h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Missing, Misplaced and Muddled Monarchs - A87851271
Author: Bluebottle - U43530

A look at the impact that Richard III's discovery has had on Britain's other missing monarchs.

<BB<

Most interesting


However....

>>and when James gave birth to a son he intended to raise as a Catholic<<


It is not physically possible for James to have given birth to his son... He 'sired' a son


lil x

Thanks for reading through - I've tweaked that bit.

<BB<

Well tweaked


lil xx

Nice entry - well done!


"Yet Richard III was not the only English monarch whose mortal remains have been lost." - you need to rephrase this now, as Richard's remains were found.


I'd put the Muddled Monarchs section at the end (but before your closing piece)


"This was the subject of a documentary entitled The Search for Alfred the Great that was broadcast on Monday 10 February, 2014" - A TV documentary? Which channel? First broadcast?


"...at Borsham, near Chichester Harbour" - Did you mean Bosham?


"On 14 October, 2014, the 948th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings, an archaeological investigation using geophysics began at Waltham Abbey. This aims to locate the remains of Harold II." - Surely they must have completed the Geophys by now? (John on Time Team usually finished these by the end of the first day).


"It was not until 1813 when the Prince Regent ordered the construction of a new burial vault there that it was rediscovered by workmen who discovered [Charles I's] coffin draped with velvet." - So why is it still missing? Or is it disputed?


General point: This entry relies on a lot of historical sources, and, even though you've written it in a very light style, I'd consider listing the references. It's a very popular subject, and we would want to be seen to be scrupulously accurate.

Icy

Thanks for the comments – I've tweaked the article as suggested.

You're right that the Geophys should have been done by now but I've heard nothing further. I'm guessing this means that either nothing has been found, or at best some 11th Century bones that they can't prove anything about without further tests has been found. I'd expect the former to be more likely as news stories love speculating.

As for Charles I – he isn't still missing, he's the misplaced monarch, once lost and now found. I've added him to the end along with the muddled monarchs.

I've included the news reports links for the recent searches for the monarchs in Reference tabs, do other people think more references should be listed?

<BB<

Hi BB, well done on this timely entry

In the intro paragraph, there's "intense media coverage", "watched intensely" and "intensified interest" - we could try some other words to avoid the repetition - e.g. "watched avidly" and "heightened interest"



>>defended the Kingdom of Wessex from Viking invasion and transformed his small kingdom into what later became the England.<<
=
became England.



>>After his death in 899, he was buried in Winchester's Old Minster. In 901 the New Minster was built next door and his body was transferred to that, along with the bodies of his son King Edward the Elder and other members of the House of Wessex Royal Family.<<

I don't think that sounds right - the date of death for King Edward the Elder is the year 924 - so how could he have been buried in the New Minster in 901?



Is it Faversham Abbey or Favesham Abbey? You have both in the same section.



>>After his father's death he was appointed king, but never crowned, with his uncle Richard III claiming the throne instead.<<
=
It's not clear who "he" in this sentence is, as you don't mention his name, and the previous sentence contains three names. It should be:
"After his father's death Edward was appointed king, but never crowned, with his uncle Richard III claiming the throne instead."

Thanks for writing this up BB, I had no idea there were so many missing monarchs, although I always keep my eyes to the ground when walking on the seashore, it's more for King John's missing Crown Jewels than old bones...



GB

Hi GB - I enjoyed your article on Richard III so much, I thought I'd write a sequel

You think I inadvertently came across a bit intense at the start? I've changed that a little.

I've made tweaks to correct the spellings and reword things so they are clearer.

If you find King John's Crown Jewels, let me know. And I thought it was annoying losing socks in the wash...

<BB<

I thought William Rufus was killed by a crossbow bolt not an arrow fired by the alleged killer Walter Tyrell/Tyrel.

There are good reasons for this, Tyrell was gentry and the new forest is/was a chase (literally chase the prey in open woodland ) and deer are fast so he would have been mounted and crossbows are a weapon for horseback in a hunt servants would load the weapon, and longbows are a fired on foot. The "to the good archer, the good arrows" story is probably fiction.

It is also notable he got away with it very odd

There are lots of different stories related to the death of William Rufus which historians love to debate. Most sources say 'arrow' but as you say it may well have been a crossbow bolt rather than a typical arrow.
I'm always amused by how Rufus had made many enemies in the Church by confiscating church lands and power, and then when he died all the churchmen he had offended all declared his death to be an obvious Act of God.

There's a moral to that story somewhere.

<BB<

This is really interesting - well pulled together

Just a few small questions as I read through:

"all around the world" - appears twice in the introductory paragraph - I think the first one could be deleted.

"discovering skeletal remains and displayed as the Royal House of Wessex" - what does this mean? The bones were assumed to be Royal?

"confirm the bones' identity against" - should "against" be deleted there?

Excellent concluding paragraphs

This is interesting and intriguing.

One piece I wasn't sure about was in the section about Henry 1. You said 'Empress Matilda, as she had married Geoffrey Plantagenet she was an unpopular choice with the English lords'. I think you need either to expand this, to say why Matilda's marriage was unpopular, or simplify it. Maybe it would be enough to say that Matilda was an unpopular choice with the English lords.

Thanks both for your comments, glad you enjoyed it

I've deleted the duplicate 'all around the '

I've tweaked the 'discovering skeletal remains' bit to hopefully explain this more, and the confirm bones' identity bit too.

And you're right, MVP – rather than going into detail about the relationship between English and French lords in the reign of Henry I (ie, Anglo-Norman War 1101, Anglo-Norman War 1105-6, Anglo-French War 1117-20 and so on until Waterloo), it is much easier just to say Matilda was unpopular.

<BB<

This is fun, and very interesting.

Nitpicks:

In 1840 the bridewell was demolished (Capital ""B" for Bridewell?)

DNA was unable to be extracted from Edward's daughter and Alfred's granddaughter, Ædgyth. (This is a bit cumbersome - perhaps the active form rather than the passive form would be preferable. "It proved impossible to extract DNA from ..." or "Experts have so far not succeeded in extracting..."

I thought that they have now found out that Harold wasn't the one with the arrow in his eye. http://www.bayeux-tapestry.org.uk/deathofharold.htm - A whole new

popular story popularised by William Shakespeare (Just 'story popularised' would do)

Thanks TC, nitpicks changed.

To answer your query, as 'bridewell' was a general term for a prison (though not in use today), when used as a name, such as 'Hyde Meadow County Bridewell', or the person's title, Keeper of the Bridewell, I've used a capital letter. Just as I would for Parkhurst Prison. When used generally I've kept it lowercase, just as you would if you casually talk about prisons.

<BB<

OK - I thought that might be the case.

Oh, I meant to say that I added the word 'reputedly' to the Harold section, as you said that's another ...

<BB<

Sorry to keep coming back. You've changed it to:

The children were last seen within the Tower of London, popularised by William Shakespeare claiming that they were both murdered on Richard's orders.

Which implies that Shakespeare popularised the Tower of London.

It's fine for a light piece like this to say things like "is reputed", "is said", etc, but either the evidence must be fairly evident and accessible (a simple Google search would find it) or it should be in your reference material.

I conquered Captcha and tweaked that.

Can Google find missing royalty? Whether or not Harold was hit by an arrow in the eye, alas the definitive evidence (ie his body) isn't easily accessible, which kinda is what this article is all about.

<BB<