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

Yeah, likely that was the forces under Stanley, who hung about waiting to see who was going to win before he joined in.

He was a right turncoat that one, first on one side and then the other.

His joining in was what did for Richard, and handed the throne to Henry Tudor who rewarded him handsomely.

He copped it in the end though, as the same Henry Tudor (i.e. Henry VII) had him beheaded for supporting the Perkin Warbeck claim.

He changed sides just once too often.

It wasn't the best programme I have ever seen but it had enough info to keep me interested. Although the woman from the Richard lll society was a bit OTT. I found myself feeling a lot of sympathy for him though and wanting to know more about him. As I said earlier I hope he gets a reburial befitting his status.

Well at the moment that's not going to be the case. It seems bleedin' obvious to me that he should be buried in York Minster, being a big supporter of it financially and being the last King of the House of York.



Whereas as matters stand, he's going to be buried somewhere in Leicester. With all due respect etc. might as well put him back in the car park.



But you can do something about it:

[urlhttp://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38772[/url

Re Edward IV's legitimacy: not sure as he was very atypical York scion.



Didn't Richard 111 "bring in" no taxation without recourse to Parliament? Need to check.

No, we only ever got as far as Richard 3.

Will we all get a day off for the funeral?



If nowt else it'll give Osborne an excuse for triple dip