Mystery coffin moved to Bosworth

[Adsos Letter]

Source: BBC

A medieval stone coffin rumoured to have been Richard III's has been placed at its new home in Leicestershire.

The coffin was found in a garden in Earl Shilton where it had been used in a water garden.

Archaeologists believe it dates from the time the 15th Century king died, and could once have been located at Greyfriars Church in Leicester.

Richard is rumoured to have been buried at the church. The coffin has now been installed at Bosworth visitors' centre.

King Richard was killed at Bosworth in 1485.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/7865877.stm

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. Mystery Coffin

Either a great name for a band, a video game, or one strange entree dish from the Fabulous '50s!

[Adsos Letter]

3. !

:D

[supernova]

2. No pix!

I love this stuff and no pix of the coffin. Bad Beeb!! x(

[Adsos Letter]

4. I agree...the lack of pix is always frustrating.

[petronius]

5. Here's one - it looks a lot like a garden trough...

[catnhatnh]

6. Ah! The Pallbearers of 1485....

Think of the strength, the pageantry, the HERNIAS....

[Adsos Letter]

10. Think of how cold and dank that sucker looks...

not that it matters to the deceased, I suppose...or is that actually a cattle trough?

I can never figure these things out...

[catnhatnh]

12. Ah, Either the historic burial casket of glorious English Royalty..

...fallen in heroic battle-or a munchies bin for moo-cows...sometimes it's so hard to decide with artifacts.

Edited for a misused word...whoops

[supernova]

13. Thank you for that

So it was used as a garden trough.

What happened to Richard III's body... er. skeleton?

[enlightenment]

7. Neat. And rather serendipitious . . .

Just returned from teaching my 'Intro to Historical Research' class. One of the first books they read is Josephine Tay's 'Daughter of Time' that centers around the mystery of the 'princes in the Tower'. We were going to discuss it tonight, but got sidetracked in a long-winded discussion that rose out of my basic historiography lecture. Richard will have to wait until next week to be exonerated!

[Lex]

8. Wow, your post jogged my memory of a post I did here at DU in 2005

and I went back and found it. I thoroughly enjoyed the book:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=208&topic_id=7496


:hi:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

14. I love that book too and reread it about every decade or so.

History is written by the victors!

[SharonAnn]

9. Oh, isn't that an absolutely outstanding book? I loved it and reread every 10 years or so.

[Adsos Letter]

11. What books do you use to teach historiography?

Are people still using Collingwood's The Idea of History? Man, I HATED that book... :rofl:

[enlightenment]

15. Gads, no. Collingwood . . . yerg.

This is an undergraduate research class; I add the historiography because the poor buggers desperately need it. So they don't have a text, per se. They get a couple of lectures to expose them to the ideas and reinforcement as they work through their research topics - but it's not a concentration.

My personal preference leans toward Evans, 'In Defence of History'; Burke, 'History and Social Theory'; and Jenkins, 'Rethinking History'. Jenkins drives me mad, as I'm really not a dyed in the wool po-mo and I despise his holier than thou attitude - but he has some important things to say, for all that. He backed down a little in 'Refiguring History' so I'm not as inclined to want to flush him down the drain.

Nothing is perfect, but the imperfections are as useful as anything, don't you think?

I just finished reading an essay by Gordon Woods on the topic - he's got his knickers in a twist this month, for sure, but I can't disagree with him overall. The study of history has gotten so wrapped up in itself that it's largely forgotten that people might actually be interested in it - if they could get through it without either going mad trying to decipher the 'theory' or die from boredom with the endless pedantry.

[Adsos Letter]

16. Amen, amen, amen.....

I am reading for the first of two Graduate comps in History this semester, and the exams for this set of readings will focus entirely on the historiography involved in the 45 books on "The Atlantic World, 1500-1800" that compose my reading list...

Next semester I do it all over again with "Nineteenth Century American Thought and Culture," another 45 books, and again the exams will focus entirely on historiography...

To be honest, I expected to be challenged, but this is slowly wringing the joy out of the last year of grad school, and making me wish I had chosen thesis instead of comps.

Speaking of Gordon Wood...I was taken aback by the difference in tone between his and Edmund Morgan's reviews of Nash's Unknown American Revolution. Morgan was genteel in his criticism, while Wood seemed as if he had a personal grudge against Nash. Perhaps it is the difference in generations.

I did enjoy Wood's Radicalism of the American Revolution, as well as his shorter workThe American Revolution.

Simple as it is (and full of metaphor) I actually enjoy Gaddis' Landscape of History, Appleby, et al, Telling the Truth About History, and Scott's Gender and the Politics of History, although Scott could have kicked down a couple of metaphors to compensate for Gaddes' overuse of the device. I did Collingwood back in 91 as part of a seminar on historical method. Somewhere along the way I read The Nature of Historical Enquiry, Muller's Uses of the Past, and Fischer's Historians Fallacies. I really do enjoy Fischer, though I have yet to read his latest work on Champlain.

I am certainly not as advanced as you in this History biz, but it does seem that the pretension to "science" of it has gotten out of hand. :)