Bones beneath Leicester Cathedral parking lot confirmed as the remains of Richard III

Now is this winter of impatient waiting
made glorious summer by this skeleton!

From the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/richard-the-third-bones.html?page...;

I was up at 4:00 watching the BBC's live stream. (I hadn't intended to, but my cat woke me up. She must be a secret Ricardian.)

It's very exciting, no?

A friend from grad school remarked that it's really nice, for once, that the written historical record was actually pretty darned accurate!

Well, except for the non-existent withered arm and humpback, and the fact that the corpse wasn't tossed into the river!

Unbelievably exciting. Just five minutes before the Channel 4 documentary in England, I've been waiting for this since reading The Daughter of Time in English class when I was twelve years old many, many years ago!

> 5

It has occurred to me that this whole thing is an excellent example of the power of literature. Shakespeare is, in large part, responsible for Richard's dreadful reputation, while Tey has had a huge influence on his rehabilitation.

A couple of lesser details that I found most interesting: 1) the current practice of analyzing food in ancient remains, showing that R-III ate fish and meat, unlike most people, and 2) I hadn't known before that kings normally would not wear their helmets near the battlefield so that people would recognize them and and {normally} avoid harming them.

Has anyone heard a story about Rupert Murdoch trying to buy the bones?

Yes, but is that legal or possible? I saw it by Googling it, but also I see that different areas of England are vying for the burial rights.

Hello, Ellen Ekstrom from Berkeley, California, here, and a longtime Ricardian. Haven't heard much about Murdoch trying to purchase the bones, but it doesn't surprise me. As for the place of burial, it just makes sense, given his affinities in the North, his career, that Richard's remains should go there - and the planned tomb I saw on the internet was simple yet elegant.

The decision's been made to reinter the bones at the Anglican Cathedral in Leicester: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/08/06/no-catholic-burial-for...

I found it interesting to learn recently that with the discovery of Richard's burial site, all the burial places of the Kings of England are now known. Richard was the last that hadn't been found.

There's still some speculation about whether Harold II is really at Bosham or Waltham Abbey or still buried down by the sea in Sussex. Have they found Alfred? Regarding Richard's reenterrment at Leicester, I think he'd approve of Anglican liturgy and spirituality, but then I'm a biased member of the Anglican Communion! ; )

>13 ELEkstrom: Well, I think the historian who I heard say that recently (and the comment was made so as to place the discovery of Richard's remains in context) was referring to the monarchs post-Norman Conquest.

13> Seeing Richard III was a catholic - this is, after all prior to the break with Rome - are you sure he wouldn't be appalled by the Anglican service? Not in Latin, a said not sung service, no miracle of the bread & wine etc etc etc. I don't know that he'd have approved at all.

And Alfred - if you mean Alfred the Great - was king of Wessex, not of England.

>13 ELEkstrom:, 15 It's an odd question to me. What are the assumptions involved in the hypothetical "What would Richard have wanted?"? That he were asked upon his death, never having heard of Anglicanism, Martin Luther or Henry VIII? That he were conjured up today, history explained to him, and asked for his opinion? I assume he would have had some concern for his immortal soul, but I am pretty sure he would not have had affectionate feelings for the Tudor dynasty, and might on that ground alone oppose what Henry wrought...

I might assume, where he to be asked, that he might opine that just about any church would be preferable to under a car park.

There is that.

It was a church (well a friary) before it was a car park - them being a modern invention...

(this may be the wine talking) maybe to the long dead it remains what it was when they died. You know, a bit like your granny goes on about that being the cinema even though the cinema closed in 1973 and it's been houses since before you were born.

So does consecration of ground "wear off"? It was once consecrated ground, do you deconsecrate ground once the church has been demolished?

So many questions, so little sense...

Yes, you can deconsecrate a church. That's what's done when the building is sold for other uses.

My, we take ourselves so seriously.

I believe someone was asking about Alfred, yes?

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/quest-kings-after-richard-iii-will-englands-king-...