#Philippa Langley

[richmond-rex]

For many in the Richard III Society, including Philippa Langley, Richard’s “hunchback” was a slanderous Tudor invention, and the confirmation of his scoliosis was a blow—even, for Langley, a “personal [. . .] disaster.” The excavation forced Langley and the Society to shift tack, from denying any spinal difference, to insisting that scoliosis would not have actually impaired the royal body. Langley’s excavation account describes scoliosis as a “condition, not a disability,” while the Society’s website stresses the fact that the athlete Usain Bolt also has scoliosis to demonstrate that it “doesn’t necessarily limit physical capability.” This strategy recalls a line from Josephine Tey’s 1951 Ricardian novel The Daughter of Time, in which a detective investigating the murder of the Princes in the Tower speaks to an expert who claims Richard had ‘“no visible deformity. At least, none that mattered.”’ Deformity, disability: all must be minimized, framed as “not matter[ing],” if this Richard is to be claimed by the Ricardians.

More than Richard’s moral reputation is at stake in the Society’s engagement with his skeleton. The Ricardians’ resistance to the idea of a physically impaired Richard relates to an anxiety that a disabled or visibly “othered” royal body would be incompatible with their perceptions of medieval English kingship as muscular, masculine, warlike. Langley’s excavation account characterises Richard and his “era” in terms inflected by nostalgic, romantic medievalism. If Richard was ever harsh, this was simply a product of his being a prince in a “ruthless era;” these qualities, moreover, were balanced out by his considerable martial “fortitude” and “chivalry.” The Society’s Richard is a knight, a pseudo-Arthurian defender of the realm—perhaps, recalling the popular emphasis on Richard’s death in battle, the last real fighting English king.

— Rowan Wilson, Reading the “human braille”: Discourses of Ableism and Medievalism in the Reburial of Richard III

[buffyfan145]

Looks like Philippa Langley might've done it again as she's written a new book about new evidence she and other historians have found that Edward V and Prince Richard of York actually escaped and were never murdered. Her book is out now in the UK and this is one of the many articles coming out ahead of the documentary that's getting ready to air in the UK this weekend and here in the US on PBS the 22nd, and from what I'm reading these new pieces of evidence does seem to point to the boys actually making it to Europe and that both those pretenders actually were them. One of new evidence found in the Netherlands is a written confession supposedly by Richard of York in Rome detailing how he and his brother escaped. The new evidence is coming from both Italy and France and has been authenticated to the correct time period during Henry VII's reign.

They're saying the new evidence has already changed some minds about this and I'll judge for myself when I watch the doc next week (as either the book doesn't have a US release date yet or my library isn't getting it) but Philippa already was able to find Richard III's remains and get him reburied, and this has been a long thing to clear up just like they did with proving that Shakespeare and others made him more monstrous than he was. My belief was that Richard III might've ordered the princes deaths (as that was common with monarchs and who they deem as threats to the throne) and then regretted it, but maybe so many of us have been wrong this whole time. Again this proves why the whole Wars of the Roses is one of my favorite historical time periods and things are still playing out.

[teh-nos]

"In the next chapter, we will [...] establish whether Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Richard III) had a motive to murder the sons of Edward IV"

🤔

[suimovies]

"The Lost King"

directed by Stephen Frears

[rosemarytales]

I'm sorry, but I keep thinking about that one Richard III maniac

[legendaryten]

Ian’s Blog 19th November 2023

I am now reading Philippa Langley’s new book about the missing Princes and have just watched the channel 4 documentary which tells us about the new evidence that has been discovered. I won’t go into too much detail but I will mention some of my thoughts about all of this.

I believe that Thomas Moore’s narrative about the murder of the Princes of Edward IV cannot be relied upon and I don’t believe he meant it to be used as true history. In fact I believe that he never finished writing it and it wasn’t published in his lifetime.

With respect to the bones found under the stairs at the Tower of London I think that they are highly unlikely to be from the period of the late 15th century and I find it hard to believe that the bodies of the Princes would be buried in such a location where there would be lots of people about to witness such a strange burial.

Two pretenders claiming to be the sons of Edward IV during the reign of Henry VII seems to me to be rather odd as opposed to a much more likely scenario that they were Edward V and his younger brother Richard. Why on earth would the Earl of Lincoln support an imposter if Edward V was dead. If Edward V was no longer alive then the Earl of Lincoln would be attempting to seize the throne for himself at the battle of Stoke as he had a stronger claim to the throne than Henry VII and I would argue that this Earl was legally entitled to be King if the sons of Edward IV were both dead.

Here is another thought. It seems very strange that after Henry VII made Richard of York sign a confession that he was actually called Perkin Warbeck, that he didn’t execute him straight away but allowed him to be treated well in his court. Was it because of his Queen who was the sister of Richard of York? 

I would imagine that some historians will find it hard to accept a rewrite of the history books but I expect that with the passage of time Philippa Langley’s discoveries will gradually be accepted as the true version of history. When I think about the actions of the people at the time in question then it makes much more sense if it was Edward V at the battle of Stoke and it was his brother Richard attempting to claim the throne from Henry VII.

It also needs to be stated that there was another Prince in the tower who was the son of George Duke of Clarence. Richard III did not imprison this Prince but Henry VII did and eventually had him executed.

[cynicalclassicist]

We can never really know, of course, but while it might make a fun historical novel, it is probably not true. They probably died in the Tower of London in the 15th century.

I'm all for debating Richard III as much as the next medieval history nerd, but this feels a tad implausible.

Also, seeing the Torygraph put something up automatically makes me suspicious of a story.

TRICKY RICK MIGHT NOT HAVE DONE IT????

[iiiiiiits-m]

petition to say “oh they’re just in their Philippa Langley era” when someone is acting delulu

[moriartyyouwhore]

y’know what that’s it that’s the final straw I don’t care about doing something I love (high Medieval) I am becoming a late Medieval historian so I can get on a panel with Philippa Langley and challenge her to a duel

[tudorblogger]

Monthly Reading Summary – December 2023

[vigilskeep]

just saying this to make myself angry but do you think in future thedas they’ll have the equivalent of the richard iii society for some of these bitches

[une-sanz-pluis]

La famille Lancaster a annoncé que Philippa de Clarence avait triché pendant la guerre des roses?

OK, my French is very basic (which I'm pretty sure I've said here before) so I ran this through Google Translate and I think you're asking me if the Lancastrian side claimed Philippa of Clarence, the daughter of Lionel of Antwerp, was illegitimate. I think you may have also sent me in a similar question some months earlier:

It is said that during the Civil War, the Lancaster family accused Philip, who had already passed away in Clarence, of cheating and attempting to attack Mortimer's claims?

I... have honestly never heard of this and looking at biographies of Margaret of Anjou and Henry VI, I cannot find any reference to Philippa of Clarence, much less accusations that she was illegitimate. Nor is this discussed in Joanna Laynesmith's article about adultery and queen and I cannot find anything on Google that comes close to this story. Can you tell me where you read this so I check it out for myself and see what, if any, sources they have for their claim?

In general - as I think I've said before - if you want me to explain or debunk a claim, it helps to tell me where you read it so I can look at it myself and ensure I'm understanding exactly what you're asking.

[buffyfan145]

Finally got to see "The Lost King" and loved it!!! :D I've always loved most of Steve Coogan's movies he's written and this was another as it was a true story about Philippa Langley, the woman who after becoming fascinated with King Richard III's story started researching and ended up figuring out where he had been buried which had been a mystery for over 500 years. I remember when this news story broke in 2012 and they found his remains under a parking lot and then were finally able to give him a proper funeral and royal marker. This was all due to her and how she had to fight to get this to even happen as most thought she was a crazy fangirl. Sally Hawkins did a wonderful job as Philippa, Steve wrote this with his writing partner so well and played her ex-husband, great supporting cast, and loved they used the same actor Philippa saw in the Shakespeare play to also play Richard III as she kept seeing him everywhere and like he was guiding her to find him. Such a good movie and telling how this all happened.

[teh-nos]

this book is just bad :S think i will read something else instead.

[archivallyminded]

okay but I forgot to mention that there's possible new Ricardian evidence being released this weekend so I'm ready for it

[rosemarytales]

her reaction, I'm laughing so hard OMG

how can you be that ableist, it's insane 😭😭😭 she actually started crying, you just have to laugh about this