Plus armour was custom-made for each person to ensure the best fit possible. HAving your king tuggiing at ill-fitting armour doesn’t do the morale of his troops any good. Any craftsman worth his salt would be able to make armour to fit any-one regardless of age or disability.

While common soldiers would have grabbed what was the best fit, a nobleman’s armour was a staus symbol as well as a piece of protective clothing.

DuchessofBrittany said

Regardless, the facial reconstruction is wonderfully done. Richard was certainly an attractive man, although his portraits do not always reflect this. This entire event has made me more interested in this era, and now I need to search for some books on Richard III, etc.

You have to remember none of the existing portraits were painted in his lifetime, but during the reign of Henry VII. They made a point of making him look mean – narrowed eyes, pursed lips etc, because for Henry’s usurpation of the throne to have any validity it was important to portray the man he dethroned as an utter villain. Given that there is a resemblance with what we now know Richard looked like I would hazard a guess that extant portraits were based on one painted from life, but ‘doctored’ to give him a meaner face.

I actually saw a program about this a few weeks ago. Apparently a lot of common foot soldiers wore a kind of padded jacket made of layers of linen, called a gambeson. They tested one out – they put one on a pig carcass and fired an arrow at it, and the gambeson – much to everyone’s surprise – actually stopped the arrow. It wouldn’t stop an axe or a sword blade, but it definitely offered some protection at least.

DuchessofBrittany said

It seems the Richard III Saga continues…. I am not too sure of the accuracy of the posted link; it’s from the Daily Fail afterall….

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..IGHTS.html

Thank you for sharing this with us Duchess. Hope you are ok by the way, your’ve been fairly quiet of late.
It’s certainly a very interesting article, and to be honest the relatives have got a point. As Richard’s kith and kin they should be given the right to say where they wish his remains to be buried. I feel that the bloody silly woman who was flouncing about like a tit in an trance in the programme that revealed the truth, seemed to think that as she was in charge of everything including Richard’s remains. What she fails or seems to fail to understand that without the relatives she wouldn’t have been able to prove that she had found Richard in the first place.
Personally I feel thar Richard should be buried alongside his wife in Wesminster Abbey. Although I do strongly feel that Richard’s kith and Kin should be given their rights to bury Richard where they see fit. Maybe the only solution to it all is 1. Bury his remains in York Minster and 2. put a memorial plaque in Leicester Catherdral. mentioning that King Richard 3rd died at Bosworth and his remains were found Blah Blah and that his remains were reinterred in York Minster.

All this tosh about ‘relatives’. As we all have 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great great grandparents etc etc for 500 years, we are all probably Richard’s ‘kith and kin’ when it comes down to it. There is no obligation to consult ‘relatives’ about the burial or reburial of a person more than 100 years old, so there was no need to trace these ‘relatives’ and ask their opinion.

Where were all these concerned relatives when Richard’s body was lost for all those years? Where were the campaigns they led to have the area researched? Where was the money they contributed to the search for Richard III? No where and nothing is the answer. Now he has been found, they want to jump on the bandwagon. They have set up a limited company – note that it is not a ‘not-for-profit’ company, but an ordinary corporation. They are asking for donations but I wonder how much the directors will be paid for their ‘work’.

There is absolutely no evidence that Richard wish to be buried in York. He set up chantry chapels there, but he also did that in other places. His wife is in Westminster Abbey and the burial of his son has been lost. If he had had a normal length reign, he would probably have been buried in Westminster with his wife, or in St George’s, Windsor – the church his brother built and where Edward IV was buried.

Typical! Even when you’ve been dead for over five-hundred years, your family still end up arguing over your funeral arrangements.

Jasmine said

Someone earlier mentioned ‘…the woman ….flouncing about like a tit in a trance…..’

Without her, Richard would not have been found. She singlehandedly talked often reluctant people from the various authorities into carrying out the excavation in the first place. It took her around 2 years to get all the approvals and sponsors. When one of the sponsors pulled out at the last minute, she personally raised the required sum of money to allow the dig to go head. I think that gives her more ‘rights’ than a group of people who waited until all the work had been done and then jumped in with their opinions on what should happen.

I went to a talk given by Philippa Langley, the woman behind the search for Richard III. She said that the TV company took over 60 hours of film, yet managed to edit it so that it looked as if she spent the entire time in an emotionally wrecked state. I guess that was the film company’s idea of a ‘human interest’ slant.

It was me that said that Jasmine.. I will give her a lot of credit for what she has done. But I just felt that she was being so big headed it about it all. playing the big I am etc. So perhaps my usage of the words “flouncing about like a tit in a trance” wasn’t really very fair on her, but her attitude just seem to get right up my bugle for some reason.. There is no doubt that finding Richard is the biggest find since the Princes as I’ve already mentioned in a previous post however.

Boleyn said

It was me that said that Jasmine.. I will give her a lot of credit for what she has done. But I just felt that she was being so big headed it about it all. playing the big I am etc. So perhaps my usage of the words “flouncing about like a tit in a trance” wasn’t really very fair on her, but her attitude just seem to get right up my bugle for some reason.. There is no doubt that finding Richard is the biggest find since the Princes as I’ve already mentioned in a previous post however.

As I said, a lot of the way she came across in the Channel 4 film was due to the editing of the 60 hours of film. She was emotional at times, but given the fact that she had been striving to get the excavation underway for so long, and it took a lot of persuasion and effort, it is understandable.

One of the interesting things she said about the editing was concerned with the bit where Dr Appleby said ‘…he’s a hunchback….’ and the film cut to Philippa saying ‘…no…no…’ she in fact said, ‘No, no, it can’t be because……..’ and of course they didn’t show her argument about the mistaken identification of scoliosis as a hunchback – better TV, I guess. But the overall impression was of a crazy woman unwilling to accept something.

You’ll be pleased to know that when I saw her, she was completely rational, witty and not emotional, but still very enthusiastic about the tremendous find that had been made, and very keen to see that Richard got an honourable reburial.

Jasmine said

By the way, we don’t know if the princes have been found yet – the bones in the urn have not been properly investigated.

Again this is true Jasmine, perhaps once the dust has settled a little the powers that be may just decide to do a test on the bones that were found and were believed to be the Princes. Even if the powers that be carry out this test all it will prove is that they have been found, it won’t prove who killed them and why.

I’d have thought that Queen Elizabeth should have a say in where he’s buried.