Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

King Richard III skeleton find confirmed


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#31    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:20 AM

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


#32    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,384 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 05 February 2013 - 01:13 PM

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 by Br Cornelius, 05 February 2013 - 01:16 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#33    MedicTJ

MedicTJ

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NW Indiana

Posted 05 February 2013 - 01:24 PM

View PostSky Scanner, on 05 February 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

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.

Dr. Phil says that marriage is hard work.

I say....if marriage is hard work, you're doing it wrong.  Love is not work.  Love is eternal.

http://www.reverbnat...om/tjflickinger

#34    ealdwita

ealdwita

    Hwt oredmcg

  • Member
  • 4,836 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:astcentingas , England

  • Hige sceal e heardra, heorte e cenre, mod sceal e mare, e ure mgen lytla.

Posted 05 February 2013 - 01:55 PM

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.)

"Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel, ac gecnáwan þín gefá!": "Fate goes ever as she shall, but know thine enemy!".
I can teach you with a quip, if I've a mind; I can trick you into learning with a laugh; Oh, winnow all my folly and you'll find, A grain or two of truth among the chaff!
(The Yeoman of the Guard ~ Gilbert and Sullivan)

#35    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 05 February 2013 - 01:57 PM

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...rshire-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.u...ral/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!


#36    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,398 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 05 February 2013 - 01:57 PM

View PostMedicTJ, on 05 February 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

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.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#37    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 February 2013 - 02:05 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 05 February 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

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 by Mr Right Wing, 05 February 2013 - 02:06 PM.


#38    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 05 February 2013 - 02:37 PM

View PostMistydawn, on 04 February 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

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.


#39    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:06 PM

View Postealdwita, on 05 February 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

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 by TheLastLazyGun, 05 February 2013 - 03:10 PM.


#40    ealdwita

ealdwita

    Hwt oredmcg

  • Member
  • 4,836 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:astcentingas , England

  • Hige sceal e heardra, heorte e cenre, mod sceal e mare, e ure mgen lytla.

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:23 PM

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.

"Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel, ac gecnáwan þín gefá!": "Fate goes ever as she shall, but know thine enemy!".
I can teach you with a quip, if I've a mind; I can trick you into learning with a laugh; Oh, winnow all my folly and you'll find, A grain or two of truth among the chaff!
(The Yeoman of the Guard ~ Gilbert and Sullivan)

#41    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:24 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 05 February 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

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).

Posted Image
Middleham Castle

Posted Image
Monk Bar, York

Quote

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 by TheLastLazyGun, 05 February 2013 - 03:56 PM.


#42    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:40 PM

View Postealdwita, on 05 February 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

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 by TheLastLazyGun, 05 February 2013 - 03:42 PM.


#43    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,246 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:49 PM

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


#44    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:55 PM

Great information, TheLastLazyGun,

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


#45    Taun

Taun

    A dashing moose about town...

  • Member
  • 5,641 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tornado Alley (Oklahoma)

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:08 PM

View PostTheLastLazyGun, on 05 February 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

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...





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users