The search for Richard III

[Rowan MacD]

W.W. you know me... I can see a portrait and tell you who their grandparents were. I'm not buying Edward IV's illegitimacy theory. As fas as contemporary chronicelers, the fact the Richard III declared Edward's children illegitimate was suspect at the time. "Cecily Neville left court and had little contact with her son Edward before his death in 1483.

After Edward's death, Cecily supported the claim of her son, Richard III, to the crown, nullifying Edward's will and asserting that his sons were illegitimate. These sons, the "Princes in the Tower," are generally believed to have been killed by Richard III or one of his supporters, or perhaps during the early part of Henry VII's reign by Henry or his supporters.

When Richard III's brief reign ended at Bosworth Field, and Henry VII (Henry Tudor) became king, Cecily retired from public life -- maybe. There is some evidence that she may have encouraged support for an attempt to dethrone Henry VII, when Perkin Warbeck claimed to be one of the sons of Edward IV ("Princes in the Tower"). She died in 1495."

What a lovely woman.  Looks from here like she would throw anyone under the bus for power.

[Welsh Wench]

OK so now we have the name of the archer.
Blaybourne.

Whether Edward IV was illegitimate or not, it didn't really matter since Richard III inherited and he was the legitimae son of Cecily Neville and Richard Duke of York.

http://www.serendipity.li/more/monarch.htm

Furthermore in another site--

In 2003, historian Dr Michael Jones revealed in a Channel 4 documentary (first broadcast January 3, 2004) previously overlooked evidence from Rouen, cathedral, France, discovered while researching the Hundred Years' War. In the cathedral register, an entry in 1441 records that the clergy were paid for a sermon for the safety of the Duke of York, going to Pontoise (near Paris) on campaign. He would have been on campaign from July 14 to August 21, 1441, several days' march from Rouen.

If a child with a claim to the throne was born small or sickly it would normally have been recorded, and there is apparently no such record, consequently, proponents of the theory of illegitimacy claim it is likely that Edward was not born prematurely. By calculating back from Edward's birth on April 28, it seems apparent that Richard was not present at the time of Edward's conception around the first week of August 1441.

Additionally, the cathedral records reveal that Edward's christening took place in private in a side chapel, whereas for the christening of Richard's second son the whole cathedral was used for a huge celebration, again suggesting to proponents of the theory that Edward was indeed illegitimate, although in spite of this, the Duke never disclaimed his paternity of his wife's eldest son.

Some historians have raised the criticism that it is logistically possible for Richard Duke of York to have returned briefly from battle to Rouen because often military leaders led their forces from the rear.

Dr Jones argues that, if it were true that Edward IV was illegitimate, this would have invalidated his claim to the throne of England thus rendering the existing royal family path as illegitimate. Dr Jones argues that tracing through Edward's younger brother, George Duke of Clarence (whom Jones argues was the legitimate heir), the current heir would be Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun who resides in Australia as a rice researcher. However, since King Henry VII claimed the throne of England through right of conquest, it can be argued that Michael Abney-Hastings is no more legitimate to the throne then the blood line that would have continued if William the Conqueror had not taken over. Furthermore, under English law, the son of a married woman is automatically considered the son of her husband unless he is disclaimed at birth. Since Richard did not do this, Edward remained his legal son and heir, whether or not he was actually Richard's biological son.

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=4102.0;wap2

Isn't a fifteenth century scandal fascinating?

[Rowan MacD]

  Better than a soap opera.

  This was pretty much the same thing I pointed out to my hubby when he commented on the 'Aussie heir'.
   Once the throne was taken by conquest; all claims of the losing side are null.
   All hail the new royal bloodline, who got to spend the next few generations cementing their hold on the crown against the 'old regime'.
    Of course, one of the best ways to accelerate the process was what H7 did-Marry the Princess.
    After, of course, her brothers were safely out of the way.   
   

[DonaCatalina]

"According to documents discovered by Dr Michael Jones in Rouen Cathedral there was a 5-week period when Richard was 100 miles away from his wife, leading a military campaign against the French, during which Henry was conceived, so Richard could not have been Henry's father, and so Henry's parents were not married at the time of his birth. Moreover, only one of Henry's parents (Cecily) was descended from Edward III and Henry II, and that line of descent was illegitimate (it was again via the union of John of Gaunt with Katharine). Thus Henry IV had no legitimate claim to the English throne, and so none of his descendants, including the present Queen of England, have had either."


I think he switched some names up, whoever wrote this.

[Captain Jack Wolfe]

Well, it's officially decided. If the remains are those of Richard III, they will be re-interred in Leicester Cathedral. This according to justice minister Helen Grant.

Not everyone is pleased with this development.

Joe Ann Ricca, founder and chief executive of The Richard III Foundation, which had argued the skeleton should be interred in York, said she was disappointed at the decision.

"If his remains are really going to be buried in Leicester, we would hope he at least has a traditional Christian service," she said.

"But it's kind of a monstrous act when you know that the former king of England had expressed the desire and a wish to be buried at York Minster."

Full story here: Richard III dig: Leicester Cathedral burial confirmed

[Rowan MacD]

  Does anyone know how soon we will know if they have the real Richard or not? The suspense is killing me!
I wish they had photos of the remains in situ.  I should like to see the skull and the arrowhead.

[DonaCatalina]

The announcement is tentatively scheduled for sometime in December pending tests.

Personally I think they already know since they have just announced plans for internment in Leicester Cathedral IF it is Richard III.

[Captain Jack Wolfe]

Now targeting January 2013 for the results to be announced.

Is it King Richard III? We we will know in January

[DonaCatalina]

Thanks for the update.....sheesh. another month.

[Welsh Wench]

It seems a facial reconstruction is in the works too along with analysis of teeth and bones to find out diet and lifestyles.

Should prove very interesting.
New year, new beginnings in English history!

[Lady Renee Buchanan]

Last night I finished the historical novel "The Kingmaker's Daughter" about Richard Neville's two daughters, Isabelle and Anne, who was married to Richard.  I really enjoyed reading it, and I am looking forward to finding out if the tomb is really his.

[Captain Jack Wolfe]

Murdered, buried, forgotten, had Victorian-era foundations mere inches from crushing his remains, then all that bulldozed and a car park laid over him... I really do hope it's Richard and they can lay him properly to rest. He's been through enough.

[BLAKDUKE]

Well according to the latest internet posts.  It seems that we will have an answer around the first part of the year.  The DNA is almost complete and the powers to be are almost certain that they will be positive.  I hope so.

[DonaCatalina]

press leak?
I wonder what else they found with the body that they're keeping from the public.

[DonaCatalina]

http://www.gadling.com/2012/12/17/remains-of-king-richard-iii-discovered-in-parking-lot/
Now they are waiting until after a TV Documentary airs.