Search for lost king turns to Alfred after discovery of Richard III

Hampshire Chronicle: St Bartholomew's church in Hyde St Bartholomew's church in Hyde

THE discovery of the skeleton of Richard III has revived attention on the search in Winchester for the other lost king, Alfred the Great.

St Bartholomew’s church in Hyde is seeking permission to dig up the grave where the king is reputed to lie and to carry out forensic research to see if the human remains may be Alfred, his wife Alswitha or son Edward.

An application is being prepared by the church for permission from the Diocese of Winchester. It is expected to be submitted in the late spring-early summer. It is unclear when or if permission will be granted.

National newspapers have today focussed on the initiative revealed in the Hampshire Chroni

last October.

The Rev Canon Cliff Bannister said: “If it is Alfred, and we know it is a big if, it would be a huge find.”

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:39am Tue 5 Feb 13

maggyxmoo93 says...

I Thought the saying was rest in peace
not rest in peace intill we decide to dig you up and carry out research on your skeleton.?
I Thought the saying was rest in peace not rest in peace intill we decide to dig you up and carry out research on your skeleton.? maggyxmoo93
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Drumcharry says...

I was one of the Archaeologists who directed excavations at Hyde Abbey in the late 1990's which confirmed that Alfreds remains no longer lay in that area. Where the grave had been was destroyed by earlier excavations and by WWII Communal Air raid shelters. There is no reason to doubt the likelihood that the bones which have lain undisturbed in the grounds of Hyde (St Barts) church for over a century could well be the redeposited bones of Alfred. I would strongly oppose the exhumation of the remains at the church solely for the reason of satisfying curiosity.
There is no good scientific argument for why we need to disturb a burial in a Christian graveyard. It will not prove the remains belong to Alfred. Furthermore it goes against good practice in modern archaeology which is only to disturb threatend sites or sites which will yield very important data and even then only with the understanding that you are destroying the relationships of that data for future generations.
I was one of the Archaeologists who directed excavations at Hyde Abbey in the late 1990's which confirmed that Alfreds remains no longer lay in that area. Where the grave had been was destroyed by earlier excavations and by WWII Communal Air raid shelters. There is no reason to doubt the likelihood that the bones which have lain undisturbed in the grounds of Hyde (St Barts) church for over a century could well be the redeposited bones of Alfred. I would strongly oppose the exhumation of the remains at the church solely for the reason of satisfying curiosity. There is no good scientific argument for why we need to disturb a burial in a Christian graveyard. It will not prove the remains belong to Alfred. Furthermore it goes against good practice in modern archaeology which is only to disturb threatend sites or sites which will yield very important data and even then only with the understanding that you are destroying the relationships of that data for future generations. Drumcharry
  • Score: 0

10:33am Mon 11 Feb 13

800Jimbo says...

The bones have 'only' been in their current location for about 100 years - their relationship with their original and subsequent burial sites has already been lost (twice).
The bones have 'only' been in their current location for about 100 years - their relationship with their original and subsequent burial sites has already been lost (twice). 800Jimbo
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree