Archaeologists are DNA testing some bones they've found to see if they might be the remains of Richard III. Are there any other members of the Royal Family....

[seeker]

where DNA testing might produce interesting results?

I really do not think that is true.

A significant proportion of women were not legally under male control as adults.

Also, I think it matters that a lot of men did not have much autonomy and were, especially before 1348, effectively slaves.

I am not denying that things were extremely bad for women and it was a deeply patriarchial, misogynistic society. But I think it matters to appreciate what women did manage to do.

Oh, they're fab tunip.

Wycliffism (the academic theology from which Lollardy, the popular heresy, derives) reckons that every person should be able to read the Bible for him or herself, and every person can be a 'priest' for themselves. It's similar to Lutheranism in that way. There were men and women who interpreted this by making women into priests, and having them preach and teach. The authorities were livid. But it's a big debate even in orthodox circles, whether it was really acceptable to restrict women's learning and authority so much.

Claire Cross writes on Lollard women, if you wanted a name. They were known as 'great reasoners in Scripture' (not always in a complimentary way I think!).

Women taught everyone to read, btw. That was your normal way of learning - so much so it was a truism, 'a woman teaches a child with books'. So in that sense they had a lot of power within that sphere.

I do take your point leonie.

It's a balance.

I just feel, here are these women, some of them are not aristocratic or even gentry-level, some of them did not have easy lives at all, and yet they were doing things, and they should be remembered for that.

Thank you LRD! So interesting
I hadn't realised there were any woman preachers before the 17th century Quakers etc.

Btw, did you lot notice there's a version of A Man For All Seasons up on Iplayer at the moment? Not quite the right period but nice. And Margaret Roper was a fantastic woman.

I know plenty about witches thanks. Matthew Hopkins lived about half a mile up the road.
Lollards were a minority, and were persecuted. Plenty of widows were also forced to marry again by their families. I think you are romanticising the roles of a few lucky, clever women, amongst the many millions who were posessions of their menfolk, forced to marry who they were told and bear child after child, and do exactly what they were told. It was even permissible at one point to sell your wife!

Anne Boleyn was never crowned Queen Regent, however she was crowned in her own right (Catherine of Aragon was crowned alongside Henry, and none of the other wives had coronations).

tunip - oh, yes. And in the early church, too, some people think. My impression is that it was really tightened up in around the 11th/12th century - I reckon Hild of Whitby was doing preaching along with everything else (she's certainly credited as an inspiration and was in charge of men as well as women), and then you get those queens who preached to their husbands to convert them. It's not public, but you could still argue it as preaching.

And Pope Joan, natch.

saggy - yes, but I don't! Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude, I genuinely wanted to know.

I know Lollards were a persecuted minority. Maybe I am romanticizing. I just feel so strongly that these women worked bloody hard to do what they did. Isn't it another form of romanticizing to look back on the 'bad old days' and pretend that all women were uniformly oppressed? Because that makes us feel as if today we've made huge strides, and although we truly have, I don't think they're as huge as this version of 'bad old days' makes us think.

That is so sad, I always think. Because there must have been women who knew a lot about what they were doing and I just can't see how a man could know so much about it in the days before you could dissect a body or know about anatomy.

Witches are male or female for my period of time, not sure why really.

LR, which period of time are you from then?

Whoops! Yeah, I'm ancient, me.

Sorry. I work on stuff from around 1250-1550, but mostly the middle years of that.

There are Arabic and Arabic-translated books after the Crusades, but they're fairly rare. Europe has it better (broadly) because Jewish medics were pretty good and read Arabic texts. But England expelled its Jewish population, which is pretty horrible.

I agree. Look at Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, when the Moor does a cesarean on that bird, and shes up shooting arrows in a week! I agree though, much information was wasted. I did History of Medicine GCSE. aeons ago fascinating.

Oh, I'm jealous. We did WWII. Again.

I love Robin Hood Prince of Thieves.

We were camping last w/e near the waterfall where the Robin Hood/Little John fight scene was filmed and there was a sign warning people that it was filmed at a time of exceptionally low water flow and not to try and re-enact it.
I wonder how many accidents there were before they put that sign up....

We did WWI GCSE, and the great depression.

At A-level we did the Civil War (which is a bit rubbish IMO)

Re the Scoliosis - I was fortunate to be at the press conference yesterday, and the bone expert was quite clear that the bones belong to an individual who had severe scoliosis and whose right shoulder would have been noticeable higher than his left. She also said that that nevertheless, he was a physically strong man who probably died in battle (from the evidence of head injury and the barbed arrow they found in his back area).

I work in a closely related organisation and the dig has been planned and discussed for a long time. I was very sceptical that they would find Richard III but I have to say, from the evidence they presented yesterday I will be amazed if it doesn't turn out to be him.

That is so cool.

I know, I've been desperate to tell someone - hence finding this thread! I am quite surprised that the media haven't reported all the details they were offered yesterday.