Archaeologist Reviews: The Lost King 

She didn't do all the research. There were two papers published that pinpointed the site of the burial long before she appeared on the scene. Phlipa was thanked and included in every press conference. His burial would not have been the right place to thank people. She'll be lucky if she finds another archaeological department willing to work with her again. Her latest venture uncovered two documents of interest to anyone concerned with the Princes in the Tower, but there's a lot of work left to be done on that before anything can be proved or attested. So maybe she'll be busy doing that for a while.

Ah ok that makes sense, I've not workked on a site where that was a concern and DNA is not my realm of specialty so I wasn't aware. Good to know, thanks for watching!

Huh. I actually forgot about the DNA stuff.

Leicester University is a centre of excellence for DNA research. It actually helped the police identify a murderer who was the first person to be convicted on DNA evidence.

Having met not met her I can't say whether or not I like her. I don't like that the film seems incredibly one sided and contributes to the narrative that archaeologists are bad, secretive and look down on amateurs. This not true in my experience and I think it hurts the relationship between us and the wider public. I agree that she deserves a lot of credit for this discovery but it's also true that she couldn't have made it without the contributions and efforts of archaeologists.

@@Inside_Archaeology in my opinion the narrative of the film did not lean me to believe that archaeologists are bad, secretive or look down on amateurs. In any profession, there will be individuals who for whatever reason may dismiss or not seriously consider a perspective. Meaning there will be archaeologists who uphold credibility and there will be some that don't. In this situation it seems there was a lack of honor for Phillipa. So maybe this story is a human story to help expand perspective, not to denigrate. I certainly didn't come away with that view.

This film is not a documentary film. This is “a” story.

Well it looks like the defamation case is won. Now Richard Taylor can sue the film makers and writers. There's a link in this article for the actual case results.

Very cool!

Yeah I think I saw clips of that documentary. The overall conclusion was that even though his spine looked bad it wouldn't have been that noticable in person and he could have worn padded clothes to conceal it, not nearly the hunchback Shakespeare claims he was. I wouldn't say the movie was depressing but I also don't think it was a great movie. Thanks for watching!

Thank you very much!

@@Inside_Archaeology you are so welcome Rachel 🤗 ….

I never said she wasn't? I think she definitely deserves credit for what she achieved, I just don't think she needs to trample on the archaeologists because of it. The film is very clearly her side of the story, and there are always two sides. To be fair, as an archaeologist you definitely have people come to you with some really bizarre theories or stories of hidden treasure that they need your help finding. After a while you get desensitized to it, because you can't take everything seriously and the vast majority of the time these things never pan out. Them being skeptical is them being scientists, and I don't think that should be held against them as much as it was in the film.

she could have just looked at the papers already published on the position of his tomb, which were readily available. That would have saved her a lot of time.

There are definitely some people who are snobs/rude about it but also I think anyone has a bit of a natural reaction like that when you've studied something extensively, spent quite a bit of money and time on studying it and then someone comes in who hasn't and tries to tell you what to do or implies they should also be considered an expert/on the same level. There is definitely lots of gatekeeping, particularly in older generation archaeologists, but personally I think you see a lot more of open collaboration now than you did a few decades ago. People also misunderstand why some disocveries are held back form being announced as soon as they're disocvered; a lot of the time it's due to security concerns especially in a day and age where everyone fancies themselves a reporter with their cameraphone. So you have risks of looting and then people coming onto sites and trampling all over your hard work or disturbing the site to get a selfie. And sometimes we don't know something is a big discovery until we've left the field or we want to confirm it before announcing and then having to retract a statement, which makes us look stupid. That doesn't mean there can't be collaboration however; in my best archaeology of January 2023 video I talk about the cave paintings discovery which was a project started by an amateur but then done in collaboration with academics to confirm his results. I haven't heard of Lee Berger but I will look into it. Thanks for watching!

Not just a little snobbery in this woman’s case, but a TON of snarky and in my opinion jealous comments. This woman will never come close to Phillipas accomplishment and she knows it. For crying out loud, Phillipa put in more than a decade of her life researching Richard. Her dedication should be applauded, not subjected to snarky comments.

Archaeology wouldn't be as successful without the work of the amateurs and volunteers who work with them. Some archaeologists got their qualifications after working on a site as a volunteer.

Yes, I mention this project at the end of my video. I must say that is some kind of luck to have this happen twice but I'm sure stranger things have happened. Thanks for watching!

It would be great for someone, Philippa or otherwise, to discover the truth but personally I don't think it's doable without a time machine.

I guess until we have a time machine we'll never know! Personally I don't think he's as altruistic as the movie paints him to be.

it was never lost.

I never belittled her, I think she's made a great accomplishment. Also wouldn't consider myself an academic.

she was not.

Yes she was !!!!!!!

no she wasn't. The courts have just found so. She wasn't the first person to identify his burial site. She was included in every media panel concerning the discovery. Her contribution was welcomed by the university. The university paid 80% of the costs. There is proof of all that.

I think she did some great research and obviously has some great instincts. I'm interested to see if she is also correct about Henry I being udner a car park in Reading. Thanks for watching!

Hey so there's a few different reasons I give backgrounds I'm not sure which particular part you're referring to though, Richard's bio, the movie summary or my intro? Either way RU-vid usually does automatic chapters for me so people can skip ahead to the parts they're interested in, I can see they've not done it here and I don't know how to add them so sorry about that. I give backgrounds to all my videos because that's something I've just been taught to do as an archaeologist to make sure everyone can have the whole story. I can't assume that everyone knows about Richard III or his story because that will exclude some of my audience who don't know much about English history. Thanks for the feedback and thanks for watching!