Richard III
Feb. 4th, 2013 01:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
likethebeerThe story of the unearthing of (what appears to be) the remains of Richard III is really cool:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
Bones found, DNA tested, & the skeleton seems to fit what the historians say (how old Richard III was when he died, and that he had scoliosis, which would explain the hunchback), and the area they found the remains is about correct. I can't imagine the absolute glee that I would feel as a researcher. I am pretty sure, though, that the joy would go straight down to my toes.
In addition to that I looked up a brief history on Richard III from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/richard_iii_king.shtml
There's the idle interest, when I've been reminded, about the Duke of Gloucester and, oh yeah, War of the Roses, and, oh yeah, House of York....
But reading that history again was influenced by seeing the Shakespeare play last summer & has allowed me to visualize it that much more. (a) Shakespeare did such an amazing job of showing Richard to be an unreal monster (of course, he's Shakespeare, so anything I add to the discussion is pretty much useless) and (b) looking at the brief history, I've no doubt on why Shakespeare would write the story because, my god, when you just look at the outlines of the facts (married his brother's widow & put his nephews - now stepsons - into the Tower of London from which they later disappeared & presumed murdered), the man was a horrible human being.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
Bones found, DNA tested, & the skeleton seems to fit what the historians say (how old Richard III was when he died, and that he had scoliosis, which would explain the hunchback), and the area they found the remains is about correct. I can't imagine the absolute glee that I would feel as a researcher. I am pretty sure, though, that the joy would go straight down to my toes.
In addition to that I looked up a brief history on Richard III from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/richard_iii_king.shtml
There's the idle interest, when I've been reminded, about the Duke of Gloucester and, oh yeah, War of the Roses, and, oh yeah, House of York....
But reading that history again was influenced by seeing the Shakespeare play last summer & has allowed me to visualize it that much more. (a) Shakespeare did such an amazing job of showing Richard to be an unreal monster (of course, he's Shakespeare, so anything I add to the discussion is pretty much useless) and (b) looking at the brief history, I've no doubt on why Shakespeare would write the story because, my god, when you just look at the outlines of the facts (married his brother's widow & put his nephews - now stepsons - into the Tower of London from which they later disappeared & presumed murdered), the man was a horrible human being.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 01:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 01:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 02:52 am (UTC)oiy
Date: 2013-02-05 04:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 11:44 am (UTC)_________
*Still reading Gore Vidal's 1962 book, a few pages at a time.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 08:43 pm (UTC)the Tudors
Date: 2013-02-06 01:12 am (UTC)And the last Richard I saw was pretty damned good, too - such a wonderful experience being creeped out by (and at times laughing with) him, then watching him just go completely paranoid after he gets everything he's worked for.
http://americanplayers.org/plays-and-tickets/past-production/richard-iii-2012
2012's Richard III pipes in
Date: 2013-02-06 01:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-06 04:36 am (UTC)