Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

King Richard III dug up and displayed in Leicester, England

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


He was in the process of commissioning his Royal Palace for York when he died, sorry was murdered, by that sneaky lot over the Pennines (never trust them!).

As far as i am concerned, that shows where his loyalties lay. Sod Westminster..........and as for Leicester.......well, that would be a bit like stuffing Rod Hull and mounting him on his house roof wouldn't it? Bad taste.........




posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ironorchid
 





Unbelievably, they pretty much 'fell' on the grave straight away - in a section of the carpark marked with R ( this painted on one of the parking spaces ).


Yeah I recorded the documentary and then watched it late last night after work. It really was fascinating stuff and I'd also happily recommend it to anyone else out there too. The reason I quoted the above from your post though was because that in particular really got me as well. Here we have a past king, one of the arguably most famous, and he just so happened to be buried underneath a marker such as this which relates to his first name - Coincidence or something much more? Who knows, although I am more inclined to believe it was a crazy coincidence for obvious reasons. I do wish the documentary went into this a bit more though, it's fascinating.

If there is something in this, why on earth did it take until now for it to be confirmed? I'd be curious to know when the carpark was built exactly as well, and by who (particularly when the R was marked). But anyway, fascinating subject, and not one I know a great deal about admittedly, but I really enjoyed watching.
edit on 5-2-2013 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Actually, in the interests of "denying ignorance", we should recognise that this hasn't been properly confirmed yet. The skeleton and marks and location are highly suggestive that it is Richard III but mitochondrial DNA is not the most accurate to confirm it. It turns out that any of us could have the same mitochondrial DNA as Richard III and not be related to him in any way, shape or form.

Doubts remain that the Leicester body is Richard III



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
If there is something in this, why on earth did it take until now for it to be confirmed? I'd be curious to know when the carpark was built exactly as well, and by who (particularly when the R was marked). But anyway, fascinating subject, and not one I know a great deal about admittedly, but I really enjoyed watching.


A rough, blow by blow account of the site:

Henry VIII begins the dissolution of the Monasteries between 1536 and 1541. The original priory and Church are destroyed and most of the material recycled into other buildings.

The site is then taken over by Sir Robert Catlyn, who sold it to Robert Herrick, who built a large house over the whole area in the middle 16th century.

In 1711 the house is sold to a Thomas Noble by the Herrick family, who built a road through the site and then sold of the remaining land piecemeal as smaller plots. The Mansion and the grounds themselves were sold off again to a banker called Thomas Pares in 1776. He built a bank and other commercial premises.

During the 19th century, the various buildings were bought up by the Council with the intention of building their new town hall, but they changed the location and, over the years, converted the buildings to their current use.

Interestingly, during all this development, the Church itself lay within the garden area of the manor house and subsequent other buildings, so went 500 years with almost no disturbance prior to the building of the car park in the 20th century...



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


The Richard the Third Society did their research and thought that he was more than likely buried at Greyfriars Priory. After checking old maps of the area, they reckoned they'd found it and paid for ground penetrating radar and the results were promising. See full story here www.richardiii.net....

In all, it seemed like it was Philippa Langley's passion for finding Richard that enabled funds to be raised and the good solid research of the Society that led to the archeologists of Leicester University agreeing to the dig ( and you know what a cautious lot they are ).

I think that Philippa will go down in history as one of Britains great eccentrics whose dogged determination has led to one of the most important finds ever.

Now, I know I keep saying it, but shouldn't he really be taken home and be buried in York?



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Hmmm, they're clutching at straws if you ask me.... Typical scientist just trying to get his name in the paper by casting doubts....


The dude was buried exactly where contemporary accounts say he was buried, he had a twisted spine, the facial reconstruction is a dead ringer for his portrait and he shows battle wounds pre-mortem..

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and craps like a duck...well.....



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ironorchid
 


I was just coming to post about the RichardIII Society as well. They seem to have an excellent history of the King which I'll read later today.

www.richardiii.net...

As well as an interesting page about sites he was associated with, with a long section on Leicester.

www.richardiii.net...

They've done their homework, and now is their time in the spotlight. King Richard is one lucky bag of bones to have such dedicated people looking out for his legacy.


edit on 5-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I agree, more or less.

We should recognise though there is a chance it isn't him at all. As mitochondrial DNA is such a poor guide for determining identity, it does make me wonder why they placed so much emphasis on that part of the identification.

Either way, get him back to York for burial. We will accept him, even if it isn't really him!



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by stumason
 


I agree, more or less.

We should recognise though there is a chance it isn't him at all. As mitochondrial DNA is such a poor guide for determining identity, it does make me wonder why they placed so much emphasis on that part of the identification.

Either way, get him back to York for burial. We will accept him, even if it isn't really him!


Some of the determination depends on the rarity of some of the DNA, according to the New Scientist article linked above.

Since you are in Yorkshire, what is the mood and activism there to demand, yes, stomping of the feet and holding of the breath, that the burial be there? Is there any "noise" at all about this? If not, or if it's not rumbling enough, get on it, man, atop your steed with weapons in hand and go into, aye, lead the fight. For King and country!



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by erwalker
reply to post by HelenConway
 


So how many generations have to pass before a person is no longer considered to be of his ancestors' nationality?

Hell, you could say that all the kings and queens from William the Conquerer to at least James II were Norman rather than English based on the fact that they all are descended from William patrilinearly or matrilinearly.



interesting that you say that...here in america, i'm a white, 60 year old male, and i'm still somehow associated with southern slave owners, from 150 years ago.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


In all honesty not a right lot. Talk in pubs about how he should be returned "home" but that is about as far as it goes. To be honest, as much as we have a Richard III museum (if you can call it that!) we are generally more interested in Rome and Vikings, particularly Vikings (more of a knees up).

Our Medieval history lets us down. It started with William the Bastard (after the harrowing of the North, he can't be called "Conqueror"). Led to revolt. Then there was the whole ignoring Richard the Lionheart thing and attacking the Jews, murdering them after trapping them and then destroying all financial records by burning the ledgers, stored in the Minster. And then when Richard's men came to investigate saying "what uprising? Oh, that uprising. No, that wasn't us. That was outsiders that have already left the city".

And it carried on from there......basically, our Medieval period is one of lots of disagreement with the Crown and the murder of the candidate we did actually support.

Bloody medieval period.......you can s~%* it!



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Someone or some organization there is missing a good chance here to honor "their" King and obtain a very good tourism gold mine for the area as well. Maybe some open air meetings, or "theme" marches. The press would pick up on any organized activity there for the return of the King, so it seems a natural. Hopefully it will move out of the pub talk stage and reach the media and the minds of the citizens.

And thanks for a look at some of the history of the area, worth further study on my part. Appreciated.

edit on 5-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I was always pretty bad at history, but this Richard III thing just confirmed it. I didn't even know they had car parks back then.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
By the standards of the day Richard was a good and honest King who treat all his people fairly.

He was England's only true 'Northern' King and should be buried in York and afforded all the honours of his rank etc.

Here's a link to the documentary on Channel 4 OD
www.channel4.com...

Not sure if it's available to viewers outside the UK.

reply to post by HelenConway
 


With all due respect, I think you should stop viewing every thread you post in as an opportunity to broadcast your agenda and stick with the respective thread topic.
You obviously have some passionately held views and beliefs - it's not always suitable or relevant to air them.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Local Press and comments......

Local Press coverage

Basically, it seems we couldn't be bothered to garner enough signatures to get him sent here for burial. Apathetic modern society!


ETA:

The Richard III Society wanted York to be his burial place.
edit on 5-2-2013 by Flavian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by ironorchid
 





Unbelievably, they pretty much 'fell' on the grave straight away - in a section of the carpark marked with R ( this painted on one of the parking spaces ).


If there is something in this, why on earth did it take until now for it to be confirmed? I'd be curious to know when the carpark was built exactly as well, and by who (particularly when the R was marked). But anyway, fascinating subject, and not one I know a great deal about admittedly, but I really enjoyed watching.
edit on 5-2-2013 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)


The R seemed to be fairly recent but the possibility that the location has been locally, or otherwise known, for centuries really fascinated me.

What great work by the society, and now that we are seeing a clamouring for burial rights, some with the most tenuous links, it would be my view that the society (with his best interests at heart) should have the final decision as to where he should rest. This would no doubt be York.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Royalty found under a car park, how un royal is that? Then again back in those days the king led his army into battle, id love to send our current royals into battle.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Maybe they should have an X factor like show, I bet they'd get people interested then.....



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by wlasikiewicz
 


Prince Harry has seen combat and wants to serve more...Prince William would apparently love to, but the Government won't allow it. Prince Andrew served in the Falklands and Prince Philip served in WW2 on several RN ships.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


What a good idea Stu!
Perhaps it could be merged with some kind of makeover show - choose three locations and the most tasteful/tacky madeover location wins. Add a phone vote and the world is a molusc of your choice!

Anyone know what Simon Cowell is doing lately? There's a great back-story - honest.





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join