Coffin within a coffin at Richard's burial site
Coffin within a coffin at Richard's burial site
2013-08-06 18:51:27
Apologies if this link (or another link to the same article) has already been posted. Leicester University owes the RIII Society a debt of gratitude considering yet another interesting discovery at Richard's burial site:
http://www.livescience.com/38495-lead-coffin-found-richard-iii-site.html
Unfortunately, the news editor who wrote the article is misinformed, saying that both of Richard's nephews "had a claim to the throne" but went missing shortly *before* the "infamous" Richard was crowned. That particular myth (the misdated disappearance) reinforces the idea that he had them killed, which (historians to the contrary) is much less plausible given the apparent date of their disappearance (summer or fall 1483, during or after Richard's progress).
At any rate, the second coffin is interesting from an archaeological perspective, but I doubt that Leicester U. will give Philippa or J A-H credit for encouraging them to dig at the site.
Carol
http://www.livescience.com/38495-lead-coffin-found-richard-iii-site.html
Unfortunately, the news editor who wrote the article is misinformed, saying that both of Richard's nephews "had a claim to the throne" but went missing shortly *before* the "infamous" Richard was crowned. That particular myth (the misdated disappearance) reinforces the idea that he had them killed, which (historians to the contrary) is much less plausible given the apparent date of their disappearance (summer or fall 1483, during or after Richard's progress).
At any rate, the second coffin is interesting from an archaeological perspective, but I doubt that Leicester U. will give Philippa or J A-H credit for encouraging them to dig at the site.
Carol
Re: Coffin within a coffin at Richard's burial site
2013-08-07 17:38:16
Carol wrote:
//snip//
"Unfortunately, the news editor who wrote the article is misinformed, saying
that both of Richard's nephews "had a claim to the throne" but went missing
shortly *before* the "infamous" Richard was crowned. That particular myth
(the misdated disappearance) reinforces the idea that he had them killed,
which (historians to the contrary) is much less plausible given the apparent
date of their disappearance (summer or fall 1483, during or after Richard's
progress).
At any rate, the second coffin is interesting from an archaeological
perspective, but I doubt that Leicester U. will give Philippa or J A-H
credit for encouraging them to dig at the site."
Doug here:
Well to be fair, Edward and Richard *were* Edward IV's acknowledged sons.
There were people then, and there are people now, who dispute their father
having married EB. Without that marriage they *do* have a "claim to throne."
Certainly a better one than Henry Tudor!
Pity about that "infamous." Akthough, strictly speaking, the writer is
correct because, as of now anyway, Richard's fame *is* due to what's been
written and accepted as true about him. Perhaps the best way to look at the
article is that it didn't come right out and say Richard killed his nephews
or had them killed. A first, albeit tiny, step?
Doug
//snip//
"Unfortunately, the news editor who wrote the article is misinformed, saying
that both of Richard's nephews "had a claim to the throne" but went missing
shortly *before* the "infamous" Richard was crowned. That particular myth
(the misdated disappearance) reinforces the idea that he had them killed,
which (historians to the contrary) is much less plausible given the apparent
date of their disappearance (summer or fall 1483, during or after Richard's
progress).
At any rate, the second coffin is interesting from an archaeological
perspective, but I doubt that Leicester U. will give Philippa or J A-H
credit for encouraging them to dig at the site."
Doug here:
Well to be fair, Edward and Richard *were* Edward IV's acknowledged sons.
There were people then, and there are people now, who dispute their father
having married EB. Without that marriage they *do* have a "claim to throne."
Certainly a better one than Henry Tudor!
Pity about that "infamous." Akthough, strictly speaking, the writer is
correct because, as of now anyway, Richard's fame *is* due to what's been
written and accepted as true about him. Perhaps the best way to look at the
article is that it didn't come right out and say Richard killed his nephews
or had them killed. A first, albeit tiny, step?
Doug
Re: Coffin within a coffin at Richard's burial site
2013-08-07 21:35:57
Doug wrote:
> Well to be fair, Edward and Richard *were* Edward IV's acknowledged sons. There were people then, and there are people now, who dispute their father having married EB. Without that marriage they *do* have a "claim to throne." Certainly a better one than Henry Tudor!
> Pity about that "infamous." Akthough, strictly speaking, the writer is correct because, as of now anyway, Richard's fame *is* due to what's been written and accepted as true about him. Perhaps the best way to look at the article is that it didn't come right out and say Richard killed his nephews or had them killed. A first, albeit tiny, step?
Carol responds:
The problem with "had a claim to the throne" is that it really describes Richard (before the deposition) rather than his nephews. Either his nephew Edward was the rightful (if deposed) king (no "claim" about it) and his brother was the (rightful) heir presumptive with no claim until his brother died--or, being illegitimate, neither had a claim at all. Even in the unlikely event that Richard had his nephews killed, he didn't kill (or imprison) boys who (like him) had a claim to the throne to make himself king as the article implies. He (and the Three Estates, a Parliament in all but name) deposed the uncrowned Edward V, but the boys didn't disappear (for whatever reason) until *after* he was crowned. The idea that they disappeared *before* Richard's coronation makes it look more likely that he killed them (or had them killed)--which, of course, I don't believe.
It seems to me that the writer has only the vaguest hearsay understanding of the circumstances of Richard's coronation and the boys' disappearance, but it's primarily the *timing* of the disappearance that I'm concerned about. *If* they died, it wasn't in June 1483. They were still highly visible, playing and shooting in the Tower garden, until at least July and possibly as late as September.
As for "infamous." it means "notoriously evil" and is generally used of people who unquestionably deserve the notoriety--say Pol Pot or Attila the Hun. People who use it of Richard generally assume that he deserved the label.
I'm afraid I'm just repeating myself, so I'll stop now.
Carol
> Well to be fair, Edward and Richard *were* Edward IV's acknowledged sons. There were people then, and there are people now, who dispute their father having married EB. Without that marriage they *do* have a "claim to throne." Certainly a better one than Henry Tudor!
> Pity about that "infamous." Akthough, strictly speaking, the writer is correct because, as of now anyway, Richard's fame *is* due to what's been written and accepted as true about him. Perhaps the best way to look at the article is that it didn't come right out and say Richard killed his nephews or had them killed. A first, albeit tiny, step?
Carol responds:
The problem with "had a claim to the throne" is that it really describes Richard (before the deposition) rather than his nephews. Either his nephew Edward was the rightful (if deposed) king (no "claim" about it) and his brother was the (rightful) heir presumptive with no claim until his brother died--or, being illegitimate, neither had a claim at all. Even in the unlikely event that Richard had his nephews killed, he didn't kill (or imprison) boys who (like him) had a claim to the throne to make himself king as the article implies. He (and the Three Estates, a Parliament in all but name) deposed the uncrowned Edward V, but the boys didn't disappear (for whatever reason) until *after* he was crowned. The idea that they disappeared *before* Richard's coronation makes it look more likely that he killed them (or had them killed)--which, of course, I don't believe.
It seems to me that the writer has only the vaguest hearsay understanding of the circumstances of Richard's coronation and the boys' disappearance, but it's primarily the *timing* of the disappearance that I'm concerned about. *If* they died, it wasn't in June 1483. They were still highly visible, playing and shooting in the Tower garden, until at least July and possibly as late as September.
As for "infamous." it means "notoriously evil" and is generally used of people who unquestionably deserve the notoriety--say Pol Pot or Attila the Hun. People who use it of Richard generally assume that he deserved the label.
I'm afraid I'm just repeating myself, so I'll stop now.
Carol
Re: Coffin within a coffin at Richard's burial site
2013-08-07 22:50:40
Your points are excellent. Is there any way to make them in public
response to the article?
A J
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:35 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Doug wrote:
> > Well to be fair, Edward and Richard *were* Edward IV's acknowledged
> sons. There were people then, and there are people now, who dispute their
> father having married EB. Without that marriage they *do* have a "claim to
> throne." Certainly a better one than Henry Tudor!
> > Pity about that "infamous." Akthough, strictly speaking, the writer is
> correct because, as of now anyway, Richard's fame *is* due to what's been
> written and accepted as true about him. Perhaps the best way to look at the
> article is that it didn't come right out and say Richard killed his nephews
> or had them killed. A first, albeit tiny, step?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The problem with "had a claim to the throne" is that it really describes
> Richard (before the deposition) rather than his nephews. Either his nephew
> Edward was the rightful (if deposed) king (no "claim" about it) and his
> brother was the (rightful) heir presumptive with no claim until his brother
> died--or, being illegitimate, neither had a claim at all. Even in the
> unlikely event that Richard had his nephews killed, he didn't kill (or
> imprison) boys who (like him) had a claim to the throne to make himself
> king as the article implies. He (and the Three Estates, a Parliament in all
> but name) deposed the uncrowned Edward V, but the boys didn't disappear
> (for whatever reason) until *after* he was crowned. The idea that they
> disappeared *before* Richard's coronation makes it look more likely that he
> killed them (or had them killed)--which, of course, I don't believe.
>
> It seems to me that the writer has only the vaguest hearsay understanding
> of the circumstances of Richard's coronation and the boys' disappearance,
> but it's primarily the *timing* of the disappearance that I'm concerned
> about. *If* they died, it wasn't in June 1483. They were still highly
> visible, playing and shooting in the Tower garden, until at least July and
> possibly as late as September.
>
> As for "infamous." it means "notoriously evil" and is generally used of
> people who unquestionably deserve the notoriety--say Pol Pot or Attila the
> Hun. People who use it of Richard generally assume that he deserved the
> label.
>
> I'm afraid I'm just repeating myself, so I'll stop now.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
response to the article?
A J
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:35 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Doug wrote:
> > Well to be fair, Edward and Richard *were* Edward IV's acknowledged
> sons. There were people then, and there are people now, who dispute their
> father having married EB. Without that marriage they *do* have a "claim to
> throne." Certainly a better one than Henry Tudor!
> > Pity about that "infamous." Akthough, strictly speaking, the writer is
> correct because, as of now anyway, Richard's fame *is* due to what's been
> written and accepted as true about him. Perhaps the best way to look at the
> article is that it didn't come right out and say Richard killed his nephews
> or had them killed. A first, albeit tiny, step?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The problem with "had a claim to the throne" is that it really describes
> Richard (before the deposition) rather than his nephews. Either his nephew
> Edward was the rightful (if deposed) king (no "claim" about it) and his
> brother was the (rightful) heir presumptive with no claim until his brother
> died--or, being illegitimate, neither had a claim at all. Even in the
> unlikely event that Richard had his nephews killed, he didn't kill (or
> imprison) boys who (like him) had a claim to the throne to make himself
> king as the article implies. He (and the Three Estates, a Parliament in all
> but name) deposed the uncrowned Edward V, but the boys didn't disappear
> (for whatever reason) until *after* he was crowned. The idea that they
> disappeared *before* Richard's coronation makes it look more likely that he
> killed them (or had them killed)--which, of course, I don't believe.
>
> It seems to me that the writer has only the vaguest hearsay understanding
> of the circumstances of Richard's coronation and the boys' disappearance,
> but it's primarily the *timing* of the disappearance that I'm concerned
> about. *If* they died, it wasn't in June 1483. They were still highly
> visible, playing and shooting in the Tower garden, until at least July and
> possibly as late as September.
>
> As for "infamous." it means "notoriously evil" and is generally used of
> people who unquestionably deserve the notoriety--say Pol Pot or Attila the
> Hun. People who use it of Richard generally assume that he deserved the
> label.
>
> I'm afraid I'm just repeating myself, so I'll stop now.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: Coffin within a coffin at Richard's burial site
2013-08-08 17:17:17
Carol wrote:
"The problem with "had a claim to the throne" is that it really describes
Richard (before the deposition) rather than his nephews. Either his nephew
Edward was the rightful (if deposed) king (no "claim" about it) and his
brother was the (rightful) heir presumptive with no claim until his brother
died--or, being illegitimate, neither had a claim at all. Even in the
unlikely event that Richard had his nephews killed, he didn't kill (or
imprison) boys who (like him) had a claim to the throne to make himself king
as the article implies. He (and the Three Estates, a Parliament in all but
name) deposed the uncrowned Edward V, but the boys didn't disappear (for
whatever reason) until *after* he was crowned. The idea that they
disappeared *before* Richard's coronation makes it look more likely that he
killed them (or had them killed)--which, of course, I don't believe.
It seems to me that the writer has only the vaguest hearsay understanding of
the circumstances of Richard's coronation and the boys' disappearance, but
it's primarily the *timing* of the disappearance that I'm concerned about.
*If* they died, it wasn't in June 1483. They were still highly visible,
playing and shooting in the Tower garden, until at least July and possibly
as late as September.
As for "infamous." it means "notoriously evil" and is generally used of
people who unquestionably deserve the notoriety--say Pol Pot or Attila the
Hun. People who use it of Richard generally assume that he deserved the
label.
I'm afraid I'm just repeating myself, so I'll stop now."
Doug here:
Oh, undoubtedly the impression left by the article, and especially if the
reader hasn't studied the period, is that the boys' "claim" was just as
legally valid as Richard's and that's quite incorrect. Why the author
couldn't have placed "disputed" in front of "claim to the throne", I don't
know. Perhaps it's just a case of my being so thrilled to see *any* article
that didn't start off with describing Richard as killing his nephews to gain
the throne that I read it with equinamity (I've been reading Sir Winston)!
As we've got five centuries of anti-Richard propaganda, "factual" (those
chroniclers) *and* fictional (Morton/Shakespeare) to combat, I tend to look
on any article that doesn't simply regurgitate accepted "history" as a step
up from the usual. If only because such articles may cause the reader/s to
stop and think, "Wait, that's *not* what I learned in school!" and start
investigating on their own. Well, hopefully anyway.
I can only plead "Oh!" in regards to "infamous". I was thinking it meant
more along the lines of "notorious" rather than "evil". And yes I agree,
there *is* a difference!
Doug
(who still would have given the article five stars had the writer even
*mentioned* their father's disputed marriage/s and the role they played -
because most people don't even *know* about the EB/EW problem in relation to
Richard and his nephews!)
"The problem with "had a claim to the throne" is that it really describes
Richard (before the deposition) rather than his nephews. Either his nephew
Edward was the rightful (if deposed) king (no "claim" about it) and his
brother was the (rightful) heir presumptive with no claim until his brother
died--or, being illegitimate, neither had a claim at all. Even in the
unlikely event that Richard had his nephews killed, he didn't kill (or
imprison) boys who (like him) had a claim to the throne to make himself king
as the article implies. He (and the Three Estates, a Parliament in all but
name) deposed the uncrowned Edward V, but the boys didn't disappear (for
whatever reason) until *after* he was crowned. The idea that they
disappeared *before* Richard's coronation makes it look more likely that he
killed them (or had them killed)--which, of course, I don't believe.
It seems to me that the writer has only the vaguest hearsay understanding of
the circumstances of Richard's coronation and the boys' disappearance, but
it's primarily the *timing* of the disappearance that I'm concerned about.
*If* they died, it wasn't in June 1483. They were still highly visible,
playing and shooting in the Tower garden, until at least July and possibly
as late as September.
As for "infamous." it means "notoriously evil" and is generally used of
people who unquestionably deserve the notoriety--say Pol Pot or Attila the
Hun. People who use it of Richard generally assume that he deserved the
label.
I'm afraid I'm just repeating myself, so I'll stop now."
Doug here:
Oh, undoubtedly the impression left by the article, and especially if the
reader hasn't studied the period, is that the boys' "claim" was just as
legally valid as Richard's and that's quite incorrect. Why the author
couldn't have placed "disputed" in front of "claim to the throne", I don't
know. Perhaps it's just a case of my being so thrilled to see *any* article
that didn't start off with describing Richard as killing his nephews to gain
the throne that I read it with equinamity (I've been reading Sir Winston)!
As we've got five centuries of anti-Richard propaganda, "factual" (those
chroniclers) *and* fictional (Morton/Shakespeare) to combat, I tend to look
on any article that doesn't simply regurgitate accepted "history" as a step
up from the usual. If only because such articles may cause the reader/s to
stop and think, "Wait, that's *not* what I learned in school!" and start
investigating on their own. Well, hopefully anyway.
I can only plead "Oh!" in regards to "infamous". I was thinking it meant
more along the lines of "notorious" rather than "evil". And yes I agree,
there *is* a difference!
Doug
(who still would have given the article five stars had the writer even
*mentioned* their father's disputed marriage/s and the role they played -
because most people don't even *know* about the EB/EW problem in relation to
Richard and his nephews!)
Re: Coffin within a coffin at Richard's burial site
2013-08-09 16:25:06
Carol, it's surprising how many people use 'infamous' to mean 'famous'. When I lived in Australia it was used all the time to mean the latter - very frustrating.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 21:35
Subject: Re: Coffin within a coffin at Richard's burial site
Doug wrote:
> Well to be fair, Edward and Richard *were* Edward IV's acknowledged sons. There were people then, and there are people now, who dispute their father having married EB. Without that marriage they *do* have a "claim to throne." Certainly a better one than Henry Tudor!
> Pity about that "infamous." Akthough, strictly speaking, the writer is correct because, as of now anyway, Richard's fame *is* due to what's been written and accepted as true about him. Perhaps the best way to look at the article is that it didn't come right out and say Richard killed his nephews or had them killed. A first, albeit tiny, step?
Carol responds:
The problem with "had a claim to the throne" is that it really describes Richard (before the deposition) rather than his nephews. Either his nephew Edward was the rightful (if deposed) king (no "claim" about it) and his brother was the (rightful) heir presumptive with no claim until his brother died--or, being illegitimate, neither had a claim at all. Even in the unlikely event that Richard had his nephews killed, he didn't kill (or imprison) boys who (like him) had a claim to the throne to make himself king as the article implies. He (and the Three Estates, a Parliament in all but name) deposed the uncrowned Edward V, but the boys didn't disappear (for whatever reason) until *after* he was crowned. The idea that they disappeared *before* Richard's coronation makes it look more likely that he killed them (or had them killed)--which, of course, I don't believe.
It seems to me that the writer has only the vaguest hearsay understanding of the circumstances of Richard's coronation and the boys' disappearance, but it's primarily the *timing* of the disappearance that I'm concerned about. *If* they died, it wasn't in June 1483. They were still highly visible, playing and shooting in the Tower garden, until at least July and possibly as late as September.
As for "infamous." it means "notoriously evil" and is generally used of people who unquestionably deserve the notoriety--say Pol Pot or Attila the Hun. People who use it of Richard generally assume that he deserved the label.
I'm afraid I'm just repeating myself, so I'll stop now.
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 21:35
Subject: Re: Coffin within a coffin at Richard's burial site
Doug wrote:
> Well to be fair, Edward and Richard *were* Edward IV's acknowledged sons. There were people then, and there are people now, who dispute their father having married EB. Without that marriage they *do* have a "claim to throne." Certainly a better one than Henry Tudor!
> Pity about that "infamous." Akthough, strictly speaking, the writer is correct because, as of now anyway, Richard's fame *is* due to what's been written and accepted as true about him. Perhaps the best way to look at the article is that it didn't come right out and say Richard killed his nephews or had them killed. A first, albeit tiny, step?
Carol responds:
The problem with "had a claim to the throne" is that it really describes Richard (before the deposition) rather than his nephews. Either his nephew Edward was the rightful (if deposed) king (no "claim" about it) and his brother was the (rightful) heir presumptive with no claim until his brother died--or, being illegitimate, neither had a claim at all. Even in the unlikely event that Richard had his nephews killed, he didn't kill (or imprison) boys who (like him) had a claim to the throne to make himself king as the article implies. He (and the Three Estates, a Parliament in all but name) deposed the uncrowned Edward V, but the boys didn't disappear (for whatever reason) until *after* he was crowned. The idea that they disappeared *before* Richard's coronation makes it look more likely that he killed them (or had them killed)--which, of course, I don't believe.
It seems to me that the writer has only the vaguest hearsay understanding of the circumstances of Richard's coronation and the boys' disappearance, but it's primarily the *timing* of the disappearance that I'm concerned about. *If* they died, it wasn't in June 1483. They were still highly visible, playing and shooting in the Tower garden, until at least July and possibly as late as September.
As for "infamous." it means "notoriously evil" and is generally used of people who unquestionably deserve the notoriety--say Pol Pot or Attila the Hun. People who use it of Richard generally assume that he deserved the label.
I'm afraid I'm just repeating myself, so I'll stop now.
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.