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?

WAS

I cannot believe nobody has linked to this, which is surely the Last Word on the topic.

Oh they have. Maybe not on this thread, but certainly on the others!

It is quite amazing and nice that people are so passionate about their subject. I was wondering too if it will be C of E or Catholic for reburial. He would have been Catholic surely. I must say I didn't for a moment think they would find anything.

They said on the news it'd be a Christian service with C of E and Catholics in attendance.

I am being a stickler, but modern Catholicism is so very different from medieval anyway, it seems a bit sad to me. I hope they work some nice Latin into it for him.

If we're doing kings we would do, I think naughty king John sounds like a character, and I bet he'd have been fun in bed!

On the subject of blue eyes, is it possible that most people did have brown eyes, but at some point blue eyes were brought in, possibly from Nordic regions. I'm sure blue eyes are dominant, so could well have taken hold in a fairly short time.
This happened in welsh ponies, not the same I know, but at one time there were no grey ponies, but the Grey gene is dominant, and once a white stallion did appear, within a decade or so, 60%+ were white.
my knowledge of genetics stretches as far as equine colour btw, just speculating.

CogitoErgoSometimes

Re: Daughter of Time. It's years since I read it, but if you've just finished it could you tell me if it contains anything unsuitable for a 9 year old? Because . . .

greencolorpack

My DS (9) and DD (6) have just sat and watched it this evening on 4OD. DH and I watched it yesterday and decided that DS would find it really interesting. It was a pleasant surprise to see that DD also enjoyed it.

I am pretty sure some medieval people had blue eyes. It is vanishingly unlikely they wouldn't, given that the Danes had been kicking around for a good while. And while I know being blond/redhead doesn't automatically mean you have blue eyes, I think it'd be unlikely to have lots of blondes/redheads and no blue-eyed people.

Someone wise has just suggested to me when I burbled my ignorance to her, that they did used to think dark eyes were prettier. Which is pretty much what someone said upthread about intelligence.

It is fascinating how ideas about what's attractive change, isn't it? It is amazing thinking plucked foreheads were once pretty.

Blue eyes are not dominant, they are recessive.

Plucked foreheads sound awful, but a low hairline is still considered less attractive/unintelligent/neanderthal.

Oh, sorry, I did say I wasnt that hot on non equine genetics.

So what colour eyes are dominant in horses? Or does it depend on the breed of horse?

As with any discussion of genetics it's a bit more complicated than that (of course) :)

Genetics of coat colour in animals can be lots of fun. Do you like this cat?

Oh, wow. That is amazing!

I did know of someone's dad when we were little who had one brown eye and one blue, but that cat is something else! Why does it happen?

Brown Im assuming. You do get blue eyed horses, but its not common. Coat colour is my thing. Its fascinating!

It sounds it!

I'm afraid I am at the 'horse white. horse pretty. horse brown. horse muddy' level of it all.

Ok, here's verbatim from someone who reckons she knows another reason other than the black eyes being pretty one. FWIW.

Isolated small blue points can look darker because of pigment concentration. If thinned significantly, then blue pigment can look greenish-brown due to interference of parchment, or bluish-black if the pencil layer shows through. Basically, small bits of color are hard to identify precisely. Also depends on whether aquamarine or azurite are used.

Bored yet? Sorry, I am being anal.

Am I missing something here? How does mitachondrial DNA conclusively prove the skeleton is Richard the 3rd? Anyone could have the same mitachondrial dna, it could have come from a woman 1,000 years before Richard III and passed down through completely different people, this could be an almost unrelated skeleton... or a cousin... I don't like how concretely they are taking the genetic evidence...

Richard was their guardian and had the princes sent to the Tower from the moment their father died. After they disappeared, he was crowned. I'd say it's fairly likely he was behind it, whoever else may have benefited from it after Richard's death. If Richard was not behind it, it's highly unlikely he would have allowed himself to be crowned in the hope that they might yet be found.

And saying that someone does not look cruel/evil etc from reconstruction of their facial features based on skull structure? Ridiculous especially since it's character lines formed by habits ( not genetics) that primarily give some clue to their personality.

Richard does look a bit like Nadia from BB - but he looks even more like Madeline Kahn, I reckon:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeline_Kahn

BTW - I think the Anne Boleyn 6 fingered thing was a later assertion - trying to blacken her character etc. When they found her skeleton there was no extra finger.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeline_Kahn

The DNA evidence alone wouldn't have proved it as flyingspaghettimonster so rightly puts it. The DNA evidence proves that the skeleton was from the same maternal line as Richard III, but it could be someone else related directly by that line.

However: the wounds are totally consistent with those known to be inflicted on Richard III, both before and after death. The skeleton had had a high status diet, even richer than rich monks (never mind relatively poor Greyfriars). It was buried in the Choir of the Abbey Church, which also indicates high status. Their is a Historical record that he was buried at Greyfriars (a previous search for the body had looked at the wrong Abbey, the Blackfriars). So even before the DNA they were pretty sure it was Richard III, the DNA just makes the evidence pretty overwhelming

Catherine of Aragon had blue eyes - she had pale colouring and red hair (inheritied presumably from her English antecedents).

There is a minature here here which shows she had blue eyes.

And look at this - the eyes are dark but look closely and they don't appear to be brown, rather a very dark blue/grey.

That is very interesting LRD about the burial places of kings.

So may pre-William the Conqueror were interred in the west country - dorset, Winchester, Glastonbury. I wonder why.

And a lot more than I thought are in St George's Chapel Windsor.