The Interment Adventures of Ned and Dick

Who would think that Richard III and Ned Kelly might have something in common?

Well, they've both had their remains dug up and (almost) identified. In turn, the questions arise regards where their respective final resting places should be.  I've been following this issue with Ned Kelly, and now it seems it could be Richard III's turn.

Grave of Red Kelly, Neds Father

 Even in these early hours after the release of some detail about the possible bones of Richard III, the physical evidence may be seem to support a positive ID.  But you can't say the spine shape or the hole in the head proves identity. That's madness.  Possible scoliosis with one shoulder heavier, stronger and perhaps higher than the other might have everything to do with shooting 10 arrows per minute or wielding heavy weapons on a regular basis. And how much of that stuff did a King in battle really do?  Don't ask me, I have no idea, but I'm sure there is a lot to consider.  

No I'm not suggesting the skeleton is an archer or any other person. I'm just saying it might not be as cut and dry as it seems. That's why the DNA analysis will be the confirming factor.

The skeleton that turned out to be Ned Kellys also had physical markings consistent with those sustained by Ned through his lifetime and the showdown at Glenrowan.  Again, any nineteenth century convict bushman might have similar markings of a hard life. It was only mitochondrial DNA that identified the famous bushrangers remains beyond doubt. The comparison sample was taken from 4 generations on (Leigh Oliver is Ned's sisters great grandson).    In the case of Richard III the comparison sample goes back 17 generations  and they were also fortunate to find a maternal mitochondrial descendant (Michael Ibsen, descended from Richard III's sister, Anne of York). 

Regarding the final interrment of the bones, the Kelly descendants wishes were paramount. There were literally hundreds of relations; some had to be found and then there was a big reunion to discuss the issues.

For Richard, going back 500 years, that's a lot of  research and a lot of relatives to consult.  For a Plantagenet King from 500 years ago, I'm sure others decide.  At the moment it seems to be more a national and historiographic issue than a family one.  One assumes that Richard III would have had a funeral, albeit a modest one when they buried him at Greyfriars. Is there a need for another? Would not a simple interment be appropriate?

The good news about Kelly is that no more will his bones be amusements for museum visitors. It's interesting that the court had to pass a law to deem it so.  Surely no museum in its right mind would display Neds remains in that context these days? Perhaps I'm utterly naive.

On such issues it's interesting that the Australian footage of Kellys dig allows the bones to be seen, photographed etc in situ, but that was not the case with the UK footage of Richard III,  despite us being used to it on Time Team every night at 6pm.  I'm not sure what prompted that censorship. There would be nothing gory about the bones and it strikes me that there are so many on public view at the British Museums (for instance)  that one comes across haphazardly already.  Perhaps it's different at the in-the-ground stage or simply was a cautionary measure.   Maybe his being such a famous figure makes the difference. I'm not sure. 

Screen of Kings at York Minster. Richard III is 4th from R.

But I digress.  I hope that Richard or whoever has been find, comes to rest in a suitable spot. If it is indeed Richard the following have been suggested:

* Leicester Cathedral - as he wished it (some say)

* York Minster - as he also seemed to wish it (others say)

* Westminster Abbey - to join his wife

* Fotheringay Cathedral - to join his parents.

Regardless of the outcome there are a few more mysteries to solve; discussions to be had.  As you can imagine, the plethora of suggestions, assumptions have already begun. There's even been the suggestion of a full royal State Funeral at Westminster Abbey.  As I've already said, he would have been given a funeral at the time of the burial in the friary. You don't inter a body in such a prominent spot without doing so and Mr Buckley the project archeologist has said:  "Richard III was buried in the parish in good faith and there's no reason why he should be moved".  Hmm. That won't stop them.

While it is just beginning for Richard III I'm very happy that  most of poor Ned is being buried at last.  May his skull join the rest of him in the future.

Further Reading:

ABC on Neds Burial
The Spectator on Richards Burial
Other Kings Who did not Rest In Peace
Greyfriars Skeleton Revealed 

Can You Imagine It? They Found the Last Plantagenet!

Richard III

I have said already a couple of times that archeologists do not call press conferences for no reason, when they're not sure. I'm sure they're not sure most of the time.

So when the Richard III Dig folks from the University of Leicester Archeology Dpt called a press conference, everyone jumped up (or rather, jumped on.. line) and listened.

Via a live webcast from the BBC,  the panel explained the digging area on the old site of the Greyfriars Church, where it was rumoured King Richard III had been buried.  The site has been researched and found under a car park in Leicester.

Tacky but clever  info panels at the RIII Museum York. 

From there they explained the finds, and then talked through some compelling clues regarding the full male skeleton they've discovered. A head injury. An arrow in the spine. An extreme case of scoliosis.  A raised shoulder, but no hunch. A burial position within the church in a prime position by the quire.

Tests are yet to be done, but this is  quite possibly Richard III, killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field (22/08/1485). The battle was won of course by little known Henry Tudor who was crowned as Henry VII.  And so the Tudor dynasty commenced...

If this this is the skeleton of Richard III that would be tremendously exciting. It would give history some answers to his physicality and answer the long debate regarding the hunch and other physical characteristics, mostly now doubted to be true.

There are lots of them....

What it will not give light to are the details of his life, his thoughts, deliberations, character or deeds. It won't solve the ever overhanging shadow regarding the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower.

If this is not Richard III, who is it?
Who is the woman buried close by?

It may have happened hundreds of years ago, but there is still so much more to discover.  Tonight many historians are punching the air.  We hope indeed that they have found Richard III and have proven Shakespeare to be a great entertainer and writer embellishing the truth, but not the historian which some mistake him for.

Cue the song and the sketch:


                   Jim Howick as Richard III

                                                                  
                                                                                   With Mat Baynton as Shakespeare


The context in which this puts the "tudor propaganda" will be interesting.  There are lots of "ifs" here but had Richard had extreme scoliosis, then it could be a win/win situation.  Richard III could be no hunchback but nor did More and Shakespeare simply make it all up. We'll see....


Further Reading:

Background

Big click here for report from University of Leicester Archeology Search For Richard
Big click here for update from "Current Archeology"
Big click here for more detail on the dig and evidence via the BBC


For commentary and thoughts:

Big click here for Greg Jenners excitement and sensible perspective.