67 replies to this topic

[Mistydawn]

TheLastLazyGun, on 04 February 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Last time I checked this is news for everybody.

Go and take your silly left-wing whining elsewhere and stop ruining this thread.

Left-wing? what's that? I don't understand your reasoning?

[Taun]

TheLastLazyGun, on 04 February 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Someone who murders two children - one of them being the king - should never be entitled to a state funeral.

It also seems that the Tudors WERE actually correct when they described him as being a hunchback and that it wasn't merely propaganda from them, including Shakespeare.  Richard's skeleton has a condition called scoliosis which, even though it isn't actually a hunchback, would have made him appear to contemporaries as a hunchback.  Most of them would not have known the difference.  After all, the Hunchback of Notre Dame also had scoliosis rather than being a real hunchback.

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)...

[ealdwita]

Lobotomy, on 04 February 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

This is great news but while we now know that him having a hunchback wasn't merely a propaganda ploy by his opponents, how they think that this will correct his image as the murderer of the two Princes in the Tower is beyond me. It certainly wasn't Henry VII!

Probably not, but he did have a motive. If the Princes were alive, the the Tudors had no claim whatsoever to the throne of England. (Not that they had much of a claim anyway)

Other suspects.....

Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham - Richard's brother in law, but also cousin to Henry Tudor and third in the Lancastrian succession behind Henry and his mother. Stafford supported Richard, while secretly plotting with Tudor. Stafford may have killed the boys to discredit Richard, thus furthering his cousins ambitions, and his own eventual rise to power. Or, Richard may have ordered Buckingham to kill the princes in order to solidify his own claim to the throne.
James Tyrell - perhaps the instrument of the prince's death if not the person behind the murders. Tyrell was a bit of an unsavoury character, given to plotting and underhanded dealings. In 1502 he was in prison for treason against Henry VII. Under torture Tyrell confessed that he had killed the princes, though he supplied no information as to why or under whose influence he had acted.

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.

Taun, on 04 February 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

ealdwita.. you seem to be fairly conversant with that period of English history... What is your take on Richard III's reign? I've heard conflicting things about whether he was an evil person, or just the victim of vicious propaganda...

Richard, by the standards of the time, was an able King and liked in general by the populace (especially in the North where he set up the Council of the North to improve government control and economic prosperity, to benefit the entire area of Northern England. Richard was its first Lord President from 1472 until his accession to the throne.

He and his wife, Anne founded King's College and Queen's College Cambridge and founded the College of Arms which to this day, oversees the granting of titles and grants of Arms.

I believe it's highly likely that he had a hand in the murder of the Princes, but it'll never be conclusive, just who the culprit was. (See list above.) Deposition or forced abdication was invariably a sentence of death (Edward II and Henry VI for example)

Whether Richard had a 'formal burial' at the time is not clear. The historian Polydor Vergil tells us that in 1495 (10 years after Bosworth), Henry VII paid "£50 for a marble and alabaster monument", which apparently, was still visible in 1612.

I think we still owe Richard's perceived personality to Shakespeare's play, which wasn't as accurate as it should have been IMO!

[Beckys_Mom]

TheLastLazyGun, on 04 February 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Last time I checked this is news for everybody.

Go and take your silly left-wing whining elsewhere and stop ruining this thread.

What part of her posts leaned to the left wing whining?

Quote

So what?  What do you want me to do about it?

Was she asking you in particular to do something about it?  From what I can see her post was not aimed at you or anyone else..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 04 February 2013 - 05:43 PM.

[Mistydawn]

Beckys_Mom, on 04 February 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

What part of her posts leaned to the left wing whining?



Was she asking you in particular to do something about it?  From what I can see her post was not aimed at you or anyone else..

Becky thank you so much for your voice.
I apologise for being want in all things historical. I know I need to read more.

It was so NOT my intent to irritate other UMers.
I was trying to draw the eye to the countless babies and those too outside of societies norms, in other words the POOR who were buried outside of the Churches bounds.

To draw the fact that although the historical and archelogical find is pretty awesome, 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.

As what countless people endured under one Reign or another often seems less improtant and seemingly more boring, or just nominally interesting compared to what the Royals did, I just felt I needed to show a little less enthusiasm towards the fabulous find of the possible skeletal remains of Englands finest.

[Eldorado]

little_dreamer, on 04 February 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

Buried under a parking lot?  Sounds like something that happened to Jimmy Hoffa.

I'd wager there's more than a few Richard the Thirds buried in strange places.

[Andromedan Starseed 333]

study it to see what else we could find!its worth studying it and etc who knows you might find something interesting and exciting at the same time.i would personally study it.of course there might be some people that might say don't disturb the skeleton because of some religious crap/reasons or you might wake up or disturb their spirit.i do believe in that and etc but I'm sure id that was my body or at least was since i moved on and longer need it why would i  stay around where my ex-body is at and linger that would be boring for one thing most people wouldn't be able to see me or etc.screw religious reasons  or etc

[HollyDolly]

Certainly very interesting from a historical standpoint and I'm interested in it as I love history. Many centuries after the death of the two princes in the Tower the bones of a couple of children were found.These were put into an urn and placed in Westminister Abbey during the time of Charles the 2nd,King of England. Would be intersting to see if dna testing could be done on their bones to see if there was any connection to Richard and the royal family of the time.If these bones in the urn are the two princes,it maybe that Richard or someone else had them murdered.
After the young princes went into the Tower of London they were seen playing and then one day,no one saw them any more.
Richard's mistake was never showing them to the people,either alive or dead.Even if he or Stafford had them killed,Richard could have produced their bodies and shown them blaming Henry Tudor for the crime and arranged a fancy funeral for the boys. If I was Richard, that's what I would have done,is shown one and all their poor little corpses and blamed Henry Tudor or someone else for the crime.

[Taun]

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 illegitmacy of the boys was recognized by Parliment (I think you officially had a Parliment 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 inconvienent, 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...

[CH32]

Seeing as how he was almost covered by a toilet...........................
shouldn't he be known as King Richard the Turd ?

[ealdwita]

Taun, on 04 February 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

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]

Taun, on 04 February 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

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 by Lobotomy, 05 February 2013 - 12:24 AM.

[Lobotomy]

Taun, on 04 February 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

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

[Sky Scanner]

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..