Slashdot Mirror


Richard III Suffered an Ignominious Burial, Researchers Find

An anonymous reader writes "Richard III may have been the King of England and the subject of a Shakespearean play, but even that couldn't keep him safe from ending up in a hastily-dug grave that ultimately became part of a parking lot, according to a new study published in the journal Antiquity."

145 comments

  1. Better than cremation by inflamed · · Score: 1

    This was news a while ago.

    1. Re:Better than cremation by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It really would be news if we were to learn that Richard suffered from his burial. That would indicate that he was aware of his surroundings three days after he had clinically died. THIS IS A CASE FOR LIFE AFTER DEATH!! The question that Richard failed to answer is, which, if any religions, offers any real promise of salvation or happiness after death. Poor, suffering Richard - does anyone think that he is still suffering after all this time?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:Better than cremation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, who knows what interesting signals are triggered when the brain starts to rot.

      Perhaps he was suffering from his burial.

    3. Re:Better than cremation by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "It really would be news if we were to learn that Richard suffered from his burial. That would indicate that he was aware of his surroundings three days after he had clinically died. "

      A shovel, a shovel, my kingdom for a shovel!

    4. Re:Better than cremation by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      A shovel, a shovel, my kingdom for a shovel!

      I imagine that after his burial, it would have been more like "A shovel, a shovel, Henry VII's kingdom for a shovel!" :-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Better than cremation by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      I watched every episode of "Gilligan's Island" and I can tell you no interesting signals are triggered.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    6. Re:Better than cremation by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Why is it better than cremation?

  2. News for nerds by gmuslera · · Score: 0

    At least the comment system is now self aware enough to show the dupe from over a month ago. Dice.com will be renamed to sky.net any time soon?

    1. Re:News for nerds by osu-neko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your "dupe" has no information about the conditions of his burial, which is the main point of this May 25th article.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's an update article and should be labelled as such.

    3. Re:News for nerds by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      You don't get it, this dupe is here on purpose. Repetition is the mother of learning. What did we learn from this? You don't want your grave to become a parking lot for tourists, make sure to build yourself a pyramid, then at least you become a tourist destination on purpose.

    4. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "You don't get it, this dupe is here on purpose. Repetition is the mother of learning. What did we learn from this?"

    5. Re:News for nerds by fascismforthepeople · · Score: 1

      Repetition is the mother of learning.

      So says the man who comes here to repeat his religious mantras. But what have you taught anyone with your actions? Only that repetition does not make fact.

    6. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a pleasure to read snippets of the Bard in Slashdot. Shakespeare will be performed and read hundreds of years after Google, Apple, and Microsoft have gone the way of Pennsylvania Railroad and US Steel.

  3. Re:Better than Slashdeath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So was Slashdot. Now it's dying the kind of slow lingering death that would make Dicky 3 grateful that he was topped in the field of battle.

  4. doesn't matter by polar+red · · Score: 1

    buried under a stone or not : doesn't matter, unless he was a zombie and able dig himself out of a heap of sand.

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  5. I guess he started to stink . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

    FTA:

    the late king’s body was reportedly stripped naked, despoiled and publicly displayed for three days before it was buried

    . . . and someone was in a rush to get what was left of him underground . . . lest his remains doth starteth to again walk . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:I guess he started to stink . . . by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      The distinct bouquet of "publicly displayed corpse" was a household fixture in pre-Renaissance Europe. I'm sure it would've been missed.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:I guess he started to stink . . . by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's that smell, has somebody died?
      Nay.
      Ah, that'll be it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:I guess he started to stink . . . by rgmoore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For honored dead, it was called lying in state, for dishonored it was parading the body, but in both cases the reason was the same: to get as many witnesses as possible to the fact the person was well and truly dead. Otherwise, there would be persistent rumors that they were still alive, people pretending to be them (or their children born after their official date of death), and the like. So it was gruesome but completely practical.

      And it's not as if the need for this kind of thing has completely gone away. There are still people who are rumored to be alive long after their deaths, like Elvis Presley. In the fight against terrorism, there have been several cases where the US has published pictures of the obviously dead bodies of prominent enemies as a way of proving they're actually dead, and there was considerable speculation among conspiracy theorists about why Osama bin Laden's body was disposed of so quickly.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    4. Re:I guess he started to stink . . . by cusco · · Score: 2

      In many places of the world, including still some areas of Medieval Europe, honored family members were buried under the dirt floor of the house. Some cultures waited until the majority of the flesh was off the bones first, but in (IIRC) Druidic areas and the Indus Valley they didn't wait. Having buried a 10 kilo cat in the garden I can only imagine the, ahem, bouquet of a 50 kilo person. Most of the European cathedrals have royalty buried in them, I've occasionally wondered how long the Church waited before burial. Wait too long and I suspect the family would seize whatever wealth was supposed to go to the Church.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    5. Re:I guess he started to stink . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otherwise, there would be ... people pretending to be ... their children born after their official date of death

      To be fair, your children can be born after the date of your death (if you're female, then only slightly after).

    6. Re:I guess he started to stink . . . by fonske · · Score: 1

      explanation one:
      In Dutch "stinkend rijk" (translation: stinking (filthy) rich) is a saying that goes back to the tradition of burying those people in church who attributed financially to the church.
      Incense was used to cover the smell originating from the grave.
      A good example is the Bruges cemetery installed under the Prusian invasion (+/- 1787) in Flanders and Netherlands.
      The Prusian law ordered all corpses to be buried in the cemetery.
      explanation two:
      Tradition wants it that empereror Vespasianus replied "pecunia non olet" (translation: money does not stink) upon the indignation of his son Titus on his father levying taxes on public toilets.

    7. Re:I guess he started to stink . . . by dwye · · Score: 1

      Having buried a 10 kilo cat in the garden I can only imagine the, ahem, bouquet of a 50 kilo person.

      That is why bodies are supposed to be buried 6 feet down. With that much distance, the odor doesn't get to the surface. Alternately, use a lot of lime on the body, which dries up the excess ... liquidity ... of the corpse.

    8. Re:I guess he started to stink . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bouquet of a 50 kilo person

      He was from England, not Midgetland.

    9. Re:I guess he started to stink . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there was considerable speculation among conspiracy theorists about why Osama bin Laden's body was disposed of so quickly.

      Likely because he had been in CIA custody for years, dead or alive, while government waited for a politically opportune moment to announce his killing.

  6. Re:ignominious? by c0lo · · Score: 1

    ignominious?

    I can imagine lots of other burial places that would be less famous or reputable than a parking lot.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  7. in otherwords by Osgeld · · Score: 0

    it took researchers months to figure out what a single picture shows?

    no shit, its a shallow grave with a body dumped in it and it took you that fucking long to notice?

    1. Re:in otherwords by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. It took researchers months to write an article, get it proof-read, submitted to a journal, peer-reviewed and finally published in the journal.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    2. Re:in otherwords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you kind of stupid? Every job is pretty easy to trivialize.

      it took tens of thousands of developers 20 years to make 15million lines of code? That's 2 lines per day per developer!
      no shit, it took you eight hours to type 2 lines?

      *( http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/04/16/linux-kernel-development-numbers/ )

    3. Re:in otherwords by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Even the shallow grave part isn't THAT straight forward. The depth of the ground is relative to surface level. And the surface level of 500 years ago is probably not the same as the surface level of the 20th century car park.

      If the 500 years ago surface layer is still there, and other layers just piled on top then not too difficult. But what things have been disturbed more than that? What if the 500 years ago surface level isn't there any more?

    4. Re:in otherwords by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      It's not the shallowness aspect that I found interesting. I wonder how they know how big the grave was in the other dimensions? Surely after 500 years the soil would have become homogenous. I'm assuming the same soil that was dug for the grave was put back in.

      In all cases it seems like good detective work to me.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    5. Re:in otherwords by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Presumably the bones were in some foetal like clump, rather than laid out full length.

    6. Re:in otherwords by cusco · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually undisturbed soil retains its structure pretty well, and soil disturbed by burrowers like earthworms and moles only slightly less well. After the first six inches the ground remains pretty much untouched by anything but roots (which are transient and obvious phenomena) for thousands to millions of years. I've personally been to archeological excavations where you can clearly see the individual shovel and pick marks from a thousand or more years ago. The Burgess Shale shows silt layers from individual rainstorms 520 million years ago.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  8. "suffered" by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

    "Suffered"? I am fairly sure that didn't cause any pain, physical or emotional.

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

    1. Re:"suffered" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Another imbecile who doesn't understand that the word is often used metaphorically.

      At least you've got the excuse that you're a dago.

    2. Re:"suffered" by geogob · · Score: 1

      Yet, metaphorical use of words is not always appropriate; despite what journalists want you to think with their catchy headlines.

    3. Re:"suffered" by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends if you believe in an afterlife or not. For people that do, believing that dead men can suffer from the circumstances after their death is not much of a leap.

    4. Re:"suffered" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Metaphor is not a synonym of lie.

      Nonetheless, suffer is an odd word. Apart from the "be in pain" meaning it can also mean tolerate or permit[1] (as in ~ fools gladly), so it's not much of a stretch to "be on the receiving end of". I'm pretty sure I've seen it applied to inanimate objects that by definition can't feel pain.

      [1] e.g. suffrage, permission to vote. Also, I don't think Jesus was suggesting that people should torment kids. http://www.freewebs.com/suffer-the-little-children/

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  9. Richard III's Final Words by A.+I.+Agent · · Score: 5, Funny

    A hearse, a hearse, my kingdom for a hearse.

    1. Re:Richard III's Final Words by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Richard Of York Got Buried In Van.

  10. You don't say? by Briareos · · Score: 0
    --

    "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

    1. Re:You don't say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the damn duped post is from February 4th. And i remembered it too, soon as I saw this. Look at how crappy this dupe is compared to the first ./ post.

      wow.

    2. Re:You don't say? by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those readers who don't RTFA are doomed to make themselves look silly.

      Two different articles two different topics in the articles, one a press release that the DNA matched and that it was Richard the 3rd, the new one on how he was buried in the grave.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    3. Re:You don't say? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I've already seen the show twice on cable tv. It is not news.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re:You don't say? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Some of us don't watch TV.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  11. Shiv@droidow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am little shocked with this , Painful "A hearse, a hearse, my kingdom for a hearse.".

  12. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    News for nerds? No. Stuff that matters? No.

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we'd be more interested about the ignominious treatment of King Robb's body.

  13. The Bard knew that by Antiocheian · · Score: 2

    Imperious Richard, dead and turned to clay,
    Might stop a hole to keep a tire from flaying.
    Oh, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,
    Should patch a park t' allow the traffic’s flow!

  14. Hastily-dug? by pahles · · Score: 0

    Can someone please explain how they determined the grave was hastily-dug? I guess the grave diggers didn't leave notes. Maybe they purposely dug it the way it is...

    --
    Sig?
    1. Re:Hastily-dug? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sure. I performed an experiment called Read The Fucking Article (RTFA), which yielded this curious observation:

      First of all, the grave Richard III was placed in was “badly prepared,” which, the researchers from the University of Leicester said, suggests gravediggers were in something of a rush to get the corpse underground.

      It was found approximately 73 mm from the entrance to TFA, not very far in. Note the use of the phrase "First of all", which provides supporting evidence that it was near the entrance.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Hastily-dug? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      And towards the end of the article were links for further studies, like "Eel Shoved Up Man's Anus Eats Its Way Through His Intestines", but I'm not doing any more of your homework, and you'll just have to click on them yourself, good sir.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Hastily-dug? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I'll bet that article would get more hits. We've not previously discussed the vicissitudes of anal Anguilliformes.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  15. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it was a vocabulary word from middle school.

    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or middle ages

    2. Re:Nope by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      I went to middle school in the middle ages, you insensitive clod!

      Now get thee hence and tread not upon mine herbery.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  16. Shakespeare??? by ignavus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Um, Richard III died in 1495 while Shakespeare was writing plays (like, you know, "Richard III") around 1592 - a hundred years later.

    So how was Richard's burial going to be affected by a play that hadn't yet been written, and which wasn't going to be written for another 100 years?

    Do you think the early Tudors might have thought, with a little effort: "Oh look! Some playwright will write about this dead king in a hundred years, and the dead king and the playwright will still be famous in 500 years time, so we had better bury this dead king properly."

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
    1. Re:Shakespeare??? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Informative

      Um, Richard III died in 1495

      1485. August 22nd, IIRC.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Shakespeare??? by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Yeah right. If you are going to claim to recalling things that you just looked up on Wikipedia, at least make them useful things.

    3. Re:Shakespeare??? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Um, Richard III died in 1495 while Shakespeare was writing plays (like, you know, "Richard III") around 1592 - a hundred years later.

      Ah, yes. notice the circuitous nature of time.
      Even in mind repeats all past feats to make rhyme.

    4. Re:Shakespeare??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you studied history at an English school, there is a very good chance you'd be able to remember this correctly, because Richard III is one of the bits of history most often studied in depth in mandatory history lessons (before we got to choose which modules we took for qualifications). I could recall it without Wikipedia's assistance.

    5. Re:Shakespeare??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the other part of that sentence was what they were referring to. The part about him being the fucking king of England.

    6. Re:Shakespeare??? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The year, yes. The full date, no.

  17. A bit of perspective folks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember that the new King, Henry Tudor, hereafter referred to as that Evil Bastard Henry VII (EBH7) dated his accession to the throne to the day BEFORE the battle of Bosworth, thus rendering those followers of Richard III who remaied loyal to the end traitors to the crown, and that the turncoats who ensured his victory would make sure they heaped as many indignities in the corpse of their former king as possible to demonstrate their loyalty to EBH7.

    Given these circumstances, its entirely reasonable that the interrment of Richard would be done as quickly as possible, at the first opportunity that the body would not be missed. Originally the grave was in the church of the Grey Friars, probably in front of an altar and would have been deep enough not to cause "offence". It may have been hastily prepared and thus not quite the right size for Richard, but rather than indicating that the scenario was "ignominious", it shows that his remaining supporters wanted to bury him in a holy place, away from the vengance of EBH7s new supporters. Given the time constraints and the location, speed would have been of the essence. Just because it wasn't a State Funeral doesn't mean that it would not have been done without reverence. The fact that the site ended up as a car park can be indirectly ascribed to the activities of EBH7s son, Henry VIII who dissolved the monasteries, friaries, etc.

    We're lucky that the grave still exists. Part of the foundations of a Victorian brick privy intrude into the burial site, a few feet further and he would have been completely obliterated.

    1. Re:A bit of perspective folks... by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Evil Welsh half-French Bastard Henry VII (EWHFBH7)

      FTFY.

      He was a right cunt, wasn't he? Just like all the Tudors. The thistle-arsed bastard Stuarts weren't exactly great, but after the Tudors they were a relief.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:A bit of perspective folks... by spike1 · · Score: 1

      Tisk tisk tisk... EVERYONE knows that richard III *WON* the battle of bosworth field, but then got murdered accidentally by a weasel called Edmund when he thought Richard was nicking his horse. Richard IV then became king for a year before the entire family was (again) accidentally murdered by Lord Percy when he put poison into a jug of wine rather than a single cup.

      THEN EBH7 took the throne and erased that year from history. :)

    3. Re:A bit of perspective folks... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Seems like there's a bit more to the story. The current grave may not be the original one.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:A bit of perspective folks... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Dude, if you're going to make the Blackadder joke, then at least get it right. Richard IV ruled for 13 Glorious years before lord Percy's mixup with the wine and poison. At which point, Henry Tudor ascended the throne and rewrote history for a full backdated 13 years, claiming the death of Richard the third, victory at Bosworth and basically denying the very existence of Richard the fourth.

      It's in the opening sequence to the series dude.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    5. Re:A bit of perspective folks... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Lighten up. It's just comedy.

    6. Re:A bit of perspective folks... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Comedy is serious business :P

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re:A bit of perspective folks... by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

      Like Obama after the Bushes?

    8. Re:A bit of perspective folks... by dkf · · Score: 1

      Like Obama after the Bushes?

      Both Obama and Bush are far better than the Tudors or the Stuarts. The Stuarts were such rights-trampling pricks that they started a civil war several times — even if not all of those are outright titled that — and the Tudors took the broadest definition of treason possible (i.e., disagreeing with the king/queen was a capital offense). Can you imagine just how either of those would play in the modern world?

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    9. Re:A bit of perspective folks... by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

      I'll give it a shot: Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade a soverign country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with the attack. The high end of the estimate for the death toll in Iraq is about same as the plague in England in the 1300's and 1400's. Bush introduced the Patriot Act which can probably be described as "rights-trampling". Disagreeing with Bush (or any of the ruling powers) could get you labelled as an enemy combatant ("treason") and get you into Guantanamo Bay detention camp, with all habeas corpus rules suspended, and so, with no rights to a trial, you can be detained indefinitely - so as good as a beheading. Anyone disagreeing could expect to be vilified for example the Dixie Chicks, violence against organizations with connections to France. Bush introduced the idea of "extraordinary rendition" where people (suspects?) were removed from one country to another, where they could be tortured. Through his emissary Colin Powell, he was willing to lie to his allies at the UN to get his way. Same plan, global scale. Obama maintains these policies, either using the new powers less frequently or, probably, more discretely. Add to that Obama's lack of action on surveillance drones, right to kill citizens and non-citizens at his sayso. The purpose of those in power is to stay in power. The details have changed with technology, but the basic plan is the same. What's interesting, is that most collapses are STILL economic. What forced the Magna Carta signing was that the king was broke - yielding more power to the local leaders. The soviet union collapsed into smaller states because it didn't have enough money to hold the "union" together. The US has the same plan. Most economists agree that stimulating the economy (tax and spend) is the way to recover from the current US recession, but those in power, beholden to a VERY small number of liege lords, or major campaign contributors refuse to go against the wishes of their masters. Other collapses are environmental, see just about any civilization that relied exclusively on irrigation and so "salted" their own fields, vs human induced climate change. History is a spiral, currently the spiral is expanding, but it still repeats.

    10. Re:A bit of perspective folks... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Both Obama and Bush are far better than the Tudors or the Stuarts. Can you imagine just how either of those would play in the modern world?

      No I can't. That's one of the reasons that comparisons across a difference of several centuries aren't really enlightening.

      It's like claiming that Gamelin was a better general than Napoleon because his men had tanks.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:A bit of perspective folks... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The Nobel Committee apparently thought so.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:A bit of perspective folks... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not a matter of life and death.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Re:ignominious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not nice. There are plenty of suburban, redneck, and chav offspring with an alternate first language.

  19. You are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Historical is nerd worthy.

  20. Re:ignominious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As one rugby song goes:

    He ought to be publicly hanged.
    He ought to be publicly shot,
    He ought to be placed in a public urinal and left there to fucking well rot!

  21. I'll not speak ill of the dead by Molochi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
    Nor made to court an amorous looking glass;
    I, that am rudely stamped and want love’s majesty
    To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
    I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
    Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
    Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
    Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
    And that so lamely and unfashionable
    That dogs bark at me as I halt by them—
    Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
    Have no delight to pass away the time,
    Unless to see my shadow in the sun
    And descant on mine own deformity.

    --
    "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    1. Re:I'll not speak ill of the dead by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You missed the bit about the bargains on bad-weather camping gear.

      (it's my standard text when I need some random nonsense to type, instead of that dirty foreign "lorem ipsum" muck)

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  22. Unanswered question by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, after reviewing the research one question still remains unanswered, did he at least get a good spot in the parking lot?

    1. Re:Unanswered question by Custard+Horse · · Score: 2

      Whichever may you look at it, being buried in a parking lot is wrong on so many levels.

    2. Re:Unanswered question by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

      But being buried in a parking garage would be wrong on so many *more* levels.

    3. Re:Unanswered question by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Of course. The disabled spots are always in prime position.

    4. Re:Unanswered question by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

      But handicapped tags weren't invented yet. Why do you think they removed him? They're really serious about parking laws in Europe.

    5. Re:Unanswered question by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's because pretending that you're parking when you actually have no vehicle to drive off in doesn't count.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Unanswered question by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, having a vehicle can still get you ticketed: http://www.friatider.se/parking-tickets-issued-on-wrecks-while-stockholm-burns

    7. Re:Unanswered question by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Well, after reviewing the research one question still remains unanswered, did he at least get a good spot in the parking lot?

      I grew up in Leicester, and went to school just over the wall from the car park. Looking at the map of the monastry, I could pretend I danced on the alter, although I think I probably just sulked nearby.

      Richard got a good spot near the best shops. Within two minutes walk of the burial place you could but Magic: The Gathering cards, Warhammer, comics, computer games, CDs, sweets, BDSM gear (although I was asked to leave when I was 14), second-hand books, cannabis seeds and other equipment, New Age shit, 'punk' clothes and (if you hung around the alleyway behind the cathedral) ecstasy.

      All these shops were (and I think still are) independent.

    8. Re:Unanswered question by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Disabled my arse, they painted that on afterwards.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  23. I'd rather not be a 'king'. by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd take living in this modern life as a 'peon' any day over being any royal person in history. We live better than any kings and queens of yore. We have modern plumbing and sanitation instead of having to defecate into holes, and nothing beats a hot shower on demand. In the 1400's the average english person took a bath every 7 years, the world was filled with dirty smelly people. Heat and air conditioning on demand, not cold castle walls. We can get to anyplace in the world in a matter of hours, not yearlong odyessee's. Only royalty got to wear the color purple, today we have the full spectrum of color available. Disease and plagues are not something to be feared as back then, healthcare today is top-notch. And all the world's knowledge is all available on your portable phone, there's no need to live in ignorance provided by royal magical wisemen. We live better and longer than kings and queens of history ever did. This story, repeat though it is here, reminds me to be grateful for the marvelous lives we lead today, the best time in all of history to be alive.

    1. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "healthcare today is top-notch"

      Written by someone who has never been sick; you're probably quite young. Modern medicine is great, but it is very far from top-notch.

    2. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "healthcare today is top-notch"

      Written by someone who has never been sick

      Or perhaps by someone who has never lived in the US

    3. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Exactly.
      The average car has 134hp in Germany.
      They weren't that many people in history with more than 100 horses.

      And all this quality of life that you described has been made possible by cheap and widely available energy.
      It probably will be impacted by peak-oil and climate change though....

    4. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by SternisheFan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "healthcare today is top-notch"

      Written by someone who has never been sick

      Or perhaps by someone who has never lived in the US

      I am 53, live in the U.S., and have woken up in emergency rooms in my day with traumatic injuries. Injuries so bad that if they had happened 10 years earlier there would have been nothing doctors could have done to repair the damage done. I've had cataract surgery a few years ago, and now I see better than I ever have in my life, night driving on rainy nights especially is much easier now. I have no complaints about modern healthcare in the U.S.

    5. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      I'd take living in this modern life as a 'peon' any day over being any royal person in history. We live better than any kings and queens of yore. We have modern plumbing and sanitation instead of having to defecate into holes, and nothing beats a hot shower on demand. In the 1400's the average english person took a bath every 7 years, the world was filled with dirty smelly people. Heat and air conditioning on demand, not cold castle walls. We can get to anyplace in the world in a matter of hours, not yearlong odyessee's. Only royalty got to wear the color purple, today we have the full spectrum of color available. Disease and plagues are not something to be feared as back then, healthcare today is top-notch. And all the world's knowledge is all available on your portable phone, there's no need to live in ignorance provided by royal magical wisemen. We live better and longer than kings and queens of history ever did. This story, repeat though it is here, reminds me to be grateful for the marvelous lives we lead today, the best time in all of history to be alive.

      I'd rather have been royalty in the 1400s than a peon in Harare or Dhaka or any number of other extremely poor places in the world today.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    6. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I have no complaints about modern healthcare in the U.S.

      Obviously it's good that your treatment experiences with modern healthcare in the US have been positive. Your treatment experiences would probably have been as good in almost any developed country though, which is not a knock on the US, but does show we're not exceptional in that regard. The big problem w/ US healthcare is its cost. If you had lacked insurance that ER experience probably would have bankrupted you. There's a possible exception for on-the-job injury or something that was clearly the fault of someone else with good insurance and/or deep pockets, but the lawsuits can take years and cost a fortune themselves. Don't count on those things though. Many 9/11 "non-official" first responders, who were rightly considered heroes, were bankrupted by their medical costs. Without insurance you also couldn't have even contemplated cataract surgery.

      US healthcare costs at least 50% more than in any other country (as %/GDP, it's worse if you use exchange rate or PPP), and we do not have better results for it. We also lack universal coverage. It's also a crap shoot as to whether or not needed medical treatment will bankrupt you.

    7. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      "healthcare today is top-notch"

      Written by someone who has never been sick; you're probably quite young. Modern medicine is great, but it is very far from top-notch.

      Written by someone with a sense of perspective, more like. Be grateful for what you've got, even if it could be better.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    8. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      This story, repeat though it is here, reminds me to be grateful for the marvelous lives we lead today, the best time in all of history to be alive.

      And someday, people will look back at us now and think our lives sucked.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    9. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 1400's they had a very efficient service for removing dead bodies from villages and towns, on a regular schedule. Pity they don't have that today.

    10. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      In the 1400's the average english person took a bath every 7 years, the world was filled with dirty smelly people

      Oh, I'd certainly welcome a source for that.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 1400's they had a very efficient service for removing dead bodies from villages and towns, on a regular schedule. Pity they don't have that today.

      What if I don't want to go on the cart? I feel fine!

    12. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    13. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by u38cg · · Score: 1

      How much wood do you have to burn to heat up 200 litres of water?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    14. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by retchdog · · Score: 1

      horses have an average of 19hp. you'd only need about 7.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    15. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's funny, because I know that at the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century, priests in Prague were lamenting that the Prague burghers didn't seem to like going to church on Sunday nearly as much as they liked going to public baths on Saturday, which many of them were doing frequently. (The laments of the priests and the popularity of the baths also probably had something to do with the facts that the baths were mixed, but I digress. :-))

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Yeah everyone today lives in a palace, wears silk shirts and fur coats, eats the best meats, vegetables and fruits, and spends all their free time hunting and fucking.

      If you were a king in the middle ages you didn't need heating because you had a huge log fire, you didn't need air con because you're in mediaeval England, if took you months to get anywhere but you're the king, everyone else adjusts to your schedule. You could have a bath whenever you wanted, filled by servants.

    17. Re:I'd rather not be a 'king'. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      A good way of looking at it is to answer a very simple question: What did they have to eat? Those of us who are middle class or wealthier in the industrialized world eat meals that Richard III would never have thought possible. And of course what was available to a peasant in days of yore was just plain horrible.

      On the flip side, the king got to bang any chick in his kingdom that he wanted. So it wasn't all bad.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  24. Re:ignominious? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even kings start to smell bad after a couple of days.

    Just dig a hole and drop him in it, he's putting me off my eel pie...

    --
    No sig today...
  25. Re:ignominious? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    He ought to be placed in a public urinal and left there to fucking well rot!

    Air freshener?

    --
    No sig today...
  26. Re:ignominious? by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Grain bames . How many times is 'Ignominious' spoken each day in the ghetto? [etc]

    FTFY

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  27. loÂquaÂcious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have found Slashdot posts to be, rather loquacious from a bunch of lads and dads.

  28. Re:ignominious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, compared to the odour of a rugby team, yes.

  29. Re:ignominious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As one rugby song goes:

    He ought to be publicly hanged. He ought to be publicly shot, He ought to be placed in a public urinal and left there to fucking well rot!

    Actually it goes like this.......

    Why was he born so beautiful?
    why was he born at all?,
    He's no fucking use to anyone!
    he's no fucking use at all!,

    He ough to be publicly shat on,
    he ought to be publicly shot,
    he ought to be tied to a West Country shitter,
    and left there to fucking well rot.. to rot,
    And left there to fucking well rot!

  30. Oh dear.. Richard the Third.. by marienf · · Score: 1

    Blackadder wasn't anywhere near the king when it happened.

  31. Let's not forget the real lesson to be learned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The real lesson we can learn from King Richard III's life is don't piss off the French, or else you'll end up buried under some parking lot.

  32. "My kingdom for a parking space!" by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I felt like that futilely searching downtown for one yesterday. No parking restrictions on Sundays, so its impossible to find anything.

  33. pre-800 AD burials rare by peter303 · · Score: 1

    For the most part classical graves were plundered during the dark times. Although they had longer to decay, that is not as big a factor. Christian graveyards are still somewhat respected. I remember reading about Alexanders body drug around the classical world for half a millennia until it was lost.

  34. If Richard III had survived the battle... by dtjohnson · · Score: 2

    There would have been no Tudor England, House of Windsor, Henry VIII, and the schism from the Holy Roman Catholic Church. That would mean no George III who was King at the time of the American Revolution. Maybe New York would be an English City.

    1. Re:If Richard III had survived the battle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a Dutch one ;-)

    2. Re:If Richard III had survived the battle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that England's developments in the New World didn't really get under way until Elizabeth I's reign.

      Arguably, a Catholic monarch might have felt the need to respect the Treaty of Tordesillas and leave the New World to the Spanish. (Maybe not, after all it didn't stop the French, but we'll never know for sure.)

  35. He was framed by the Tudors by boddhisatva · · Score: 1

    Richard was, by surviving contemporary evidence a pretty good guy as monarchs of time go. He modified laws and the legal system to provide justice for the lower class citizens. The Tudors had every reason to fear his memory and smear it. During the early period of Tudor reign, saying something good about the Plantagenets, especially Richard would have been the equivalent of talking about how good the Czar had been during the rule of Stalin.

    1. Re:He was framed by the Tudors by cusco · · Score: 1

      In all honesty, nasty as Stalin was the Tsar was only slightly better. Even then that was mostly because Lenin and Stalin dramatically improved the communication throughout the country, while Nicolas was more interested in spending those resources buying Faberge eggs and diamonds for the Tsarina.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  36. no House of Windsor - made up name by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    windsor is a made up bullshit name, George the V of the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha pulled it out of his ass in 1917.

  37. figures by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

    What else would you expect from such a misshapen man who can't even enjoy the lascivious pleasing of a loot!

  38. Re:ignominious? by xaxa · · Score: 1

    I can imagine lots of other burial places that would be less famous or reputable than a parking lot.

    It's lucky the land is a car park (only a small one, for an office). It's surrounded on all sides by 19th century buildings in the centre of Leicester.

    Just west of the three white vans

  39. They pave potentate by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1
    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  40. No... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    I think it was more of a "the best we can do is get you buried in an unmarked grave so it won't be desecrated" kind of burial, myself.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:No... by dwye · · Score: 1

      The only "desecration" that Richard III would receive would be at the behest of Henry Bolingbroke (or his toadies). Richard was even popular in Yorkshiire, which ironically most of the "Yorkist" branch were decidedly not. His modern reputation comes about because he lost, and Henry was not as gracious a winner as William The Conqueror (or his half brother, Bishop Odo, who supervised the Bayeaux Tapestry) was to Harold Godwinson.

    2. Re:No... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Presumably Henry Bolingbroke would have been looking for braiiiiiinzzzz to eat, since he'd been dead for over 60 years.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:No... by dwye · · Score: 1

      Damn. you're right! Wrong Richard => Henry transition. Henry Tudor, who had no need of a birthplace name because he was the first English monarch with a proper surname before coronation.

    4. Re:No... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      English? He was about as English as Queen Victoria.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:No... by dwye · · Score: 1

      Henry VII was an English monarch in that he was monarch of England, just like Knute the Dane King, William I, Henry II. James I, and William of Orange. Not an Englishman, just ruler over them.

      BTW, Victoria was a British monarch, since she ruled after the Act Of Union, just like George I. HAH!!

      BTW MkII: According to the Wikipedia article, Henry Tudor was fairly English, too, since the Tudors seemed to marry English when not knocking up widowed French princesses.

  41. On the same off-topic topic.... by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    Anyone else thing it EXTREMELY convenient that they found a living relative to the body they pulled out of the ground? I've a sister who does the genealogy for our family, and she's gone back to the late 18th century. Middle ages = no censuses, no births/deaths/marriages columns ... and the occasional child out of wedlock. So how the heck did they go back to the middle ages for a carpenter living in London?

    And also - modern analysis of the Richard III painting that's contemporary show it to have been 'retouched', to add in the 'hump'. And yet the body found has a hump. http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw05304/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=1

    And then there's other accounts that say Richard's bones were tossed into the local river. So if that happened, someone dragged him out, rearranged them, got permission to bury them in the church.... Sorry, can't find the link. All sites seem to have been redacted.

    I call nonsense on the whole thing. Leicester tourist office has a lot to answer!

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:On the same off-topic topic.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm related to Henry VII. There might not be many records of the peasantry, but the records for the aristocracy are much better, and once you get into modern times and accurate birth, deaths and marriage records, it becomes a lot easier to keep track, even if some branches of the family don't stay rich and royal.

  42. Re:Better than Slashdeath by dan828 · · Score: 1

    Netcraft confirms it!

  43. back then, i would think the time of year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would dictate how hastily the grave was dug

  44. Brush by name, daft as one by nature by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Yeah, you're right. That's why Americans celebrate sort of some day round the end of June, or is it a bit later?

    Medieval history's one of my hobbies, WotR in particular. You might want to check what Richard III's badge was, or look up the scene where he's wooing Anne Neville to. Plus in Britain, it's a key date because it's conventionally regarded as the end of the medieval period[1] whereas most of Europe uses the fall of Constantinople.

    Also, I happened to fail my driving test on that date, but not due to a horse.

    So I'd ask for a refund on that Ronco internet-mindread-o-matic if I were you.

    [1] Arbitrary though such things are. Many European countries use the fall of Constantinople.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Brush by name, daft as one by nature by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      4th July is celebrated every year by an entire nation. Richard III's death, not so much.

      I've seen the scene with Lady Anne many times. What a bastard. I played Richmond.

  45. Re:ignominious? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    How many times is 'Ignominious' spoken each day in the ghetto?

    There must be a rapper with that name somewhere, though he probably spells it with at least one "a".

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."