“Restore” is a bit of a misleading headline, the Mound Trust’s project has been mostly to conserve and protect (removing trees because of the damage they’d cause when they fall). The C18 grotto has been restored, & small C20 buildings cut into the side are to be removed. All good!

Can you post the relevant passages here?

Which is where the excavation would’ve been if the private owner had allowed it. One piece of luck after another

As I explain in my book, i think with the excavation & public arguments about reburial Philippa felt she lost control of her king (the film shows them in a close personal relationship, not unfair) + her goal of showing how everyone got Richard III wrong went a bit Pete Tong with the scoliosis

Thanks Sharon

One of the first of many surprises came with the WSI, which showed that the grave might well have survived at the suspected location

It looks to me as if Coogan – I've had no contact with him or anyone involved with the film other than PR – has taken Langley's telling as a reliable version of events (thus no need to ask anyone else), which was something Langley herself was, shall we say, sometimes a little confused about

Thanks, I will look that up (can you scan me the relevant text?). The ULAS case was that there were too many cables, disturbances etc near the surface, which is what they had experienced elsewhere in the city & is what in the event was the problem

2 Discussion at the Francis Crick Institute, Tom Booth on the gifts of archaeology & Adam Rutherford the abuses of historic politics, from 28.40 minutes 3/3
lnk.to/aqosancientdna

1 From editor @rakshadigs.bsky.social great overview feature in British Archaeology, by Charlotte Roberts, Trish Biers, Kirsty Squires & Jackie McKinley: we should be talking more about ethics 2/3
reader.exacteditions.com/issues/14422...

The grave's correct location had been proposed before, here by David Baldwin in 1986. John Ashdown Hill played a key role in convincing Philippa & archaeologists that, if found, remains could be identified as the king's. The film glosses over that, but sadly John is not here to put his case 15/15

My own book here
The real story, with twists of luck, coincidence, conventions to be broken & colourful characters, backgrounded by the Wars of the Roses & one of Shakespeare’s most popular dramas, is more compelling, surprising & amusing than the film 14/15
www.amazon.co.uk/Digging-Rich...

Philippa Langley’s story here (among other works, this is a book that somehow escaped evil establishment claws in 2013) 13/15
www.amazon.co.uk/Kings-Grave-...

Steve Coogan’s story here 12/15
www.theguardian.com/culture/2025...

Contra the film, science is not a closed network of self-interested scroungers scared of being challenged, who try to block others. That is a Trumpian conspiracy that encourages the likes of anti-vaxxing & climate change denial. The Lost King is an anti-science myth 11/15

I could go on. But what really matters is the film’s false portrayal of archaeology & science.
The Lost King jumps from discovery to reburial, bypassing years of collaborative academic research (& works to Leicester cathedral & a judicial review) as if none of that happened or mattered 10/15