King Richard III skeleton find confirmed

[Ealdwita]

Thank you ealdwita...

I did a bit of reading up on him (wikipedia mostly - so it's suspect) today and they mentioned that the marriage of the boys parents (the former King and Queen) was declared null and void as the King was already married (I forget her name)... And the boys were thus - illegitimate and therefore outside the line of succession... It mentioned that the annulment and illegitimacy of the boys was recognized by Parliament (I think you officially had a Parliament back then - though I could be wrong)...If this is true, it is one more reason why Richard might not have killed them as they were legally no threat to his position...

Of course he could have had them killed anyway, just because they were inconvenient, and to prevent future uprisings with them as figureheads - similar to the case of Simnel... Though it does seems as though Henry Tudor had as much to gain by their deaths as Richard did...

It seems that there was a rumour put about (probably by Richard III's supporters) that Edward IV had been pre-contracted (more than an engagement - less than a marriage) to the Lady Eleanor Butler, daughter of John Talbot, Earl of Shrewesbury. This would have had the effect of making Edward's subsequent marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid and their offspring (of which there were 10, all in all!) illegitimate. In the case of the Princes - ineligible to succeed to the throne.

Yes, there was a Parliament and Richard persuaded them pass the Titulus Regis debarring Edward V from the Throne. (Interestingly, Henry VII had the copy of the Act destroyed after his succession). I agree that it's a good reason to consider Richard III's innocence of their murder, but on the other hand, all the time they remained alive, they were potential figureheads around which the now-powerful Woodvilles and their allies could rally.

The above is a massive over-simplification of what is a maze of secrets and intrigue, (and what fascinates me so much). I could continue for hours and bore most of you into fossilization! (If I haven't done so already!) Sorry

[Lobotomy]

I thought it was undetermined if he actually did have anything to do with the princes' deaths... Granted he is a likely suspect... but I thought there was some doubt (small perhaps)...

Indeed thanks for your reply. It's unlikely that the truth will ever be known, but having studied Henry Tudor for well over a decade, I came to the conclusion that it was highly unlikely that he was involved. However as you say there is still a small chance that will always remain (unless we create a time travelling machine) hehe.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Lobotomy

[Lobotomy]

Perhaps the princes did not die in the Tower at all. In 1491 a young man named Perkin Warbeck claimed that he was Richard, youngest son of Edward IV. Over the course of several years Warbeck gathered support from abroad, and landed in England in 1497. Henry VII easily defeated Warbeck's scanty troops, and had him thrown in prison, where he was subsequently executed.

An earlier pretender to the throne - though not one of the princes - was Lambert Simnel. This boy of about 10 claimed to be the son of George, Duke of Clarence, Edward IV's brother. Supported by Irish and Flemish troops, Simnel's 'army' landed in Lancashire, where they were easily defeated by Henry VII. Simnel was pardoned as an unwitting pawn in the designs of scheming adults, and given a job in the royal kitchens. It's highly unlikely that Simnel was Edward of Warwick, because it's widely believed that the real Edward was mentally retarded.The Simnel cake is attributed to young Lambert.

I see you have quoted Wikipedia, but Wiki doesn't offer much in the way of details about what really happened. For instance it mentions only Lambert Simnel as one of the pretenders, yet there was also Perkin Warbeck. Henry actually allowed these two pretenders to live, until one of them tried to escape once again and so was executed - but he had still never the less given him a chance to live. He let Simnel live in the kitchens and he lived well into Henry VII's reign; it's unlikely Henry would have even contemplated letting these two live if he felt threatened enough to have had the princes executed because as long as they were alive they would always remain a threat.

Another demonstration of his forgiveness was in the fact he forgave James Tyrell (the Yorkist knight) too, until he plotted against Henry, whereupon he had no choice but to have him executed and kept his oath to marry Elizabeth which he kept. You eventually realise that Henry VII, unlike his son Henry VIII, was a very honourable man (though a man ruled by money which was his greatest weakness).

[Yamato]

He has gone down in history as perhaps the most disgraced King of England of all time, the ruinous cripple King Richard III, the bones of whom the Tudor Dynasty was built upon, and it seems those old bones have finally been found, underneath a car park in an unmarked and long-forgotten grave, bone-piercing scars of battle still identifiable on his ancient browned skeleton.

"A horse! A horse! My Kingdom for a Horse!" ~ William Shakespeare quoting King Richard III

LEICESTER, England (AP) — He was king of England, but for centuries he lay without shroud or coffin in an unknown grave, and his name became a byword for villainy.

On Monday, scientists announced they had rescued the remains of Richard III from anonymity — and the monarch's fans hope a revival of his reputation will soon follow.

In a dramatically orchestrated news conference, a team of archaeologists, geneticists, genealogists and other scientists from the University of Leicester announced that tests had proven what they scarcely dared to hope — a scarred and broken skeleton unearthed under a drab municipal parking lot was that of the 15th-century king, the last English monarch to die in battle.

Read more:

http://news.yahoo.co...-105948025.html

[TSS]

History's always written by the victors, giving the Tudors free reign to write any version they liked, and Henry Tudor sure made the most of that..

[AsteroidX]

are the Brits really rejoicing this find ? Seems like he had a poppers grave.

[Guest]

Leicester is my home town, though I haven't lived there for about 15years at this stage. This will represent a nice publicity boost for a town which has a bit of a downer on itself.

I tend to agree with Sky Scanner - all the current evidence suggests that Richard the third was a rather good king who had a hatchet job done on him by the victors of the Battle of Bosworth. It seems that the victor was a b****** with no legitimate right to inheret the thrown and so we have had an illigitimate royal family ever since.

By the way "A Horse A Horse my Kingdom for a Horse" was part of the hatchet job to imply that he was a coward who tried to run away from defeat in Battle. The reality was that he was offered a horse to escape and refused prefering to fight to the death.

So what - I don't care, its all ancient history.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 5, 2013 by Guest

[MedicTJ]

History's always written by the victors, giving the Tudors free reign to write any version they liked, and Henry Tudor sure made the most of that..

That makes me wonder just how much of our planet's true history has been forgotten.

[Ealdwita]

The 'coward' on the battlefield was undoubtedly Henry Tudor who handed over command of the battle to the Earl of Oxford and retired to the rear! To cut a long story short, Richard led his handful of 'Household Knights' through the thick of battle straight at Henry's position in order to kill him, personally cutting down Henry's standard-bearer, Sir William Brandon on the way. So no indication of cowardice there!

Richard's last words were reported to have been "Treason, treason!" (Referring possibly to either Northumberland who, for whatever reason, declined to commit his troops to battle, or to the Stanleys who despite having taken the field in Richard's army, upon seeing his charge towards Henry's position, led their men against Richard's flank thus cutting him off and effectively ending the engagement.)

[monk 56]

I would have to say i'm fascinated by this discovery, but i'm biased as my great loves are history, archaeology and archaeoastronomy, it is so incredible that they were able to find the body of Richard III, it was so unlikely!!!!

Area's that fascinate me are facial reconstruction by the skull, link below:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21328380

I remember when they found the tomb of Arsinoe, sister of Cleopatra in Ephesus, Turkey, they did facial reconstruction on her too!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7958819.stm

Interesting, perhaps Cleopatra was better looking than history credits!

However it is unlikely we will find the tomb of Cleopatra, for in the early centuries AD, an earthquake in Alexandria, pushed some of Alexandria under the sea!

Sorry for going off topic, but i love finding out history secrets!

[questionmark]

That makes me wonder just how much of our planet's true history has been forgotten.

Most of it is not forgotten, just not mentioned in official history class.

[Mr Right Wing]

Leicester is my home town, though I haven't lived there for about 15years at this stage. This will represent a nice publicity boost for a town which has a bit of a downer on itself.

I tend to agree with Sky Scanner - all the current evidence suggests that Richard the third was a rather good king who had a hatchet job done on him by the victors of the Battle of Bosworth. It seems that the victor was a b****** with no legitimate right to inheret the thrown and so we have had an illigitimate royal family ever since.

By the way "A Horse A Horse my Kingdom for a Horse" was part of the hatchet job to imply that he was a coward who tried to run away from defeat in Battle. The reality was that he was offered a horse to escape and refused prefering to fight to the death.

So what - I don't care, its all ancient history.

Br Cornelius

Its not quite that simple Cornelius. Imagine the Queen, Charles, William and Harry are killed in an air crash. Who would become the Monarch?

In such situations in the past we used to have a big civil war (War of the Roses) as the relatives (Protagonists) battled it out for the Crown. Richard III was himself a Protagonist King and one of his relatives did him in (Henry VII) taking the Crown for himself.

If you follow the news you may be aware that dna tests have proved Henry VII was not of Royal Blood about 10 years back. His mother had been carrying on with an archer who was his father and therefore he had no legal claim to the Crown. Thus the current Royal Family have no legal claim to the thrown. The only surviving Protagonist line from the War of the Roses therefore means the true Monarch is some guy in Austrailia who owns a farm.

Time team did an episode on him.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Mr Right Wing

[TheLastLazyGun]

the fact that it may be a Royal, has to tempered with the knowledge that the "average guy" dug up, would be just if not more significant. Or should be.

It IS a royal. It is King Richard III.

And his skeleton is more significant than any skeleton of any normal person.

[TheLastLazyGun]

The 'coward' on the battlefield was undoubtedly Henry Tudor who handed over command of the battle to the Earl of Oxford and retired to the rear! To cut a long story short, Richard led his handful of 'Household Knights' through the thick of battle straight at Henry's position in order to kill him, personally cutting down Henry's standard-bearer, Sir William Brandon on the way. So no indication of cowardice there!

To say that Henry Tudor was a coward is complete and utter nonsense.

Henry was completely unfamiliar with the arts of war and a stranger to England. He was 28 years' old during the Battle of Bosworth. Fourteen of those years had been spent in Wales and the next fourteen in Britanny in France. He had NEVER fought in any battles before. It would have been crazy of him to actually lead his army on the battlefield when he had no such knowledge of how to do so.

Because of this he recruited several experienced experienced veterans on whom he could rely for military advice and the command of his armies. John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford, was Henry's principal military commander.He was adept in the arts of war.

Edited February 5, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[Ealdwita]

Henry was soon scampering towards the Stanleys once he realised there was a bunch of blokes bearing down on him intending to tear him a new one though! But yes, I agree, perhaps 'cowardice' was too strong a word. My apologies. I still maintain he should have stood the centre ground whether or not in command.

[TheLastLazyGun]

Leicester is my home town, though I haven't lived there for about 15years at this stage. This will represent a nice publicity boost for a town which has a bit of a downer on itself.

That's if the king is actually buried in Leicester.

That's because York is saying that it should be the place where he is interred. There are those who say he should be interred at York Minster because Richard was, for all intents and purposes, a Yorkshireman and a Northerner. He grew up at Middleham Castle in the Yorkshire Dales and visited York several times during his short, usurped reign. He also funded the fourth floor of Monk Bar, the city's 14th Century gateway, and a small museum dedicated to him can be found within its walls. Some historians believe Richard even planned to be buried at York Minster (although, if I had a choice between being buried in York or being buried in Leicester then I would also choose York).

Middleham Castle

Monk Bar, York

It seems that the victor was a b****** with no legitimate right to inheret the thrown and so we have had an illigitimate royal family ever since.

And Richard III usurped the throne by locking King Edward V in the Tower and probably having him murdered.

Edited February 5, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[TheLastLazyGun]

Henry was soon scampering towards the Stanleys once he realised there was a bunch of blokes bearing down on him intending to tear him a new one though!

No, he didn't. Henry went scampering to nobody. Richard - who, unlike Henry, had huge military experience - saw that Henry was protected by just a small body of infantry and a lifeguard of horse and so decided upon a direct attack upon Henry with his heavy cavalry. At first it looked as though this would pay off as they broke through Henry's lifeguard. But then, on seeing their leader in trouble, the Stanleys came to his rescue in the nick of time by launching a counter attack, a counter attack which finished off Richard for good. The Stanleys were doing their duty, which was to protect Henry and win the battle.

Edited February 5, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[Frank Merton]

Seems to me this history has been known for quite some time, and is hardly new.

[monk 56]

Great information, TheLastLazyGun,

Obviously by finding Richard III will fuel debate within "The Richard III Society" for many decades, love your approach!

[Taun]

No, he didn't. Henry went scampering to nobody. Richard - who, unlike Henry, had huge military experience - saw that Henry was protected by just a small body of infantry and a lifeguard of horse and so decided upon a direct attack upon Henry with his heavy cavalry. At first it looked as though this would pay off as they broke through Henry's lifeguard. But then, on seeing their leader in trouble, the Stanleys came to his rescue in the nick of time by launching a counter attack, a counter attack which finished off Richard for good. The Stanleys were doing their duty, which was to protect Henry and win the battle.

Actually, the Stanleys weren't 'doing thier duty'... They were in Richard's Army... not Henry's... Their 'duty' lay with their commander (in accordance with medieval fealty customs) who was also the crowned (and publicaly acknowledged) King - Richard... Not Henry...

The Stanley's 'turned their coat' for future gains to their family from Henry... Not out of any sense of 'loyalty' or 'duty' to anyone but themselves...

[monk 56]

Members must note, that Richard III has a huge debate in England, its centre is "The Richard III Society", so some members of other countries may not see this cause of debate of much!

It is an English thing but causes heated debate, link below:-

http://www.richardiii.net/

Obviously now he has been found, expect heated debate, i love it!

[TheLastLazyGun]

The Stanley's 'turned their coat' for future gains to their family from Henry... Not out of any sense of 'loyalty' or 'duty' to anyone but themselves...

That was quite a common thing to do in medieval battles. It wasn't unusual. Knights often sat on the sidelines and only joined a battle when it was clear which side was winning - and they joined, of course, on the winning side.

This would ensure they would be in favour with the monarch after he's won, rather than be on the losing side and be executed.

But when the Stanleys joined the battle on the side of the Lancastrians, it was their duty to protect Henry.

Edited February 5, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[monk 56]

I wonder if there is any connection to religious idea's, oops Henry the VIII did that later, ha ha!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose_of_York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_rose

[draugr]

I'm directly descended from the Stuarts and the Tudors, depending on what side of my family you look at, and I have to wonder, if they knew the context of him being under a parking lot, if they'd laugh and laugh.

I'm pretty sure they would.

[HollyDolly]

Speaking of Richard,I got an email from my local library saying that Alsion Weir's book The Princes in the Tower came in.Wow what a coinsedence.After all Richard waz said to have murdered his nephews the young boys in the Tower.