Burying someone in a multi-storey car park? That's wrong on so many levels...

You could nip up to Towton, armed with a battlefield description and soak up some history there.

The bloodiest battle ever fought on British soil was fought there.

The number of dead was comparable (perhaps greater than) the first day of the Somme ... which, when you compare the weapons of swords and axes in the mostly hand-to-hand fighting of 1461 against the machine guns of WWI, takes some doing.

Very good.

History is often written by the victors. In this case the Tudors. So William Shakespeare would have written a contemporary report to make him as disfigured, repulsive and unlikeable as that's how he should be portrayed. According to the Tudors.



I love history. Love it.



A great find.

https://twitter.com/Andr3ssaRojas/statu ... 41/photo/1

https://twitter.com/Andr3ssaRojas/statu ... 41/photo/1

Forgot to say that atleast there was a couple of good things to come out of King Richard's reign.



1. Londoners named poo after him.



2. We can remember the colours of the rainbow thanks to him, well his subsequent demise anyway.

I don't think that "crookback" is the same as "hunchback". "Crookback" is clearly a shortening of "crooked back", which is what he had, and which is how such a condition would appear, and be naturally described. But, wasn't "crookback" his nickname anyway? And did Shakespeare use that word? I thought his phrase was "bunch-back'd". I can understand why as this is only one consonant away from "hunch-back'd" people might jump to conclusions, but Shakespeare was hardly a careless writer, and so whilst the usage of the description "bunch-back'd" [imay[/i have been familiar Shakesepeare's audience, or he may have just invented it, the fact seems to be that he didn't use "hunch" and that is I think certainly no accident.



Thomas More described Richard thus:

"'He was little of stature, ill fetured of limmes, croke backed, his left shoulder much higher than his right,"

... which is interesting, as it uses both the "crooked back" description, as well as expanding on it by pointing out one shoulder was higher than the other.

Richard III was Richard of Gloucester.

His father was Richard of York, he died at the battle of Wakefield in 1460, surely 'twould be he who is noted in the colours of the rainbow thing?

We have to exercise a great deal of caution when quoting Thomas More about anything to do with the Plantagenets, as he was allied to (or at the very least had to be very careful about) the Tudor cause ... until he fell out with Henry VIII about the Church of England.

He was only seven when Richard died and started his history of Richard 27 years after Richard's death ... and the history is considered by some historians as more of a moral tale than what we would term a history.



Nonetheless, you have a point and now his skeleton has been recovered, we'll see some genuine evidence one way or the other.

Going by last nights programme he was a bloody tough bloke, fair and quite handsome. Who seemed to have the respect of the people of the North. I think it is amazing that they have managed to find him and i hope he gets a re-burial befitting his status.

I recorded that programme and will be watching this evening with interest.

Presumably though not including those who smote his skull with a halberd or drove a dagger into his brain