Richard III

[SeaMaiden]

So some folks here probably already know that the remains of Richard III have been found. He had scoliosis (badly), and suffered 'indignity' wounds post-mortem. Now a bit of a row may be developing because the town of Leicester, home territory of the Lancasters by the by, wishes to keep him, while the town of York feels that he should come home, being as he was the Duke of York and all.

I find all this fascinating, including the fact that the remains of the two princes have also never been found. After reading some of the story of Harry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, I am led to wonder why Richard behaved as he did after, what, two decades of loyal service to his king?

Is there anyone else who finds this historical stuff fascinating, and/or has been following Richard III's story?

(Reuters) - Researchers in Britain solved a 500-year-old mystery when they confirmed that a skeleton found in a car park last September, was that of Richard III, England's most infamous king.

Here is a look at his reign:

* He was the fourth son of Richard, the third Duke of York. He became the last Plantagenet and Yorkist king of England. He usurped the throne of his nephew Edward V in 1483 and perished in defeat to Henry Tudor (thereafter Henry VII) in battle.

* Born in 1452, he was still a child when his elder brother Edward IV became king. He helped his brother in battle and led the war against Scotland in 1480, securing Berwick in 1482. After Edward's untimely death in April 1483, Richard's future was put in doubt as Edward's sons were still alive. In a series of palace coups he secured power, first becoming protector and then king. He was crowned on July 6, 1483.

* Months later the southern counties raised a rebellion in the name of Henry Tudor. Richard reigned for another two years in a climate of an ever-growing crisis. Richard and his royal army left Leicester in August 1485 and took position on Ambion Hill at Bosworth Field where he was killed on August 22. He was known to have shouted "Treason - Treason - Treason" as he was killed.

* Controversy remains over the killing of the sons of Edward IV, the Princes in the Tower. Even though there is no reliable evidence, it seems certain that they were killed some time in 1483. Richard's own possible justification for the killings was that he was the rightful heir because Edward IV's children were illegitimate and therefore disqualified from the crown. Most have blamed Richard, who had the princes in his power and who evidently decided to conceal their fate.

* Following his defeat and death, the victorious Tudors began rewriting history to destroy Richard's reputation - a process that reached its zenith with Shakespeare's "The Tragedy of Richard III", first performed in the 1590s.

Sources: www.britannica.com/oxford dictionary of british history/www.richard111.com

(Reporting by David Cutler, London Editorial Reference Unit)

The reporter forgot to include mention of his mother, Cecily Nevill/Nevil/Neville, who was mother to more than one king, which is almost the least of her claims to fame. The Rose of York, as she was once known.

I find it fascinating that researchers/archaeologists had to go to a cabinet maker in Canada to find DNA that's definitely related to Richard. I would have thought that the lines would have continued somewhat in other lines.

 

[theclearspot]

So some folks here probably already know that the remains of Richard III have been found. He had scoliosis (badly), and suffered 'indignity' wounds post-mortem. Now a bit of a row may be developing because the town of Leicester, home territory of the Lancasters by the by, wishes to keep him, while the town of York feels that he should come home, being as he was the Duke of York and all.

I find all this fascinating, including the fact that the remains of the two princes have also never been found. After reading some of the story of Harry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, I am led to wonder why Richard behaved as he did after, what, two decades of loyal service to his king?

Is there anyone else who finds this historical stuff fascinating, and/or has been following Richard III's story?


The reporter forgot to include mention of his mother, Cecily Nevill/Nevil/Neville, who was mother to more than one king, which is almost the least of her claims to fame. The Rose of York, as she was once known.

I find it fascinating that researchers/archaeologists had to go to a cabinet maker in Canada to find DNA that's definitely related to Richard. I would have thought that the lines would have continued somewhat in other lines.

Yes its good stuff; I was listening to a BBC documentary about Richard III, and apparently he wasnt the hump backed monster Shakespeare painted. I havent read a biography on Richard III so not well up on the Plantagenets.

 

[SeaMaiden]

He wasn't hump-backed, but if you look at his skeleton, the scoliosis was indeed severe. I've been reading a lot of historical fiction of late, so dates and names and events are essentially true, but the authors take some license with the motivators and actual personalities.

The BIG question is what happened to the two princes. Given how everything went down, I am of a rather firm belief that he had them killed.

 

[Hermanthegerman]

Yes, it´s truly fascinating! In the last time I was interested very much on Henry 8. About Richard the 3 I don´t know much.

 

[Harry Gypsna]

The BIG question is what happened to the two princes. Given how everything went down, I am of a rather firm belief that he had them killed.

It is generally accepted that the princes bones are in Westminster abbey(in an urn designed by Sir Christopher Wren no less), but the church won't allow them to be tested.
There was another theory that the princes bodies were concealed inside a wall at the tower, I remember some hubub a few years back about it.


I am firmly in the "He did it" camp, I mean why wouldn't you in that situation in those times. Let's face it, the royals are basically the original Mafia, nothing more nothing less, and the Don will kill the sons of his murdered enemies to prevent them growing up and coming back for their revenge. Having said that, the Tudor usurpers were master propagandists and it is not beyond the pale to believe that Henry the Eighth was responsible, for the same reasons -he was a Usurper, one of the princes was the true heir.

I say Long live the real King of England, a New Zealand Sheep farmer called Mike

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Yeah, I read that the skeletons of two children had been found sealed up under a staircase and now they're in Westminster Abbey. Fascinating story. Love your analogy to "the original mafia".

 

[Stoner4Life]

I don't know why but the older I get the more interesting these stories are, I have to admit I blew this stuff off in high school to the dismay & frustration of my teachers.

 

[Scottish Research]

He wasn't hump-backed, but if you look at his skeleton, the scoliosis was indeed severe. I've been reading a lot of historical fiction of late, so dates and names and events are essentially true, but the authors take some license with the motivators and actual personalities.

The BIG question is what happened to the two princes. Given how everything went down, I am of a rather firm belief that he had them killed.

They'll probably need too dig up another couple of car parks to find those guys...

R.Fortune

 

[mpd]

I love the whole rotten mess. I was British in a past life (having served His Majesty and given my life being shot down as a RAF pilot in WWII) so I take a liking to the entire history of the monarchy. Fascinating stuff.

 

[Harry Gypsna]

I was British in a past life

I'm going to let that slide as it's my birthday..... Just you wait though

 

[SeaMaiden]

Well happy birthday, Harry! Tomorrow is my father's b-day, a week later is my mother's and two days after that is mine. We're this whole watery mess of a family, if you follow stuff like astrology.

Yes, it´s truly fascinating! In the last time I was interested very much on Henry 8. About Richard the 3 I don´t know much.

Well, it helps to know that it was Henry Tudor, aka Henry VII, the VIII's poppa, who overthrew Richard in battle. He took the throne from Richard.

It is generally accepted that the princes bones are in Westminster abbey(in an urn designed by Sir Christopher Wren no less), but the church won't allow them to be tested.
There was another theory that the princes bodies were concealed inside a wall at the tower, I remember some hubub a few years back about it.

I remember reading about that (the bones in the walls, I didn't realize that Westminster wouldn't allow what remains they have on hand to be tested).

I am firmly in the "He did it" camp, I mean why wouldn't you in that situation in those times. Let's face it, the royals are basically the original Mafia, nothing more nothing less, and the Don will kill the sons of his murdered enemies to prevent them growing up and coming back for their revenge. Having said that, the Tudor usurpers were master propagandists and it is not beyond the pale to believe that Henry the Eighth was responsible, for the same reasons -he was a Usurper, one of the princes was the true heir.

I say Long live the real King of England, a New Zealand Sheep farmer called Mike

Ha! Honestly, reading the histories as I get into any given book, the Mafia has nothing on what happened 'back in the day.' In fact, I'm given to chuckle when people today complain about how bad things are. I look back on history and think, "Oh... really?" The stories are gone, forgotten, and so we have forgotten for the most part.

In any event, I agree, I am fairly certain he did it. What I keep finding myself more stuck on is this--why did he execute Harry Stafford, really? It's plausible that, as one of Richard's supporters, he knew exactly what happened to the princes, but I doubt that would have been the reason. His marriage to Katherine Woodville (Richard was historically enemies with the Woodvilles and I believe he had some or many of her brothers executed once he gained the crown) could have played a role, though I couldn't say for sure.

It's quite the tangled web, isn't it?

 

[stickshift]

It is generally accepted that the princes bones are in Westminster abbey(in an urn designed by Sir Christopher Wren no less), but the church won't allow them to be tested.
There was another theory that the princes bodies were concealed inside a wall at the tower, I remember some hubub a few years back about it.


I am firmly in the "He did it" camp, I mean why wouldn't you in that situation in those times. Let's face it, the royals are basically the original Mafia, nothing more nothing less, and the Don will kill the sons of his murdered enemies to prevent them growing up and coming back for their revenge. Having said that, the Tudor usurpers were master propagandists and it is not beyond the pale to believe that Henry the Eighth was responsible, for the same reasons -he was a Usurper, one of the princes was the true heir.

I say Long live the real King of England, a New Zealand Sheep farmer called Mike

Sounds bout the gist of it, it's why they had to marry the right stock... once Henry vi got in things went tits up.. partly because he was mad... if they hadn't began fighting each other they would of kept France... it was henry vi vs edward that got it all going... 1st cousins too.. didn't Henry tudor just declare that he was from lancastrian stock? but he wasn't a true descendant !! I think that comes from john of gaunt.. so then Henry tudor married into the York side too!! and that was the start of the tudors..

hmmm the bloody war of the cousins..

 

[mpd]

I'm going to let that slide as it's my birthday..... Just you wait though

Mine is tomorrow! I'll be 51. Your are... 47?

 

[SeaMaiden]

My dad's gonna be 74yo. And pretty darn spry, too!

Sounds bout the gist of it, it's why they had to marry the right stock... once Henry vi got in things went tits up.. partly because he was mad... if they hadn't began fighting each other they would of kept France... it was henry vi vs edward that got it all going... 1st cousins too.. didn't Henry tudor just declare that he was from lancastrian stock? but he wasn't a true descendant !! I think that comes from john of gaunt.. so then Henry tudor married into the York side too!! and that was the start of the tudors..

hmmm the bloody war of the cousins..

Yes, that's partly what I recall of the histories, what I know of them. It all began... what, around the time of Cerdic, when Rome left Britainnia, or whatever it was called at the time?I'm sorry!

 

[Harry Gypsna]

I don't know how to multi quote, so ...
Thank you for the birthday wishes SeaMaiden
SeaMaiden, February is an expensive month in my family also. Me, my sister, my uncle and my cousin with 7 days, and my mum(who is no longer with us) within another few days, oh and my late maternal grandfather too. And now we've got my new sister-in-law to add to that.

MPD, No mate, I'm 32, although sometimes I feel 65. Happy Birthday for tomorrow, in case I'm not online.

 

[mwz]

My thoughts were largely around his skeletons hunch. Holy crap, I hope that spending so much time on the net doesn't give me a Richard the third posture! ;-)

 

[lost in a sea]

damn inbred plantagenets.. they still use that blood line as an excuse to rule and the current royal scum arent even really related to it genetically, if it even exists, which it doesnt as a blood line to christ anyway.. they basically just use any trick to make people think they are better than them..

this is all around the 1400s and the hundred years war and war of the roses etc.. cerdic was quite a bit earlier..

all they taught us in history at school was this garbage about the lineage of kings and queens and the world wars,, atrophying state brainwashing.. and it just goes in one ear and out the other at that age..

 

[stickshift]

damn inbred plantagenets.. they still use that blood line as an excuse to rule and the current royal scum arent even really related to it genetically, if it even exists, which it doesnt as a blood line to christ anyway.. they basically just use any trick to make people think they are better than them..

this is all around the 1300-1400s and the hundred years war and war of the roses etc.. cerdic was quite a bit earlier..

all they taught us in history at school was this garbage about the lineage of kings and queens and the world wars,, atrophying state brainwashing..

They never had rose emblams/badges/coats etc until after, it was never called the war of the roses.

 

[lost in a sea]

yep like alot of history it's a misnomer that sounds good..

 

[SeaMaiden]

Stickshift, will you elaborate? Are you saying that the name for this war is a complete misnomer, and that the seals/crests I've seen are not in fact the proper crests?

damn inbred plantagenets.. they still use that blood line as an excuse to rule and the current royal scum arent even really related to it genetically, if it even exists, which it doesnt as a blood line to christ anyway.. they basically just use any trick to make people think they are better than them..

this is all around the 1400s and the hundred years war and war of the roses etc.. cerdic was quite a bit earlier..

all they taught us in history at school was this garbage about the lineage of kings and queens and the world wars,, atrophying state brainwashing.. and it just goes in one ear and out the other at that age..

I assumed that in order to hit that Plantagenet line (what? you don't dig Richard the Lionhearted?) by Canadian cabinetmaker the presumption has been no more royal bloodlines tied to Plantagenet. But, what about descent from Cerdic? I thought all England's rulers were said to have to have descended from Cerdic of Wessex. Yes, Cerdic was pre-1000 (just finished a historical fiction featuring Cerdic and Cynric--both being depicted as sons of Arthur, and the idea of Arthur as Riothamus being posited in this tome as well).

I need to visit Englo Lond sometime, and sometime soon. And Wales, I have an online friend who posts up pix and it's just incredibly beautiful. But, I am rambling. It is so different from the U.S., in many, many respects. And for me it's kind of odd feeling this way. You see, my family is Spanish. I grew up hearing about that damned by God pirate, Sir Francis Drake, and that he was nothing more than a criminal, and the worst sort at that. We have, as a culture, little love for the English. That's how I was brought up, you see. But reading the histories of England are so much more interesting than the Spanish histories! I just had a flashback memory. My grandfather pointing to some holes in one of the outer walls of El Morro in San Juan, and saying that bastard, Drake, put them there. As he got older he would say to every Spanish-speaking person he could find (while visiting out here, I never saw him do it on the island), "Spanish is the language of the Christians!" which was funny, because he never went to Mass.

I digress. Back to no love for the Plantagenet line from lost!