 sj |
||
|
||
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: |
|
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. |
|
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: The Sandman Date: 07 Feb 13 - 02:24 PM re |
| Share Thread: |