see if they are the bones of the Princes (nephews of Richard, i.e. Edward IV's sons) and to see if any cause of death is evident.
Can't see it happening though as it requires the Queen's say-so and, as she is descended from Henry VII (whose army slew Richard), why would she want to?

It is entirely possible that Henry VII killed the princes and then blamed Richard.
thats Lancastrians for you.

honestly, what a total waste of money, time and effort.

Is that what your parents said to you after you turned 18

No, but thanks for your concern, idiot.

Tudors mate, not Lancastrians.
Henry VII's claim to be descended via the Lancastrian line from John O'Gaunt was, erm, putting it kindly, tenuous.

Blimey, what have you got against this then?
No profit in it for multinationals or something?

Now we want to know: was Edward IV a legitimate son of Richard Duke of York and so entitled to be Duke of York/King of England?

All of this history is fascinating to me now, but when I was of an age to take advantage of the free History education that was offered me at my Grammar School, I hated the subject, dull boring lists of dates of Kings and Queens with no connection to reality quoted at us by a dull boring old man who couldn't make the subject interesting if he tried, which he didn't - dropped the subject when I was 13 years old, devour every snippet now.

Well, Richard Duke of York was OK with Edward being his son.

Of course, if Edward hadn't been legitimate, then Richard Duke of Gloucester would have been able to inherit the title and claim to the throne from Richard Duke of York.
But he didn't dispute Edward's succession either.

So, Edward's father accepted him as his son, and Edward's brother accepted him as his brother despite the temptation of the title becoming his.

No-one ever produced any actual evidence otherwise.
I think it's a blind alley.

Burying someone in a multi-storey car park? That's wrong on so many levels...

You could nip up to Towton, armed with a battlefield description and soak up some history there.
The bloodiest battle ever fought on British soil was fought there.
The number of dead was comparable (perhaps greater than) the first day of the Somme ... which, when you compare the weapons of swords and axes in the mostly hand-to-hand fighting of 1461 against the machine guns of WWI, takes some doing.

Very good.

History is often written by the victors. In this case the Tudors. So William Shakespeare would have written a contemporary report to make him as disfigured, repulsive and unlikeable as that's how he should be portrayed. According to the Tudors.

I love history. Love it.

A great find.

https://twitter.com/Andr3ssaRojas/statu ... 41/photo/1

https://twitter.com/Andr3ssaRojas/statu ... 41/photo/1

Forgot to say that atleast there was a couple of good things to come out of King Richard's reign.

1. Londoners named poo after him.

2. We can remember the colours of the rainbow thanks to him, well his subsequent demise anyway.

I don't think that "crookback" is the same as "hunchback". "Crookback" is clearly a shortening of "crooked back", which is what he had, and which is how such a condition would appear, and be naturally described. But, wasn't "crookback" his nickname anyway? And did Shakespeare use that word? I thought his phrase was "bunch-back'd". I can understand why as this is only one consonant away from "hunch-back'd" people might jump to conclusions, but Shakespeare was hardly a careless writer, and so whilst the usage of the description "bunch-back'd" [imay[/i have been familiar Shakesepeare's audience, or he may have just invented it, the fact seems to be that he didn't use "hunch" and that is I think certainly no accident.

Thomas More described Richard thus:
"'He was little of stature, ill fetured of limmes, croke backed, his left shoulder much higher than his right,"
... which is interesting, as it uses both the "crooked back" description, as well as expanding on it by pointing out one shoulder was higher than the other.

Richard III was Richard of Gloucester.
His father was Richard of York, he died at the battle of Wakefield in 1460, surely 'twould be he who is noted in the colours of the rainbow thing?

We have to exercise a great deal of caution when quoting Thomas More about anything to do with the Plantagenets, as he was allied to (or at the very least had to be very careful about) the Tudor cause ... until he fell out with Henry VIII about the Church of England.
He was only seven when Richard died and started his history of Richard 27 years after Richard's death ... and the history is considered by some historians as more of a moral tale than what we would term a history.

Nonetheless, you have a point and now his skeleton has been recovered, we'll see some genuine evidence one way or the other.

Going by last nights programme he was a bloody tough bloke, fair and quite handsome. Who seemed to have the respect of the people of the North. I think it is amazing that they have managed to find him and i hope he gets a re-burial befitting his status.

I recorded that programme and will be watching this evening with interest.

Presumably though not including those who smote his skull with a halberd or drove a dagger into his brain

Yeah, likely that was the forces under Stanley, who hung about waiting to see who was going to win before he joined in.
He was a right turncoat that one, first on one side and then the other.
His joining in was what did for Richard, and handed the throne to Henry Tudor who rewarded him handsomely.
He copped it in the end though, as the same Henry Tudor (i.e. Henry VII) had him beheaded for supporting the Perkin Warbeck claim.
He changed sides just once too often.