67 replies to this topic

[hetrodoxly]

Mc the Quipper, on 27 August 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

A most shameful episode in British colonial history. I used to think when I was a child how wonderful and brave the British were during that war, with the last stand at Ishandlwana and the defence of Rorke`s Drift....then I started to read the "true" story of the war. The number of arguments I`ve had with people whose only knowledge of it is through watching the film "Zulu!"

Welcome.
The British were defeated at Isandlwana and hung on by the skin of their teeth defending Rorke`s Drift why do you dismiss their bravery? there wasn't much fighting after these events with colonial divide and rule working very well.

[CRIPTIC CHAMELEON]

Mc the Quipper, on 27 August 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

A most shameful episode in British colonial history. I used to think when I was a child how wonderful and brave the British were during that war, with the last stand at Ishandlwana and the defence of Rorke`s Drift....then I started to read the "true" story of the war. The number of arguments I`ve had with people whose only knowledge of it is through watching the film "Zulu!"

It was a good film and it did have some parts correct to how it happened they just didn't put in the before the during and the after parts.

[Mc the Quipper]

Hetrodoxly, my post doesn`t deny the bravery of the British soldier during the war, of which both sides showed ample examples I merely mention the fact that the WAR was a shameful episode in British colonial history. As for your comment that "there wasn`t much fighting after these events," that is most certainly wrong. Ishandlwana and Rorke`s Drift were just the opening blows of a major campaign that saw serious engagements at places such as Hlobane, Nyezane, Giginlodhvu, Ntombe River and Eshowe as well as the death of France`s Prince Imperial, Louis Napoleon, son of Emperor Napoleon III, before the Zulu`s were finally defeated at Ulundi, a campaign that saw Britain having to draw on resources and men from across the Empire. And your final comment that the maxim divide and rule "worked well" is even more incorrect as the Zulu nation remained utterly loyal to King Cethswayo until their final defeat and only began intriguing after his deposition and exile.

[Mc the Quipper]

Can I just thank everyone for the warm welcome I have received, it is much appreciated.

[ealdwita]

hetrodoxly, on 27 August 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Welcome.
The British were defeated at Isandlwana and hung on by the skin of their teeth defending Rorke`s Drift why do you dismiss their bravery? there wasn't much fighting after these events with colonial divide and rule working very well.

As an ex-Serviceman, never in a million years would I dismiss the bravery of the individual soldier. I question the politics that led up to the Zulu uprising, all the time bearing in mind the 19th.Century mindset in which those events took place. IMO, much of the blame should rest on the shoulders of men like Sir Henry Bartle Frere and Lord Chelmseford who acted without Government authorization.

The film 'Zulu' was inaccurate in many details and characterizations, and this (as Mc rightly says) has formed the general public's vision of the Zulu wars. 'Zulu Dawn' - concerning the action at Isandlwana was a little better IMO.

[Mc the Quipper]

Sadly too much history is distorted by Hollywood in the name of poetic license and the fiction it portrays actually becomes "history" to many.I remember once having a very heated discussion with some friends as I tried to explain that the soldiers in the film Zulu were actually members of the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment and not the South Wales Borderers. Not until I actually produced a book at our next drinking session to prove it did they believe me. My one friend asked, "Well why were they called the South Wales Borderers in the film?" The only answer I could supply was, "Because Stanley Baker who produced the film was Welsh" (Had it been Stanley Baxter would they have been the "Scots Guards?")

[Taun]

Didn't Privat Hook's family sue the film company for its portrayal of him?... I remember an article about the Zulu Wars in Strategy and tactics magazine and they pretty much tore the movie up on the way it portrayed him, and underportrayed Color Sergeant Bourne...

Also, the two in command Chard and Bromhead were actually old acquaintances and never argued with each other over command... The one thing I did like about the movie (other than the entertainment value) was that it stayed away from the politics and presented both sides as warriors doing what they had to do - with no real villains...

[ealdwita]

It's all sorts of things Taun.

Bromhead was deaf as a post.
CSgt Bourne was the youngest soldier of that rank in the Army (24 yo), not the grizzled old warrior portrayed by Nigel Green. (A prayer's as good as a bayonet on a day like this!")
Chard wasn't much rated as an officer. ("......a most amiable fellow and an asset to the Mess, but as a Company Officer...hopelessly slow and slack")
The officers were wearing incorrect uniforms.
Bourne's rank badges were incorrect.
The 24th.Foot wasn't a 'Welsh' regiment............etc...etc....etc

I'll shut up now, there's too many people dozing off.

PS I did hear something many years ago about Hook's descendants but I don't have any info on that. Also I don't know if Chard and Bromhead were previously acquainted.

Oh, and one more thing - They wouldn't have sung 'Men of Harlech' .....The Regimental march was 'The Warwickshire Lads."

Edited by ealdwita, 28 August 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[Taun]

Don't worry about me dozing off.. History was always my favorite subject in school. (except for Electronics in my 9th grade year - the lab was right across the hall from the girls gym and showers..... )

Somewhat in defense of the film... the 24th did become the South Wales Borderers two years later and the Regimental song was changed to "Men of Harlech" (at least according to wiki...)

Back to Richard III... Was he the last living Lancastrian Plantagenet? Or are there offspring still running around somewhere?

If there is I bet someone would start a conspiracy theory about a possible Lancastrian coup! (not that I would condone such a heinous thing to happen to Good Queen Elizabeth II)  Think of the fun the CT people could have with that one!...

[ealdwita]

Taun, on 28 August 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Back to Richard III... Was he the last living Lancastrian Plantagenet? Or are there offspring still running around somewhere?

If there is I bet someone would start a conspiracy theory about a possible Lancastrian coup! (not that I would condone such a heinous thing to happen to Good Queen Elizabeth II)  Think of the fun the CT people could have with that one!...

The male line of the Plantagenets became extinct with the execution in 1499 of Edward, Earl of Warwick, the son of George, Duke of Clarence, in the reign of Henry VII. (or so the 'official' line goes). If my research was correct, then there may have been one still alive until 1550. (It went down very well as my dissertation for my BA, anyway)

[Mc the Quipper]

Psychic Spy........I think you mean was he the last laving YORKIST Plantagenet!!!

At his death there were plenty of Nephews and nieces alive, Edward Earl of Warwick, his brother George Duke of Clarence`s son. John de la Pole Earl of Lincoln and his brothers, who  were also nephews. Then of course there were the daughters of Edward IV who all left heirs. Richard himself left no legitimate heir but had an illegitimate son, John of Gloucester  later executed by Henry VII and a daughter Catherine both of whom appear to have left no descendants.

There are direct descendants of his sisters living, and I believe one in Canada has donated DNA so if the remains are found they can be verified as Richards by comparing them and of course our present Queen Elizabeth is a direct descendant of Edward IV. Recently there has been some doubt cast upon Edward`s legitimacy, his mother Cecily being said to have had a liaison with an archer in France.

I`d just like to add one point here if I may. Though I`m firmly in the camp of Richard and flatly refuse to believe the evil deeds that he is said to have committed, I believe that indirectly Richard is responsible for the death of the Princes in the Tower. By his act of usurpation he condemned them to death, whether he ordered the deed or not. No king can allow a legitimate rival who was previously king to stay alive. Edward II and Richard II were all deposed and murdered so Richard knew that his actions were almost certainly going to result in their deaths. It`s an inescapable conclusion. Richard`s apologists might not like it, but he is in the long run responsible.

[Taun]

Mc the Quipper, on 28 August 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Psychic Spy........I think you mean was he the last laving YORKIST Plantagenet!!!

At his death there were plenty of Nephews and nieces alive, Edward Earl of Warwick, his brother George Duke of Clarence`s son. John de la Pole Earl of Lincoln and his brothers, who  were also nephews. Then of course there were the daughters of Edward IV who all left heirs. Richard himself left no legitimate heir but had an illegitimate son, John of Gloucester  later executed by Henry VII and a daughter Catherine both of whom appear to have left no descendants.

There are direct descendants of his sisters living, and I believe one in Canada has donated DNA so if the remains are found they can be verified as Richards by comparing them and of course our present Queen Elizabeth is a direct descendant of Edward IV. Recently there has been some doubt cast upon Edward`s legitimacy, his mother Cecily being said to have had a liaison with an archer in France.

I`d just like to add one point here if I may. Though I`m firmly in the camp of Richard and flatly refuse to believe the evil deeds that he is said to have committed, I believe that indirectly Richard is responsible for the death of the Princes in the Tower. By his act of usurpation he condemned them to death, whether he ordered the deed or not. No king can allow a legitimate rival who was previously king to stay alive. Edward II and Richard II were all deposed and murdered so Richard knew that his actions were almost certainly going to result in their deaths. It`s an inescapable conclusion. Richard`s apologists might not like it, but he is in the long run responsible.

Good post...  I didn't know QEII was a direct descendant of John of Gaunt (Edward IV)... Interesting - looks like the Lancastrians may have won in the long run...

[ealdwita]

"Recently there has been some doubt cast upon Edward`s legitimacy, his mother Cecily being said to have had a liaison with an archer in France."

The rumour (reportedly fanned by Clarence) of an affair between Cecily Neville and the man Blaybourne was common knowledge. This beckons me towards the innocence of Richard in the murder of the princes. Add to the doubts of Edward IV's legitimacy, the fact that prior to his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, he was already betrothed to Eleanor Butler which made the Woodville marriage null and void and Richard's main reason for murdering the boys is weakened. I'm not saying he didn't have a hand in it, but my money's on the Tydder!

"b****** slips shall take no deep root!" (Dr.Ralph Shaw)


Ooooh I hate it when the legitimate (no pun intended) use of a word is censored!

Edited by ealdwita, 28 August 2012 - 05:59 PM.

[hetrodoxly]

Mc the Quipper, on 28 August 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Hetrodoxly, my post doesn`t deny the bravery of the British soldier during the war, of which both sides showed ample examples I merely mention the fact that the WAR was a shameful episode in British colonial history. As for your comment that "there wasn`t much fighting after these events," that is most certainly wrong. Ishandlwana and Rorke`s Drift were just the opening blows of a major campaign that saw serious engagements at places such as Hlobane, Nyezane, Giginlodhvu, Ntombe River and Eshowe as well as the death of France`s Prince Imperial, Louis Napoleon, son of Emperor Napoleon III, before the Zulu`s were finally defeated at Ulundi, a campaign that saw Britain having to draw on resources and men from across the Empire. And your final comment that the maxim divide and rule "worked well" is even more incorrect as the Zulu nation remained utterly loyal to King Cethswayo until their final defeat and only began intriguing after his deposition and exile.

You had me thinking for a bit there, the memory's not what it used to be, here's what i have.

After Isandlwana, the British field army was heavily reinforced and again invaded Zululand. Sir Garnet Wolseley was sent to take command and relieve Chelmsford, as well as Bartle Frere. Chelmsford, however, avoided handing over command to Wolseley and managed to defeat the Zulus in a number of engagements, the last of which was the Battle of Ulundi, followed by capture of King Cetshwayo. The British encouraged the subkings of the Zulus to rule their subkingdoms without acknowledging a central Zulu power. By the time King Cetshwayo was allowed to return home, there was no longer an independent Zulu kingdom

[Mc the Quipper]

Of course the illegitimacy of Edward IV and his pre-contract with Eleanor Butler have never be proved, all there is is a lot of unsubstantiated heresay, gossip and accusation.


I`ve always believed the boys were murdered at the instigation of John Morton Bishop of Ely and Margaret Beaufort.  While people tend to note that the Duke of Buckingham was constable of the Tower of London, Thomas Stanley was Constable of England briefly under Richard and that gave him just as much access to the Tower as anyone. If it wasn`t the good Bishop and his estranged wife Margaret, then Stanley still had the opportunity to discover whether the deed had been done by Buckingham prior to his failed rebellion.

If the Morton/Beaufort conspiracy is correct it helps explain why Henry VII, as far as is known, didn`t order an extensive search of the Tower for the remains of the Princes or an intensive interrogation of the personnel stationed there during the Prince`s incarceration ....he knew the children were already dead!!

I`m afraid as far as I`m concerned Richard ultimately must bear the responsibility for the princes deaths....after all Richard knew that a deposed monarch is a dead monarch!