Arden Dier
USA TodayFri, 24 May 2013 10:22 UTC

© University of Leicester, APThe long lost remains of England's King Richard III, missing for 500 years, are at the center of a conflict between the town where they were found and the town where the king spent much of his childhood.
If you thought being found buried under a parking lot was about as unroyal as it could get for King Richard III, think again. In a paper published today
inAntiquity, researchers describe his body as being buried in haste, crammed into a too-small grave that was roughly dug (at the time, a proper grave would have had straight walls, not sloping ones). Further indications that the dead king was treated with little respect: He was found in a somewhat folded position with no death shroud, and his hands may have been bound, reports Smithsonian. (The BBC tempers the finding by noting the University of Leicester researchers did acknowledge the treatment could have been the result of harried gravediggers.)
The condition isn't surprising given that he was killed in battle during the War of the Roses, but it does add to his legend; the story goes that his naked body was carried by horse, and laughed at by spectators en route to his grave. The paper also reveals that it's likely his body was battered after his death: There were 10 wounds - including stabs to his back and buttocks - in addition to blows to his head. The bottom line, per Smithsonian? The new findings further indicate Richard III died in "violent humiliation." (Meanwhile, the feud continues over where the body should be reburied.)
My Kingdom for . . . Some Decent Subjects?
(And don't tell me how those who abused his corpse were leading some anti-authoritarian faction. They were waiting to see who won so they could jump on the bandwagon of THAT authoritarian..
II believe that he was the last national leader to die on a field of battle. Clearly, the world would be a far far better place today if "our" leaders were required to be the very first to physically invade (usually by parachute) into enemy territory. (After proper declaration of war, of course.)
Indeed, as long as I'm at it, the younger half of the voters for war should each lead a company or so, and be in the first wave. (You see, that way, even if our troops got really pummelled in that first battle, the average American - who CLAIMS to hate politicians* - wouldn't feel so bad about the loss. ;-)
R.C.
* And we elect 'em again and again.
And that's what I learned in school today,
that's what I learned in school.
(By Tom Paxton, though I hear Pete Seeger.)
RC