Richard III Suffered an Ignominious Burial, Researchers Find 145
An anonymous reader writes "Richard III may have been the King of England and the subject of a Shakespearean play, but even that couldn't keep him safe from ending up in a hastily-dug grave that ultimately became part of a parking lot, according to a new study published in the journal Antiquity."
Better than cremation (Score:1)
Re:Better than cremation (Score:4, Insightful)
It really would be news if we were to learn that Richard suffered from his burial. That would indicate that he was aware of his surroundings three days after he had clinically died. THIS IS A CASE FOR LIFE AFTER DEATH!! The question that Richard failed to answer is, which, if any religions, offers any real promise of salvation or happiness after death. Poor, suffering Richard - does anyone think that he is still suffering after all this time?
Re:Better than cremation (Score:4, Funny)
"It really would be news if we were to learn that Richard suffered from his burial. That would indicate that he was aware of his surroundings three days after he had clinically died. "
A shovel, a shovel, my kingdom for a shovel!
Re:Better than cremation (Score:4, Funny)
A shovel, a shovel, my kingdom for a shovel!
I imagine that after his burial, it would have been more like "A shovel, a shovel, Henry VII's kingdom for a shovel!" :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I watched every episode of "Gilligan's Island" and I can tell you no interesting signals are triggered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't matter (Score:2)
buried under a stone or not : doesn't matter, unless he was a zombie and able dig himself out of a heap of sand.
I guess he started to stink . . . (Score:5, Funny)
FTA:
the late king’s body was reportedly stripped naked, despoiled and publicly displayed for three days before it was buried
. . . and someone was in a rush to get what was left of him underground . . . lest his remains doth starteth to again walk . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I guess he started to stink . . . (Score:4, Funny)
What's that smell, has somebody died?
Nay.
Ah, that'll be it.
Re:I guess he started to stink . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
For honored dead, it was called lying in state, for dishonored it was parading the body, but in both cases the reason was the same: to get as many witnesses as possible to the fact the person was well and truly dead. Otherwise, there would be persistent rumors that they were still alive, people pretending to be them (or their children born after their official date of death), and the like. So it was gruesome but completely practical.
And it's not as if the need for this kind of thing has completely gone away. There are still people who are rumored to be alive long after their deaths, like Elvis Presley. In the fight against terrorism, there have been several cases where the US has published pictures of the obviously dead bodies of prominent enemies as a way of proving they're actually dead, and there was considerable speculation among conspiracy theorists about why Osama bin Laden's body was disposed of so quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Having buried a 10 kilo cat in the garden I can only imagine the, ahem, bouquet of a 50 kilo person.
That is why bodies are supposed to be buried 6 feet down. With that much distance, the odor doesn't get to the surface. Alternately, use a lot of lime on the body, which dries up the excess ... liquidity ... of the corpse.
No... (Score:2)
I think it was more of a "the best we can do is get you buried in an unmarked grave so it won't be desecrated" kind of burial, myself.
Re: (Score:2)
The only "desecration" that Richard III would receive would be at the behest of Henry Bolingbroke (or his toadies). Richard was even popular in Yorkshiire, which ironically most of the "Yorkist" branch were decidedly not. His modern reputation comes about because he lost, and Henry was not as gracious a winner as William The Conqueror (or his half brother, Bishop Odo, who supervised the Bayeaux Tapestry) was to Harold Godwinson.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably Henry Bolingbroke would have been looking for braiiiiiinzzzz to eat, since he'd been dead for over 60 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. you're right! Wrong Richard => Henry transition. Henry Tudor, who had no need of a birthplace name because he was the first English monarch with a proper surname before coronation.
Re: (Score:2)
English? He was about as English as Queen Victoria.
Re: (Score:2)
Henry VII was an English monarch in that he was monarch of England, just like Knute the Dane King, William I, Henry II. James I, and William of Orange. Not an Englishman, just ruler over them.
BTW, Victoria was a British monarch, since she ruled after the Act Of Union, just like George I. HAH!!
BTW MkII: According to the Wikipedia article, Henry Tudor was fairly English, too, since the Tudors seemed to marry English when not knocking up widowed French princesses.
in otherwords (Score:1)
it took researchers months to figure out what a single picture shows?
no shit, its a shallow grave with a body dumped in it and it took you that fucking long to notice?
Re:in otherwords (Score:5, Informative)
No. It took researchers months to write an article, get it proof-read, submitted to a journal, peer-reviewed and finally published in the journal.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the shallow grave part isn't THAT straight forward. The depth of the ground is relative to surface level. And the surface level of 500 years ago is probably not the same as the surface level of the 20th century car park.
If the 500 years ago surface layer is still there, and other layers just piled on top then not too difficult. But what things have been disturbed more than that? What if the 500 years ago surface level isn't there any more?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the shallowness aspect that I found interesting. I wonder how they know how big the grave was in the other dimensions? Surely after 500 years the soil would have become homogenous. I'm assuming the same soil that was dug for the grave was put back in.
In all cases it seems like good detective work to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably the bones were in some foetal like clump, rather than laid out full length.
Re:in otherwords (Score:5, Informative)
"suffered" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Another imbecile who doesn't understand that the word is often used metaphorically.
At least you've got the excuse that you're a dago.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, metaphorical use of words is not always appropriate; despite what journalists want you to think with their catchy headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it depends if you believe in an afterlife or not. For people that do, believing that dead men can suffer from the circumstances after their death is not much of a leap.
Re: (Score:2)
Metaphor is not a synonym of lie.
Nonetheless, suffer is an odd word. Apart from the "be in pain" meaning it can also mean tolerate or permit[1] (as in ~ fools gladly), so it's not much of a stretch to "be on the receiving end of". I'm pretty sure I've seen it applied to inanimate objects that by definition can't feel pain.
[1] e.g. suffrage, permission to vote. Also, I don't think Jesus was suggesting that people should torment kids. http://www.freewebs.com/suffer-the-little-children/ [freewebs.com]
Richard III's Final Words (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Richard Of York Got Buried In Van.
You don't say? (Score:1)
Those sites that don't remember their own articles are doomed to repeat them... [slashdot.org]
Re:You don't say? (Score:4, Informative)
Those readers who don't RTFA are doomed to make themselves look silly.
Two different articles two different topics in the articles, one a press release that the DNA matched and that it was Richard the 3rd, the new one on how he was buried in the grave.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but I've already seen the show twice on cable tv. It is not news.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bard knew that (Score:2)
Imperious Richard, dead and turned to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep a tire from flaying.
Oh, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,
Should patch a park t' allow the traffic’s flow!
Hastily-dug? (Score:1)
Re:Hastily-dug? (Score:5, Informative)
Sure. I performed an experiment called Read The Fucking Article (RTFA), which yielded this curious observation:
It was found approximately 73 mm from the entrance to TFA, not very far in. Note the use of the phrase "First of all", which provides supporting evidence that it was near the entrance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet that article would get more hits. We've not previously discussed the vicissitudes of anal Anguilliformes.
Shakespeare??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, Richard III died in 1495 while Shakespeare was writing plays (like, you know, "Richard III") around 1592 - a hundred years later.
So how was Richard's burial going to be affected by a play that hadn't yet been written, and which wasn't going to be written for another 100 years?
Do you think the early Tudors might have thought, with a little effort: "Oh look! Some playwright will write about this dead king in a hundred years, and the dead king and the playwright will still be famous in 500 years time, so we had better bury this dead king properly."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1485. August 22nd, IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
The year, yes. The full date, no.
Brush by name, daft as one by nature (Score:2)
Yeah, you're right. That's why Americans celebrate sort of some day round the end of June, or is it a bit later?
Medieval history's one of my hobbies, WotR in particular. You might want to check what Richard III's badge was, or look up the scene where he's wooing Anne Neville to. Plus in Britain, it's a key date because it's conventionally regarded as the end of the medieval period[1] whereas most of Europe uses the fall of Constantinople.
Also, I happened to fail my driving test on that date, but not due
Re: (Score:2)
4th July is celebrated every year by an entire nation. Richard III's death, not so much.
I've seen the scene with Lady Anne many times. What a bastard. I played Richmond.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, Richard III died in 1495 while Shakespeare was writing plays (like, you know, "Richard III") around 1592 - a hundred years later.
Ah, yes. notice the circuitous nature of time.
Even in mind repeats all past feats to make rhyme.
A bit of perspective folks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember that the new King, Henry Tudor, hereafter referred to as that Evil Bastard Henry VII (EBH7) dated his accession to the throne to the day BEFORE the battle of Bosworth, thus rendering those followers of Richard III who remaied loyal to the end traitors to the crown, and that the turncoats who ensured his victory would make sure they heaped as many indignities in the corpse of their former king as possible to demonstrate their loyalty to EBH7.
Given these circumstances, its entirely reasonable that the interrment of Richard would be done as quickly as possible, at the first opportunity that the body would not be missed. Originally the grave was in the church of the Grey Friars, probably in front of an altar and would have been deep enough not to cause "offence". It may have been hastily prepared and thus not quite the right size for Richard, but rather than indicating that the scenario was "ignominious", it shows that his remaining supporters wanted to bury him in a holy place, away from the vengance of EBH7s new supporters. Given the time constraints and the location, speed would have been of the essence. Just because it wasn't a State Funeral doesn't mean that it would not have been done without reverence. The fact that the site ended up as a car park can be indirectly ascribed to the activities of EBH7s son, Henry VIII who dissolved the monasteries, friaries, etc.
We're lucky that the grave still exists. Part of the foundations of a Victorian brick privy intrude into the burial site, a few feet further and he would have been completely obliterated.
Re:A bit of perspective folks... (Score:4, Insightful)
FTFY.
He was a right cunt, wasn't he? Just like all the Tudors. The thistle-arsed bastard Stuarts weren't exactly great, but after the Tudors they were a relief.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like Obama after the Bushes?
Both Obama and Bush are far better than the Tudors or the Stuarts. The Stuarts were such rights-trampling pricks that they started a civil war several times — even if not all of those are outright titled that — and the Tudors took the broadest definition of treason possible (i.e., disagreeing with the king/queen was a capital offense). Can you imagine just how either of those would play in the modern world?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No I can't. That's one of the reasons that comparisons across a difference of several centuries aren't really enlightening.
It's like claiming that Gamelin was a better general than Napoleon because his men had tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
The Nobel Committee apparently thought so.
Re: (Score:2)
Tisk tisk tisk... EVERYONE knows that richard III *WON* the battle of bosworth field, but then got murdered accidentally by a weasel called Edmund when he thought Richard was nicking his horse. Richard IV then became king for a year before the entire family was (again) accidentally murdered by Lord Percy when he put poison into a jug of wine rather than a single cup.
THEN EBH7 took the throne and erased that year from history. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, if you're going to make the Blackadder joke, then at least get it right. Richard IV ruled for 13 Glorious years before lord Percy's mixup with the wine and poison. At which point, Henry Tudor ascended the throne and rewrote history for a full backdated 13 years, claiming the death of Richard the third, victory at Bosworth and basically denying the very existence of Richard the fourth.
It's in the opening sequence to the series dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Lighten up. It's just comedy.
Re: (Score:2)
Comedy is serious business :P
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not a matter of life and death.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll not speak ill of the dead (Score:4, Interesting)
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking glass;
I, that am rudely stamped and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them—
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to see my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the bit about the bargains on bad-weather camping gear.
(it's my standard text when I need some random nonsense to type, instead of that dirty foreign "lorem ipsum" muck)
Unanswered question (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Unanswered question (Score:5, Funny)
But being buried in a parking garage would be wrong on so many *more* levels.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course. The disabled spots are always in prime position.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disabled my arse, they painted that on afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, after reviewing the research one question still remains unanswered, did he at least get a good spot in the parking lot?
I grew up in Leicester, and went to school just over the wall from the car park. Looking at the map of the monastry, I could pretend I danced on the alter, although I think I probably just sulked nearby.
Richard got a good spot near the best shops. Within two minutes walk of the burial place you could but Magic: The Gathering cards, Warhammer, comics, computer games, CDs, sweets, BDSM gear (although I was asked to leave when I was 14), second-hand books, cannabis seeds and other equipment, New Age shit, 'p
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
The average car has 134hp in Germany.
They weren't that many people in history with more than 100 horses.
And all this quality of life that you described has been made possible by cheap and widely available energy.
It probably will be impacted by peak-oil and climate change though....
Re: (Score:2)
horses have an average of 19hp. you'd only need about 7.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd take living in this modern life as a 'peon' any day over being any royal person in history. We live better than any kings and queens of yore. We have modern plumbing and sanitation instead of having to defecate into holes, and nothing beats a hot shower on demand. In the 1400's the average english person took a bath every 7 years, the world was filled with dirty smelly people. Heat and air conditioning on demand, not cold castle walls. We can get to anyplace in the world in a matter of hours, not yearlong odyessee's. Only royalty got to wear the color purple, today we have the full spectrum of color available. Disease and plagues are not something to be feared as back then, healthcare today is top-notch. And all the world's knowledge is all available on your portable phone, there's no need to live in ignorance provided by royal magical wisemen. We live better and longer than kings and queens of history ever did. This story, repeat though it is here, reminds me to be grateful for the marvelous lives we lead today, the best time in all of history to be alive.
I'd rather have been royalty in the 1400s than a peon in Harare or Dhaka or any number of other extremely poor places in the world today.
Re: (Score:2)
This story, repeat though it is here, reminds me to be grateful for the marvelous lives we lead today, the best time in all of history to be alive.
And someday, people will look back at us now and think our lives sucked.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1400's the average english person took a bath every 7 years, the world was filled with dirty smelly people
Oh, I'd certainly welcome a source for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah everyone today lives in a palace, wears silk shirts and fur coats, eats the best meats, vegetables and fruits, and spends all their free time hunting and fucking.
If you were a king in the middle ages you didn't need heating because you had a huge log fire, you didn't need air con because you're in mediaeval England, if took you months to get anywhere but you're the king, everyone else adjusts to your schedule. You could have a bath whenever you wanted, filled by servants.
Re: (Score:2)
A good way of looking at it is to answer a very simple question: What did they have to eat? Those of us who are middle class or wealthier in the industrialized world eat meals that Richard III would never have thought possible. And of course what was available to a peasant in days of yore was just plain horrible.
On the flip side, the king got to bang any chick in his kingdom that he wanted. So it wasn't all bad.
Re: (Score:2)
"healthcare today is top-notch"
Written by someone who has never been sick; you're probably quite young. Modern medicine is great, but it is very far from top-notch.
Written by someone with a sense of perspective, more like. Be grateful for what you've got, even if it could be better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no complaints about modern healthcare in the U.S.
Obviously it's good that your treatment experiences with modern healthcare in the US have been positive. Your treatment experiences would probably have been as good in almost any developed country though, which is not a knock on the US, but does show we're not exceptional in that regard. The big problem w/ US healthcare is its cost. If you had lacked insurance that ER experience probably would have bankrupted you. There's a possible exception for on-the-job injury or something that was clearly the fault of
"My kingdom for a parking space!" (Score:2)
pre-800 AD burials rare (Score:2)
If Richard III had survived the battle... (Score:3)
There would have been no Tudor England, House of Windsor, Henry VIII, and the schism from the Holy Roman Catholic Church. That would mean no George III who was King at the time of the American Revolution. Maybe New York would be an English City.
no House of Windsor - made up name (Score:2)
windsor is a made up bullshit name, George the V of the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha pulled it out of his ass in 1917.
figures (Score:2)
What else would you expect from such a misshapen man who can't even enjoy the lascivious pleasing of a loot!
On the same off-topic topic.... (Score:2)
And also - modern analysis of the Richard III painting that's contemporary show it to have bee
Re:News for nerds (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
ignominious?
I can imagine lots of other burial places that would be less famous or reputable than a parking lot.
Re:ignominious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even kings start to smell bad after a couple of days.
Just dig a hole and drop him in it, he's putting me off my eel pie...
Re: (Score:2)
I can imagine lots of other burial places that would be less famous or reputable than a parking lot.
It's lucky the land is a car park (only a small one, for an office). It's surrounded on all sides by 19th century buildings in the centre of Leicester.
Just west of the three white vans [google.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
He ought to be placed in a public urinal and left there to fucking well rot!
Air freshener?
Re: (Score:2)
Grain bames [urbandictionary.com] . How many times is 'Ignominious' spoken each day in the ghetto? [etc]
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
There must be a rapper with that name somewhere, though he probably spells it with at least one "a".
Re:Nope (Score:5, Funny)
I went to middle school in the middle ages, you insensitive clod!
Now get thee hence and tread not upon mine herbery.
Re: (Score:2)