She did not dig out the Skeleton. It was generally supposed he was under the car park, not exclusively the Society. So why do you say she alone found him?
She didn't find him. He was known to be there for decades long before this society was formed. For Christ's sake it is recorded in your records. You have those preserved ancient Calendar Hours you have the detailed confessional of Sir Rhys ap Thomas, monks whom were visiting England around this time reported all over about it etc etc These people cannot handle the fact that Richard was a bloody tyrant taking noble children hostage to secure loyalty his ascension was surrounded by murders, false imprisonments, much controversy. Ricardians also seem to hide the fact that his nephews bones were found in the same part of the Tower in which they were last seen. They don't like that one at all.
@@Ionabrodie69I believe she was the only one who cared as much to do so, you may be right there she was the great organizer and fundraiser a unifier of the task at hand. However she did not "find him" she is not archeologist she didn't work on the excavation and she like so many had prior knowledge of where he lie because it was chronicled multiple times throughout your history. They knew where he was for decades, they just left him to rot.
What an impressive person. Philippa is extraordinary. Quietly heroic. I'm so glad for her that Steve Coogan has helped correct a great wrong in "The Lost King". Wonderful film with such heart, that rightly puts her where she should always have been - front and centre of this extraordinary historical achievement. Shame on the very little men of Leicester University's management who gracelessly shoved her aside - It was obvious what they'd done at the press conference, where the University took all the credit for the find.
And there were 2 Women among the Scientists so for her to claim she was treated as she claims because she was a female is to Denigrate the Scientific Skill of 2 Women.
Wonderful conference! Unlike the self-congratulating academics at the University of Leicester, Ms. Carson and Ms. Langley are eager to share due credit with anyone who contributed, even in small ways, to finding the lost king. It was definitely a team effort, but one that couldn't have succeeded without Philippa Langley as its driving force. If this woman had been given a pick axe, a bucket, a brush and permission to dig, she would have unearthed Richard's remains on her own, and she wouldn't have bashed a hole in his skull in the process. Brava, Phillipa!
I lived through the story as it unfolded and was in Leicester for the wondrous reburial week. The film provides a fairly accurate summary of what occurred. Thank you Philippa for your persistence in the face of so many obstacles.
The documentary that followed Philippa and the project really did her dirty. She’s very well spoken and gracious, but somehow they only seemed to capture her at emotional or overwhelming moments.
I've been looking for that one and can't find it. I'd like to see it again because I thought it was hilarious how contemptuous the osteo arch was in particular and how wrong she ended up being. And then of course they all went back and acted like it was the Univ of L's plan all along. Rather than making Langley look bad, I think it makes the scientific team look smug and further shows how gatekeeping and careerism can blind "experts" to information outside of their expectations.
I think these two ladies may be smart and well spoken but they certainly brush over the part of history they don’t care for and the fact of the matter is those three brothers fought incessantly for the crown they were power-hungry and those boys were killed by Richard the third and if it wasn’t by his own hand Margaret Beaufort did it and he knew about it you don’t get to just erase that history has spoken about Richard the way they have just like they’ve spoken about everybody else in history of course it’s mostly one-sided depending on who is in rain have you ever listen to Bede his accounts aren’t always the same as everybody else’s that doesn’t mean he wasn’t an ogre I generally think history has it right the man was an ogre..
That’s not true that the hunchback did not match the factual information that they had he was always described as having a crooked back that was evident that means you could see it and there was a gentleman in England who has a very bad curved back who went to the society and actually allowed him to put armor on him so that they could see how rich the third maneuvered in armor and he totally could she’s 100% full of crap
@@erikaarmstrong3414 There is no evidence at all. Not until after his death and probably because he was stripped naked after Bosworth. He probably hid it very well. Even so he was not hunch backed.
@@erikaarmstrong3414 Nonsense. He was never described as a hunchback until Shakespeare. Nobody in his life time ever mentioned any deformity. In fact he was described as handsome by a lady at court. All of the slander was after his death so I suggest you read some background and facts rather than churn out the propaganda of the Tudor dynasty. The few pieces of factual evidence we have concerning Richard do not show an ogre at all.
48:21 I can relate to connecting emotionally to someone I've never met. The more thoroughly I research someone in my family history, the more I feel personally acquainted with them. And when I uncover a tragedy in their lives I can't help but feel empathy for them. It can be quite upsetting. I thoroughly enjoy learning about the detective work surrounding Richard's discovery.
You know what would be interesting a book or even a movie of a trial of the guilt or innocence of Richard lll. Present both sides and see what happens. Screen writer Phillippa - that would be interesting. Thank you for all the hard work of all involved in finding Richard lll. Amazing job!
Have you read The daughter of time? Nice book where a bored detective decides to investigate the case against Richard Scotland Yard style. Very interesting
My father, a proud Cornish man (who died when I was 17) drummed it into my brother and I. Always use these two most important things in life…. Common sense and logic, when applied correctly they will solve 99% of you problems in life! I’m 55 this year, he died 38 yrs ago. I’ve lived my life applying those two things, it’s served me so well in my life. Common sense and logic when applied shows that men loyal to the Tudor’s would also see it as a two plus bonus if the princes in the tower disappeared! Firstly the Throne would be clear for the Tudor line, and secondly if the world then thought it was Richard who murdered them, it would then absolve the Tudor line for the death of their supposed killer on the battlefield! Whereas Richard would be left with a rule filled with doubt from his subjects if he had indeed murdered them! There is no logic in him killing his nephews, he gains nothing! Whereas in Henry there is a logic and common sense reason to it, and he gains a clean of guilt and suspicion rule!
Ps i mentioned the Cornish thing, because no doubt you are familiar with what the Tudor’s did to the Cornish, sending military in retaliation for the rebellion in to Cornish villages, where old men and boys were murdered under the bloody cross of St George! (As the Cornish call the St George cross)
Suitable… ? Leicester ..? The site of his most ignominious defeat ..thrown naked over a horses back and dragged through Leicester and dumped in the grave ..He should have been reinterred at York ..which was his spiritual home.. 🙄🇬🇧
Thanks to all for getting this done. Hopefully the success of this project will inspire others to take bold chances and as a result, make discoveries everyone thought was impossible.
I think even Phillippa might mistake her 'intuitive feeling' for very well educated guesses. By her saying this she appears unprofessional but behind these feelings she has obviously studied about Richard III as intensely and intellectually rigorously as any academic. To her credit, in the documentary she wanted to hold these hunches up to be tested by impartial scrutiny and evidence in the name of seeking truth which is what most scientific researchers do. The university should give her an honorary Ph.D.
Whatever else the comments may wish to convey( some of which are Ridiculous, Complimentary, Childish, etc) A massive vote of thanks and appreciation must go to Philippa who pushed for this project to happen and be completed when funding and belief where not that plentiful. The fact that King Richard's body has been found, now makes the whole mystery of "The Princes" a lot more pertinent to this episode of English history. Perhaps more research could be done on bodies found in the tower and in other areas.? Just a thought.
@@jackreacher5667 the two Princes, Edward and Richard whom Richard III was accused or assumed he had done away with. He was their uncle. This is one of the "crimes" he was famous for which he was allegedly had been guilty. This is not grammatically correct, I apologize. I am surprised that being in this forum that one asks about the identity of the Two Princes. Google it...Tons of information.
@@pamelarutan2575 Not quite sure what you mean, If memory serves (and it was a fair time ago,) my comment to Debbie Willoughby was that her comment assumes the bodies in the tower where the princess's, but there is no evidence they are. I think you may be mixed up over what I meant.
Really enjoyed this video, thank you. Now going to sub and watch the rest! On a different note…. I have always thought that channel 4 with time team opened up the world of history to so many! That Richard lll search and discovery came during that period where people through that show where excited to see you guys find him!
BRILLIANT ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT! Your persistence & those who supported you revealed the truth & put into play the repatriation of a king to his rightful place & his rightful place in history! Such an honour to have watched this unfold!
Exactly, even then, 50 some years before these modern scholars, people were trying to correct the record. Incidentally, Colin Dexter used Tey’s format in a Morse story where he employs time in hosp to solve a historical canal murder mystery. Though I can’t say whether any of it was based on fact.
I have severe scoliosis, and while it can be very painful and cause internal damage, it would take a keen medical eye to detect the deformity beneath my clothing.
That's true, I have a friend with it too, you wouldn't know either. I think when Richard was stripped naked and slung over the horse, they obviously saw then that his body was misaligned and the tudor propaganda commenced that he was evil because of his 'deformity'
A few months ago I watched the full documentary (more than one hour) that Philippa and the research team were digging the parking lot to find the King's grave. I can't find this documentary anymore! is it removed? Where can I find it?
BBC took it off. Happens with so many things. It's there and then BBC says Oh No NO NO!!!! I watched it too. What a nut she is another Ricardian revisionist who ignores the preponderance of evidence against this duplicitous, conniving, hypocritical prig. Richard III got everything he deserved. I've read every book (not novels) there is to read. Plus straight up English history books. These people are delusional!
I think you"ll find it's you that's delusional. You're seriously in need of psychological purgatation. It's rather unfortunate that Richard lll was and still is a victim of a tight group of shysters. It's equally unfortunate that this attitude has extended to this day and age.
It's sad that they were relieved King Richard wasn't a 'hunch back' (there must be a medical term for that) So what if he had been? it doesn't make all the other unpleasant things about him true. I think people with a 'hunch back' would be quite upset to see them emphatically denying he was 'deformed' in this way and he has a 'condition' called scoliosis and not a 'evil' deformity.
Of course, you can be disabled and still be a good person, but it indicated that his enemies had lied about him, so maybe they had lied about his actions as well.
Marvelous talk. Wonderful to not have to listen to any Leicester University “Experts” who clearly in recent years have tried to weasel their way out of their own rewrite of history in light of the movie. Male experts getting screwed by their own hubris is a wonderful thing.
Really interesting. I've been following this journey of discovering Richard from the first programme, during which I got strong messages from the spirit world that he had been found now so that technology can help us uncover the truth about his life and clear his name with regards to the fate of the Princes. I'd love to know more about the intuitive feelings Philippa had standing on the R in the car park, as I know she used dowsing to find him. I am a practising spiritual healer who does dowsing, so I was really excited when she said that. Also, when watching Richard III; The New Evidence, about Dominic Smee getting involved, my mum and I realised how alike he was to Richard. Especially with the same degree of scoliosis and the weird coincidence that he was a Bosworth battle re-enactor. Mum wondered aloud if he was descended from Richard. Then I, getting psychic shivers all over and speaking words that weren't my own said, "No, he's not descended from Richard, he is the re-incarnation of Richard". She then also got shivers and goose-bumps. I have dowsed several times and got that he IS the re-incarnation of Richard III. I'd love to get Philippa's dowsing result and thoughts on this. Hopefully she will also get a yes. Wouldn't that be wonderful, as well as weird?
Oh my word! That very thought flashed like quicksilver through my mind watching that young man on the programme. I thought it silly, but clearly It was an Intuitive thought. So pleased to have found your comment here!!!
The scene with her standing on the R didnt happen in reality. The actual people who actually conducted the dig made a joke once they saw the R. You can find out about this in the excellent lecture by Turi King here, who describes the archaeological work and then her hard work in finding a match using mitochondrial DNA. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dsTyGKKl8UA.html
I would love to break up those who believe Richard killed the princes and those who don't, then poll the two sides to see what their political beliefs are. It'd be very interesting to see if there is any significant correlation between political beliefs and Richard III beliefs.
It's more interesting to compare the acts of Richards parliament with those of Henry VIIs first parliament: trial by jury,for Richard, versus star chamber for Henry VII
I'm striving to reconcile Phillipa's comments here in 2013, with Steve Coogan's comments in 2022 that Phillipa was always fighting the establishment. It's seems clear to me that Phillipa had her champions at both Leicester University and Leicester Council. The University of Leicester seems to have been particularly maligned in the film "The Lost King". I will see the film before I comment further.
Well, the Leicester University documentary, "The King under the Car Park" seems to give no credit to Phillipa Langley and certainly tries to appropriate it all for itself. It is almost embarrassing to watch, perhaps at the time it was made they thought they could get away with this sort of thing. Steve Coogan's comments seem very considered and appropriate. Even in this video Phillipa hints at (sardonically almost) the difficulties they faced. So I would think that trying to project some "differences" between her stance and Coogan's is - at best - disingenious.
@@alexgian9313 "The King under the Car Park" was never a documentary film, it was a 64 page book published in November 2018, and one of the co-authors, Mathew Morris, gave a lecture based on it in July 2020. (It's on YT ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--tAaGETTiLs.html ). This lecture deals solely with the history of Richard III, the history of Greyfriars Franciscan monastery in Leicester, and recounts the events of the Greyfriars dig from an archaeologist perspective. Phillipa was just an observer to the dig. But I must question whether you've actually watched the lecture to the end. I quote from the lecture:- "A project such as this could not have succeeded without the contribution of many individuals and organisations. The University of Leicester would to take this opportunity to thank everyone involved, especially Phillipa Langley whose inspiration and enthusiasm brought this project to fruition." That statement is hardly consistent with your writing, ""The King under the Car Park" seems to give no credit to Phillipa Langley and certainly tries to appropriate it all for itself. Phillipa was not only given credit, she was given special credit! Steve Coogan, Jeff Pope and Stephen Frears have a track record of employing artistic licence, broad artistic liberty at times, with real-life events. They did it with the 2013 film Philomena. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philomena_(film)#Historical_authenticity Coogan and co are not above falsely maligning people to make their protagonist seem all the more wonderful. I can understand why some at the University of Leicester were upset by the trailer for The Lost King stating that the film was "An Incredible True Story". At least in the trailer for Philomena they stated the film was "based on a True Story".
She Needed the Scientists to Confirm the Skeleton was Richard. Now she doesn't Need them she has Turned on them with absurd allegations. They were enormously patient with a female who, whenever the Science proved he was deformed or sodimized, had an emotional breakdown & fled the room! I found her presence & silly comments irritating.
I found the film really annoying and irritated and it unnecessarily demonized the University of Leicester and at least one archaeologist. I am surprised Coogan let himself be involved. I've worked on 11 archaeological and 3 paleontological excavations in the US and Canada and Egypt and the way the archaeologists are portrayed is inconsistent with my expereince. This terrific presentation by Turi King, the medical geneticist who actually showed the remains were those of R. III, also tells the real story of the letter R in the car park. You might also appreciate the Wikipedia entries on the the film and the finding of the remains. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dsTyGKKl8UA.html
In part I am replying to Michelle's post below. There is no evidence whatsoever that the princes in the tower were murdered. There is no evidence that the princes died. Therefore the possibilty remains that the princes were moved to a place of safety which is totally compatable with Richard exercising his duty as their protector. To speculate Richard may have believed that the princes were in mortal danger from Henry Tudor should Richard lose at Bosworth. Richard may have been right in view of what happened to Edward of Warwick. King Edward V might have stayed anonymously missing because the greatest service he could do for his people was to allow the union of Lancaster and York to continue in view of the bloodshed.of the past. Anyone calling themselves a historian cannot refer to the princes as murdered and must stay with the facts and refer to them as missing.
Richard was declared King on 26th June 1483 and Titulus Regius (which confirmed his claim and the illegitimacy of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's children) was passed by parliament in January 1484. Richard would have been in London on both occasions.
I'm a big fan of this project and am impressed by the results, however, I think the biases of people trying to rehabilitate Richards name and reputation are obvious. They have been claiming for years that Richard was has been slandered and was not deformed when infact the results show he was deformed. It is true that his deformity should not be taken of proof of his bad character, but there is no resewn to suppose that he had GOOD character. It is their wish (mostly relatives) that he was a good person and was libeled by propaganda, but there is no evidence to support this. As for the princes, no one can prove whether or not he killed them, but the truth is that he was their "protector" and they were under his care, so the fact that they went missing under his care is an honest complaint AGAINST his character, no matter how hard they want to dismiss it. I have no dog in the fight as to whether or not Richard was a good or bad person, but I have concerns about those people who are using their "hopes" to suggest that they know best. I am delighted that these people took the time and effort to find these remains which has captured our imagination, inspired many romantic feelings and provoked much questioning. I DON'T, however, support rehabbing his "reputation" based on their feelings in absence of proof that he did not deserve that reputation.
Michelle www.ellethekitty.ca Every story has a seed of truth. He had scoliosis. So what. It doesn’t mean the rest that was heaped on him was true. Just saying Rehabilitating his name isn’t the entire point. The point is to cast doubt on a story taken as absolute fact and even I bought the official Tudor story all my days. Bringing the story of Richard III to light has at least forever cast doubt on the official narrative for me. It makes both narratives stand on shaky soil and perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I argued against a hunchback because there was so evidence that supported it and its been proven he didnt have one. There are many accounts from his lifetime and even shortly after his death at Bosworth that suggest he was a good person, a man of his times, but still a good man. When I say good I mean judging him by medieval standards. He may have killed the boys but in my view of someone whos studied this for 20 years he didnt because it didnt serve is cause any.
Scoliosis isn't deformity that anyone can see. Most have little to no symptoms. So, he's was not a hunchback at all. He had one shoulder higher than the other. Did you know most people have one leg longer Tham the other? True story. Did he have pain? Sure. More difficulty? Yes. But he was not deformed.
I’m confused-if seeing Richard’s remains was so upsetting, and if Phillipa was so offended by them being “poked and prodded” by scientists and researchers, why did she work and fight so hard to have them found, excavated and identified?
So, I have a question. I know it's important to y'all to rehabilitate the Shakespearean image of Richard III. Still, with all of the horrible things you could be as an English king - a murderer, a tyrant, a horrible husband and father, etc., why did it seem to bother y'all so much to think that Richard III had a crooked back? Like, "Richard III had scoliosis." "How dare you, sir?! "It's okay, scoliosis is a condition that affects millions of peop-" "You're so insulting!"
Oh settle down..!! 🙄 We don’t care about his scoliosis per se it’s the Legend perpetuated by Shakespeare of a raddled evil hunchback who points with a deformed hand ..So yes it’s important to re write history in certain points.. nobody is suggesting that you are lesser if you have this deformity but if he wasn’t affected in this way then that should be made clear also.. blame Shakespeare not the people trying to redress the balance.. 🙄🇬🇧
For the record I thought the film the lost king was ridiculous. The actress portrayed Langley as borderline Parkinson's disease, couldn't stop making ridiculous facial expressions for no reason. terrible acting
Richard III was no better and no worse than his counterparts. He became king by the same means as Henry Tudor by force. It was really his nephew who should have been King.
He didn’t become king by force, his brother died and parliament + the nobles voted for him to be king. He wasn’t next in line, his nephews were but it was decided that they were illegitimate and too young to rule. So it went to Richard. Henry Tudor had a very distant claim to the throne and took down many people to get to the throne. He took the throne by force by declaring war and killing Richard in battle.
Thanks for this clarification. I don't think it quite let's Richard off the hook for the nephews . I agree Henry Tudor was particularly ruthless and had no legitimate claim to the throne, Since the Beaufort line was disallowed. 😢
this woman is a total nutter and has nothing whatsoever to do with history. her wellington boots from the dig were deemed to be important enough to be an exhibit at the Richard 3rd museum? nope sorry her wellington boots are not interesting and they aren't a historical artefact. She drives me mad with her ridiculous over egged over acting regarding this whole event. Who even is she?
She and the society found the location of the burial, also she personally managed to find the required funds to start the dig. Even the University was hesitant to be involved in the search
She’s passionate and determined. Because of her persistence, we have RIII’s remains. Are you often this jealous and triggered over someone else’s success? Who even are you?
I think it’s great All those brilliant people found the remains of Richard III… but to his everlasting shame he killed his nephews … There’s no one else who plausibly could have done it… You can throw out some scatterbrained theories but in the end the existence of his nephews would’ve meant no kingship for Richard….
After five centuries,it's a little tough to be certain, but Henry VII, who had very little scruples, didn't make this one of the reasons to support him or oppose Richard when he landed from France with a French army and didn't put it in his titulus rex act justifying his claim to the throne. If Richard had killed them, he would have put their bodies on display with an explanation of their deaths. He expected to rule for decades. Some have suggested that Henry Stafford, (Buckingham) may have had a hand in their deaths.
