King Richard and bosworth field

Subject: King Richard and bosworth field
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 12:42 PM

.On the 22nd of August with glistening sword and shield.
Brave Richard king of England,did fight at Bosworth Field.
He led his troops in battle,and death did bravely face
The White Rose did fall never more to be replaced.
   Chorus.A horse, a horse,my kingdom for a horse.

2.Fight on stout hearted swordsman for king and country fight.
and aim you well bold archers the enemy well fright.
oh take you heed Northumberland and false Lord Stanley.
Have courage me lads for victorious we shall be.
   Chorus.

3. So thick and fast the arrows around the king did fly
when to the south marching up the hill false Stanley he did spy.
he mounted on his charger,to fight all for his crown
The White Rose did fall never more to leave the ground
Chorus

4.Unseated from his charger as on the ground lay he
surrounded and out numberd by lord stanleys infantry
they quickly stoop to kill as hawks high in the sky
The White Rose did fall these last words he then did cry
Chorus

5.and so the last of the House of York to death did come at last
He ruled his people fairly and the law for bail he passed
a good and noble ruler by the Tudors so disgraced.
The White Rose did fall never more to be replaced.



By Florence Waters

8:00AM GMT 03 Feb 2013

Comments41 Comments

Tomorrow could be a landmark moment in British history. If the skeleton of a man found with an arrowhead embedded in his curving spine – dug from beneath a Leicester council car park in September last year and now lying in the city's university lab – is identified as that of King Richard III, the implications will be enormous.

"If it is Richard III we would know an awful lot about his death and burial," says Professor Lin Foxhall, head of Leicester University's archaeology department, which has led the dig. "We would have hard, hard evidence to compare against the various historical accounts."

The scientific team has been on lock-down in case the results of the investigation are leaked before the official announcement, but Foxhall hinted that the department was "very excited". She's optimistic that there are sufficient pieces of the puzzle in order for them to reach a "meaningful conclusion".

All of this will be detailed in a film-length Channel 4 television documentary in which a host of scholars and scientists have been invited to present their case. As one of the most notorious historic villains, both in British chronicles and Shakespeare's plays, conflicting ideas about Richard III have kept debate surrounding his life – and his death – alive.

He was the king, according to one chronicler, who emerged from the womb two years late "with teeth and hair to his shoulders". But not all that was written about him is so easy to dismiss. If enough clues conspire, the results could "rewrite the history books", says Foxhall.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: nickp
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 12:56 PM

Tomorrow night's viewing for sure.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 01:40 PM

Richard had a good night on TV last night, Three progrannes about him! Including David Starkey at his best. Richard (as well as being the central anti-hero in Shakespeare's first big stage hit) makes charisnatic appearances in The Black Arrow by Robert Louis Stevenson and is the subject of The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey.

Our American friends may not know that a Richard is cockney rhymming slang for a turd. Richard the Third = Turd.

Here is my version of Dick's song.

http://www.bigalwhittle.co.uk/lifehistoryandsongsof/id31.html

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Ebor_Fiddler
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 02:15 PM

Can we have our king back?

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 03:05 PM

Like others posting here I look forward to the program. But as an aside and a surreal result of shortsightedness I first read the thread title as

Keath Richards and bosworth field.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 03:42 PM

that is a different song.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 02:49 AM

I think it is Richard the Third.
It is a hunch.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Acorn4
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 04:10 AM

Dick the Sh**

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,sailor ron
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 04:10 AM

Whilst there is no doubt that Shakespere's play did much to blacken Richard's memory, and you can't get away with the fact that he was an efficiant ruler, neither can you forget the 'princes in the Tower', nor Hastings or Clanence. As for Stanley, good for him!

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Acorn4
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 04:14 AM

Clarence was done in by his brother, Edward lV, and not Richard. Henry Vlll did a lot worse things than Richard lll ever did.

He had the laws translated into English for the first time.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 06:22 AM

shakespeare was writing during the period of the Tudors, he was likely to get in to trouble if he did not write history as tudor propaganda.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 06:40 AM

Just seen on BBC news website that the bones have been confirmed as the ex-King Richard III...

Kitty

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,OldNicKilby
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 07:08 AM

Just listened to the News Conference from Leicester University. Fantastic news . There was a bit of a clue with the remains of the Pillar. What amazing research . Lets make sure that we keep his remains here in Leicester as it will be a real boost for our local Tourism industry.Hands off York , Nottingham and all the other opportunistic scroungers . Me biased well I never.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 07:47 AM

Just seen on BBC news website that the bones have been confirmed as the ex-King Richard III...

Ex-King?

I thought it was a case of "Once a king, always a king ...



But once a knight is enough ;)"

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,highlandman at work
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 09:04 AM

Nigel, I think he meant ex-king in the sense of John Cleese's ex-parrot.

Now we need a new last verse for Florence Waters' song above. Something referencing paving paradise, maybe, and putting up a parking lot? It's beyond my wordsmithing skills.

-Glenn

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Paul Davenport
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 09:17 AM

Tony Robinson's programme the other night had an interview with a researcher in Europe who had just done the maths on Edward IV s kids. Seems that Richard was the legitimate King all along. The lads in the tower and therefore Elizabeth, who married Henry VII, were all illegitimate offspring of a Flemish archer - like they were all blonde and around 6 feet tall. Edward and Richard were small and dark. (You'd have thought Ed would have noticed?) So the Tudors were all usurpers. Follow up the implications…

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 09:52 AM

"Ex" does imply that he stopped being king in his lifetime. He didn't abdicate, so he's a late king, but not an ex one.

Fascinating story.

SRS

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Sailor Ron
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 09:57 AM

AS Paul Daverport points out they may have not been Edward IVs children, however he was married to their mother, therefore in the eyes of the Church, and the law of the land [as it then stood]they were Edwards! Therefore the claim of illigitamancy does not hold water

Subject: BS: Last Plantagenet King Found in Leicester
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 09:57 AM

Will this cause a crisis for the British monarchy? After all, the Tudors forcibly seized the throne from the Plantagenets.

LET'S RESTORE BRITAIN'S PROPER RULERS!! TOSS THE TUDORS!!!!

LEICESTER, England (AP) -- He wore the English crown, but he ended up defeated, humiliated and reviled.

Now things are looking up for King Richard III. Scientists announced Monday that they had found the monarch's 500-year-old remains under a parking lot in the city of Leicester - a discovery Richard's fans say will inspire new research into his maligned history.

University of Leicester researchers say tests on a battle-scarred skeleton unearthed last year prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that it is the king, who died at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, and whose remains have been missing for centuries.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 10:00 AM

Should he get a state funeral?
Is it OK to bury him in Leics. Cathedral which is now Protestant?
(It existed as a church in his days)

Subject: RE: BS: Last Plantagenet King Found in Leicester
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 10:05 AM

OUT THE ORANGE!! BOUNCE THE BATTENBERGS!!! SACK THE SAX-COBURG-GOTHAS!!! MOVE OUT THE MONTBATTENS!!!!

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 10:10 AM

They're digging up father's grave to build a sewer

They're digging up Leicester's park to build a graveyard

Ok, I've started, take over!

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 10:11 AM

What will he owe in back parking fees?

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 10:54 AM

Doesn't matter how much he owes, he's dead...

Wonderful story though and will add to our colourful history. Will definitely be watching the C4 programme.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 11:02 AM

"Everyone thought that I was mad," she said. "It's not the easiest pitch in the world, to look for a king under a council car park."

There's an understatement for you from one of the lasses who drove the project.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: mayomick
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 11:02 AM

"What will he owe in back parking fees?"

Don't tell me they found the skeleton of a horse as well

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Acorn4
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 11:24 AM

A certain councillor from Leicester, who was largely responsible for some of the monstrosities which pass as buildings recently put up in the city apparently said: "I don't care about the Leicester of the past, it's the Leicester of the future I'm interested in."

This will help to undo some of the damage done by this bod and his ilk, not just the sixties planners but also the Victorian "modernisers".

Leicester has a great history comparable at least to both Nottingham and Coventry.

Just to note that the councillor I refer to recently exited north-west Leicestershire with the boot print of the voters firmly imprinted on his backside - there is some justice!

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Paul Davenport
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 11:47 AM

' they may have not been Edward IVs children, however he was married to their mother, therefore in the eyes of the Church, and the law of the land [as it then stood]they were Edwards! Therefore the claim of illigitamancy does not hold water'…?
Sailor Ron – are you American? I only ask because the succession of Kings is very specific and its all about a thing called 'Royal Blood' - the King can adopt whomsever he likes but they are NOT legitimate heirs to the Royal line without the ' Sang Real' which has to pass from their father. I know they're changing the law on primogeniture but in those days the law was such that Edward effectively had no legitimate heirs. Richard was the main man!

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 11:56 AM

Sorry about the parking fees remark, but the skeleton's bloodline was established through the DNA of a Canadian (and one other unnamed individual) and as such I figured one quip from a Canuck would be tolerated even on an English thread.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Rappareee
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 12:12 PM

Free Trade and No Impressment!

Toss the Queen! Bring back the true monarchy!!

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Richard III, Rex
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 12:22 PM

Thank you for finding my bones. Perhaps now I shall take my rightful place in English history, and no, I did not murder my nephews.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 12:29 PM

Hey, 9, I thought it was funny.

Hey, Richard, Sire, given that reportedly you would have given up your kingdom for a bloody horse, don't come here expecting sympathy, old pal.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,SRD
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 02:33 PM

Maybe he wanted to go into the burger business.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 02:38 PM

Pete, I know you did. I'm finally after 10 years catching on to UK humour.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 02:56 PM

It seems to me that that quote "My kingdom for a horse" is more along the lines of

for want of a nail a shoe was lost,
for want of a shoe a horse was lost,
for want of a horse the rider was lost. . .

and in this case, for want of a horse a king or kingdom is lost.

SRS

I found the whole thing:
For want of a nail, a shoe was lost
For want of a shoe, a horse was lost
For want of a horse, a rider was lost
For want of a rider, a battle was lost
For want of a battle, a kingdom was lost

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 03:02 PM

Don't tell me they found the skeleton of a horse as well"
no tesco had used that in their burgers, thanks to larry good man.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 03:05 PM

Peripheral to this discussion.

The great John Barrymore was doing a performance of Shakespeare's Richard the Third. He reached the line, "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"

Somebody in the peanut gallery burst out with a mighty guffaw.

Barrymore stared up at him. Slowly he raised his arm, pointed at him, and intoned:

"Or saddle me yon braying ass in the balcony!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 03:06 PM

Usurped by violence, you mean. Henry Tudor blatantly rebelled against his sovereign monarch, killed him, and took the crown himself. When his granddaughter Elizabeth produced no heirs the crown was handed to the Stuarts, who were related to the Tudors. Jame I and VI Stuart (surprisingly) produced a heir, who was beheaded by Cromwell & Co. The beheaded monarch's son was invited back and when he died, a Catholic, his Catholic son (again, the rightful heir) was driven from his throne and sent into exile and the crown handed to the House of Orange, whose relationship with the English throne was, to say the least, tenuous. Then it was handed over to a bunch of Germans, the Battenbergs, until we come to the present.

I say restore the monarchy to its rightful heirs -- the Celts and/or the Picts!! Someone from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, the Isle of Mann and Brittany can take turns being king or queen.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Stanron
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 03:54 PM

Before the bastard Norman we were Saxons, Angles Jutes and Celts. Some of these elected their kings. The fact that we have, on occasion, done the same is not inconsistent. Speaking for myself I was happy to retire at 65 and not keep banging on at the same job well into my 80s. Leave well alone.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Allan Conn
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 04:47 PM

"Will this cause a crisis for the British monarchy?" Well no because the British monarchy in truth only dates from 1707. Prior to that from 1603 Scotland and England shared a monarch. Great Britain was created through an act which lay down specifically who was heir to the throne of the newly created kingdom. That was Sophia of Hanover and her descendents. Sophia was the daughter of Princess Elizabeth Stuart of Scotland who herself was the eldest child of James VI of Scotland. In the Act of Union the Scottish Parliament accepted the succession as being that laid out by the English Act of Settlement. Prior to that they had suggested that they may choose a different monarch as long as they were also of the Scottish royal line and were Protestant. In other words they were offering the throne to the exiled Pretender as long as he gave up his Catholicism. The line of Richard III would have been of no interest to the Scots and without the Scots there was no Great Britain. Some could say that Richard's descendents would have been the rightful Kings of England but after 1707 that kingdom no longer existed anyway.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 05:12 PM

"Some of these elected their kings. The fact that we have, on occasion, done the same is not inconsistent."

When were those "occasions"?

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Allan Conn
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 05:21 PM

"The beheaded monarch's son was invited back and when he died, a Catholic, his Catholic son (again, the rightful heir) was driven from his throne and sent into exile and the crown handed to the House of Orange, whose relationship with the English throne was, to say the least, tenuous. Then it was handed over to a bunch of Germans"

Actually Charles II had no heir. It was his brother, James VII & II who became king on his death. The Crown wasn't solely offered to William of Orange. It was initially offered only to Queen Mary who was the eldest daughter of the said James but she refused to accept the throne unless her husband was accepted as joint monarch. William himself was very much closely connected to the English and Scottish royal family. Not only was he married to the new Queen but his mother was Princess Mary Stuart the daughter of Charles I. When Queen Mary died William became sole monarch then when he died it passed to Anne Stuart the sister of Queen Mary and obviously another daughter of the exiled James VII&II. Her successor was named as Sophia of Hanover who as I said previously was the daughter of Princess Elizabeth of Scotland who was born in Scotland and lived there until her father, James VI&I inherited the English throne. One can say that under succession laws of the time Sophia was down the list but by lineage she was as much a part of the British line as the exiled Pretenders were. They all mostly tended to marry foreigners. Just that the children of British males keep the British names whilst the children of British females took the name of the foreign husbands.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Allan Conn
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 05:28 PM

"When were those "occasions"?"

Elected maybe but not right enough by the people. It wasn't a democracy. One example is when James VII of Scotland fled the English throne thus losing his power base from which he'd oppressed the Scottish Presbyterians the Scottish Parliament reconvened and asked both James and William&Mary to put their case as to who should be the monarch of Scotland. After the representations were considered the Parliament came out pretty overwhelmingly in favour of William and Mary and they were offered the throne! The Presbyterian majority then had James declared a traitor.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Jeri
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 07:27 PM

The Onion's article on it: "'Well, That Was Cool,' Say Archaeologists Before Dumping Bones Of King Richard III Back Into Hole".

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Stanron
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 08:47 PM

"Some of these elected their kings. The fact that we have, on occasion, done the same is not inconsistent."

When were those "occasions"?

Perhaps 'elected' is 'loose use'. As I understand from snoozing through endless episodes of Time Team the Saxons elected their Kings. Other innattention in history lessons revealed that at various points we (collectively as a nation) chose or elected that Matilda was a no no, Charles 1 was better from the neck down, Jane Gray was misled and James 2 should travel more. More accurate detail is probably available.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 08:56 PM

I just want to see a king or queen tattooed blue -- bring back the Picts!

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 09:03 PM

"Actually Charles II had no heir. It was his brother, James VII & II who became king on his death"

Of course Charles II had a lawful heir, his brother James, who was also a son of Charles I, as Rapparee said. Chucked out by a military coup for seeking to end religious discrimination against Catholics and other religious minorities. Very foolish of him, of course.

But it's too late to worry about stuff like that. What is puzzling is how devoted some people are to the idea of Richard III, as demonstrated in this BBC programme. Not just regret about the detestable Tudors, but genuine emotion.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: EBarnacle
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 10:05 PM

Do not knock the family of her grace, Gloriana.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Feb 13 - 10:50 PM

Photos on PBS tonight. Interesting stuff.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 02:39 AM

"Of course Charles II had a lawful heir, his brother James, who was also a son of Charles I, as Rapparee said. Chucked out by a military coup for seeking to end religious discrimination against Catholics and other religious minorities. Very foolish of him, of course."

Quite I didn't word it as best as I could. It was the brother of Charles who succeeded him not his son which is what the original claim was. James wasn't the fair minded non-religious bigot that some point him out to be though. It is not as simple as that. Prior to being king he run Scotland in the name of his brother and persecuted the Presbyterians. The period known as the Killing Times. When he became king he sought to lift the oppression against Catholics which maybe isn't surprising as he was a Catholic himself - however he initially hardened laws towards the Presbyterians. Not the brightest button really. Even if the Episcopalian advisers did finally advise him against the worst excesses against the Presbyterians - seeking equality for a small religious minority (ie within his Scottish kingdom) whilst at the same time actively persecuting the sect who probably had the largest amount of adherents north of the border wasn't a sensible strategy.

As to lawful heir well that depends on what you believe. When they put their cases to the Scottish parliament the attitude of James seemed to consist of he had the Divine Right to rule because of who he was and everyone should just bow down and do as he says whereas William and Mary accepted (possibly not all that enthusiastically)that there were some restrictions on royal power. Even in the time of Robert the Bruce it was accepted (ie Arbroath Declaration) that in certain circumstances the king could be removed.