Thread by @daviddwill

I have spent months working out the true story behind #TheLostKing. What was it that made a UK university cut loose the person who most deserved the credit for finding #RichardIII? Here is what I think happened. Thread.

2/n When the #UniversityofLeicester announced in Feb 2013 that they had the evidence to show they had found #RichardIII, they gave #PhilippaLangley the least possible credit. They put her last at their big press conference, after 13 speakers, long after the big announcement.

3/n Ather Mirza of the Uni's News Centre described the announcement like this “The gasps from journalists… were audible. Their cheers at the end of our presentation were spontaneous. The celebratory hugs from the academic panel were genuine.” tinyurl.com/4y3avufd p30

4/n Langley did not receive any of this affirmation for her achievement. Why? I think now it was for one reason only. Because the Uni team was scared that if they admitted they had been led in any way by Langley this would make the Uni a laughing stock. Here is the evidence

5/n Hold in mind that Langley was motivated by a clairvoyant experience about where #RIII could be found. Her research with John Ashdown-Hill et al then showed the clairvoyance might be accurate so she persuaded the Uni to do an exploratory dig in the car park where it happened.

6/n On the first day of the dig, the earth mover uncovered a pair of leg bones under the spot where Langley had her clairvoyant experience. But instead of putting out a press release about the discovery, the Uni kept it quiet in order to manage the media. Because...

7/n “if [editors] had known that if human remains turned up, with even a remote possibility that #RIII had been found, they would never be able to interest journalists in [the other archaeology]” – the Uni’s Prof Lin Foxhall p143 ‘The Bones of a King’ with Maev Kennedy @guardian

8/n Langley wanted the bones exhumed. “There was pressure to start digging the skeleton that came up in the first six hours but I said absolutely not, because we have got to have a context for it.” Richard Buckley, the Uni archaeologist, Uni podcast 30:45 tinyurl.com/y695hrmu

9/n Buckley said no to Langley because the plan was to exhume remains that were in the choir of the lost friary church as this was where historical records said #RIII had been buried, and they hadn’t uncovered any buildings yet.

10/n Langley kept pressing. At their site meeting at the end of the first week, after they had found the friary chapter house, but not yet having found the friary church or its choir, Buckley asked Langley what she wanted to happen to the bones found on the first day.

11/n “Buckley knows what my response will be and smiles, and as expected I say that I want the remains… exhumed.” - Langley in ‘Richard III, the search for the king’s grave’ by Langley and @maharbal57 (p.100)

12/n Langley and Buckley agree that he will now apply for an exhumation licence. They even agree the fee for the exhumation: £716. You can see evidence for this in both sets of high-level accounts. The image is from Langley’s book, and these are the Uni’s le.ac.uk/richard-iii/fa…

13/n Four days later, after they have found the church but not yet its choir, Buckley agrees to the exhumation Langley wants. The skeleton is male with battle injuries and scoliosis. A few minutes later, they confirm they have found the choir and that the skeleton is in it.

Going to take a break now, will be back with the Uni''s attempt to manage the consequences of the discovery in a mo...

14/n The realisation that Langley had “instructed” (as she now puts it @HistoryHit tinyurl.com/bdeafs63 16:30) the exhumation of #RIII before the Uni had identified the choir set off a set of decisions by the Uni which are still playing out, #TheLostKing being one consequence.

15/n The first decision the Uni took was to put out a press release pretending they are still circling in on the grave and investigating the choir. They can do this because the media didn’t know about the bones from the 1st day. It's still on @medievalists tinyurl.com/3xbca52y

16/n You might want to give the Uni the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that this misleading press release was just a holding statement that was concocted so they could come to terms with the enormity of the discovery and decide how best to respond.

17/n But in the presentation by the Uni team at the first press conference which was held a couple of days after the press release, on Sept 12 (and which did include Langley on the panel), the same omission occurs.

18/n tinyurl.com/ykufx59v (3:10). The uncovering of the bones on the first day is left out, as is Langley's advocacy for the exhumation, as is the thinking behind the decision to exhume before they had found the choir – this information is clearly omitted.

19/n You can tell the omission is deliberate because when the Leicester Mercury @leicslive asks “When did you find [the skeleton]?” Uni marketer Richard Taylor replies: “It might be better to say when we started the exhumation I think, rather than when we found it.” (19:35)

@leicslive 20/n These three things – the misleading press release, the partial presentation and the refusal to answer the very first question from the media about the discovery – show that this was not a set of oversights but a deliberate strategy.

21/n Something else happened at that first press conference however which I suspect sealed Langley’s fate. Despite omitting the uncovering of the bones and Langley's influence over the decision to exhume, the media become interested in her and her motivation anyway (from 31.44)

22/n I suspect that this was the moment which confirmed to the Uni that they should avoid giving Langley anything more than the most minimal possible public profile at the final announcement.

23/n “We decided early on that the [Feb 2013] presentation should come from the University… We were able to put a bit of a firewall between [Langley] reacting to the announcement and the University presenting.” Richard Taylor, Uni podcast from 26:42 tinyurl.com/mrsaeh2y

24/n For me, the best way of understanding what happened is that from the discovery onwards, the Uni has been trying to extricate itself from the consequences of accepting Langley’s project, her funding, her influence over the exhumation and the fact of her being proved correct.

Lunch break, summation to come...

25/n Before the discovery, Langley was to the Uni a tolerably eccentric enthusiast who brought partial funding and the key permissions needed for an intriguing, academically credible, highly marketable, but likely fruitless archaeological search for an infamous king

26/n After the discovery, Langley became a significant reputational risk: a mission-driven empath whose clairvoyance had proven correct and who might tell the world that she had instructed or persuaded the Uni to exhume #RIII before they had the most rational reason for doing so.

27/n This explains why they kept Langley in the final Feb 2013 press conference, because she was more dangerous outside the tent than inside it, but also why they scheduled her as far away from the announcement as they could.

28/n This also explains why, in the accounts the Uni has since given, the discovery of the choir is emphasised and discussed in great detail, and before the decision to exhume, the information about which is glossed over (for more on this see my blog tinyurl.com/svrmjjsd)

29/n The UK’s @timeshighered described the Feb 2013 press conference as “the PR coup of the year”. It meant that the Uni had captured the global imagination, but the description is apposite. The person who had most agency over the discovery was removed from the substantive credit

30/n Trust in #academia meant the Uni was initially successful in containing Langley's account of events and the risk it posed, but this success led to Langley’s telling her own version via #TheLostKing. And in the long run, it became a PR disaster for the Uni anyway.

31/31 Thanks for staying with me. You can read more on the discovery of #RichardIII in my #substack davidwillem.substack.com