King Richard III's voice.
By AmberLynn
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
United States
June 7, 2017 9:23am CST
I have to admit I was a little bit disappointed by the sound bit that was played. I guess, even though I was a bit doubtful, that they would have somehow reconstructed his actual vocal chords and used some manner of computer program to relay that to us.
Of course that was a far fetched thought anyway, and I can't see how such an endeavor could be undertaken, especially being that he was buried some many centuries ago. (even he was dug up out of that car park a few years back)
It was surprising (and amazing) that researchers were able to reconstruct his face. I had watched a documentary on that before.
Anyway, a professor of Old English has studied some letters from Richard III and recites these in Old English to give us a better sense of how he might have sounded..
It does appear as if he falters a bit towards the end, starting to revert back to his natural accent.
Listen to what medieval English king Richard III sounded like, in a recreation by Dr Philip Shaw, from the University of Leicester.
9 people like this
7 responses
@topffer (42155)
• France
7 Jun 17
Face reconstruction works, but even if they had been able to find the tone of his voice, I doubt that people from his time would recognize him. The accents have evolved a lot since the Middle-Age, and we are absolutely unable to tell how was a medieval accent. I do not know for English, but for French the first dictionaries giving the pronunciation are from the first half of the 19th C. We have a very complete one giving the accent in Paris in the 1830's. The Parisians of the time were speaking a bit like some French Canadians today, and we often need subtitles to understand them in France today. Some attempts have been made to find how French was spoken during the 17th C, but how was their accents in the 15th C when Richard III was king of England, nobody knows. It is probably the same for English.
3 people like this
.@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
7 Jun 17
@Asylum Yes, I noticed on the recording that a note popped up. It wasn't clear, but I assume the note meant that the linguist had reverted to a Yorkshire type accent (perhaps his own? I"m not very well versed on the varying accents across Britain).
@topffer. Yes, it was mostly my wishful thinking. I realize that there is little to no way to (with all certainty) know how any people spoke in past centuries. Even dictionaries can have some manner of error in regards to articulating a proper pronounciation. That also isn't taking into consideration the many varying accents that might have been found in a particular time period, as people moved around.
2 people like this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
7 Jun 17
The claim of reproducing the voice of Richard III is ludicrous, especially since the Battle of Bosworth Field was in 1485. All that will remain are a few skeletal remains, from which no possible vocal concept can be gleaned.
Much of the writings may have been by a personal scribe instead of Richard himself, but even if it was his writing it would only suggest a level of English.
Knowing the era does not help either, after all there is no similarity between my voice and that of Prince Charles despite us both being Englishmen of this era.
2 people like this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
8 Jun 17
@ScribbledAdNauseum Now that I think of it, the voice had a Northern inflection to it. This would not necessarily be the case because the War of the Roses was between the House of York and the House of Lancaster, which does not infer being located in Yorkshire or Lancaster.
1 person likes this
@topffer (42155)
• France
7 Jun 17
I am also not sure that the writing of Richard III was not the writing of a secretary. Kings were rarely writing, we can find here cheap autographs of kings from the 18th C... entirely written and signed by hand secretaries. I have one on a parchment of Louis XV, that he probably never saw, confirming the transfer of an inheritance.
3 people like this
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
8 Jun 17
@topffer If memory serves, one of the missives was before his reign as king... That doesn't necessarily mean he wrote it either way.
2 people like this
@lovinangelsinstead21 (36847)
• Pamplona, Spain
8 Jun 17
I am seeing his face here and I can fit a voice to it but its how I would imagine he would have been.
Of course that is not how he would have sounded as such.
Imagination can help us to fit many things into place even if its not really accurate.
I imagine he would sound like many of us today but using the language of his time so we would obviously wonder what he might be talking about.
How haps this tops I don´t know.
The Globe Theatre uses old English in Plays but the voice does not change too much.
Have a wonderful day all and I am so glad that they found Richard III and laid him to rest at long last.[
@Poppylicious (11134)
• United Kingdom
7 Jun 17
People in the old days talked weird. In four hundred years our descendents will no doubt be saying the same of us!
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
8 Jun 17
Most assuredly so!
I imagine quite a bit of trilingual vocabulary as well.
1 person likes this
@Mike197602 (15504)
• United Kingdom
7 Jun 17
The face side I totally get as I've actually seen a demonstration of facial reconstruction and it is extremely accurate.
The voice thing I think is BS pretty much...they may get the language right but the voice...no way in my opinion.
2 people like this
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
7 Jun 17
It was just a recording of a Professor who lectures in English and Old English. You find that out quickly when looking at the article. The link's summary I first came across made you believe they had found a way though.
I watched a documentary where they showed them digging up the parking lot and then finding King Richard. They confirmed it was him and reconstructed his face as well.
