The Richard III Network
Welcome to The Richard III Network. We hope you enjoy your visit and consider joining our forum.


A forum where you can discuss King Richard III and anything related to his life and times.
 
HomeHome  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Wednesday
Admin
avatar

Posts : 137
Join date : 2014-03-19

PostSubject: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:28 pm

Figures that Michael Hicks would be in the middle of this. It sounds like the "experts" aren't happy that Leicester hasn't released their records or published their findings for peer review. Unfortunately, I can't say that I blame the experts. It's past time LU released papers.

"Archaeologists “cannot say with any confidence” that bones found in Leicester are those of Richard III, leading experts have claimed."

ARTICLE HERE
Back to top Go down
http://richardiiinetwork.forumotion.com
khafara

avatar

Posts : 80
Join date : 2014-03-20

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:30 pm

Did you notice that both Hicksie and the ULeics, at least from the way the article's written, seem to be determined to pretend that this is the ULeics' baby, all the way? (At least The Daily Fail's version quotes Philippa Langley, but both leave out JA-H's name.)
Back to top Go down
Wednesday
Admin
avatar

Posts : 137
Join date : 2014-03-19

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:50 pm

khafara wrote:
Did you notice that both Hicksie and the ULeics, at least from the way the article's written, seem to be determined to pretend that this is the ULeics' baby, all the way?  (At least The Daily Fail's version quotes Philippa Langley, but both leave out JA-H's name.)

UL has tried since they knew it was Richard to shove aside Philippa and John. Hicks has been systematically ignoring the facts where Richard is concerned. So Hicksie and UL have at least ignoring factual history to suit themselves in common.

But Hicks already looks like an idiot with this speculation that UL's research, et. al. is wrong and the Greyfriars Warrior is just...who? I do wish UL would release their evidence to their peers. Get on with it already.

Hicks will never give Richard or anyone who "approves" of him in any way a break. That says more about Hicks than about Richard. UL is trying to protect careers. Hicks is trying to twist historical and genetic facts to suit his prejudice.
Back to top Go down
http://richardiiinetwork.forumotion.com
Thibault

avatar

Posts : 75
Join date : 2014-03-22

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:47 pm

Wednesday wrote:


UL has tried since they knew it was Richard to shove aside Philippa and John. Hicks has been systematically ignoring the facts where Richard is concerned. So Hicksie and UL have at least ignoring factual history to suit themselves in common.
.

I have to disagree with you there, Wednesday. I recently went to Leicester University's Weekend Conference about Richard III, which was attended by all the University team involved in the discovery of Richard. All of them, including conversations during the social side of the event, as well as the official sessions, gave full and positive credit to both Philippa and John Ashdown Hill. Dr Turi King and Prof. Keven Schurer talked about the importance of JAH's work in tracing the Ibsens. Mathew Morris, who actually uncovered the remains was glowing in his praise of Philippa's efforts to get the dig underway etc.

There was absolutely no indication that any of the team wanted to 'airbrush' the two RIII members out of the event.
Back to top Go down
Colyngbourne

avatar

Posts : 11
Join date : 2014-03-21

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:01 am

I think that's because the Leicester University team have been aware of criticism over this - they have added extra webpages to their Richard section, mentioning JAH and Philippa, which weren't there before. Let's say that there was an airbrushing of Philippa and John out of the picture for quite a long while but the University are wary of doing so now. I think John Ashdown-Hill not being invited to the press conference on Feb 4th exemplified what their approach was previously.

The doubts being raised are ridiculous - especially Hicks' involvement in this - but the University should have made their dig report public, especially to refute this kind of thing. And more importantly, Professor Biddle draws attention to the poor standard of archaeological care taken with the digger and querying the damage to the legbone, the missing fibula and possibly the feet as well. I think that should be the focus, rather than any doubt whether this is Richard.
Back to top Go down
Wednesday
Admin
avatar

Posts : 137
Join date : 2014-03-19

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:32 pm

Thibault wrote:
Wednesday wrote:


UL has tried since they knew it was Richard to shove aside Philippa and John. Hicks has been systematically ignoring the facts where Richard is concerned. So Hicksie and UL have at least ignoring factual history to suit themselves in common.
.

I have to disagree with you there, Wednesday.  I recently went to Leicester University's Weekend Conference about Richard III, which was attended by all the University team involved in the discovery of Richard.  All of them, including conversations during the social side of the event, as well as the official sessions, gave full and positive credit to both Philippa and John Ashdown Hill.  Dr Turi King and Prof. Keven Schurer talked about the importance of JAH's work in tracing the Ibsens.  Mathew Morris, who actually uncovered the remains was glowing in his praise of Philippa's efforts to get the dig underway etc.

There was absolutely no indication that any of the team wanted to 'airbrush' the two RIII members out of the event.

Then LU has definitely changed their stripes -- or had their legal advisers change them for LU. Because if you go back and read the news articles after Richard was identified, you'll find that they crow that LU found the king. There is even an article where they lay credit for knowing where to dig at the feet of one of LU's former professors rather than credit JA-H. This is also the institution that did not invite JA-H to its media conference when they confirmed "their" find was Richard.

Their omission of both PL and JA-H is not something that happened only once or twice. For weeks, it was consistent behavior, and it's in print. For them to have suddenly remembered and admitted that LU and their brilliant personnel weren't the only ones to play a role in researching the grounds of the priory, the location of the grave, and that it wasn't just their brilliance that allowed them to find the King....

I couldn't figure out what the heck they were about at the time, because the aired television documentaries outlined without a doubt the steps in the discovery -- with Philippa and John very much in evidence. For LU to attempt to change history and paint both of them out of the story made no sense to me. Rather as if the Tudors had attempted to erase Richard as King. Oh, wait....

If they are inserting Philippa and John back into their weekend presentations which have no video or other event coverage online (so the world can watch), that's all to the good. I'd like to see them do it in print, too. Are they publicly acknowledging Philippa and/or John now, either in the press articles they are currently releasing, or on their own web pages dealing with Richard, et. al.?
Back to top Go down
http://richardiiinetwork.forumotion.com
Thibault

avatar

Posts : 75
Join date : 2014-03-22

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:26 pm

If you look at any of their press releases you will see that PL and the contribution of the RIII Society is always acknowledged.

David Baldwin (a former Prof at the university) did say in 1986 that Richard was still buried under the car park and it is published in his book which came out in that year.  So that claim is valid too.

Mathew Morris - the Field Director for the dig - said at the conference that if he had chosen to put his trench 30cms to the right, they would have missed Richard entirely - this is despite having JAH's layout of a typical Franciscan friary to go on.  He also said that the features of the site - modern services, walls and other buildings limited the room for the dig quite severely.  He chose the line for the trench in the relatively small area they had to dig in by the existing white lines of the car-parking spaces - hence his comment about the 30 cms.
Back to top Go down
phaecilia

avatar

Posts : 62
Join date : 2014-03-29

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:41 pm

Wednesday wrote:
Figures that Michael Hicks would be in the middle of this. It sounds like the "experts" aren't happy that Leicester hasn't released their records or published their findings for peer review. Unfortunately, I can't say that I blame the experts. It's past time LU released papers.

"Archaeologists “cannot say with any confidence” that bones found in Leicester are those of Richard III, leading experts have claimed."

ARTICLE HERE

Hicks' claims should be taken with generous doses of salt.  Here's one reason why:

In 1998, Hicks published Warwick the Kingmaker, which describes the double wedding of Richard Neville (future earl of Warwick) and his sister Cecily to Anne Beauchamp and her brother Henry, Lord Despenser.  He spent pp. 24-29 discussing the circumstances of this double wedding and the parents' reasons for making these marriages when their children were all under age 13.  His language is straightforward and uncritical.    

When Hicks published Anne Neville, queen to Richard III in 2007, he contradicted what he wrote in Warwick the Kingmaker, which demonstrates that in 1998, he knew there was nothing wrong with double marriages between siblings.  His language in Anne Neville is often clogged with insubordinate clauses and tangles of prepositional phrases.  His tone is disrespectful to his readers as well as to his subjects.  At the end, he says hasn't added anything to the knowledge of Anne Neville.  That's an understatement!  

I feel that the contradiction between his Warwick and Anne Neville books demonstrates Hicks' lack of professionalism and credibility.  It would be good if more Ricardians could read pp. 24-29 of Warwick the Kingmaker and point out Hicks' contradiction early and often, just as many have pointed out Rous's contradictory descriptions of Richard.

phaecilia
Back to top Go down
Thibault

avatar

Posts : 75
Join date : 2014-03-22

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:27 pm

That is interesting phaecilia. I certainly think we should be encouraging people to look at Hicks's work with a more critical eye and perhaps making the point about what he has written in the Warwick book compared with the Anne Neville book in things like Amazon reviews.
Back to top Go down
khafara

avatar

Posts : 80
Join date : 2014-03-20

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:41 am

Meanwhile, J A-H has responded -- and demolished Hick's and Biddle's arguments, as well as those of one of their defenders, Kyle Slimmon.

The fun starts here.
Back to top Go down
Colyngbourne

avatar

Posts : 11
Join date : 2014-03-21

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:20 pm

Why does Leicester always and persistently point to Baldwin, a Leicester historian, as the source for the car-park burial info in 1986? It has been repeatedly pointed out over the last year by various commenters that Jeremy Potter stated Richard was very likely still buried under what is now a council car-park in his 1983 book, Good King Richard?, which was published three years previously to Baldwin's statement, but Leicester only ever refer to Baldwin as if he were the only one, or somehow the most significant person to point this out.

Back to top Go down
khafara

avatar

Posts : 80
Join date : 2014-03-20

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:33 pm

Colyngbourne wrote:
Why does Leicester always and persistently point to Baldwin, a Leicester historian, as the source for the car-park burial info in 1986? It has been repeatedly pointed out over the last year by various commenters that Jeremy Potter stated Richard was very likely still buried under what is now a council car-park in his 1983 book, Good King Richard?, which was published three years previously to Baldwin's statement, but Leicester only ever refer to Baldwin as if he were the only one, or somehow the most significant person to point this out.

If I remember rightly, UL didn't even start mentioning Baldwin's work until AFTER Richard had been found.

The UL folks on the digging team made it quite clear - and were filmed saying so - that they had never expected to find Richard at all, much less in the very first trench on the very first day. They were just hoping to get the outlines of Greyfriars sussed out, maybe find the choir if they were really lucky, and the only reason they were doing any digging at all in these austerity-mad times was because the Ricardians were helping to pay for it.
Back to top Go down
Wednesday
Admin
avatar

Posts : 137
Join date : 2014-03-19

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:25 pm

Colyngbourne wrote:
Why does Leicester always and persistently point to Baldwin, a Leicester historian, as the source for the car-park burial info in 1986? It has been repeatedly pointed out over the last year by various commenters that Jeremy Potter stated Richard was very likely still buried under what is now a council car-park in his 1983 book, Good King Richard?, which was published three years previously to Baldwin's statement, but Leicester only ever refer to Baldwin as if he were the only one, or somehow the most significant person to point this out.


The only reason I can see for Leicester wanting to revise history and point to Baldwin is that Baldwin is a professor who taught at Leicester. He's in-house, but Jeremy Potter was Chairman of the R3 Society when the book was published. And if you don't know about Good King Richard?, or own a copy, or have read the book, and someone doesn't tell you, then Leicester's claim seems a solid one.

And Leicester can claim they didn't know about Potter's work, or it wasn't thorough, or....

There's also the fact that Potter has passed on and can't defend his work, while Baldwin is still around to shout about his and ignore Potter.

I've been told that armchair historians are just as respected in Britain as professional historians, but LU doesn't seem to want to do that. I'm sorry to be so down on LU, but I've seen this sort of, "We own [the king, the issue, the research, whatever], so just accept it and get out of our way" attitude elsewhere, and it's maddening. Until someone stands up to them and corrects them, they think they can get away with it. And the truth is, since LU has ready access to the media and they spread their version of things far and wide, their version gets traction while the correction is often buried in comments or rumor.

I think it's great that they've somehow been forced to admit Philippa and JA-H's involvement, but on the other hand I think it pretty much speaks for itself that they made a point to exclude them as much as possible when they could get away with it.

The first time I heard of Baldwin's claim, it was in an article wherein Baldwin was introduced as a retired LU professor. The article went on to feature a photo of Baldwin and statements from him. So this wasn't just someone inside LU's media office issuing mistaken statements.

Was Baldwin unaware of Jeremy Potter's research? Was he unaware of JA-H's? And where was Baldwin when the possibility of the dig and research regarding Greyfriars was put before the university and the city? He seems to have popped up after the fact in an attempt to claim glory for himself and LU, and shove others aside.

Is it just a case that academia cannot stand the idea that a group of "amateurs" (who weren't amateurs at all in their chosen field of researching all things Richard) were the ones to finance the dig, told them where to look for him, told them where to dig, and actually practically forced the professionals help find the King? Because LU's attitude of, "We knew where he was along along, we just ignored him," is rather...cavalier and all too true?

_________________
Back to top Go down
http://richardiiinetwork.forumotion.com
Wednesday
Admin
avatar

Posts : 137
Join date : 2014-03-19

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:32 pm

khafara wrote:
Meanwhile, J A-H has responded -- and demolished Hick's and Biddle's arguments, as well as those of one of their defenders, Kyle Slimmon.

The fun starts here.

Annette Carson has also weighed in, a few comments below the end of JA-H. By the time this is over, Michael Hicks may wish he'd never said a word.

At last, something LU and the Ricardians can agree on: "It is Richard, and this is why."

_________________
Back to top Go down
http://richardiiinetwork.forumotion.com
Thibault

avatar

Posts : 75
Join date : 2014-03-22

PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:12 pm

Wednesday wrote:
Colyngbourne wrote:
Why does Leicester always and persistently point to Baldwin, a Leicester historian, as the source for the car-park burial info in 1986? It has been repeatedly pointed out over the last year by various commenters that Jeremy Potter stated Richard was very likely still buried under what is now a council car-park in his 1983 book, Good King Richard?, which was published three years previously to Baldwin's statement, but Leicester only ever refer to Baldwin as if he were the only one, or somehow the most significant person to point this out.


The only reason I can see for Leicester wanting to revise history and point to Baldwin is that Baldwin is a professor who taught at Leicester. He's in-house, but Jeremy Potter was Chairman of the R3 Society when the book was published. And if you don't know about Good King Richard?, or own a copy, or have read the book, and someone doesn't tell you, then Leicester's claim seems a solid one.

And Leicester can claim they didn't know about Potter's work, or it wasn't thorough, or....

I think you have answered your own question, Wednesday.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard   

Back to top Go down
 
Doubts Being Raised by Hicks & an Archaeologist that Bones are Really Richard
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Doubts about going from band to sleeve
» Humans raised by animals
» A few last minute doubts!
» Keyhole scars
» Recruitment Posters during WWI

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The Richard III Network :: RICHARD MULTIMEDIA (Current & past articles, publications, memorabilia, videos, movies, plays, photos, events, seminars, etc.) :: Latest News-
Jump to: