What happened to King Richard's body?

What happened to King Richard's body? Some believe it ended up in the river in Leicester during the 1530's despoliation of the Franciscan church in Leicester. At least three skulls have been recovered from the river that could be the head of Richard III. Whilst there is no solid evidence to suggest that two are Richard, the third skull remains in the hands of a collector whose identity is a secret.

There was a report in the early 17th century that Richard's tomb was still intact in the garden of the current Lord Mayor, whose garden included the site of the Grey friar's church where Richard was buried.
I think the museum intends to excavate this area when the present buildings come up for demolition: there's very little of the old church showing above ground: one wall.

If Richard's remains are discovered he should receive a full burial ceremony and proper tomb, but where? Westminster, York or Leicester? No doubt his face would be reconstructed, height checked and any skeletal injuries, from the battle, checked; maybe his shoulder for the alleged deformity would be looked at also.

I hadn't heard about the skulls being recovered from the river. When did this happen and where is it documented ?

Richard G

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> What happened to King Richard's body? Some believe it ended up in the river in Leicester during the 1530's despoliation of the Franciscan church in Leicester. At least three skulls have been recovered from the river that could be the head of Richard III. Whilst there is no solid evidence to suggest that two are Richard, the third skull remains in the hands of a collector whose identity is a secret.
>
> There was a report in the early 17th century that Richard's tomb was still intact in the garden of the current Lord Mayor, whose garden included the site of the Grey friar's church where Richard was buried.
> I think the museum intends to excavate this area when the present buildings come up for demolition: there's very little of the old church showing above ground: one wall.
>
> If Richard's remains are discovered he should receive a full burial ceremony and proper tomb, but where? Westminster, York or Leicester? No doubt his face would be reconstructed, height checked and any skeletal injuries, from the battle, checked; maybe his shoulder for the alleged deformity would be looked at also.
>

At this point, the story of Richard's body being "tipped" into the Soar
and the tomb repurposed for a horse trough is thought to be apocryphal
and that his remains are somewhere under a parking lot (car park in UK
terminology) near where the old Greyfriers stood. Go to The New England
chapter's website <http://www.r3ne.org/> and select a map from the
Leicester Tour (in navigation bar on left). From the maps you can select
one of the theories and the map key for to see images of locations on
the map.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist

--- In , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> I hadn't heard about the skulls being recovered from the river. When
did this happen and where is it documented ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" hi.dung@
wrote:
> >
> > What happened to King Richard's body? Some believe it ended up in
the river in Leicester during the 1530's despoliation of the Franciscan
church in Leicester. At least three skulls have been recovered from the
river that could be the head of Richard III. Whilst there is no solid
evidence to suggest that two are Richard, the third skull remains in the
hands of a collector whose identity is a secret.
> >
> > There was a report in the early 17th century that Richard's tomb was
still intact in the garden of the current Lord Mayor, whose garden
included the site of the Grey friar's church where Richard was buried.
> > I think the museum intends to excavate this area when the present
buildings come up for demolition: there's very little of the old church
showing above ground: one wall.
> >
> > If Richard's remains are discovered he should receive a full burial
ceremony and proper tomb, but where? Westminster, York or Leicester?
No doubt his face would be reconstructed, height checked and any
skeletal injuries, from the battle, checked; maybe his shoulder for the
alleged deformity would be looked at also.
> >
>

John Ashdown-Hill also explains the various theories in quite some detail in his
latest book The Last Days of Richard III and comes to the conclusion that the
car park, which now covers the area, where Greyfriars and his tomb were, is the
most likely place. If they could excavate the area and indeed find his body
that would be great.

Cheers, Dorothea





________________________________
From: Joan <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Thu, 2 September, 2010 3:10:03 AM
Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?


At this point, the story of Richard's body being "tipped" into the Soar
and the tomb repurposed for a horse trough is thought to be apocryphal
and that his remains are somewhere under a parking lot (car park in UK
terminology) near where the old Greyfriers stood. Go to The New England
chapter's website <http://www.r3ne.org/> and select a map from the
Leicester Tour (in navigation bar on left). From the maps you can select
one of the theories and the map key for to see images of locations on
the map.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist

--- In , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> I hadn't heard about the skulls being recovered from the river. When
did this happen and where is it documented ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" hi.dung@
wrote:
> >
> > What happened to King Richard's body? Some believe it ended up in
the river in Leicester during the 1530's despoliation of the Franciscan
church in Leicester. At least three skulls have been recovered from the
river that could be the head of Richard III. Whilst there is no solid
evidence to suggest that two are Richard, the third skull remains in the
hands of a collector whose identity is a secret.
> >
> > There was a report in the early 17th century that Richard's tomb was
still intact in the garden of the current Lord Mayor, whose garden
included the site of the Grey friar's church where Richard was buried.
> > I think the museum intends to excavate this area when the present
buildings come up for demolition: there's very little of the old church
showing above ground: one wall.
> >
> > If Richard's remains are discovered he should receive a full burial
ceremony and proper tomb, but where? Westminster, York or Leicester?
No doubt his face would be reconstructed, height checked and any
skeletal injuries, from the battle, checked; maybe his shoulder for the
alleged deformity would be looked at also.
> >
>

  It would be amazing, but I wouldn't count on an intact skeleton unless it was sealed in lead or something.  And I somehow doubt Henry went to much trouble with the burial--seems more like, "All right, everybody seen enough?  Good, throw him in the ground and let's be done with it."  They didn't try to bury him with family, or anything.
Sheffe

--- On Wed, 9/1/10, Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:

From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
To:
Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 7:30 PM







 









John Ashdown-Hill also explains the various theories in quite some detail in his

latest book The Last Days of Richard III and comes to the conclusion that the

car park, which now covers the area, where Greyfriars and his tomb were, is the

most likely place. If they could excavate the area and indeed find his body

that would be great.



Cheers, Dorothea



________________________________

From: Joan <u2nohoo@...>

To:

Sent: Thu, 2 September, 2010 3:10:03 AM

Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?



At this point, the story of Richard's body being "tipped" into the Soar

and the tomb repurposed for a horse trough is thought to be apocryphal

and that his remains are somewhere under a parking lot (car park in UK

terminology) near where the old Greyfriers stood. Go to The New England

chapter's website <http://www.r3ne.org/> and select a map from the

Leicester Tour (in navigation bar on left). From the maps you can select

one of the theories and the map key for to see images of locations on

the map.



Joan

---

author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century

website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/

blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist



--- In , "Richard"

<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:

>

> I hadn't heard about the skulls being recovered from the river. When

did this happen and where is it documented ?

>

> Richard G

>

> --- In , "vermeertwo" hi.dung@

wrote:

> >

> > What happened to King Richard's body? Some believe it ended up in

the river in Leicester during the 1530's despoliation of the Franciscan

church in Leicester. At least three skulls have been recovered from the

river that could be the head of Richard III. Whilst there is no solid

evidence to suggest that two are Richard, the third skull remains in the

hands of a collector whose identity is a secret.

> >

> > There was a report in the early 17th century that Richard's tomb was

still intact in the garden of the current Lord Mayor, whose garden

included the site of the Grey friar's church where Richard was buried.

> > I think the museum intends to excavate this area when the present

buildings come up for demolition: there's very little of the old church

showing above ground: one wall.

> >

> > If Richard's remains are discovered he should receive a full burial

ceremony and proper tomb, but where? Westminster, York or Leicester?

No doubt his face would be reconstructed, height checked and any

skeletal injuries, from the battle, checked; maybe his shoulder for the

alleged deformity would be looked at also.

> >

>

Henry did have a tomb built for him in the Greyfriars church, so there is hope
for a proper coffin. However, his was probably not the only one buried in that
church, so it might be difficult to tell which is which.

Cheers, Dorothea





________________________________
From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>
To:
Sent: Thu, 2 September, 2010 10:41:37 AM
Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's
body?


It would be amazing, but I wouldn't count on an intact skeleton unless it was
sealed in lead or something. And I somehow doubt Henry went to much trouble
with the burial--seems more like, "All right, everybody seen enough? Good,
throw him in the ground and let's be done with it." They didn't try to bury him
with family, or anything.
Sheffe

--- On Wed, 9/1/10, Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:

From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's
body?
To:
Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 7:30 PM



John Ashdown-Hill also explains the various theories in quite some detail in his


latest book The Last Days of Richard III and comes to the conclusion that the

car park, which now covers the area, where Greyfriars and his tomb were, is the

most likely place. If they could excavate the area and indeed find his body

that would be great.

Cheers, Dorothea

________________________________

From: Joan <u2nohoo@...>

To:

Sent: Thu, 2 September, 2010 3:10:03 AM

Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?

At this point, the story of Richard's body being "tipped" into the Soar

and the tomb repurposed for a horse trough is thought to be apocryphal

and that his remains are somewhere under a parking lot (car park in UK

terminology) near where the old Greyfriers stood. Go to The New England

chapter's website <http://www.r3ne.org/> and select a map from the

Leicester Tour (in navigation bar on left). From the maps you can select

one of the theories and the map key for to see images of locations on

the map.

Joan

---

author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century

website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/

blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist

--- In , "Richard"

<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:

>

> I hadn't heard about the skulls being recovered from the river. When

did this happen and where is it documented ?

>

> Richard G

>

> --- In , "vermeertwo" hi.dung@

wrote:

> >

> > What happened to King Richard's body? Some believe it ended up in

the river in Leicester during the 1530's despoliation of the Franciscan

church in Leicester. At least three skulls have been recovered from the

river that could be the head of Richard III. Whilst there is no solid

evidence to suggest that two are Richard, the third skull remains in the

hands of a collector whose identity is a secret.

> >

> > There was a report in the early 17th century that Richard's tomb was

still intact in the garden of the current Lord Mayor, whose garden

included the site of the Grey friar's church where Richard was buried.

> > I think the museum intends to excavate this area when the present

buildings come up for demolition: there's very little of the old church

showing above ground: one wall.

> >

> > If Richard's remains are discovered he should receive a full burial

ceremony and proper tomb, but where? Westminster, York or Leicester?

No doubt his face would be reconstructed, height checked and any

skeletal injuries, from the battle, checked; maybe his shoulder for the

alleged deformity would be looked at also.

> >

>

On Sep 1, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Joan wrote:

> At this point, the story of Richard's body being "tipped" into the
> Soar
> and the tomb repurposed for a horse trough is thought to be apocryphal
> and that his remains are somewhere under a parking lot (car park in UK
> terminology) near where the old Greyfriers stood. Go to The New
> England
> chapter's website <http://www.r3ne.org/> and select a map from the
> Leicester Tour (in navigation bar on left). From the maps you can
> select
> one of the theories and the map key for to see images of locations on
> the map.
>
> Joan

I managed to find the wall hidden behind a couple of cars. It's
amazing that what's left, *is* left.

Gilda

Lots of folks were buried there, yes. The most telling marks would be the cracked skull and all the cuts left on the bones from his final battle wounds.
Cheers back,
Sheffe

--- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:
>
> Henry did have a tomb built for him in the Greyfriars church, so there is hope
> for a proper coffin. However, his was probably not the only one buried in that
> church, so it might be difficult to tell which is which.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thu, 2 September, 2010 10:41:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's
> body?
>
>
> It would be amazing, but I wouldn't count on an intact skeleton unless it was
> sealed in lead or something. And I somehow doubt Henry went to much trouble
> with the burial--seems more like, "All right, everybody seen enough? Good,
> throw him in the ground and let's be done with it." They didn't try to bury him
> with family, or anything.
> Sheffe
>
> --- On Wed, 9/1/10, Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:
>
> From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's
> body?
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 7:30 PM
>
>
>
> John Ashdown-Hill also explains the various theories in quite some detail in his
>
>
> latest book The Last Days of Richard III and comes to the conclusion that the
>
> car park, which now covers the area, where Greyfriars and his tomb were, is the
>
> most likely place. If they could excavate the area and indeed find his body
>
> that would be great.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Joan <u2nohoo@...>
>
> To:
>
> Sent: Thu, 2 September, 2010 3:10:03 AM
>
> Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
>
> At this point, the story of Richard's body being "tipped" into the Soar
>
> and the tomb repurposed for a horse trough is thought to be apocryphal
>
> and that his remains are somewhere under a parking lot (car park in UK
>
> terminology) near where the old Greyfriers stood. Go to The New England
>
> chapter's website <http://www.r3ne.org/> and select a map from the
>
> Leicester Tour (in navigation bar on left). From the maps you can select
>
> one of the theories and the map key for to see images of locations on
>
> the map.
>
> Joan
>
> ---
>
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
>
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
>
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
>
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
>
> --- In , "Richard"
>
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I hadn't heard about the skulls being recovered from the river. When
>
> did this happen and where is it documented ?
>
> >
>
> > Richard G
>
> >
>
> > --- In , "vermeertwo" hi.dung@
>
> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > What happened to King Richard's body? Some believe it ended up in
>
> the river in Leicester during the 1530's despoliation of the Franciscan
>
> church in Leicester. At least three skulls have been recovered from the
>
> river that could be the head of Richard III. Whilst there is no solid
>
> evidence to suggest that two are Richard, the third skull remains in the
>
> hands of a collector whose identity is a secret.
>
> > >
>
> > > There was a report in the early 17th century that Richard's tomb was
>
> still intact in the garden of the current Lord Mayor, whose garden
>
> included the site of the Grey friar's church where Richard was buried.
>
> > > I think the museum intends to excavate this area when the present
>
> buildings come up for demolition: there's very little of the old church
>
> showing above ground: one wall.
>
> > >
>
> > > If Richard's remains are discovered he should receive a full burial
>
> ceremony and proper tomb, but where? Westminster, York or Leicester?
>
> No doubt his face would be reconstructed, height checked and any
>
> skeletal injuries, from the battle, checked; maybe his shoulder for the
>
> alleged deformity would be looked at also.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Even a bit of wall is cool!
Sheffe

--- In , Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Joan wrote:
>
> > At this point, the story of Richard's body being "tipped" into the
> > Soar
> > and the tomb repurposed for a horse trough is thought to be apocryphal
> > and that his remains are somewhere under a parking lot (car park in UK
> > terminology) near where the old Greyfriers stood. Go to The New
> > England
> > chapter's website <http://www.r3ne.org/> and select a map from the
> > Leicester Tour (in navigation bar on left). From the maps you can
> > select
> > one of the theories and the map key for to see images of locations on
> > the map.
> >
> > Joan
>
> I managed to find the wall hidden behind a couple of cars. It's
> amazing that what's left, *is* left.
>
> Gilda
>

I've seen the wall of the Greyfriar's church also.

I know that the Leicester Museum intend to excavate the site for Richard's tomb, as I was in some communication with them about this.

Robert Herrick was the Lord Mayor of Leicester who stated that Richard's tomb was in his garden: his house was built on the site of the church.

I've included a few references to the tomb:

… Henry was acclaimed king by all. He had the dead king exposed to public view for three days at a little hermitage near the battlefield, covered from the waist down with a piece of poor black cloth. (Hanham)

… at last was buried in the choir of the Friars Minor at Leicester. (Hanham, p. 123).

Henry's historian Polydore Vergil writing in 1513 confirms the Grey Friars as does Fabyan in his chronicle of 1516. This postdates the tomb ordered by Henry VII and so is perhaps more likely to be correct.
In 1543 Leyland reported visiting Leicester and seeing the tomb in the church at Grey Friars. Unfortunately he gave no description so it cannot be compared to the contract given by Henry VII.
However one of the earliest Yorkist revisionists, George Buck, writing in 1619 does give a description:-

[Richard was buried] … by commandment and order of King Henry VII, and honourably in the chief church in Leicester, called St Marys, belonging to the order and society of the Grey Friars. And the king also, soon after, caused a fair tomb of mingled colour marble adorned with his image, to be erected upon the monument.

One curious story dating from a similar time to Buck is that of Robert Herrick. Herrick had built a house, `Beaumanor' within the friary site. Christopher Wren, who visited in 1612, claimed that Herrick had marked the spot of Richard's burial with a column. Its position was based on the memory of elderly residents in Leicester. However Speed claimed the site was overgrown in 1611 and Buck fails to mention any memorial. Wren also stated that according to Herrick, nuns had rescued Richard's body. The inscription claimed `Here lies the Body of Richard III', but this was unlikely if the nuns had taken the body away, the, so said, friary belonged to Augustinian monks. It seems that `living memory' was already becoming muddled.
The antiquarian John Nichols recorded an English translation of the memorial's Latin epitaph:

"I who am laid beneath this marble stone,
Richard the Third, possess'd the British throne.
My country's guardian in my nephew's claim,
By trust betray'd I to the kingdom came.
Two years and sixty days, save two, I reign'd,
And bravely strove in fight, but unsustaine'd.
My English left me in the luckless field,
Where I to Henry's arms was forced to yield.
Yet at his cost my corpse this tomb obtains,
Who piously interr'd me, and ordains
That regal honours wait a King's remains.
Reader, whoe'er thou art, thy prayers bestow
T'atone my crimes and ease my pains below".

The relatively low cost of the tomb and propaganda from Henry VII sounds like him.

An excavation may reveal details of the above descriptions of the tomb which could identify the remains.

But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?


--- In , "Shethra" <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Even a bit of wall is cool!
> Sheffe
>
> --- In , Gilda Felt <gildaevf@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sep 1, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Joan wrote:
> >
> > > At this point, the story of Richard's body being "tipped" into the
> > > Soar
> > > and the tomb repurposed for a horse trough is thought to be apocryphal
> > > and that his remains are somewhere under a parking lot (car park in UK
> > > terminology) near where the old Greyfriers stood. Go to The New
> > > England
> > > chapter's website <http://www.r3ne.org/> and select a map from the
> > > Leicester Tour (in navigation bar on left). From the maps you can
> > > select
> > > one of the theories and the map key for to see images of locations on
> > > the map.
> > >
> > > Joan
> >
> > I managed to find the wall hidden behind a couple of cars. It's
> > amazing that what's left, *is* left.
> >
> > Gilda
> >
>

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:

> But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?


Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.

As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.

Katy

If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.
So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?

Paul.



--- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
>
> > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?
>
>
> Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.
>
> As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.
>
> Katy
>

I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.

I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction – the University of Manchester is adept at this – and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.

The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.

It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?


--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.
> So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> --- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?
> >
> >
> > Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.
> >
> > As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>

"as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave."

Quite, but other graves of his royal relatives would have to be disturbed to acquire comparisons of DNA. Who has the ultimate authority over that?

Would I be too cynical to suggest that application of modern investigation techniques to all the mysteries surrounding R3 and the Princes, are being stifled for two reasons? One of suspect lineage of the current monarchy, but the other being of a fiscal nature i.e. mysteries and conspiracy theories and suppositions thereof unsolved, make far more money than mysteries solved.

Paul



--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.
>
> I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction – the University of Manchester is adept at this – and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.
>
> The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.
>
> It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.
> > So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.
> > >
> > > As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>

Richard III has many relatives: his brother Edward IV at Windsor, which is a royal peculiar and the Queen would deny the right of the Dean to start opening graves there: it may be that any or all of the kings and queens might be wanted by some interested parties for autopsy. I could understand if a process line were set up to investigate these dead bodies that some would object. There's the other brother Clarence buried at Tewkesbury Abbey quite openly in a glass casket which I've seen, so maybe he would provide DNA comparison. However, a reconstruction of a skull would suffice, I think, to compare with a Richard III portrait of which there are several.

If the old office building in Leicester over the site of Richard's tomb is demolished, which is scheduled, Richard will have to be moved any way.

Some people like mysteries, others like solutions.


--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> "as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave."
>
> Quite, but other graves of his royal relatives would have to be disturbed to acquire comparisons of DNA. Who has the ultimate authority over that?
>
> Would I be too cynical to suggest that application of modern investigation techniques to all the mysteries surrounding R3 and the Princes, are being stifled for two reasons? One of suspect lineage of the current monarchy, but the other being of a fiscal nature i.e. mysteries and conspiracy theories and suppositions thereof unsolved, make far more money than mysteries solved.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.
> >
> > I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction – the University of Manchester is adept at this – and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.
> >
> > The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.
> >
> > It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?
> >
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.
> > > So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?
> > >
> > > Paul.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.
> > > >
> > > > As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

As Leicester Council plan to develop the site and check for Richard's remains, they would want any discoveries. However, there would be pressure from other quarters – let's hope they wouldn't resort to waving Richard's bones in the air – given the fame of the dead King. Richard himself probably didn't expect to end up in Leicester, but probably in Westminster next to his wife.

--- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
>
> > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?
>
>
> Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.
>
> As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.
>
> Katy
>

On 3 Sep 2010, at 16:09, vermeertwo wrote:

> Richard himself probably didn't expect to end up in Leicester, but
> probably in Westminster next to his wife.

I think the received knowledge says Richard as planning a tomb in
York Minster for himself and his family, hence my belief Edward
prince of Wales would have been buried there. There were already
moves in hand to start a chantrey attached to the Minster, as at
Middleham, that would be looking after the spiritual needs of the
monarch in this and the next world. One assumes a cortage would have
reburied Anne Neville there in later years when the building work
was complete.
Paul

here's a well written and researched essay regarding richard and his final resting place.
http://www.leicesterchronicler.com/richard.htm
 
roslyn

--- On Fri, 9/3/10, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:


From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
To:
Received: Friday, September 3, 2010, 4:41 PM


 




On 3 Sep 2010, at 16:09, vermeertwo wrote:

> Richard himself probably didn't expect to end up in Leicester, but
> probably in Westminster next to his wife.

I think the received knowledge says Richard as planning a tomb in
York Minster for himself and his family, hence my belief Edward
prince of Wales would have been buried there. There were already
moves in hand to start a chantrey attached to the Minster, as at
Middleham, that would be looking after the spiritual needs of the
monarch in this and the next world. One assumes a cortage would have
reburied Anne Neville there in later years when the building work
was complete.
Paul

Good article, thanks for posting the url.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> here's a well written and researched essay regarding richard and his
final resting place.
> http://www.leicesterchronicler.com/richard.htm
> Â
> roslyn
>
> --- On Fri, 9/3/10, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... wrote:
>
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King
Richard's body?
> To:
> Received: Friday, September 3, 2010, 4:41 PM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
> On 3 Sep 2010, at 16:09, vermeertwo wrote:
>
> > Richard himself probably didn't expect to end up in Leicester, but
> > probably in Westminster next to his wife.
>
> I think the received knowledge says Richard as planning a tomb in
> York Minster for himself and his family, hence my belief Edward
> prince of Wales would have been buried there. There were already
> moves in hand to start a chantrey attached to the Minster, as at
> Middleham, that would be looking after the spiritual needs of the
> monarch in this and the next world. One assumes a cortage would have
> reburied Anne Neville there in later years when the building work
> was complete.
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree that York Minster would be a logical choice for a tomb: Leicester isn't really suitable, no more than Westminster, in terms of space. But, given Richard's bad reputation which still persists in the minds of many, would York want a large tomb for Richard III?

It was interesting that the excellent article posted by fayre rose points to Richard still in situ; if in Leicester again, I'd like to enquire of the museum when any excavation is likely to take place. When I was last there, the Curator made clear that there was a definite intention to search for the remains: the publicity, tourism and revenue, given the fame or notoriety of Richard, would be expected to be large.


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 3 Sep 2010, at 16:09, vermeertwo wrote:
>
> > Richard himself probably didn't expect to end up in Leicester, but
> > probably in Westminster next to his wife.
>
> I think the received knowledge says Richard as planning a tomb in
> York Minster for himself and his family, hence my belief Edward
> prince of Wales would have been buried there. There were already
> moves in hand to start a chantrey attached to the Minster, as at
> Middleham, that would be looking after the spiritual needs of the
> monarch in this and the next world. One assumes a cortage would have
> reburied Anne Neville there in later years when the building work
> was complete.
> Paul
>

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that York Minster would be a logical choice for a tomb: Leicester isn't really suitable, no more than Westminster, in terms of space. But, given Richard's bad reputation which still persists in the minds of many, would York want a large tomb for Richard III?


Historically, York was very pro Richard. If I recall correctly, the city closed its gate to Henry VII (or was it just a delegation of his?) the first time he or they came around after Bosworth.

Katy

I, myself, if I were in the position to find out about the bones of Richard 3rd and the Princes in the Tower, of Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard just to name a few via DNA or facial reconstruction, would not be able to resist the urge to have all of this done, saying that, would it be possible for the Royal Family and associates, to have already had this done, and them knowing the truth and keeping it to themselves, letting all of us suffer and live on our imaginations.......just a thought!  The bones are there, the money is there and the time and effort is there.......  Liz

Lizzy Foley  SEMPER EADEM..

--- On Fri, 3/9/10, pneville49 <pneville49@...> wrote:

From: pneville49 <pneville49@...>
Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
To:
Date: Friday, 3 September, 2010, 15:41







 









"as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave."



Quite, but other graves of his royal relatives would have to be disturbed to acquire comparisons of DNA. Who has the ultimate authority over that?



Would I be too cynical to suggest that application of modern investigation techniques to all the mysteries surrounding R3 and the Princes, are being stifled for two reasons? One of suspect lineage of the current monarchy, but the other being of a fiscal nature i.e. mysteries and conspiracy theories and suppositions thereof unsolved, make far more money than mysteries solved.



Paul



--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>

> I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.

>

> I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction  the University of Manchester is adept at this  and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.

>

> The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.

>

> It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?

>

>

> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:

> >

> > If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.

> > So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?

> >

> > Paul.

> >

> >

> >

> > --- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?

> > >

> > >

> > > Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.

> > >

> > > As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.

> > >

> > > Katy

> > >

> >

>

I second Katy's thanks, and the squabble.
Sheffe

--- On Thu, 9/2/10, kayty <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: kayty <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
To:
Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010, 10:48 AM







 













--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:



> But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?



Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.



As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.



Katy

It upsets people who like everything as it appears already.
Sheffe

--- On Thu, 9/2/10, pneville49 <pneville49@...> wrote:

From: pneville49 <pneville49@...>
Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
To:
Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010, 10:52 PM







 









If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.

So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?



Paul.



--- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:

>

> > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?

>

>

> Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.

>

> As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.

>

> Katy

>

"The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by
mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or
supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in
Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten."

At the dissolution of the monasteries during HenryVIII's reign, supposedly, this particular place was raided, wrecked, and bones thrown in the river.  I am assuming that's true, because I see no other way for Herrick t have had any of it as his property.  But the bones were probably not of those who were buried six feet under--they would have been of those interred inside the building.  Who wants to dig out a graveyard just to fling bones?  But as part of the destruction of the monastery...it fits. 
Sheffe

--- On Fri, 9/3/10, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
To:
Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 10:02 AM







 









I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.



I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction  the University of Manchester is adept at this  and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.



The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.



It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?



--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:

>

> If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.

> So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?

>

> Paul.

>

>

>

> --- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:

> >

> > > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?

> >

> >

> > Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.

> >

> > As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.

> >

> > Katy

> >

>

  There are lots of pictures, but not one is actually from the time when he was still living.  The oldest is the round-topped one that makes a set with the one of his brother, possibly commissioned by a family that used to know them.  It's on
http://www.richardiii.net/
and is considered to be a copy of an older original  It's just the oldest copy we have.
As for testing DNA, yes, it would probably be best to use a sample from brother George.  I'm not sure you'd find anything of RIII's DNA in the current royal family. 
Sheffe
--- On Fri, 9/3/10, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
To:
Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 11:02 AM







 









Richard III has many relatives: his brother Edward IV at Windsor, which is a royal peculiar and the Queen would deny the right of the Dean to start opening graves there: it may be that any or all of the kings and queens might be wanted by some interested parties for autopsy. I could understand if a process line were set up to investigate these dead bodies that some would object. There's the other brother Clarence buried at Tewkesbury Abbey quite openly in a glass casket which I've seen, so maybe he would provide DNA comparison. However, a reconstruction of a skull would suffice, I think, to compare with a Richard III portrait of which there are several.



If the old office building in Leicester over the site of Richard's tomb is demolished, which is scheduled, Richard will have to be moved any way.



Some people like mysteries, others like solutions.



--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:

>

> "as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave."

>

> Quite, but other graves of his royal relatives would have to be disturbed to acquire comparisons of DNA. Who has the ultimate authority over that?

>

> Would I be too cynical to suggest that application of modern investigation techniques to all the mysteries surrounding R3 and the Princes, are being stifled for two reasons? One of suspect lineage of the current monarchy, but the other being of a fiscal nature i.e. mysteries and conspiracy theories and suppositions thereof unsolved, make far more money than mysteries solved.

>

> Paul

>

>

>

> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:

> >

> > I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.

> >

> > I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction  the University of Manchester is adept at this  and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.

> >

> > The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.

> >

> > It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?

> >

> >

> > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:

> > >

> > > If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.

> > > So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?

> > >

> > > Paul.

Cool!  Thanks for the link.  Very good article.
Sheffe

--- On Fri, 9/3/10, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
To:
Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 5:32 PM







 









here's a well written and researched essay regarding richard and his final resting place.

http://www.leicesterchronicler.com/richard.htm

 

roslyn



--- On Fri, 9/3/10, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:



From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>

Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?

To:

Received: Friday, September 3, 2010, 4:41 PM



 



On 3 Sep 2010, at 16:09, vermeertwo wrote:



> Richard himself probably didn't expect to end up in Leicester, but

> probably in Westminster next to his wife.



I think the received knowledge says Richard as planning a tomb in

York Minster for himself and his family, hence my belief Edward

prince of Wales would have been buried there. There were already

moves in hand to start a chantrey attached to the Minster, as at

Middleham, that would be looking after the spiritual needs of the

monarch in this and the next world. One assumes a cortage would have

reburied Anne Neville there in later years when the building work

was complete.

Paul

But the other thing there would have to be interest.  I think they have none.
Sheffe

--- On Sat, 9/4/10, elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@...> wrote:

From: elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@...>
Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
To:
Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010, 11:58 AM







 









I, myself, if I were in the position to find out about the bones of Richard 3rd and the Princes in the Tower, of Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard just to name a few via DNA or facial reconstruction, would not be able to resist the urge to have all of this done, saying that, would it be possible for the Royal Family and associates, to have already had this done, and them knowing the truth and keeping it to themselves, letting all of us suffer and live on our imaginations.......just a thought!  The bones are there, the money is there and the time and effort is there.......  Liz



Lizzy Foley  SEMPER EADEM..



--- On Fri, 3/9/10, pneville49 <pneville49@...> wrote:



From: pneville49 <pneville49@...>

Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?

To:

Date: Friday, 3 September, 2010, 15:41



 



"as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave."



Quite, but other graves of his royal relatives would have to be disturbed to acquire comparisons of DNA. Who has the ultimate authority over that?



Would I be too cynical to suggest that application of modern investigation techniques to all the mysteries surrounding R3 and the Princes, are being stifled for two reasons? One of suspect lineage of the current monarchy, but the other being of a fiscal nature i.e. mysteries and conspiracy theories and suppositions thereof unsolved, make far more money than mysteries solved.



Paul



--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:



>



> I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.



>



> I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction  the University of Manchester is adept at this  and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.



>



> The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.



>



> It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?



>



>



> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:



> >



> > If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.



> > So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?



> >



> > Paul.



> >



> >



> >



> > --- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:



> > >



> > >



> > >



> > > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:



> > >



> > > > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?



> > >



> > >



> > > Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.



> > >



> > > As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.



> > >



> > > Katy



> > >



> >



>

--- In , elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@...> wrote:
>
> I, myself, if I were in the position to find out about the bones of Richard 3rd and the Princes in the Tower, of Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard just to name a few via DNA or facial reconstruction, would not be able to resist the urge to have all of this done, saying that, would it be possible for the Royal Family and associates, to have already had this done, and them knowing the truth and keeping it to themselves, letting all of us suffer and live on our imaginations.......just a thought!  The bones are there, the money is there and the time and effort is there.......  Liz
"


Much as I love conspiracy theories -- and I do -- I don't think so. I'm no authority on the current affairs in the UK -- I'm an American -- but from here it looks like the Royals have other things on their minds at the moment. And, after all, they are only remotely related to the Plantagenets.

Katy

Richard's name is still held is high repute in the north. Even during
the time of Elizabeth a slur on his name did not go unchallenged.
York would have loved and protected his tomb.
But then regarding a tomb in York we are talking about if he had
survived to rule for 40 or 50 glorious, as they would have been, years.
Paul


On 4 Sep 2010, at 13:20, vermeertwo wrote:

> I agree that York Minster would be a logical choice for a tomb:
> Leicester isn't really suitable, no more than Westminster, in terms
> of space. But, given Richard's bad reputation which still persists
> in the minds of many, would York want a large tomb for Richard III?

If Leicester Museum find Richard's remains, they, having invested money on the excavation, would probably expect to keep such remains as it would certainly be of tourist interest; there was a proposal to build a tomb at St. Martin's Cathedral which is near to the Grey Friar's site and I know local archaeologists think that the probability is that King Richard's remains will be in situ.

http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/

I would prefer York Minster for a new tomb, but whether John Sentamu, the black Archbishop would agree, who was born in 1949 in a village near Kampala, Uganda, I don't know. Westminster Abbey is far too crowded. I think the present Queen would naturally want this ancestor buried correctly and not under an office building or car park.


--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> But the other thing there would have to be interest.  I think they have none.
> Sheffe
>
> --- On Sat, 9/4/10, elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@...> wrote:
>
> From: elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
> To:
> Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010, 11:58 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I, myself, if I were in the position to find out about the bones of Richard 3rd and the Princes in the Tower, of Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard just to name a few via DNA or facial reconstruction, would not be able to resist the urge to have all of this done, saying that, would it be possible for the Royal Family and associates, to have already had this done, and them knowing the truth and keeping it to themselves, letting all of us suffer and live on our imaginations.......just a thought!  The bones are there, the money is there and the time and effort is there.......  Liz
>
>
>
> Lizzy Foley  SEMPER EADEM..
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 3/9/10, pneville49 <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: pneville49 <pneville49@...>
>
> Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
>
> To:
>
> Date: Friday, 3 September, 2010, 15:41
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> "as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave."
>
>
>
> Quite, but other graves of his royal relatives would have to be disturbed to acquire comparisons of DNA. Who has the ultimate authority over that?
>
>
>
> Would I be too cynical to suggest that application of modern investigation techniques to all the mysteries surrounding R3 and the Princes, are being stifled for two reasons? One of suspect lineage of the current monarchy, but the other being of a fiscal nature i.e. mysteries and conspiracy theories and suppositions thereof unsolved, make far more money than mysteries solved.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction â€" the University of Manchester is adept at this â€" and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.
>
>
>
> > > So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > Paul.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > --- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
> > > > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
> > > > > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
> > > > Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
> > > > As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
> > > > Katy
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

What on earth does the colour of skin or place of birth of the Archbishop of York have to do with this debate ????

Richard G

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> If Leicester Museum find Richard's remains, they, having invested money on the excavation, would probably expect to keep such remains as it would certainly be of tourist interest; there was a proposal to build a tomb at St. Martin's Cathedral which is near to the Grey Friar's site and I know local archaeologists think that the probability is that King Richard's remains will be in situ.
>
> http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/
>
> I would prefer York Minster for a new tomb, but whether John Sentamu, the black Archbishop would agree, who was born in 1949 in a village near Kampala, Uganda, I don't know. Westminster Abbey is far too crowded. I think the present Queen would naturally want this ancestor buried correctly and not under an office building or car park.
>
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >
> > But the other thing there would have to be interest.  I think they have none.
> > Sheffe
> >
> > --- On Sat, 9/4/10, elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@> wrote:
> >
> > From: elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010, 11:58 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I, myself, if I were in the position to find out about the bones of Richard 3rd and the Princes in the Tower, of Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard just to name a few via DNA or facial reconstruction, would not be able to resist the urge to have all of this done, saying that, would it be possible for the Royal Family and associates, to have already had this done, and them knowing the truth and keeping it to themselves, letting all of us suffer and live on our imaginations.......just a thought!  The bones are there, the money is there and the time and effort is there.......  Liz
> >
> >
> >
> > Lizzy Foley  SEMPER EADEM..
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 3/9/10, pneville49 <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: pneville49 <pneville49@>
> >
> > Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
> >
> > To:
> >
> > Date: Friday, 3 September, 2010, 15:41
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > "as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave."
> >
> >
> >
> > Quite, but other graves of his royal relatives would have to be disturbed to acquire comparisons of DNA. Who has the ultimate authority over that?
> >
> >
> >
> > Would I be too cynical to suggest that application of modern investigation techniques to all the mysteries surrounding R3 and the Princes, are being stifled for two reasons? One of suspect lineage of the current monarchy, but the other being of a fiscal nature i.e. mysteries and conspiracy theories and suppositions thereof unsolved, make far more money than mysteries solved.
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction â€" the University of Manchester is adept at this â€" and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Paul.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > --- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

dunno..interesting trivia, maybe. i'd be more interested as to whether or not the archbishop was a conservative or liberal thinker. would he be more inclined to a burial/memorial at york or would he be worried about "stepping on the toes" of the powers that be?
 
roslyn

--- On Mon, 9/6/10, Richard <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:


From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
To:
Received: Monday, September 6, 2010, 9:31 AM


 



What on earth does the colour of skin or place of birth of the Archbishop of York have to do with this debate ????

Richard G

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> If Leicester Museum find Richard's remains, they, having invested money on the excavation, would probably expect to keep such remains as it would certainly be of tourist interest; there was a proposal to build a tomb at St. Martin's Cathedral which is near to the Grey Friar's site and I know local archaeologists think that the probability is that King Richard's remains will be in situ.
>
> http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/
>
> I would prefer York Minster for a new tomb, but whether John Sentamu, the black Archbishop would agree, who was born in 1949 in a village near Kampala, Uganda, I don't know. Westminster Abbey is far too crowded. I think the present Queen would naturally want this ancestor buried correctly and not under an office building or car park.
>
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >
> > But the other thing there would have to be interest.  I think they have none.
> > Sheffe
> >
> > --- On Sat, 9/4/10, elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@> wrote:
> >
> > From: elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010, 11:58 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I, myself, if I were in the position to find out about the bones of Richard 3rd and the Princes in the Tower, of Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard just to name a few via DNA or facial reconstruction, would not be able to resist the urge to have all of this done, saying that, would it be possible for the Royal Family and associates, to have already had this done, and them knowing the truth and keeping it to themselves, letting all of us suffer and live on our imaginations.......just a thought!  The bones are there, the money is there and the time and effort is there.......  Liz
> >
> >
> >
> > Lizzy Foley  SEMPER EADEM..
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 3/9/10, pneville49 <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: pneville49 <pneville49@>
> >
> > Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
> >
> > To:
> >
> > Date: Friday, 3 September, 2010, 15:41
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > "as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave."
> >
> >
> >
> > Quite, but other graves of his royal relatives would have to be disturbed to acquire comparisons of DNA. Who has the ultimate authority over that?
> >
> >
> >
> > Would I be too cynical to suggest that application of modern investigation techniques to all the mysteries surrounding R3 and the Princes, are being stifled for two reasons? One of suspect lineage of the current monarchy, but the other being of a fiscal nature i.e. mysteries and conspiracy theories and suppositions thereof unsolved, make far more money than mysteries solved.
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction â¬" the University of Manchester is adept at this â¬" and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Paul.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > --- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

This is the same Archbishop Sentamu who cut up his dog collar live on television and swore not to wear one again until Mugabe is ousted - we need not fear him as an insider;)

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?



dunno..interesting trivia, maybe. i'd be more interested as to whether or not the archbishop was a conservative or liberal thinker. would he be more inclined to a burial/memorial at york or would he be worried about "stepping on the toes" of the powers that be?

roslyn

--- On Mon, 9/6/10, Richard <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:

From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
To:
Received: Monday, September 6, 2010, 9:31 AM



What on earth does the colour of skin or place of birth of the Archbishop of York have to do with this debate ????

Richard G

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> If Leicester Museum find Richard's remains, they, having invested money on the excavation, would probably expect to keep such remains as it would certainly be of tourist interest; there was a proposal to build a tomb at St. Martin's Cathedral which is near to the Grey Friar's site and I know local archaeologists think that the probability is that King Richard's remains will be in situ.
>
> http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/
>
> I would prefer York Minster for a new tomb, but whether John Sentamu, the black Archbishop would agree, who was born in 1949 in a village near Kampala, Uganda, I don't know. Westminster Abbey is far too crowded. I think the present Queen would naturally want this ancestor buried correctly and not under an office building or car park.
>
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >
> > But the other thing there would have to be interest. I think they have none.
> > Sheffe
> >
> > --- On Sat, 9/4/10, elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@> wrote:
> >
> > From: elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010, 11:58 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I, myself, if I were in the position to find out about the bones of Richard 3rd and the Princes in the Tower, of Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard just to name a few via DNA or facial reconstruction, would not be able to resist the urge to have all of this done, saying that, would it be possible for the Royal Family and associates, to have already had this done, and them knowing the truth and keeping it to themselves, letting all of us suffer and live on our imaginations.......just a thought! The bones are there, the money is there and the time and effort is there....... Liz
> >
> >
> >
> > Lizzy Foley  SEMPER EADEM..
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 3/9/10, pneville49 <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: pneville49 <pneville49@>
> >
> > Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
> >
> > To:
> >
> > Date: Friday, 3 September, 2010, 15:41
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > "as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave."
> >
> >
> >
> > Quite, but other graves of his royal relatives would have to be disturbed to acquire comparisons of DNA. Who has the ultimate authority over that?
> >
> >
> >
> > Would I be too cynical to suggest that application of modern investigation techniques to all the mysteries surrounding R3 and the Princes, are being stifled for two reasons? One of suspect lineage of the current monarchy, but the other being of a fiscal nature i.e. mysteries and conspiracy theories and suppositions thereof unsolved, make far more money than mysteries solved.
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction â¬" the University of Manchester is adept at this â¬" and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Paul.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > --- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I read once that the bones of "Clarence" in Tewkesbury are actually those of some other worthy, a Dr. somebody who died in the 18th century, if I recall.

Can anyone help?

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
>   There are lots of pictures, but not one is actually from the time when he was still living.  The oldest is the round-topped one that makes a set with the one of his brother, possibly commissioned by a family that used to know them.  It's on
> http://www.richardiii.net/
> and is considered to be a copy of an older original  It's just the oldest copy we have.
> As for testing DNA, yes, it would probably be best to use a sample from brother George.  I'm not sure you'd find anything of RIII's DNA in the current royal family. 
> Sheffe
> --- On Fri, 9/3/10, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
> To:
> Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 11:02 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard III has many relatives: his brother Edward IV at Windsor, which is a royal peculiar and the Queen would deny the right of the Dean to start opening graves there: it may be that any or all of the kings and queens might be wanted by some interested parties for autopsy. I could understand if a process line were set up to investigate these dead bodies that some would object. There's the other brother Clarence buried at Tewkesbury Abbey quite openly in a glass casket which I've seen, so maybe he would provide DNA comparison. However, a reconstruction of a skull would suffice, I think, to compare with a Richard III portrait of which there are several.
>
>
>
> If the old office building in Leicester over the site of Richard's tomb is demolished, which is scheduled, Richard will have to be moved any way.
>
>
>
> Some people like mysteries, others like solutions.
>
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > "as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave."
>
> >
>
> > Quite, but other graves of his royal relatives would have to be disturbed to acquire comparisons of DNA. Who has the ultimate authority over that?
>
> >
>
> > Would I be too cynical to suggest that application of modern investigation techniques to all the mysteries surrounding R3 and the Princes, are being stifled for two reasons? One of suspect lineage of the current monarchy, but the other being of a fiscal nature i.e. mysteries and conspiracy theories and suppositions thereof unsolved, make far more money than mysteries solved.
>
> >
>
> > Paul
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.
>
> > >
>
> > > I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction â€" the University of Manchester is adept at this â€" and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.
>
> > >
>
> > > The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.
>
> > >
>
> > > It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.
>
> > > > So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Paul.
>
>
>
>
>

I was wondering whether the Ugandan Sentamu would be interested in a tomb for a medieval King? This wasn't an attempt to ruffle politically correct feathers.

--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> What on earth does the colour of skin or place of birth of the Archbishop of York have to do with this debate ????
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > If Leicester Museum find Richard's remains, they, having invested money on the excavation, would probably expect to keep such remains as it would certainly be of tourist interest; there was a proposal to build a tomb at St. Martin's Cathedral which is near to the Grey Friar's site and I know local archaeologists think that the probability is that King Richard's remains will be in situ.
> >
> > http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/
> >
> > I would prefer York Minster for a new tomb, but whether John Sentamu, the black Archbishop would agree, who was born in 1949 in a village near Kampala, Uganda, I don't know. Westminster Abbey is far too crowded. I think the present Queen would naturally want this ancestor buried correctly and not under an office building or car park.
> >
> >
> > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > >
> > > But the other thing there would have to be interest.  I think they have none.
> > > Sheffe
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 9/4/10, elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: elizabeth Foley <liz_foley1254@>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
> > > To:
> > > Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010, 11:58 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I, myself, if I were in the position to find out about the bones of Richard 3rd and the Princes in the Tower, of Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard just to name a few via DNA or facial reconstruction, would not be able to resist the urge to have all of this done, saying that, would it be possible for the Royal Family and associates, to have already had this done, and them knowing the truth and keeping it to themselves, letting all of us suffer and live on our imaginations.......just a thought!  The bones are there, the money is there and the time and effort is there.......  Liz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Lizzy Foley  SEMPER EADEM..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 3/9/10, pneville49 <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: pneville49 <pneville49@>
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
> > >
> > > To:
> > >
> > > Date: Friday, 3 September, 2010, 15:41
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite, but other graves of his royal relatives would have to be disturbed to acquire comparisons of DNA. Who has the ultimate authority over that?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Would I be too cynical to suggest that application of modern investigation techniques to all the mysteries surrounding R3 and the Princes, are being stifled for two reasons? One of suspect lineage of the current monarchy, but the other being of a fiscal nature i.e. mysteries and conspiracy theories and suppositions thereof unsolved, make far more money than mysteries solved.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction â€" the University of Manchester is adept at this â€" and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Paul.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > --- In , "kayty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > But where would Richard be reburied? In Westminster near his wife, in his apparently beloved York or should he remain in Leicester?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Thank you for compiling all that interesting information.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > As to where he should lie, if his remains were ever found -- I can envision a squabble over that right, for the anticipated attraction it would provide to tourists and his loyal admirers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Trust anything to do with Clarence would be fouled up.

Maybe an autopsy / DNA anlazsis could be used on one of Richard[s sisters? Edward IV in Windsor would be off bounds because the Queen doesnt want a conveyor belt of autopsies on her ancestors.


--- In , "yorkistjoe" <joe.schweninger@...> wrote:
>
> I read once that the bones of "Clarence" in Tewkesbury are actually those of some other worthy, a Dr. somebody who died in the 18th century, if I recall.
>
> Can anyone help?
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >
> >   There are lots of pictures, but not one is actually from the time when he was still living.  The oldest is the round-topped one that makes a set with the one of his brother, possibly commissioned by a family that used to know them.  It's on
> > http://www.richardiii.net/
> > and is considered to be a copy of an older original  It's just the oldest copy we have.
> > As for testing DNA, yes, it would probably be best to use a sample from brother George.  I'm not sure you'd find anything of RIII's DNA in the current royal family. 
> > Sheffe
> > --- On Fri, 9/3/10, vermeertwo <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@>
> > Subject: Re: What happened to King Richard's body?
> > To:
> > Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 11:02 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard III has many relatives: his brother Edward IV at Windsor, which is a royal peculiar and the Queen would deny the right of the Dean to start opening graves there: it may be that any or all of the kings and queens might be wanted by some interested parties for autopsy. I could understand if a process line were set up to investigate these dead bodies that some would object. There's the other brother Clarence buried at Tewkesbury Abbey quite openly in a glass casket which I've seen, so maybe he would provide DNA comparison. However, a reconstruction of a skull would suffice, I think, to compare with a Richard III portrait of which there are several.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the old office building in Leicester over the site of Richard's tomb is demolished, which is scheduled, Richard will have to be moved any way.
> >
> >
> >
> > Some people like mysteries, others like solutions.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > "as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave."
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Quite, but other graves of his royal relatives would have to be disturbed to acquire comparisons of DNA. Who has the ultimate authority over that?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Would I be too cynical to suggest that application of modern investigation techniques to all the mysteries surrounding R3 and the Princes, are being stifled for two reasons? One of suspect lineage of the current monarchy, but the other being of a fiscal nature i.e. mysteries and conspiracy theories and suppositions thereof unsolved, make far more money than mysteries solved.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Paul
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > I understand that the present Queen disapproves of her ancestors being disturbed; however, as seems likely, Richard III lies under a building he's hardly in a proper grave.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > I would imagine any skull would undergo facial reconstruction â€" the University of Manchester is adept at this â€" and a comparison made with Richard's portraits. DNA testing and comparison with other members of Richard's family is possible, but a facial identification seems sufficient.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > The idea that his remains were thrown in the river or taken by mysterious nuns is possible, but may be tales invented by detractors or supporters; the chances are that his coffin / tomb was included in Herrick's garden, it became overgrown and forgotten.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > It's interesting that one source state he was buried in St. Mary's as St. Mary de Castro still stands near the Newarke gate where Richard's body was exposed for three days with only a loin cloth on. Could Richard's tomb have been built over because of his poor reputation in the existing St. Mary de Castro?
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > > > If R3`s bones are found then aren`t we back to the same quandary as with the Westminster Abbey "Princes" bones? That of proof positive and requirement of DNA testing and comparison. Tombs, graves, and remains would need to be disturbed.
> >
> > > > > So who has the ultimate authority to either approve or disapprove such procedure, especially where royal bones are concerned? the Coroner`s Office? the Lord Chancellor? the relevant heads of the Church of England? the Monarchy? or others? and why is there reluctance for such modern investigations on royal remains to take place?
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > > > Paul.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>