Egyptologist Joyce Filer asked to look at Clarence's bones

Dr. Filer hasn't published her findings yet, but here's her blog entry
talking about the commission, with photos of Tewkesbury Abbey and the
location of the tomb:

http://joycefiler.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/richard-iii-the-search-for-his-brother/


--

- *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
- *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

If the bones prove to be George's, then can one assume that the female
remains are that of his wife? If this can be shown to be true, then we
could get the mtDNA that would be present in Richard's legitimate son,
so that if evidence ever surfaces for site for his bones, it can be
compared.

Joan
http://joanszechtman.com/

--- In , Wednesday McKenna wrote:
>
> Dr. Filer hasn't published her findings yet, but here's her blog entry
> talking about the commission, with photos of Tewkesbury Abbey and the
> location of the tomb:
>
>
http://joycefiler.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/richard-iii-the-search-for-hi\
s-brother/
>
>
> --
>
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>
>
>
>

Hello fellow Ricardians.
I've been reading this forum since Feb and have enjoyed the banter and of course the knowledge that has been shared. I always read- but have never replied. There are so many books to read along with posts, that I've just remained quiet and attentive, trying to learn as much as I can.
I just decided to come out lurking mode to post this link that came to my attention on FB today. My question after reading the article is why the article seems to focus on the historian named Lay that denigrates RIII (He obviously loves Shakespeare and foreign accounts) .
Tell me what you all make of this. It it is titled :
Live event catch up: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?
Mark Cardwell reports on the Leicester Exchanges live debate, which took place at the University of Leicester on 6 June.
http://leicesterexchanges.com/2013/06/07/catch-up-richard-iii/

This seems to be so slanted (at least the reporting aspect of it) . Am looking forward to the actual video that should be coming up of the debate and am hoping that Dr. Phil Stone was able to hold up his end. Of course I would have loved to read the JAH was there to set them straight.
Live event catch up: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?

-"joanszechtman" wrote:
>
> If the bones prove to be George's, then can one assume that the female remains are that of his wife? If this can be shown to be true, then we could get the mtDNA that would be present in Richard's legitimate son, so that if evidence ever surfaces for site for his bones, it can be compared.
>
> Joan

Carol responds:

Not to mention Anne's, which are also missing. That poor family, unlucky in life and death!

But didn't we discuss the supposed Clarence remains earlier, something about the ages of the disarticulated skeletons being wrong?

Carol

We did. There was an article on the NSW site by Pauline Pogmore who is I believe from the Yorkshire branch saying that it is very unlikely they belong to Clarence.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2013, 4:09
Subject: Re: Egyptologist Joyce Filer asked to look at Clarence's bones

 



-"joanszechtman" wrote:
>
> If the bones prove to be George's, then can one assume that the female remains are that of his wife? If this can be shown to be true, then we could get the mtDNA that would be present in Richard's legitimate son, so that if evidence ever surfaces for site for his bones, it can be compared.
>
> Joan

Carol responds:

Not to mention Anne's, which are also missing. That poor family, unlucky in life and death!

But didn't we discuss the supposed Clarence remains earlier, something about the ages of the disarticulated skeletons being wrong?

Carol

Just read report on FB. Disgusted with Paul Lay's comments about Richard's "disastrous reign". Methinks he ought to do a bit of research before commenting on something he obviously knows very little about.

--- In , "Rita Burger" <rbu5@...> wrote
>
> Hello fellow Ricardians.
> I’ve been reading this forum since Feb and have enjoyed the banter and of course the knowledge that has been shared. I always read- but have never replied. There are so many books to read along with posts, that I’ve just remained quiet and attentive, trying to learn as much as I can.
> I just decided to come out lurking mode to post this link that came to my attention on FB today. My question after reading the article is why the article seems to focus on the historian named Lay that denigrates RIII (He obviously loves Shakespeare and “foreign accounts”) .
> Tell me what you all make of this. It it is titled :
> Live event catch up: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?
> Mark Cardwell reports on the Leicester Exchanges live debate, which took place at the University of Leicester on 6 June.
> http://leicesterexchanges.com/2013/06/07/catch-up-richard-iii/
>
> This seems to be so slanted (at least the reporting aspect of it) . Am looking forward to the actual video that should be coming up of the debate and am hoping that Dr. Phil Stone was able to hold up his end. Of course I would have loved to read the JAH was there to set them straight.
> Live event catch up: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?
>
>
>

Excellent news Weds.....all that I have read about these bones leaves me thinking that they are not the bones of George and Isobel....but would love to be wrong about this.....eileen

--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Dr. Filer hasn't published her findings yet, but here's her blog entry
> talking about the commission, with photos of Tewkesbury Abbey and the
> location of the tomb:
>
> http://joycefiler.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/richard-iii-the-search-for-his-brother/
>
>
> --
>
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>
>
>
>

It causes me real sadness to read Richard called a tyrant....after all the changes he made to benefit the common man. The unjustness still goes on...but it will not prevail at the end of the day...these opinions make Lay come across as rather a twit.....He needs to wake up smell the coffee, move on and discard his outmoded opinions that he has surely gleaned from Shakespeare. God bless King Richard and his family...

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just read report on FB. Disgusted with Paul Lay's comments about Richard's "disastrous reign". Methinks he ought to do a bit of research before commenting on something he obviously knows very little about.
>
> --- In , "Rita Burger" <rbu5@> wrote
> >
> > Hello fellow Ricardians.
> > I’ve been reading this forum since Feb and have enjoyed the banter and of course the knowledge that has been shared. I always read- but have never replied. There are so many books to read along with posts, that I’ve just remained quiet and attentive, trying to learn as much as I can.
> > I just decided to come out lurking mode to post this link that came to my attention on FB today. My question after reading the article is why the article seems to focus on the historian named Lay that denigrates RIII (He obviously loves Shakespeare and “foreign accounts”) .
> > Tell me what you all make of this. It it is titled :
> > Live event catch up: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?
> > Mark Cardwell reports on the Leicester Exchanges live debate, which took place at the University of Leicester on 6 June.
> > http://leicesterexchanges.com/2013/06/07/catch-up-richard-iii/
> >
> > This seems to be so slanted (at least the reporting aspect of it) . Am looking forward to the actual video that should be coming up of the debate and am hoping that Dr. Phil Stone was able to hold up his end. Of course I would have loved to read the JAH was there to set them straight.
> > Live event catch up: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?
> >
> >
> >
>

Hear, hear!

From: EILEEN BATES
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 1:08 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?

It causes me real sadness to read Richard called a tyrant....after all the changes he made to benefit the common man. The unjustness still goes on...but it will not prevail at the end of the day...these opinions make Lay come across as rather a twit.....He needs to wake up smell the coffee, move on and discard his outmoded opinions that he has surely gleaned from Shakespeare. God bless King Richard and his family...

Well said Eileen. I just finished Kendals' RIII last night. Truly amazed at what he accomplished and how he really looked out for the common and merchant class. How can these people have such tunnel vision? Don't they READ?
RIII cannot and should not be dismissed so easily. I get frustrated that this information is out there and yet we have Lay come out like he did at that debate.
Continue to push the boulder uphill...not giving up.
Rita

From: EILEEN BATES
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?


It causes me real sadness to read Richard called a tyrant....after all the changes he made to benefit the common man. The unjustness still goes on...but it will not prevail at the end of the day...these opinions make Lay come across as rather a twit.....He needs to wake up smell the coffee, move on and discard his outmoded opinions that he has surely gleaned from Shakespeare. God bless King Richard and his family...

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just read report on FB. Disgusted with Paul Lay's comments about Richard's "disastrous reign". Methinks he ought to do a bit of research before commenting on something he obviously knows very little about.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Rita Burger" <rbu5@> wrote
> >
> > Hello fellow Ricardians.
> > I’ve been reading this forum since Feb and have enjoyed the banter and of course the knowledge that has been shared. I always read- but have never replied. There are so many books to read along with posts, that I’ve just remained quiet and attentive, trying to learn as much as I can.
> > I just decided to come out lurking mode to post this link that came to my attention on FB today. My question after reading the article is why the article seems to focus on the historian named Lay that denigrates RIII (He obviously loves Shakespeare and “foreign accounts”) .
> > Tell me what you all make of this. It it is titled :
> > Live event catch up: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?
> > Mark Cardwell reports on the Leicester Exchanges live debate, which took place at the University of Leicester on 6 June.
> > http://leicesterexchanges.com/2013/06/07/catch-up-richard-iii/
> >
> > This seems to be so slanted (at least the reporting aspect of it) . Am looking forward to the actual video that should be coming up of the debate and am hoping that Dr. Phil Stone was able to hold up his end. Of course I would have loved to read the JAH was there to set them straight.
> > Live event catch up: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?
> >
> >
> >
>

I feel the same way. It's very frustrating that people will not come to
the available information with an open mind. And I certainly don't have
any answers. Although maybe it's a hopeful sign that there are so many
Facebook pages now. I've lost track, because every time I look, there
seems to be a new one. Not all present Richard as we believe him to have
been, but they are out there. So I think it's a good sign that there's so
much interest, and with the opposing views, at least some of the curious
will pursue authentic information, rather than the material that
"historians" copy from each other.

A J


On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Rita Burger <rbu5@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Well said Eileen. I just finished Kendalsý RIII last night. Truly amazed
> at what he accomplished and how he really looked out for the common and
> merchant class. How can these people have such tunnel vision? Donýt they
> READ?
> RIII cannot and should not be dismissed so easily. I get frustrated that
> this information is out there and yet we have Lay come out like he did at
> that debate.
> Continue to push the boulder uphill...not giving up.
> Rita
>
> From: EILEEN BATES
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:08 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard III: Benevolent King or
> Murderous Tyrant?
>
>
> It causes me real sadness to read Richard called a tyrant....after all the
> changes he made to benefit the common man. The unjustness still goes
> on...but it will not prevail at the end of the day...these opinions make
> Lay come across as rather a twit.....He needs to wake up smell the coffee,
> move on and discard his outmoded opinions that he has surely gleaned from
> Shakespeare. God bless King Richard and his family...
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an"
> <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> >
> > Just read report on FB. Disgusted with Paul Lay's comments about
> Richard's "disastrous reign". Methinks he ought to do a bit of research
> before commenting on something he obviously knows very little about.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Rita Burger"
> <rbu5@> wrote
>
> > >
> > > Hello fellow Ricardians.
> > > Iýýýve been reading this forum since Feb and have enjoyed the banter
> and of course the knowledge that has been shared. I always read- but have
> never replied. There are so many books to read along with posts, that
> Iýýýve just remained quiet and attentive, trying to learn as much as I can.
> > > I just decided to come out lurking mode to post this link that came to
> my attention on FB today. My question after reading the article is why the
> article seems to focus on the historian named Lay that denigrates RIII (He
> obviously loves Shakespeare and ýýýforeign accountsýý ) .
> > > Tell me what you all make of this. It it is titled :
> > > Live event catch up: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?
> > > Mark Cardwell reports on the Leicester Exchanges live debate, which
> took place at the University of Leicester on 6 June.
> > > http://leicesterexchanges.com/2013/06/07/catch-up-richard-iii/
> > >
> > > This seems to be so slanted (at least the reporting aspect of it) . Am
> looking forward to the actual video that should be coming up of the debate
> and am hoping that Dr. Phil Stone was able to hold up his end. Of course I
> would have loved to read the JAH was there to set them straight.
> > > Live event catch up: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just read report on FB. Disgusted with Paul Lay's comments about Richard's "disastrous reign". Methinks he ought to do a bit of research before commenting on something he obviously knows very little about.

Carol responds:

For some reason (Shakespeare?), many people, perhaps Lay among them, have the idea that Richard's two years as king was a reign of terror, nothing but rebellions on the one hand (no notion how quickly and almost bloodlessly the 1483 rebellions were quelled) and executions on the other. Setting aside the four (in my opinion justified) executions for treason during the Protectorate, does anyone know how many people were executed for treason during Richard's reign? I know of only three--Buckingham, St. Leger, and Colyngbourne (again, all justified whatever we think of the methods used in the last one, no fault of Richard's)--but there must be others. If we could compute the yearly average of executions during his reign, I suspect that the number would compare favorably with those of comparable years for other kings who faced rebellion, say H6, H7, and E4.

As for "disastrous reign," I suspect that everyone here agrees with me when I say that the only disasters of Richard's reign were the deaths of his wife and son and his own defeat and death at Bosworth.

Carol

Absolutely, Carol. My question, is, if we have recorded events at the time of Richard's Reign vs. writings far after the events by third hand telling, why are the latter accepted as gospel, and the former, rants by the deluded? If one writes history taking events and not taking sides, then should the picture become at the very least, better rounded?

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 3:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?




--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just read report on FB. Disgusted with Paul Lay's comments about Richard's "disastrous reign". Methinks he ought to do a bit of research before commenting on something he obviously knows very little about.

Carol responds:

For some reason (Shakespeare?), many people, perhaps Lay among them, have the idea that Richard's two years as king was a reign of terror, nothing but rebellions on the one hand (no notion how quickly and almost bloodlessly the 1483 rebellions were quelled) and executions on the other. Setting aside the four (in my opinion justified) executions for treason during the Protectorate, does anyone know how many people were executed for treason during Richard's reign? I know of only three--Buckingham, St. Leger, and Colyngbourne (again, all justified whatever we think of the methods used in the last one, no fault of Richard's)--but there must be others. If we could compute the yearly average of executions during his reign, I suspect that the number would compare favorably with those of comparable years for other kings who faced rebellion, say H6, H7, and E4.

As for "disastrous reign," I suspect that everyone here agrees with me when I say that the only disasters of Richard's reign were the deaths of his wife and son and his own defeat and death at Bosworth.

Carol

Agreed here, Carol.



As for "disastrous reign," I suspect that everyone here agrees with me when I say that the only disasters of Richard's reign were the deaths of his wife and son and his own defeat and death at Bosworth.

Carol

Absolutely agree Carol. Will check out Jeremy Potter's "Good King Richard?" I think he compared Richard and Tudor's reigns or the first two years.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just read report on FB. Disgusted with Paul Lay's comments about Richard's "disastrous reign". Methinks he ought to do a bit of research before commenting on something he obviously knows very little about.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> For some reason (Shakespeare?), many people, perhaps Lay among them, have the idea that Richard's two years as king was a reign of terror, nothing but rebellions on the one hand (no notion how quickly and almost bloodlessly the 1483 rebellions were quelled) and executions on the other. Setting aside the four (in my opinion justified) executions for treason during the Protectorate, does anyone know how many people were executed for treason during Richard's reign? I know of only three--Buckingham, St. Leger, and Colyngbourne (again, all justified whatever we think of the methods used in the last one, no fault of Richard's)--but there must be others. If we could compute the yearly average of executions during his reign, I suspect that the number would compare favorably with those of comparable years for other kings who faced rebellion, say H6, H7, and E4.
>
> As for "disastrous reign," I suspect that everyone here agrees with me when I say that the only disasters of Richard's reign were the deaths of his wife and son and his own defeat and death at Bosworth.
>
> Carol
>

I think it's great that they're being looked at. I don't hold out much hope they'll be Clarence's either, but at least then we'll know one way or the other whether the wee man (wasn't he about 5' 5"?) in the glass case really is Clarence, or whether we can forget about imagining Clarence as the family shortie and move on.
Marie

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Excellent news Weds.....all that I have read about these bones leaves me thinking that they are not the bones of George and Isobel....but would love to be wrong about this.....eileen
>
> --- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Filer hasn't published her findings yet, but here's her blog entry
> > talking about the commission, with photos of Tewkesbury Abbey and the
> > location of the tomb:
> >
> > http://joycefiler.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/richard-iii-the-search-for-his-brother/
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Lay gives the impression of understanding very little about Richard's reign but imagining he understands everything because he is an historian. Have I read it right, or is he really saying Richard was a tyrant because he wasn't supported by Stanley or Northumberland? Is Mr Lay aware of the longstanding frustrations felt by these two would-be princes of the North? Is he even aware that one was married to Henry Tudor's mother and the other to Henry Tudor's ex-fiancée? And that neither gave a toss about good government?
Marie

--- In , "Rita Burger" <rbu5@...> wrote:
>
> Hello fellow Ricardians.
> I’ve been reading this forum since Feb and have enjoyed the banter and of course the knowledge that has been shared. I always read- but have never replied. There are so many books to read along with posts, that I’ve just remained quiet and attentive, trying to learn as much as I can.
> I just decided to come out lurking mode to post this link that came to my attention on FB today. My question after reading the article is why the article seems to focus on the historian named Lay that denigrates RIII (He obviously loves Shakespeare and “foreign accounts”) .
> Tell me what you all make of this. It it is titled :
> Live event catch up: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?
> Mark Cardwell reports on the Leicester Exchanges live debate, which took place at the University of Leicester on 6 June.
> http://leicesterexchanges.com/2013/06/07/catch-up-richard-iii/
>
> This seems to be so slanted (at least the reporting aspect of it) . Am looking forward to the actual video that should be coming up of the debate and am hoping that Dr. Phil Stone was able to hold up his end. Of course I would have loved to read the JAH was there to set them straight.
> Live event catch up: Richard III: Benevolent King or Murderous Tyrant?
>
>
>

Hi Carol just looked at Jeremy Potter quickly and on page 53-54 in my copy he does compare the reigns in general. He doesn't mention the no of executions in this part. I am sure I have read this somewhere. However,he does say "Richard's role in history is to be responsible for the bad and not the good". He then goes on to speculate, that if Tudor had been defeated at Stoke and had also been a two year king, how would history have judged their respective records? He then quotes Paul Murray Kendal, whose verdict is "In stability of rule, establishment of order, vigour of diplomacy, development and execution of policy and concern for he welfare of the people, the government of Henry Tudor hardly challenges comparison with the government of King Richard... Precisely from what (Henry) rescued England remains mysterious"

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Absolutely agree Carol. Will check out Jeremy Potter's "Good King Richard?" I think he compared Richard and Tudor's reigns or the first two years.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just read report on FB. Disgusted with Paul Lay's comments about Richard's "disastrous reign". Methinks he ought to do a bit of research before commenting on something he obviously knows very little about.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > For some reason (Shakespeare?), many people, perhaps Lay among them, have the idea that Richard's two years as king was a reign of terror, nothing but rebellions on the one hand (no notion how quickly and almost bloodlessly the 1483 rebellions were quelled) and executions on the other. Setting aside the four (in my opinion justified) executions for treason during the Protectorate, does anyone know how many people were executed for treason during Richard's reign? I know of only three--Buckingham, St. Leger, and Colyngbourne (again, all justified whatever we think of the methods used in the last one, no fault of Richard's)--but there must be others. If we could compute the yearly average of executions during his reign, I suspect that the number would compare favorably with those of comparable years for other kings who faced rebellion, say H6, H7, and E4.
> >
> > As for "disastrous reign," I suspect that everyone here agrees with me when I say that the only disasters of Richard's reign were the deaths of his wife and son and his own defeat and death at Bosworth.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>