67 replies to this topic

[Antilles]

My horse, my horse, my kingdom for a horse..Would Dick have got anywhere if someone had showed up with a horse?

[ealdwita]

Antilles, on 25 August 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

My horse, my horse, my kingdom for a horse..Would Dick have got anywhere if someone had showed up with a horse?

No idea. He never asked for one! His battle horse, White Surrey, was cut down from under him and I doubt Richard would have been able to rise before he was hacked to death by Stanley's men, let alone make fancy 'sound-bites'! Tradition has it that his last words were "Treason, treason, treason!"

The trouble is that when Shakespeare was writing his plays, the granddaughter of Richard's opponent was on the throne, hence the cruel, scowling hunchback which nowadays forms just about everybody's mental image of him, when in fact, he was probably one of the better monarchs in English history.

[CRIPTIC CHAMELEON]

ealdwita, on 24 August 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

Oooh, I'm gonna give you such a slap!  

I did like the way you tried to summarize which battle it might have been. I like the cut of your jib sir cheers.

[King Fluffs]

How classy.

[Taun]

ealdwita, on 25 August 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

No idea. He never asked for one! His battle horse, White Surrey, was cut down from under him and I doubt Richard would have been able to rise before he was hacked to death by Stanley's men, let alone make fancy 'sound-bites'! Tradition has it that his last words were "Treason, treason, treason!"

The trouble is that when Shakespeare was writing his plays, the granddaughter of Richard's opponent was on the throne, hence the cruel, scowling hunchback which nowadays forms just about everybody's mental image of him, when in fact, he was probably one of the better monarchs in English history.

That's about it... Shakespeare had to play up to his patrons, if he wanted to keep his theater open... he knew who buttered his bread and it wasn't Richard....

From what I've read about R III the only thing he did (or might have done) that I find reprehensible was the two young princes... Which he actually might not have had anything to do with...

ealdwita...  have any other English monarchs died in actual battle?... I can't think of one - save Harold in 1066...

Edited by Taun, 26 August 2012 - 03:24 PM.

[ealdwita]

CRIPTIC CHAMELEON, on 26 August 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

I did like the way you tried to summarize which battle it might have been. I like the cut of your jib sir cheers.

My first thought was "OK, here's another guy who believes he's the reincarnation some long-dead warrior, so just for fun, let's find out how much he remembers about the battle which finished him off!" I ended up with egg on my face! Serves me right for being sarcastic, doesn't it?

[ealdwita]

Taun, on 26 August 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

ealdwita...  have any other English monarchs died in actual battle?... I can't think of one - save Harold in 1066...

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.........

Edward the Elder.....Saxon........AD924.......killed leading an army against a Cambro-Mercian rebellion at Farndon
Harold Godwinson of course at the battle of Hastings
William the Conquerer......1087....died from injuries  at the Siege of Mantes
Richard I (Coeur de Leon) .....1199....killed at the Siege of Chalus-Charbrol in France.
Then lastly, Richard III.

[ealdwita]

Taun, on 26 August 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

From what I've read about R III the only thing he did (or might have done) that I find reprehensible was the two young princes... Which he actually might not have had anything to do with...

Oooooh, my favourite part of the whole Plantagenet era ! Please don't get me started!

[TheLastLazyGun]

I wonder if the mystery of where his nephews are buried (if they are buried) will ever be solved, too.

In 1483, Richard III supposedly captured and imprisoned his two young nephews - the 12 year-old King Edward V and Edward's 9-year-old brother Richard, Duke of York - in the Tower of London and murdered them not long after so he could take the Throne.

The two boys were the sons of the previous monarch, King Edward IV (Richard III's brother and the grandfather of the future King Henry VIII).  The King, arriving in London for his coronation in May 1483 (he became king just a couple of months before), was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower.  In June, his younger brother joined him.

Both princes were declared illegitimate by an Act of Parliament of 1483 known as Titulus Regius, and their uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was crowned as King Richard III.  There are reports of the two princes being seen playing in the Tower grounds shortly after Richard joined his brother, but there are no recorded sightings of either of them after the summer of 1483. Their fate remains an enduring mystery, but historians and contemporary popular opinion agree that the princes may have been murdered in the Tower. There is no record of a funeral.

If Edward V died before his 15th birthday, as seems likely, then he will be England shortest-reigning monarch ever.  He is also one of just three English monarchs never to have been crowned (the other three are Matilda, Jane and Edward VIII).

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, although the staircase was apparently the original, and therefore built around two centuries before the boys disappeared, making it unlikely that the skeletons belonged to the princes.

The fate of the two princes remains a mystery.  The Tudors  maintained that Richard III was a nasty piece of work, was a hunchback and had a withered arm, although all this may have been just propaganda.  It was they who first claimed that Richard III murdered his two nephews shortly after they were imprisoned, although many modern historians believe this to be untrue.

If the boys were murdered, Richard III is now one of several suspects.  The other suspects include Henry VII (who married the two boys' sister), who wanted to eliminate rival claimans to the Throne.  However, he came to the Throne in 1485 but the two princes mysteriously disappeared for good two years earlier.

William Shakespeare believed that the Yorkist knight, James Tyrell, was the man who murdered the Princes in the Tower.  Tyrrell was arrested by Henry VII's forces in 1501 for supporting another Yorkist claimant to the throne. Shortly before his execution, it is said that Tyrrell admitted, under torture, to having murdered the princes at the behest of Richard III; however, no written record of such an important confession has ever been found or referred to.

Another suspect is Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham.  He was Richard III's right-hand man and sought personal advantage through the new king. Some regard Buckingham as the likeliest suspect: his execution, after he had rebelled against Richard in October 1483, might signify that he and the king had fallen out because Buckingham had taken it on himself for whatever reason to dispose of Richard's rival claimants (which would include the Princes in the Tower).  Alternatively, he could have been acting on behalf of Henry Tudor.

Some, however, maintain than at least one of the two Princes weren't murdered and that they lived.  In 1487 young man named Lambert Simnel said he, not Henry VII, was the rightful King of England by claiming to be the Earl of Warwick, who had a claim to the throne as the son of the Duke of Clarence, King Richard III's brother.  A priest named Richard Simon noticed Simnel's strong resemblance to Richard, Duke of York, the younger of the two Princes in the Tower, so he initially intended to present Simnel to the King as the Duke of York.  However, when he heard rumours that the Earl of Warwick had died during his imprisonment in the Tower of London, he changed his mind.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 26 August 2012 - 07:12 PM.

[ealdwita]

Thanks matey, you've saved me the trouble. (A few tiny points I would question, but all in all, not a bad summation!)

[sarah snow]

I'm a bit confused as to whether the location they are excavating is actually the site- all sounds rather ambiguous to me. Have they found actual evidence that the site was there?

Also- if they do find remains, who will they use for a DNA comparison?

Facinating, nonetheless :-)

[Taun]

ealdwita, on 26 August 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.........

Edward the Elder.....Saxon........AD924.......killed leading an army against a Cambro-Mercian rebellion at Farndon
Harold Godwinson of course at the battle of Hastings
William the Conquerer......1087....died from injuries  at the Siege of Mantes
Richard I (Coeur de Leon) .....1199....killed at the Siege of Chalus-Charbrol in France.
Then lastly, Richard III.

Dang... Forgot about Richard I...  And I knew he was killed by a crossbow bolt in France...  Never heard of Edward the Elder... I'll have to read up on him... Thanks



Of course there was also Arthur Pendragron... But then again he never really died did he...  

Edited by Taun, 26 August 2012 - 10:54 PM.

[Harlequin Dreamer]

When they buried him was it originaly a horse drawn carriage parking area before they made it into a car park. ?

[ealdwita]

Taun, on 26 August 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Of course there was also Arthur Pendragron... But then again he never really died did he...  

You've been reading too much Geoffrey of Monmouth and watching too many Shrek films!

[Taun]

ealdwita, on 26 August 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

You've been reading too much Geoffrey of Monmouth and watching too many Shrek films!

It's impossible to read too much Geoffrey of Monmouth (or TH White for that matter) or watch too many Shrek films!...