To think that just because they have found the bones of Richard III, that doesn't automatically mean that he was actually A Really Bloody Nice Bloke?

[BalloonSlayer]

Constant quotes from the Richard III Society:

"We're going to completely reassess Richard III, we're going to completely look at all the sources again, and hopefully there's going to be a new beginning for Richard as well." Why? It's a skeleton? Was it holding a signed confession from Henry VII of the murder of the Princes in the Tower?

Richard III Society member Philippa Langley, originator of the search, said on a Channel 4 documentary earlier: "It doesn't look like the face of a tyrant. I'm sorry but it doesn't. WTF?

Why does this change anything at all?

I feel so betrayed.

But yes, fencing is pretty cool too. I can't do either, so I'm not one to talk.

That section does need more traffic! It got started after the first Richard III thread went mammoth and then went into classics. I think there are quite a lot of us who love history and when there's a good thread, it will run and run into hundreds of posts, but quite often they go into classics. 'Ways of Dying in 1665' is in there too.

Ooh that's the one my bezzie MN mate started. I'll have to look out the Classic RIII thread.

I'm still trying to fathom why, particularly women, people go so bananas over him. It's as though they genuinely fancy him - I thought she was going to snog that waxwork. Though I do think John of Gaunt must have been a bit of alright....

I admit, I tend to think John of Gaunt is like in 'Katharine'. He probably wasn't, TBH. Edward IV was meant to be tall and gorgeous, though someone's description of him binging and purging has put me off a tad.

I don't quite get the 'sexy men from the past' thing. They'd all have rotten breath.

Yes, but did you see his portrait? I know he was the glorious sunne of yorke and all that, but, but but....<a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg/220px-Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg&imgrefurl=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England&h=321&w=220&sz=36&tbnid=eyLr99VIhp3CAM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=66&zoom=1&usg=__Xv0Ez2jbH0rsyOYmzuGeqIRIm6Q=&docid=FAdKLJIgljFbOM&sa=X&ei=5jcRUcTsPImN0wWozoCQBg&ved=0CEAQ9QEwAg&dur=157" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">I'm not feeling the love.

And also he was Henry VIII's grandad. I find the physical similarities quite striking. He was another who was supposed to be the finest prince in all of Christendom and stuff, and his portraits sadly don't do him justice. I do think they both had a liking for gorging, puking and roistering though. Hence their shape as they aged.

There is this Edward IV one. I wonder if this was from when he was slightly younger? (Or a copy of a younger one at least, I think they're mostly copies).

And JoG yes. All man. And giant moustache.

Mmm, yes, I take your point ariel. But then I suppose they had a different idea of what was sexy.

I now have an image of JoG as a German pornstar. Thanks for that, mad.

Oh J of G was ALL MAN

It's the Yorkist pursed rosebud mouths which kills it for me. And the bobbed hair do's. But yes, I guess they would have had different ideas of male beauty, just as they did female beauty. Did you see the Elizabeth Woodville portrait? She looked bald.

Next thing I'll find out is that my hero Montague was actually a one legged dwarf with a squint :(

If we're fawning over ancient men... Robert Dudley. Rawr.

Not seeing it. Sorry.

I think people think Richard III is sexy due to the whole misunderstood tragic hero thing. If you believe in that rather than the nephew murdering psycho version. Although people do marry men on death row, so maybe there is an element of that too?

Henry II. No idea what he actually looked like but get the impression he'd be great fun in bed.

Going back further in time... Seti I. He's even an attractive mummy.

There is a campaign to bring him home and bury him in York Minster where he apparently wanted to be laid to rest rather than Leicester (which makes little sense) or failing that as a sovereign he should be in Westminster Abbey. MoJ would have to amend the burial license though.

Going back to facial reconstructions, they rely on the human eye/brain being more attuned to recognising similarities rather than differences. So, in the forensic context in which they were developed, as long as they bear enough similarities to the victim to enable people who knew them to say "Hey that looks a bit like Auntie Mabel" they have done their job. And those sorts of similarities (ie familial similarities) are rooted in head shape, face width, cheek bones, forehead height etc. Think how many times you have looked at someone and thought "She looks like so and so". Human ability to recognise superficial face similarities over anything else is why people say my DDs look so similar and they can get away using each others driving licenses but I think they look nothing like each other.

I have seen some stunningly good facial reconstructions done by the now-retired Richard Neve and latterly Caroline Wilkinson who was his student originally and she did this one - photos of the actual person and the reconstruction side by side. Richard even had to do one once to take to a conference in Germany - they sent him a plastic skull to reconstruct and take with him, and when he got there, found out it was a 3D print of an academic who was alive and kicking and present. He didn't get the nose quite big enough but it was a remarkable likeness!

Someone linked to this on the other thread, about York and burial places:

www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/features/richard-iii/

And its what I have been saying!

Ahem - there is no proof at all that Edward the Third had anything to do with the murder of Edward the second, and there's no evidence Isabella did either.

There is now new evidence that Edward the 2nd wasn't actually murdered...and the red hot poker stories only emerged 100 years after Edward the second's funeral.

I think Marlowe's presentation of Edward the Second is even more fanciful than Shakespeare's historical characters.

You ... you mean, Braveheart lied?!

Oh my lord! Do you mean that actually Wallace DID NOT father Edward III as well?

Say it isn't so.

(Wasn't she about 9 years old, in real life, as opposed to about 25?)

I will admit I have a huuuge soft spot for the opening voiceover to Braveheart, that lovely hammed-up 'history is written by those who have hanged heroes ...'

Elizabeth Woodville would have had her hairline plucked in accordance with the fashions of the time, iirc, hence the bald look. She was a reputed beauty - think it comes across in her portrait.

I love the portrait of Henry VII in the NPG - the small one where he looks weasily and cunning. Such personality in that painting - and not at all flattering of the subject imo.

As an aside, Edward II is buried in Gloucester cathedral, so not all kings are in Westminster.

It is in a rather mediocre tomb as well, just down the side. You wouldn't think it was the tomb of a king.

Going back to being a bit mean - have you seen the photo of the presenter woman and the waxwork on the Guardian? It looks like she wants to eat him.

Here

I thought this was interesting:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_places_of_British_royalty

Am I the only one who likes the fact we will never know who killed the young princes? I love the bits of history where we will never fully know/ understand exactly what happened

Obviously learning and discovering more is amazing and I love studying history but sometimes the cold, hard facts are just that- it's nice to have a bit of mystery

Also in terms of hot historical figures, I've always thought Prince Albert was a bit of a looker

It is a little unfortunate, that photo, but actually I warmed to the piece she wrote far more than I did to her presence on the programme last night.