# Shouldn't an English monarch have been laid to rest with more pomp?



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/...nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

He wasn't either Elizabeth, but surely a King of England deserves some more pageantry...


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

He suffered quite a lot of bad press over the centuries, but for Leicester that was pomp.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Still, though...why not full military honors for a former commander in chief?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

tocqueville said:


> Still, though...why not full military honors for a former commander in chief?


Plantagenets are not a very big deal these days.

House of Windsor honour their own.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Losing side. Before the ceremony in Leicester he was taken to Bosworth field (by what means, I'm uncertain), the site of his defeat. There had been some doubt as to whether a man with his chronic back deformity would have been much good on the battlefield, so a test was arranged using a youth born with a similar condition, who fortuitously is also a Wars of the Roses re-enactor and an accomplished horseman, and the finding was that he would still have been quite handy in battle. The danger to knights then, of course, lay in being dismounted but the medieval saddles were designed to keep the rider upright, a bit like a chair.

Apparently his nearest living (lateral) descendant is a Canadian.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think that while he probably had scoliosis, the historians after he died and Shakespeare exaggerated the level of his deformity. While he was not 6'3" like his older brother Edward IV, he was still bigger than most people of his day. He did well in several battles before his death and was not that easy to kill at Bosworth field. 

He probably did have his nephews murdered although we'll never know for sure.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Somewhere or another I read about a mass grave that was found recently from about the same period. Forensic doctors had a field day with the large number of relatively intact skeletons and were able to learn all sorts of things. Among them was that folks then were not that much shorter than now and appear to have eaten well, nutritionally speaking. Also, they had really good teeth because they had almost no sugar in their diet.

Oh, here it is:
https://www.economist.com/node/17722650


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> Somewhere or another I read about a mass grave that was found recently from about the same period. Forensic doctors had a field day with the large number of relatively intact skeletons and were able to learn all sorts of things. Among them was that folks then were not that much shorter than now and appear to have eaten well, nutritionally speaking. Also, they had really good teeth because they had almost no sugar in their diet.
> 
> Oh, here it is:
> https://www.economist.com/node/17722650


Probably because they suffered some other cruel fate and didn't live long enough to worry about dental decay.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

That was a really informative link. Apparently, the average soldier was about 5' 7". Richard III was about 5' 8" so he might not have been that much bigger than most other men of his time.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I think that while he probably had scoliosis, the historians after he died and Shakespeare exaggerated the level of his deformity. While he was not 6'3" like his older brother Edward IV, he was still bigger than most people of his day. He did well in several battles before his death and was not that easy to kill at Bosworth field.
> 
> He probably did have his nephews murdered although we'll never know for sure.


Without going into details, or the very sketchy evidence, the biggest concern about his guilt is his motive. He was a crowned king, accepted by Parliament and popular amongst most of the population. He was a legitimate king, in the line of descent from his brother, also a legitimate king in the line of descent. His nephews had been declared bastards, thus legally denying them a position in the line of descent, the Archbishop of Canterbury establishing that Edward IV was already married when he married their mother, and was neither divorced nor a widower. Therefore, why would Richard want them dead? What purpose would their murder serve?
Henry, however, is a different matter. He was the descendant of Margaret Beaufort, an illegitimate daughter of a younger son of Edward III, whose line had been declared void by Henry IV in the early 15th century. There were several people in England with a far better claim to the throne than him, nearly all of whom were judicially murdered, and, of course, the Princes in the Tower both had superior claims to the throne than he did. Given his pattern of behaviour of killing those with better claims than he had it wouldn't be surprising if he'd had them killed.
Two kings one without a motive for killing the princes, the other, not only a motive, but who systematically killed all those with a better claim. I know who I think most likely to be the killer!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Probably because they suffered some other cruel fate and didn't live long enough to worry about dental decay.


Remember, though, they had zero dental care. Having good teeth would be a remarkable achievement for any 17-yr old American with zero dental care.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Probably because they suffered some other cruel fate and didn't live long enough to worry about dental decay.


Remember, though, they had zero dental care. Having good teeth would be a remarkable achievement for any 17-yr old American with zero dental care.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Remember, though, they had zero dental care. Having good teeth would be a remarkable achievement for any 17-yr old American with zero dental care.


Some of the dead from the grave pits at Towton (1461) had survived extensive previous injuries from violence, evidence being healing of bones etc, so although medical care was primitive, it wasn't non-existent. Primitive toothbrushes were used then, and salt as a form of toothpowder.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

tocqueville said:


> Remember, though, they had zero dental care. Having good teeth would be a remarkable achievement for any 17-yr old American with zero dental care.


Don't underestimate how incredibly bad the modern processed diet is for teeth; you could even say that given a choice between eating old-style foods and having dental care, selecting only the former would result in better teeth.

Years ago, when I was involved in scientific research in-the-field, I was always startled by the dental health of many tribal folk, a result of lack of access to soft foods (no processed grains, no fatty meats, and so on.) I'd fully expect the peasant class of any era to have better teeth than the upper classes (one recalls the famed study of Ramses II's mummy, which revealed a mouth full of abscessed teeth, likely the result of a diet of pearled grains).

DH


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Yes, the Towton grave pits revealed mineralisation on teeth, probably through inadequate cleaning of plaque, but very little decay.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I really should make an effort to delve into English history more.

Do any of our UK members have some good book recommendations - especially eras from the Late Middle ages through the Civil War?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

On this specific subject, this is very good. I am biased as I was, until he retired, a colleague of his.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-II...e=UTF8&qid=1427289365&sr=1-1&keywords=pollard A more general history is this one https://www.amazon.co.uk/Medieval-E...F8&qid=1427295355&sr=8-4&keywords=A+J+Pollard

The only problem, to me, is that I disagree with him on the evidence. An interesting easy introduction to this specific subject is this https://www.amazon.co.uk/Daughter-T...27295327&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Daughter+of+Time written by a crime novelist, as a crime novel, it is, nevertheless, a very good introduction.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> Don't underestimate how incredibly bad the modern processed diet is for teeth; you could even say that given a choice between eating old-style foods and having dental care, selecting only the former would result in better teeth.
> 
> Years ago, when I was involved in scientific research in-the-field, I was always startled by the dental health of many tribal folk, a result of lack of access to soft foods (no processed grains, no fatty meats, and so on.) I'd fully expect the peasant class of any era to have better teeth than the upper classes (one recalls the famed study of Ramses II's mummy, which revealed a mouth full of abscessed teeth, likely the result of a diet of pearled grains).
> 
> DH


While travelling in the Gambia, years ago, I was surprised by the almost ubiquitous way of opening beer bottles - with the teeth. Not many Europeans chanced their luck that way.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> On this specific subject, this is very good. I am biased as I was, until he retired, a colleague of his.
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-II...e=UTF8&qid=1427289365&sr=1-1&keywords=pollard A more general history is this one https://www.amazon.co.uk/Medieval-E...F8&qid=1427295355&sr=8-4&keywords=A+J+Pollard
> 
> The only problem, to me, is that I disagree with him on the evidence. An interesting easy introduction to this specific subject is this https://www.amazon.co.uk/Daughter-T...27295327&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Daughter+of+Time written by a crime novelist, as a crime novel, it is, nevertheless, a very good introduction.


Thank you. I was more looking for a good semi-in depth history of the periods between 1200 - 1700 (or specific periods in that broader timeframe).


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Could they really be British rulers without Roman Numerals after their names? (I'm aware of a few kings and queens where there was just one person who used that name. As an adult, I was surprised to learn that a number of them did not use their given names for their "royal" name.)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Without going into details, or the very sketchy evidence, the biggest concern about his guilt is his motive. He was a crowned king, accepted by Parliament and popular amongst most of the population. He was a legitimate king, in the line of descent from his brother, also a legitimate king in the line of descent. His nephews had been declared bastards, thus legally denying them a position in the line of descent, the Archbishop of Canterbury establishing that Edward IV was already married when he married their mother, and was neither divorced nor a widower. Therefore, why would Richard want them dead? What purpose would their murder serve?
> Henry, however, is a different matter. He was the descendant of Margaret Beaufort, an illegitimate daughter of a younger son of Edward III, whose line had been declared void by Henry IV in the early 15th century. There were several people in England with a far better claim to the throne than him, nearly all of whom were judicially murdered, and, of course, the Princes in the Tower both had superior claims to the throne than he did. Given his pattern of behaviour of killing those with better claims than he had it wouldn't be surprising if he'd had them killed.
> Two kings one without a motive for killing the princes, the other, not only a motive, but who systematically killed all those with a better claim. I know who I think most likely to be the killer!


Are you saying that Shakespeare dramatizing Richard III as a meanie is not sufficient evidence??

Seriously, as long as those boys were alive, they were a threat to any other person who claimed the throne. However, I agree that this would apply to Henry VII or Richard III.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Could they really be British rulers without Roman Numerals after their names? (I'm aware of a few kings and queens where there was just one person who used that name. As an adult, I was surprised to learn that a number of them did not use their given names for their "royal" name.)


 Anne and Victoria. Presumably the first of the Georges also, at least until he was succeeded.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Anne and Victoria. Presumably the first of the Georges also, at least until he was succeeded.


There's also WilliamandMary.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> There's also WilliamandMary.


Wasn't he William III, and she Mary II? First cousins, too.


----------



## Veblen (Aug 18, 2014)

Langham said:


> Wasn't he William III, and she Mary II? First cousins, too.


Yes, but the other Williams or Mary weren't "William and Mary".  At least I assume Chouan alludes to the way their coregency is commonly referred to, since he wrote their names as one word?
Going further backward Stephen, John, and Philip are unnumbered monarchs. Depending on your sympathies, possibly also Matilda and Jane.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Veblen said:


> Yes, but the other Williams or Mary weren't "William and Mary".  At least I assume Chouan alludes to the way their coregency is commonly referred to, since he wrote their names as one word?
> Going further backward Stephen, John, and Philip are unnumbered monarchs. Depending on your sympathies, possibly also Matilda and Jane.


I was being facetious; they are indeed usually referred to as "WilliamandMary", as if they were one person.
You're right about the others, and also Louis, although we tend to forget about him. We also tend to ignore the Kings of England before William the Bastard.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Veblen said:


> Yes, but the other Williams or Mary weren't "William and Mary".  At least I assume Chouan alludes to the way their coregency is commonly referred to, since he wrote their names as one word?
> Going further backward Stephen, John, and Philip are unnumbered monarchs. Depending on your sympathies, possibly also Matilda and Jane.


Doh -- the end of a very long day for me.

Further back, though, they are English, but not British.


----------



## Veblen (Aug 18, 2014)

Langham said:


> Further back, though, they are English, but not British.


Of course. But since the thread started with Richard III, I thought it wouldn't hurt to mention unnumbered pre-union predecessors.


----------

