HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Scientists confirm that 5...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:12 AM

Scientists confirm that 500-year-old skeleton found under parking lot is England's King Richard III

LEICESTER, England (AP) — Scientists say they have found the 500-year-old remains of England's King Richard III under a parking lot in the city of Leicester.

University of Leicester researchers say tests on a battle-scarred skeleton unearthed last year prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that it is the king, who died at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, and whose remains have been missing for centuries.

"Richard III, the last Plantaganet King of England," has been found," said the university's deputy registrar, Richard Taylor.

Osteologist Jo Appleby said Monday that study of the bones provided "a highly convincing case for identification of Richard III."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/scientists-reveal-result-richard-iii-hunt-0

107 replies, 7204 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 107 replies Author Time Post
Reply Scientists confirm that 500-year-old skeleton found under parking lot is England's King Richard III (Original post)
The Straight Story Feb 2013 OP
Demeter Feb 2013 #1
mnhtnbb Feb 2013 #2
Glassunion Feb 2013 #3
mnhtnbb Feb 2013 #28
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #4
cali Feb 2013 #7
treestar Feb 2013 #10
Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #18
KatyMan Feb 2013 #34
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #55
sweetloukillbot Feb 2013 #80
treestar Feb 2013 #5
eShirl Feb 2013 #9
cali Feb 2013 #11
treestar Feb 2013 #21
eShirl Feb 2013 #35
cali Feb 2013 #6
irisblue Feb 2013 #25
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #53
Motown_Johnny Feb 2013 #8
elehhhhna Feb 2013 #95
Ichingcarpenter Feb 2013 #12
Hayabusa Feb 2013 #39
Ichingcarpenter Feb 2013 #42
Hayabusa Feb 2013 #50
winter is coming Feb 2013 #99
Hekate Feb 2013 #75
Hayabusa Feb 2013 #78
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #13
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #17
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #20
cali Feb 2013 #22
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #32
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #23
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #27
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #33
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #43
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #51
JoDog Feb 2013 #101
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #104
me b zola Feb 2013 #38
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #46
me b zola Feb 2013 #48
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #49
me b zola Feb 2013 #63
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #93
me b zola Feb 2013 #97
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #81
me b zola Feb 2013 #86
CreekDog Feb 2013 #88
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #92
CreekDog Feb 2013 #96
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #98
CreekDog Feb 2013 #102
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #103
Xithras Feb 2013 #58
me b zola Feb 2013 #64
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #65
me b zola Feb 2013 #66
Gormy Cuss Feb 2013 #68
me b zola Feb 2013 #70
Gormy Cuss Feb 2013 #73
me b zola Feb 2013 #74
Gormy Cuss Feb 2013 #79
me b zola Feb 2013 #85
Gormy Cuss Feb 2013 #90
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #71
me b zola Feb 2013 #76
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #87
me b zola Feb 2013 #89
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #91
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #14
Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #15
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #16
yellowcanine Feb 2013 #61
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #83
greytdemocrat Feb 2013 #19
yellowcanine Feb 2013 #60
hatrack Feb 2013 #24
Wraith20878 Feb 2013 #26
JaneFordA Feb 2013 #29
Coyotl Feb 2013 #30
bvar22 Feb 2013 #40
cali Feb 2013 #45
bvar22 Feb 2013 #62
ananda Feb 2013 #31
WI_DEM Feb 2013 #36
riverwalker Feb 2013 #37
Myrina Feb 2013 #41
cali Feb 2013 #47
Chiyo-chichi Feb 2013 #52
Myrina Feb 2013 #54
Arugula Latte Feb 2013 #44
Lint Head Feb 2013 #56
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #57
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #82
yellowcanine Feb 2013 #59
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #67
flamingdem Feb 2013 #69
Hekate Feb 2013 #72
benld74 Feb 2013 #77
Hekate Feb 2013 #84
smirkymonkey Feb 2013 #94
TorchTheWitch Feb 2013 #100
Raine Feb 2013 #105
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #106
Skittles Feb 2013 #107

Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:14 AM

1. Thanks for the Post

RIP, Richard Plantaganet, former King of England

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:16 AM

2. It would have been interesting to know what put them on to the possibility it was Richard III.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:28 AM

3. Simple

This was parked in the garage.

Hasn't moved in years...

The custom license plate read: "Dicky III"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:12 AM

28. Haha. Good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:28 AM

4. They knew the approximate location

The lot they excavated him from was built over the church he was known to have been buried at.

Also, once they found the complete skeleton, it had some features that were associated with Richard, particularly the spinal problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:33 AM

7. both the injury to the skull and certain skeletal anomalies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:12 AM

10. The vicinity of Bosworth Field

The battle where he was killed - that could have been at least part of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:05 AM

18. He didn't have shit all over him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:31 AM

34. Win :) n/t

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:09 PM

55. He did get reincarnated as Magneto, though...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #55)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:12 PM

80. And he was sittin' on top of the world... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:29 AM

5. Interesting

He was the only monarch not officially buried somewhere.

More facts about the DNA test would be interesting. 500 years later, the DNA would have very little in common. Was it mitochondrial DNA? That might identify all descendants of certain mothers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:46 AM

9. sounds like it to me

"And DNA from the skeleton matches a sample taken from a distant living relative of Richard's sister."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:19 AM

11. It was mitochondrial.

<snip>

The team's genetic analysis reinforced the link to Richard III: DNA was extracted from bone samples and compared with modern-day mitochondrial DNA from two descendants of Richard III's family, including an anonymous donor as well as Michael Ibsen, a Canadian-born cabinetmaker who is a 17th-generation descendant of Richard III's eldest sister, Anne of York.

"The DNA evidence points to these being the remains of Richard III," said Turi King, a geneticist at the University of Leicester. She said additional DNA tests were still in progress.

Genetic matches based on mitochondrial DNA aren't as clear-cut as, say, a paternity test — but a mismatch would have ruled out any family connection. Similar techniques were used to identify the remains of Czar Nicholas II and other members of Russia's royal family, who were killed in 1918 during the Russian Revolution.

<snip>

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16832540-verdict-issued-on-skeleton-found-under-parking-lot-its-king-richard-iii?lite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:11 AM

21. thanks for that link

A Canadian cabinet maker is a descendant of Anne of York. Kind of neat to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:31 AM

35. (link from University of Leicester) They traced an all-female line of descent from his sister.

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/genealogy.html

"In 2003, as part of a project to identify the possible remains of Margaret of York (sister of Richard III and Edward IV), John Ashdown-Hill traced an all-female line of descent from another sister, Anne Neville, to a retired journalist in Canada, Mrs Joy Ibsen (née Brown). Mrs Ibsen passed away in 2008 but her son Michael Ibsen, now living in London, very kindly provided a DNA sample as comparison for the Greyfriars project.

"With respect to Dr Ashdown-Hill, in order for the University of Leicester to use Mr Ibsen’s DNA as a benchmark, we had to be absolutely sure that the all-female line of descent from Cecily Neville to Mr Ibsen was rock-solid. This task fell to Professor Kevin Schürer, the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and Enterprise."

-snip-

"In the course of his research, Professor Schürer identified a second all-female line of descent from Cecily Neville to a living person, again with solid documentary evidence for every step of the way. This individual (who, like Mr Ibsen, had no idea of their royal ancestry) wishes to remain anonymous but has also kindly provided a DNA sample for analysis by Dr Turi King.

"Crucially, this second person’s mitochondrial DNA matches Mr Ibsen’s, confirming that they share a common female ancestor many generations back and therefore the genealogy connecting both people to Cecily Neville (and hence Richard III) is accurate."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:32 AM

6. An interesting figure

I first became interested in Richard III when I was 12 and read Josephine Tey's wonderful "Daughter of Time". I highly recommend it.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daughter_of_Time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:43 AM

25. loved that book! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:00 PM

53. +100

I learned to never trust historians with an ax to grind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:40 AM

8. A Horse A Horse, My Burial Place For A Horse!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:44 PM

95. I prefer "...my kingdom...for a parkinglot?!!"

Best shakespeare (dramatic) play ever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:44 AM

12. the body displayed 10 wounds, 8 of them in the skull

the body displayed 10 wounds, 8 of them in the skull and some likely to have caused death, possibly by a blow from a halberd, a kind medieval weapon with an ex-like head on a long pole. Other wounds seem to have been inflicted after his death to humiliate the monarch after his armor was stripped and he was paraded naked over the back of a horse, the researchers said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/richard-the-third-bones.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=2&

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:20 AM

39. Damn, what a horrible way to die

and to be displayed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hayabusa (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:57 AM

42. a pelvic wound likely caused by

a pelvic wound likely caused by an upward thrust of a weapon, through the buttock.


LOW BLOW to say the least.





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2273164/Richard-III-Scientists-reveal-DNA-results-confirm-kings-body-car-park-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:26 AM

50. I hope that was post-death mutilation...

Which it seems to be, according to the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hayabusa (Reply #50)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:16 PM

99. My guess is that the body was impaled for display. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hayabusa (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:03 PM

75. Common enough in those days, and as for the display...

... think of Dubya and the sons of Saddam Hussein...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #75)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:10 PM

78. True, and according to some sources

he came that close to killing the traitor before he was cut down.

As for the Hussein boys, I remember that. It certainly was disgusting. I was surprised when Dubya didn't broadcast the hanging of Saddam on all channels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:56 AM

13. My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great..

...-great-great-maternal-grandfather.

A large number of Americans can say the same, but I'm probably a little closer genetically owing to the fact that my mother is English.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:01 AM

17. Really? He didn't have any legitimate descendants

Are you descended from a mistress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:10 AM

20. Huh? Of course he did. Edward, The Prince of Wales

And a couple of illegitimate children...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:18 AM

22. Edward died

at age 10. He had two illegitimate offspring: Katherine Plantagenet about who very little is known and John of Gloucester who had no known issue.

It's highly unlikely that you are a direct descendent of Richard III. Family myths have a way of becoming firmly entrenched.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:23 AM

32. Nothing is certain, of course, but...

considering what I noted below (post #27), and coupled with assertions from elderly family members, I see no reason to doubt it.
In addition,there is actually no credible source of John of Gloucester's death. The single surviving reference is dated a century after the said incident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:19 AM

23. Edward, Prince of Wales died before he did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:12 AM

27. Thankfully, the Tudor's revisionism was not complete, and their attempt to wipe off the whole line..

was unsuccessful.

Two possible surviving lines:
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=phawkins&id=I1110
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Plantagenet_%28Richard_of_Eastwell%29

And it should be noted, there are sources which claim that Richard III had seven children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:28 AM

33. 'Family legend' for one, and the man who was called "the last Plantagenet"

by the man who claimed he was Richard's son, ie he had no known descendants. Yes, he's credited by some with 7, but if only 3 names are known, they can't be the ancestors that you know about.

So I presume it's that 'family legend' about John of Gloucester you're relying on. How detailed is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:00 AM

43. Should I be concerned

at how hard you're trying to disprove my claim, Muriel?

I actually feel a little slighted, to be frank. But since this is a public message board, then I can't really complaint.
But I hope you'll forgive me if I am less than inclined to discuss this with you further.
Fyi, even the amazing Jane Asher claimed lineage to Richard III.

ps: Richard of Eastwell was never called "the last Plantagenet", and we have no knowledge of his descendants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:30 AM

51. Richard of Eastwell was called "the last Plantagenet" in the Richard III Society link I gave you

It's the only story that links him to Richard III.

Richard Plantagenet was a bricklayer or stonemason, employed by Walter's son, Sir Thomas, on the rebuilding of Eastwell Manor. Mee states: "… Sir Thomas Moyle, building his great house here, was much struck by a white-bearded man his mates called Richard. There was a mystery about him. In the rest hour, whilst the others talked and threw dice, this old man would go apart and read a book. There were very few working men who could read in 1545, and Sir Thomas on this fine morning did not rest till he had won the confidence of the man …" It is said the book Richard was reading was in Latin, which was a language reserved for the highborn. The mason told Sir Thomas he was brought up by a schoolmaster. "From time to time, a gentleman came who paid for his food and school, and asked many questions to discover if he were well cared for," wrote Mee. Richard went on to describe being taken to Bosworth Field and meeting his father for the first time. The king said: "I am your father, and if I prevail in tomorrow's battle, I will provide for you as befits your blood. But it may be that I shall be defeated, killed, and that I shall not see you again … Tell no one who you are unless I am victorious." When the battle was lost, Richard Plantagenet chose a simple trade in which to lose his identity and had thus come to work at Eastwell Manor. According to Mee: "Sir Thomas Moyle, listening to this wonderful story, determined that the last Plantagenet should not want in his old age. He had a little house built for him in the Park (which is still standing) and instructed his steward to provide for it every day."

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/richardofeastwell.html


Don't feel slighted; it's just that family legends, that have survived hundreds of years, tend to be unreliable. All it takes is for someone to decide to tell a tall story, and for a descendant to accept it as true, and the family legend is there. We had a 'family legend' that there was a Doge of Venice in our ancestry. Then a vital link was shown, by research done by the National Library of Scotland (to look into the background of a brother, who produced the first decent maps of Scotland), to be just the son of a minor Scottish landowner, with wills and descriptions of the sale of land, and not the grandson of a Doge. It takes more than a similar sounding surname to confirm a link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:37 AM

101. You never can tell

We are dealing with history that was only committed to parchment years after the fact by victors who were not above lying. Henry Tudor was willing to do just about anything to secure his crown, including marrying Edward IV's daughter and probably killing his sons (The Princes in the Tower). Erasing the mention of a few heirs of Richard III from the official sources would have been just a morning's exercise for him. It's also believable that Henry VIII would have continued the tradition, especially while his line was insecure before the birth of his son.

A few years ago, I learned that I am descended from the Plantagenet house through Joan of Acre. My ancestors' nobility took its first hit with the death of Richard III, and they totally fell from grace with the Wars of the Roses. However, as way leads onto way in history, those events eventually put them in a position to become some of the first colonists of America.

If you are doing research into this, Fleetwood, I encourage you to continue. You should consider gathering together the evidence and putting it out on e-book format as well to benefit "armchair historians" like me. You never know what you may find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoDog (Reply #101)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:11 AM

104. I wish I could...

cousin (see what I did there), but sadly, I lack the time, and more importantly, the expertise to conduct a proper research on the subject. But it is a great idea, and something I would ponder on. Who knows, perhaps there is a genealogist out there who would be interested to follow up with this.

That aside, I believe your take on the Tudors are not far from the truth. Already we see several new point of views emerging. An article I read recently even went as far as calling Richard III as one of the best English kings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:12 AM

38. Children are never illegitimate

Some are born out of wedlock, but they are all legitimate human beings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #38)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:07 AM

46. Was there a claim made that they weren't "legitimate human beings"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #46)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:12 AM

48. If you want to defend your calling a child illegitimate

...then whatever. I corrected you and you look rather silly trying to defend your statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:24 AM

49. Once again, was there a claim made that they weren't "legitimate human beings"?

And for the record, you want to correct my usage of a word that has been part of the English language for the last 600 years?

And you call me silly?

Try here, here, and here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #49)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:06 PM

63. Well, I am being kind

There are a host of other slurs that are no longer acceptable in polite company. I imagine that if you tried really really hard you may be able to think of a few all by yourself.

One of the fathers of hip-hop agrees with me. Him and about a million others like myself:


"...I'm legit, I'm legit
not illegitimate
this rhyme ima spit until I get
my original birth certificate
so give it up..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #63)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:22 PM

93. No, you're not

You knew very well the context in which the word was used, but you deliberately chose to ignore it, and went on an incredibly weird trip in an effort to prove something.
I imagine if you tried really, really hard, you may be actually able to see this by yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #93)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:01 PM

97. ah yes, the context

...well that makes everything bubbly and rainbowy and stuff.

I made my point. You can choose to ignore it, thats your prerogative. Adios.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:14 PM

81. You're the only one fabricating an interpretation out of whole cloth to get offended by here. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #81)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:25 PM

86. Uh-huh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #46)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:36 PM

88. do you call children not born of a marriage "illegitimate" now?

that's my main question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #88)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:22 PM

92. Why do you ask?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #92)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:20 PM

96. in reference to not being legitimate heir to the throne, I can understand

but if you refer or call children or babies born now "Illegitimate", there's something wrong with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #96)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:15 PM

98. So, you parachuted in on the discussion just to make a moral judgement on me...

... based on your own personal opinion?

You know, I could answer your question, but I don't really feel the need to subject myself to your moral evaluation.

That aside, is there something wrong as well with the millions others who used the term today?

The fact is, society requires a linguistic method to define children born outside the convention of marriage, primarily for legal reasons. No doubt the term is also used pejoratively by some and has accumulated a measure of social stigmatization, but the word itself, and its original use, originates from a legal perspective on inherited statuses.

If society, collectively, decide that the pejorative connotations have outweighed the logical and intended definition of the word, then it will gradually introduce a replacement to convey the legal distinction. And it certainly will not be "out of wedlock", as someone else suggested earlier.

Heck, even "bastard", at one time, was an acceptable term. There were even laws named using the term. But once the term was hijacked by religious fundamentalists, society eventually pushed it to the fringe.

But I don't have to tell you this, CreekDog. I've read some of your earlier posts. You're a smart cookie - you already know this.

Thus the reason for my original question: why do you ask?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #98)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:20 PM

102. if you call a child born in these days outside of marriage "illegitimate", I can call you anything

because you just called that child "illegitimate".

as I said, historically in terms of calling a child the legitimate heir to the throne, i can understand.

but to call children born today, not far from half those born today, as "illegitimate" is antiquated, disrespectful and obtusely inaccurate on your part.

so the only reason left to use the term is that you like the term more than you like the children you are applying it to.

why? because there is no legal definition of children as "illegitimate" these days. they aren't denied anything by the state based on the marriage or lack thereof by their parents.

and that YOU are offended that i would criticize you for demanding to be able to call children in this age by that term?

get over yourself. you just labeled tens of millions with that crappy term and you can't take a little criticism for it?

you aren't fit to discuss politics if you can't take a criticism 10 times milder than terms you use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #102)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:58 AM

103. So basically, you just ignore all the facts, the documented legal use, historical precedents...

... current standard of journalism, societal convention, and proceed to make an assumption, write a rambling post, and then call me names and insult me?

Are you serious here?

Which part of this is a discussion exactly, considering you haven't actually addressed any of the points I raised, and are only interesting in insulting me?

lol. I thought this only exist Yahoo comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #38)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:34 PM

58. There's nothing wrong with using the word in a historical discussion.

The term 'illegitimate' may not be used much today when talking about children, but in a historical context it's not an understatement to say that entire wars have been fought over the legitimacy of a child's birth. It's a historical term referencing a childs legal ability to inherit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #58)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:12 PM

64. Ah, as long as its "historical", right?

Would you accept racial or ethnic slurs as long as we were speaking about historical figures?

Children may be born out of wedlock, but they are never illegitimate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #64)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:16 PM

65. It's a legal term

and appropriate when discussing the recorded descendants of a king, because those from the marriage had legal right to inherit property or the crown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #65)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:24 PM

66. Kind of like "illegal alien"?

Referring to human beings as illegitimate is disgusting and each one of us has the power over the words that we choose to use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #66)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:37 PM

68. It's easy to avoid calling human beings illegitimate.

The word 'bastard' conveys the same meaning.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #68)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:44 PM

70. Indeed! Choose your slur!

But like other groups that have long suffered discrimination and hatred, we have come to embrace some terms...on our own terms.

http://www.bastards.org/

But you know, like other minority groups, when a non member calls us by this we know they are just vile hateful people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #70)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:50 PM

73. Frankly, it pisses me off more when one of us thinks "out of wedlock" is a worthy alternative

to the term "illegitimate."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #73)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:57 PM

74. Perhaps a therapist could help you with your anger

Anger is usually the underlying issue with such hatred. Are there other groups of people that you hold in such disdain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #74)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:12 PM

79. You mean other categories of people that I also belong to?

When I was a child, being called illegitimate never stung. Being called bastard, yes. Having someone describe it with the clinical "born out of wedlock" most certainly did. However, as an adult I realize that both "illegitimate" and "born out of wedlock" were also descriptions of legal status. Taking all the labels off me didn't change that. I was naturally the child of my mother but had no legal father until and unless one or both of my parents made the declaration in a way recognized under law.

BTW, your link is to an adult adoption rights site. Adoptees are a minor subset of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #79)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:23 PM

85. I am well aware that Bastard Nation is an adoptee rights organization

And wow. It really appeared that you were just doing your damnedest to be insulting. I don't know what else to say to you, except best of luck to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #85)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:49 PM

90. Then why did you link to it when the topic wasn't adoptees?

The topic was ways of referring to people whose parents weren't married when they were born. The word 'bastard' is the succinct word in English for it, but it's gone out of favor in this narrow context, even while it's still popular as an insult.

You don't like "illegitimate children" but used "born out of wedlock," as if that's somehow an improvement. Frankly, I'd rather be called a bastard than a person who was "born out of wedlock. You of course can choose differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #66)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:47 PM

71. The earliest recorded use in English is to refer to Elizabeth I

during Henry VIII's reign: "Elysabeth the kynges doughter illegyttimate borne vnder the same mariage" in a 1536 Act. That's the first meaning of the word; not 'an illegal human being', but one who doesn't get legal rights of inheritance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #71)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:03 PM

76. Again, there were other slurs acceptable at the time

...that are now understood to be demeaning. I guess with overt racism & homophobia no longer being acceptable there needs to be some group of people that can be publicly ridiculed and flogged for the amusement of the majority. Looks like a few of you are digging in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #76)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:26 PM

87. This is not about you

No-one is trying to "ridicule" or "flog for amusement" anyone, living or dead. It is a legal term, that was used, at the times when it was relevant in law, about which children had legal rights over their father's property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #87)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:39 PM

89. 3/5's of a person was also a legal term

We have the power over the words we choose to use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #89)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:49 PM

91. No, "three fifths of a person" wasn't actually a legal term

You're referring to

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html


in which 'three fifths' refers to a number. But it's worth remembering that calling someone from that time a 'slave' is not disrespectful to them, or anyone living now; it's an accurate term of their legal status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:56 AM

14. Found beneath a parking lot?

He probably lost his car and died searching for it. I have nightmares like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:57 AM

15. Next to Jimmy Hoffa? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:59 AM

16. Rich III was probably not found in the trunk of a car.

I'm guessing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:01 PM

61. Or underneath the end zone at Meadowlands Stadium.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:16 PM

83. Beneath one; close enough. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:10 AM

19. Indeed!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:59 PM

60. Or the victim of a 15th century mafia run construction company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:38 AM

24. Was there a horse skeleton nearby? No, wait, I guess not . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:59 AM

26. A Hearse!

A Hearse! My kingdom for a Hearse!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:14 AM

29. I'm really annoyed at Oliver Cromwell. ;-)

During the English Civil Wars, Cromwell's troops supposedly un-buried Richard, turned his skeleton into powder and used the stone coffin as a watering trough for the horses. According to legend, Cromwell encouraged them to do so because he wanted everyone to know that there was nothing special about monarchs--alive or dead (as though executing Charles First didn't make the point).

Just goes to show ya, Oliver, if ya wanted the job done right, you should have sledge-hammered that skeleton yourself!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:21 AM

30. Richard was the last English king to die in battle.

http://www.britroyals.com/plantagenet.asp?id=richard3

1483 "Richard III declares himself King after confining and possibly ordering the murder of his two nephews, Edward V and Richard Duke of York, in the Tower of London ..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #30)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:23 AM

40. ...a fitting end to all Kings, that should be extended...

...to all politicians who are advocates of a strong military
and Global Projection of Military Strength.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:03 AM

45. spoken by someone who clearly views all history through a simple lens

I suspect you have no interest whatsoever in history beyond how it can be used to further your political agenda. Personally, I think that's a sad and impoverished view of history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #45)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:36 PM

62. Still having trouble connecting the dots, dear?

Then, as now, wars are fought to enrich the 1%.
At least in Richard's day, they had the dignity and courage to die in battle.
Our leaders today sit in the safety of their throne rooms and direct the deaths of the truly "sad and impoverished".



AND
Shhh...I don't want to shock you, dear, so I am whispering.
This IS a "POLITICAL Discussion Board",
and this IS posted in General Discussion.
Drawing Political Parallels IS expected.


If you want to discuss "Pure History",
I would suggest a Pure History Discussion Board.
If you need additional help,
I can direct you to one.

You are correct in one sense.
My first impulse was NOT Pure History, but Shakespeare.
I initially decided against that because I felt that was too pompous,
but since you have set THAT bar, I will post one of my favorites now:

"Dispute not with her, for she is lunatic." Shakespeare, Richard III

Poor Richard.
He was such a sad and impoverished monarch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:21 AM

31. That is so kewl!

..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:34 AM

36. that was interesting, thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:04 AM

37. since the carpenter didn't know he was related to Richard

a geneaologist had to do some cool detective work to find him. I love these stories!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:23 AM

41. I have a really dumb question, pardon me:

Would this have been the dude that was the spiteful gimpy son of the dude who was the adviser to Queen ... whoever Vandessa Redgrave played .... in the movie "Anonymous"?

(yeah, I know that was some serious word salad, and I apologize but I don't have any kind of grip on English history & would like to get one.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #41)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:10 AM

47. No. This was Richard III. He was born in 1452. Was King for 2 years before

being killed in a battle at Bosworth field, marking the end of the War of Roses. He is the subject of Shakespeare's play entitled Richard III, which paints him as villainous and the murderer of his two young nephews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #41)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:32 AM

52. That was Robert Cecil in Anonymous.

Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)

William Cecil, Lord Burghley was his father and Queen Elizabeth's chief advisor.

The younger Cecil, who is coming into power as his father and the queen approach the end of their lives, is portrayed as a hunchbacked villain in Anonymous.

The film suggested that Richard III was staged in advance of the Essex Rebellion in order to make the general populace turn against Cecil, who wanted James on the throne.

So... the film did want you to associate Robert Cecil with Richard III.

A lot of that is not historically accurate, though. It was Richard II that was staged in conjunction with the Essex Rebellion, not Richard III. Richard II was scandalous because it depicted the deposition of an English monarch. And we don't know that Cecil was hunchbacked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chiyo-chichi (Reply #52)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:02 PM

54. Thanks !

I appreciate the explanation!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:01 AM

44. Yeah!!



I've been following this story. I'm glad it is indeed him. How amazing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:30 PM

56. Too bad he didn't have a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:31 PM

57. Well, since he was not an ordinary citizen it would be ok for him to have one

Government people are trusted, the people are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:15 PM

82. There's practicality problems with cannons as personal defense weapons, alas. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:57 PM

59. Putting a parking lot over him seems kind of harsh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #59)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:24 PM

67. Obviously they didn't know he was there.

The church was torn down hundreds of years before the parking lot was built. The location of his grave was lost. Only the discovery of an old map showing the location of the church gave them a clue as to the location of his grave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:41 PM

69. When they dug 'im up Richard said

bloody'ell I been parked upon!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:49 PM

72. Fascinating!

Thanks for the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:08 PM

77. Wonder what the cost of his exit ticket from the garge will be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:18 PM

84. Looking at the short vid of the skeleton in situ

Here

I noticed two things immediately -- the incredible curvature of the spine, and the absolutely excellent teeth. This is someone who may have had really bad untreated scoliosis, but he had a great diet for his time, and I would expect his bone density to show that -- and apparently it did.

It is true that "history" is written by the victors, and as the novelist Terry Pratchett demonstrated brilliantly in Wyrd Sisters, a dramatic play can indelibly imprint a version of history on peoples' minds for centuries to come.

Rest in peace, King Richard. I think your reputation is about to be restored somewhat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:44 PM

94. Fascinating!

I love English History, I can never get enough of this information. Thank you for your post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:47 AM

100. Cool! I was waiting on this news

I figured it had to be him because of the spine of the skeleton being crooked the same way that Richard's was reported to be and the type of wounds were also what was noted to be the manner of his death. When they did the facial reconstruction of the skull it was amazing how much it looked like his portraits. I've been anxiously awaiting the DNA results for a definite though.

I just love this kind of stuff. All those centuries of his body's whereabouts being unknown and suddenly it's found.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:08 AM

105. So interesting. Years ago I belonged to the Richard III Society because I love history

so much. I belonged for years but didn't renew because there was so much fueding amongst the membership as they fought for control and leadership. This has renewed my interest though and I think I'm going to join again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raine (Reply #105)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:21 AM

106. "fueding amongst the membership as they fought for control and leadership."

that's funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:09 AM

107. as a child in England I imagined he was cute

hoo boy was I right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread