King Richard and bosworth field

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Sailor Ron
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 06:03 AM

Those who are trying to "whitewash" Richard 111, seem to forget that the Yorkists rebelled against King Henry V1, and murdered him, captured his son and murdered him, not to mention the 'Princes in the Tower'. Richard would never allowed them to live, even in captivity, after his crowning, as they would have been a rallying point against him. It is a fact of course that Henry Tudor had a very 'thin' claim to the throne, some would say no claim at all.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 06:15 AM

i am not trying to whitewash anyone, but Richard has had his character blackened mainly by shakespeare who was writing during tudoe times.Ron please put forward proof of your statements, stop JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS about Richard, what proof do you have that Richard did the things you claim, or that he saw the children as a threat.
everything that has been by written by shakespeare about Richard has been propaganda.
henry ford said history is bunk, it is bunk that is written and re written by the victors, in this case the tudors and their mouth piece shakespeare.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 06:21 AM

I really feel sorry for Tony Robinson and the cast of Time Team. Every week they're on the telly digging up the site of some ancient castle and come up with a load of rubbish. A few coppers that fell out of a centurions mini skirt, a Roman jam jar (cracked), some medieval dogshit. The muck he digs up turns a different colour and he says, this must have been the east wall of a monastery.

Then this woman finds the body of Richard III under a piece of tarmac in Leicester marked R, with her first spadeful. Its obviously like doing the pools - a degree of luck comes into it - and if you ain't got it.....


I agree with GSS. Its only now that Tudor propaganda is coming under the microscope. We all read A Man for All Seasons at School and accepted the version of saintly Thomas More. I think Hillary Mantel's books on Thomas Cromwell have made us all think again. After all, the Tudors did kill a lot of people.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 06:24 AM

"After all, the Tudors did kill a lot of people."

And their bloody automobiles--Tudor cars--are difficult to enter and exit.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 06:26 AM

...and they're still easier to get out of than Mordor cars.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Sailor Ron
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 06:41 AM

I am not jumping to conclussions. Henry V1 was dethroned and murdered by the Yorkist albeit not by Richard, Edward Prince of Wales [son of Henry V1] was captured in battle, and then murdered, these are facts. As for 'the princes in the Tower' Richard has them put in the Tower, declared that they were bastards, and they are never heard of again. So who killed them? Henry Tudor! Richard, as I have said previously, was a very good 'lord of the North' who did a lot of good for the people, and I don't think he was the monster of legends, but it was a bloody time for England, and Richard I believe was avictim of the time he lived in.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 07:31 AM

" It was the brother of Charles who succeeded him not his son which is what the original claim was. "

It's not a particularly important point, but I think you'll find if you check back that the relevant post - not by me - said nothing of the kind. It referred to James as son of Charles I.

The ins and outs of 17th century politics shouldn't trouble us too much today. But we shouldn't swallow the propaganda either. The Glorious Revolution was a pretty shabby affair, which reinforced and entrenched religious discrimination for generations. Perhaps the alternative might have had consequences as bad or worse, perhaps the reverse. Nobody can ever know that stuff.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Chris Partington
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 07:38 AM

Before we restore him I want to know what his line on banker's bonus's is.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 07:43 AM

@ Chris P:   LOLOL

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 07:52 AM

You're getting there, 9! LOL.

BTW, I started watching the programme last night and woke up at 1.15!!

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: freda underhill
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 07:54 AM

The rumours about Richard III have been examined in a very interesting book, The Daughter of Time, a 1951 detective novel by Josephine Tey. While more information (and the skeleton!) has since come out, the book unravels layers of evidence from docs existing at the time, that show Richard in a better light.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Mysha
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 08:14 AM

Hi,

Banker's bonus's ? Dead against it!


Yes, yes, I'll get my coat and cap.
                                                                Mysha

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 08:22 AM

"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"

I read that as the second Catholic being the son of the first Catholic and grand-son of the beheaded king. If I've misinterpreted what was being said then I apologise for correcting it. Maybe it is just not very clearly written - something which I'm prone to myself.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 08:37 AM

The ins and outs of 17th century politics shouldn't trouble us too much today.

Try saying that in Belfast.

DC

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 08:40 AM

"But we shouldn't swallow the propaganda either."

I quite agree with that but of course I am looking at it from a Scottish viewpoint where all the propaganda differs from England. Often in popular thought here the Covenanter to Hanovarian side is demonised whilst the other side are outrageously romanticised. Due to the writings of Sir Walter Scott etc Bonnie Dundee remains Bonnie Dundee. Whereas throughout much of Scotland of the period he was known as Bluidy (Bloody) Clavers because of him being chief henchman to James during the Killing Times. He was the only major figure to come out from the parliament when William and Mary were declared monarchs openly declaring armed defiance. In truth though he had no choice. Now that his master was gone the attack dog was himself a marked man. Both James and Dundee would be in modern parlance guilty of crimes against humanity. That is not that I am defending the other side. When in power they were just as bad if not worse.

Also the Covenanting to Hanovarian side is often accused of siding up to the English and being unpatriotic. Doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Both sides used their English allies to secure their status. Charles I made several attempts to invade Scotland with English armies in attempts to force the Scots into accepting Anglicanism. Coming to the rescue after Dundee's troops were whipped by peasants and farmers at Drumclog, Charles II sent English troops under Monmouth's command north to help defeat a popular uprising in the Scottish south. As long as Charles and James were secure in England they could keep a hold of things in Scotland. The oppressed in Scotland then later became the oppressors under William and Mary. Both as bad as each other!

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Acorn4
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 10:50 AM

In the reign of Henry Vlll, 72,000 people were hanged - this was apparently 1 in 25 of the population.

Puts Richard's "crimes" in perspective a bit. He wasn't a saint - but Henry Vl was and look what happened to him.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 03:59 PM

Well, then there was Lady Jane Grey, who lived all of eighteen years. She was highly educated and considered to be one of the most learned young women of her day, and with humanist views. As he lay on his death bed, fifteen-year-old Edward VII, only legitimate male heir of Henry VIII, named her as his successor.

She was known as "The Nine Day Queen" because she reigned for a mere nine days (from July 10 th to the 19th, 1553) before the Privy Council decided they would rather have Bloody Mary, a Catholic, as queen. So they dragged Queen Jane off to the tower, declaring her to be "a traitor," and beheaded her.

And when people look for historical figures with vicious and bloody reputations, they usually cite the Borgia family in Italy. Apparently, lots of people back in "the good old days" weren't very nice at all!

Wotthehell, everybody was doin' it!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 04:06 PM

I agree, The Daughter of Time is a very convincing argument in favor of Richard III. I've recommended it many times over the years, and since this recent announcement have heard several other friends cite that mystery as a turning point in their opinion of the much-maligned monarch.

SRS

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Rumncoke
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 07:00 PM

Having watched a fair bit of 'Time Team' I thought it was a pity that they were not invited to do the excavation rather than the incompetent lot who did get the job.

It was pretty obvious that the mechanical digger smashed the leg bones, then one of the Human diggers hit the skull with a mattock.

If anyone had a good motive for doing away with the Princes in the Tower it was the Tudors, not their uncle Richard.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 08:53 PM

But then when you look at it from an Irish perspective it's a totally different picture, Allan. And from England it's different again.

No real heroes, and different ranking for the various villains and victims who make up the cast. Much the same as in most times.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Beer
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 10:23 PM

I have watched this from the beginning of the thread and love what is happening. This DNA is something else.
Spoke to a fellow today and he said that this DNA is all bullshit so i replied that it has put folks in prison and has released some as well. He still said it was bull.
I don't think he is right.
What a truly great serious but "light" news story. Fun for a change.
Adrien

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 01:36 AM

There is a Milletts next door to the car park advertising percent off Now is the winter of our discount tent!

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 03:22 AM

Richard III's face revealed for first time in 500 years

Richard's remains bare the bones of a bloody past The discovery and confirmation of Richard III's remains, excavated at the site of a Leicester car park is a testament to how far we have come socially, politically and scientifically, writes Mike Stuchbery.

Thirty years. That's what it took. Thirty years of feuding, bursting regularly to bouts of bloody violence. Thirty years of raising armies and hurtling them across the country, leaving a trail of dead in their wake. Thirty years of murder.

28,000 men died over the course of one cold day in 1461, near the village of Towton. Those retreating and surrendering were cut down, bashed and sliced again and again. One skull recovered from a mass grave shows eight blows to the head, seven of them dished out prior to the fatal blow. (read on, many links in this article, including the following)

Medieval warfare was just as terrifying as you might imagine

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 03:50 AM

Don Firth mentioned the Borgias. I've heard it said that the Borgias were no worse than any other contemporary family in Italy, except that they were Spanish!

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: mayomick
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 05:14 AM

"It's an interesting face, younger and fuller than we have been used to seeing, less careworn, and with the hint of a smile," Richard III Society chairman Phil Stone said"

Six hundred years after good king Richard's death , the benign smile remained embedded in his skull - gracefulness frozen on his face even as the halberd struck .
Or maybe they dug up St Francis of Assisi by mistake?

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 06:31 AM

As I understand it, from other programmes about the work of skull/face reconstruction at Dundee University, the bare bones give many clues as to the musculature and therefore even the expression, when at rest, of the face. The original portrait was as we now know, deliberately rendered less attractive in all sorts of ways. So I feel we can accept Phil Stone's statement. Personally I was much moved by the degree of scoliosis, quite a bad case. He must have suffered some pain and constriction of the chest. Yet to all acounts he fought bravely on the field of battle. I admire that.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Mr Red
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 07:32 AM

Well if Sang Real is the criterion then it is a moot point if Prince Harry is (or isn't) on the preset day list (now demoted to 4th?) - according to some observers of hair colour (et al).

And where would that put Prince Andrew? - according to the same observers.

Didn't they find the bones of young children in the walls of the "Tower" within the last 5 years or so? Where was the DNA analysis then?

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 07:50 AM

So Richard the Third was defeeted by an earth-moving machine? I think I've got it now.

Long live the Queen!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Sailor Ron
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 08:12 AM

The bones of two children, of the right age of 'the Princes in the Tower', were discovered in the 1930s.I don't think they have been dug up from where they were subsequently reburied, so, as far as I know no DNA tests have been done.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 08:24 AM

Wikipedia on Princes in the Tower - second paragraph only.

In 1674, the skeletons of two children were discovered under the staircase leading to the chapel, during the course of renovations to the White Tower. At that time, these were believed to have been the remains of the two princes, and on the orders of Charles II the remains were reburied in Westminster Abbey. In 1933, the grave was opened to see if modern science could cast any light on the issues, and the skeletons were determined to be those of two young children, one aged around seven to eleven and the other around eleven to thirteen.[1]

--------

The Princes Project The Richard III Foundation, Inc. is respectfully requesting that the bones in the Tower, that are alleged to be the sons of Edward IV, be subjected to modern scientific examination and the treatment of DNA analysis.

The examination of the bones will not only bring closure to their identity, but it will also bestow them with an appropriate and lasting place in the annals of history.

King Richard III, the reigning monarch from 1483-1485, has through the writings of Sir Thomas More and William Shakespeare been vilified for over 515 years.

It is imperative that we put to rest the resolution of one of England's greatest historical mysteries. But, it is equally paramount that we provide justice for a man wrongly accused.
(a very long article, read on)

sandra (overwhelmed)

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 09:25 AM

Here's a question that was asked on Prime Ministers' Questions about two hours ago.

"Can the Prime Minister confirm that ATOS has declared Richard III fit for work?"

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: mayomick
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 10:24 AM

Eliza, I can understand how the Tudors would have wanted to render their enemy less attractive , but I'm not so sure why Phil Stone seems to be showing bias in the opposite direction .

" younger and fuller than we have been used to seeing, less careworn, and with the hint of a smile,"

One expert , Matthew Skinner, lecturer in anthropology at University College London, quoted in today's BBC report into the method for reconstructing Richard III's face says,

"Facial expression is such an important part of how people look. And in the case of reconstruction you have to pick one…………..there can be a danger of giving the subject noble or striking features."
" He recalls the Kennewick Man, a 10,000-year-old found in Washington State during the 1990s. "They did a facial reconstruction. The result looked remarkably like Patrick Stewart."


As for the youthfulness of the face and it being "fuller" than we imagined Caroline Wilkinson Dundee University's professor of craniofacial identificationfrom is quoted saying,
"We use average tissue depth (from today) but he may have been substantially thinner or fatter than contemporary faces."……….. "We can't really add any age creasing as we don't know where to put them."

see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21350181

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 11:27 AM

Just as an aside for those who might want to clarify the relationships of Richard III and his ancestors...

Here is a program for PC [#5 in the list] called "Simple Family Tree" that allows one to enter their geneology... and as one example offers a file of the "Kings (and other rulers) of Europe". It is a bit overwhelming as a totality, but it is easy to isolate on just one individual and follow those specific connections.

I personally am not qualified to say that they have it all exactly right, but it seems to be pretty complete and accurate... and is completely editable if one wishes to add, delete or add notes to it.

I browse thru it whenever some item is mentioned that confuses me about which Richard, Henry, James....etc., they are referring to.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Stu
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 11:38 AM

All royals should be buried under a car park.

>ducks<

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Edthefolkie
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 01:23 PM

You can see the folk process even on this thread, or is it the curse of the internet? The "Princes in the Tower" weren't found a few years ago, or in the 1930s.

The story goes back to 1674 when some workmen in the Tower of London found a box containing bones, and according to some accounts, rags and velvet. Apparently Charles II ordered them interred in the Lady Chapel of Westminster Abbey - they are in an urn supposedly designed by Christopher Wren. This has an inscription including "stifled with pillows ... by the order of their perfidious uncle Richard the Usurper".

This urn was reopened in 1933 and found to contain human, chicken and other animal bones. And some nails. No identification was possible.

There is loads of other info not to mention immense steaming piles of idle speculation on the Web, about both the Princes and Richard III. Even the Wikipedia entry on the princes seems to be compiled mostly from secondary sources.

It's all very interesting though, especially as I live near Leicester. As Martin Carthy's on at the Guildhall next month, will have to have a look at the Richard III exhibition there which has almost magically appeared at just the right time.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Feb 13 - 02:41 PM

King Richard the Third was always a goodie
Even David Cameron would have been his buddy
A ruler of vision, and proven ability
Well known for the warmth of his Yorkshire hostility
A parfait gentil knyght, close to the perfection
The willy in his tights always close to erection
Lets have no more of calling him a psychotic wee turd
Our best mate
Plantagemate
Richard the Third.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Guess
Date: 07 Nov 25 - 02:20 PM

McGrath of Harlow (R+I+P)
Date: 05 Feb 13 - 07:31 AM

Perhaps the alternative might have had consequences as bad or worse, perhaps the reverse.
--
Hard tellin', not knowin'

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Nov 25 - 06:27 AM

AS Dame Edith Evans once said, I think you're confusing me with someone who gives a shit.

Subject: RE: King Richard and bosworth field
From: GUEST,Guess
Date: 15 Nov 25 - 08:44 AM

The gospel according to Shakespeare says Richard III was manipulative and every prairie schooner that crossed the Great Plains had two volumes; the KJV bible and Shakespeare; so it must be true. It couldn't be that the Tutor pirates twisted Bill's arm some that it'd be to his benefit to convince people that the guy who died in battle was the manipulative one not them. Anyway, I too stand with Dame Edith Evans