Today we were in Leicester. We've been there several times, but not made it to the exhibition about Richard III before. As some of you may know his remains were lost for hundreds of years after he was killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field. They were found in 2012 under a carpark in Leicester city centre that was the site of an old church. The archaeologists were able to be pretty certain it was him by comparing DNA to people with common ancestors and from the fact that his spine was twisted as had often been mentioned in historical descriptions. He wasn't the hunchback that was sometimes portrayed and he was able to fight in battle.
There's an group of people who have tried to get his reputation restored as he has been portrayed as one of history's villains. I can understand people want to get these things right, but I wonder why there is such loyalty to someone who died over 500 years ago.
The exhibit tells the story of what happened to Richard and how his remains came to be found. It doesn't have too much in the way of artefacts. It's basically a lot of reading, but there are videos and various replica weapons. They also have a 3d printed model of his skeleton and a model recreating what he may have actually looked like as there are not many portraits from his lifetime.
You can see the actual site of his grave. It's under thick glass and you cannot walk over the grave itself as that may be considered disrespectful.
His current tomb is in the neighbouring cathedral. We didn't get to see that as there was a service going on, but we're likely to be back again some time.
I can't say I'd rate the exhibition as an essential unless you are really into the history. It's about £9 for an adult to get in. You can read most of the information online and in history books. I think you can visit the new tomb for free.
This stone is in the exhibition.
We've also been the battle site a few years ago. There's not too much to see, but we had an interesting guided tour. It seems a lot is still uncertain about exactly what happened and exactly where he died. History tends to be written by the victors and they will adjust it to fit their purposes. Shakespeare wrote his play about the king to suit Queen Elizabeth who was descended from Henry VII who defeated Richard to claim the throne.
I'm no royalist and it seems ridiculous to me that countries were rules based on what family the ruler happened to be born into and who else they could get out of the way. It was definitely a cutthroat business back then. That doesn't mean I can't be interested in the history. That's already happened and we can learn from it.
Steem on!
I'll buy guitar picks for Steem Dollars
Get a Wirex Debit Card to spend your crypto.
Get some passive income with Mannabase
If this post is over seven days old you can vote up one of my newer posts to reward me.
Spam comments may be flagged. Beware of the Commentphant!
Looking at the title I thought you were going to write about Nixon, but this is quite a bit more interesting.
Those events happened centuries later, of course, but I was just reading about 1066 and idly pondering what would have happened if Harald and William hadn't, um, happened.
British history is largely about the conflicts between various 'nobility' and it's similar in most other countries. Democracy is not perfect either, but at least there's some chance for the people to have some say. I think it's dangerous for any individual to have too much power without control.
One sometimes wonders if things have really changed, or if it's just the means that are different.
Anyway: all these clashes, conflicts. slaying of kings, and getting to one country from a handful of kingdoms of Celts, Romans, Saxons, Danes, etc. makes for an interesting read, and it is also far less annoying than reading about modern-day politics and lobbying.
There are still family dynasties and behind the scenes intrigue. It's perhaps not so different.
Many villains have their fans. Just look at Ronnie Biggs, that was until he came back to the UK and wanted free medical care courtesy of the NHS. Then he wasn't so welcome anymore. People can change on a whim.
Is there a yellow Smarty in his tomb?
I assume that's some kind of marker. I think it's around where his head was, but he was squashed in there and his feet were missing. That may have been due to previous building work.
Don't know much about Richard III, and not at all that he is considered a villain. Your post made me curious and I think I'm going to put The Daughter of Time at the top of my list, as it had been suggested by @shanibeer. The reviews are great and I like historical fiction so I don't think I am going to be disappointed. Looks like it's the nice find of the week!
Nice, I was only in Rochester to see the thumb of RichardII. I need to update my history lessons, to see how many Richards were :D
Nine pounds seems a bit steep for what you've described @steevc. But I do find it amazing that they were able to identify Richard III remains from 1485!
If I remember rightly it was something to do with the female line and it was a really slim chance that whatever it was would happen.
That's not very helpful is it? I'll have to Google it to remind myself what I'm talking about! 😂
Richard didn't have any children, so they had to trace descendants of his sister. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down the female line and apparently doesn't mutate too much. Leicester University did the research
Ah yes. That must have been it @steevc. I think it meant that every generation had to have had a female child in it and the odds against that were extremely high! 😁
The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey is a fictional detective story about what happened. I read it years ago and it was recently on Radio 4. It was very good - as a story and about the historical evidence. I'm not sure why people are so fanatical about him but he has had a bit of a bad press.
It's good that you can visit that place completely free. I have never been to England but that is my dream to go and when I am there I will pass through that place, thanks to you for giving me this information and so I will be a little more about the stories of the world of great people.
Besides museums there's not much free in the UK anymore. Like everywhere else, they want your money if you are to see the sights.
The exhibition is not free, as I said. Churches don't charge entry, but some may to see certain parts. I think you have to pay to see Shakespeare's grave in Stratford.
Very cool! I wrote a paper about the Wars of the Roses when I was in grade school. I have always been fascinated by this time period. The market and battlefield is on my bucket list of places to visit someday. I have heard from others like you said, that there isn't much to see there, but I have personal reasons for wanting to visit since I share the surname.
I love that once in while you make post full of historical relevance. Maybe it's the history buff in me................
I think some people want to blame the ancestors and some don't care that much. By extension it would be safe to assume that historical characters my also garner enough respect in the present day so that people might want to see their name in good context. I find this fascinating since these groups are usually small and most of the time hold the opinion of minority.
They usually compare their DNA with their spine to see if it has a similarity with a descending one. There is no doubt that it is Richard for everything you are commenting on in your publication. Greetings and good post
The science is probably more interesting than the history!
I think they took DNA from his teeth as that is preserved better. I trust the scientists to check the facts.