Skip to comments.Skeleton found in Leicester could be Richard III
Posted on 09/12/2012 9:09:02 PM PDT by MrsEmmaPeel
Archeologists at the University of Leicester in central England say they have discovered a human skeleton with battle wounds and a curved spine that could be the remains of King Richard III.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbc.ca ...
Check this out ...
His reputation restored?
Isn’t this the same Richard III who usurped the young Edward VI and had him banished to the Tower of London, never to be seen again?
I don’t know if Richard’s reputation is maligned, but I know his brother John got the bad end for reputations.
I thought it was his brother John who had the curved spine
Yes, if you believe his enemies.
Edward V and his brother Richard of Shrewsbury.
Edward VI was Henry VIII’s son.
Henry Tudor had more reason to have the young prince killed.
But Richard was the immediate beneficiary.
Richard I (the Lionhearted) was King John's older brother. Richard III came along three centuries later and usurped his nephew Edward V.
Clearly you need to read Josephine Tey’s “the Daughter of Time” which is truth.
Say no more, you’ll enjoy it!
His reputation restored? It is an undeniable fact that he illegally usurped his nephews, and the idea that it was Henry Tudor who had the princes’ murdered from France in a Royal fortress under Richard’s control is very far fetched revisionism.
Sure, Henry Tudor had some motive to have them murdered, but Richard III had more so and had much more opportunity.
I tend to think it was Tudor. If Elizabeth woodville really believed Richard had her sons killed, she wouldn’t have let her daughter elizabeth go to Richards court and leave sanctuary. Also, as their parents marriage had been declared invalid, Richard was the rightful heir in that case. Henrys claim was that his great grandmother was catherine of valois, who had been married to a king. I also think that Richard was very honorable, and I can’t see him doing that, but can totally see tudor having those boys murdered. He and his son did their best to wipe out any person with any drop of royal blood.
Those damn k’s: now=know!
Richard the Lionheart may have had a good rep retrospectively, but he deserves a much worse reputation. He held England in contempt, couldn’t even be bothered to learn English, and viewed England simply as a source of power and money to support his wars in France (which he considered his real home) and the crusades in the Holy Land, for which he ravaged England severely in taxes.
His anti-semitic rhetoric also led to a massacre of Jews in London during his coronation.
Richard II wasn’t much better either. During his reign, the peasant’s revolt over poll tax occurred, (although that was an important demonstration to the government that the common people could only be pushed so far) and his brutal intransegence and pettiness led to his deposition and the the brutal slaughter of the Wars of the Roses.
Who are the two guys in armor in that photo?
I figured out after that I had gotten the good Richards mixed up. :)
Had a hunch he’d show up.
Kings and Queens should all be laid to rest.
The other view has him as a reformer. Extensive legal reforms whose effects we are feeling to this day. Richard III invented the system of bail-- he did not think it appropriate for offenders of small crimes to be detained of their liberty before trial.
Richard III legislated that the law of the land must be in the language of land. Prior to Richard, those unaware of either Latin or Old French did not know what the law was. It was a Ricardian measure that had the law translated and posted in public market places for all to see and read.
Richard III standardized the system of weights and measures. A yard of cloth did not necessarily measure the same from merchant to merchant. A pound of beef did not necessarily weigh the same. With standardization, consumers were assured of consistency.
Richard III abolished the system of benevolences. This was a system whereby members of the gentry could actually pay for high offices (for example, positions on the judiciary without necessarily having qualifications). It was Richard's belief that the best man should be presented with the job most suited to his talents regardless of birth.
Richard was clearly loved in the north, in his city of York. One of the greatest contradictions to start with is the resolution passed by the city of York after the death of Richard III (to the peril of the individual members) which was an enormous insult to Henry VII. (Remember, Henry VII actually backdated his reign before Bosworth, so that those who fought for Richard could be executed for treason.) In that climate for such a resolution to come from the city of York is rather remarkable. Richard 'was piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this City'.
Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. He was still a usurper and a murderer.
“It was a Ricardian measure that had the law translated and posted in public market places for all to see and read.”
Good Lord! For us to do that now would require something like the great wall of China.
There is no evidence that substantiates that narrative.
Yes there is. It is a demonstrable historical fact that he declared his brother’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodeville invalid, his nephews declared bastards and took the throne for himself. Then the princes disappeared. He failed to produce them to quell rumours that they were dead, which was causing a lot of people to turn against him. Suggesting to anyone with common sense that they were almost certainly already dead.
Granted this is not conclusive evidence, but if you apply Occam’s razor to the case, this is certainly the most likely version of events and any other story is frankly, a conspiracy theory...
What happened next - we know, but not why. Evidence was brought to Richard that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth was invalid, and the marriage was declared null and void. We do not know if Richard believed it, or if it was a legal maneuver made in panic because of Elizabeth's failed coup.
What happened to the boys is pure speculation. We simply do not know. We know that Elizabeth Woodville sought sanctuary after her marriage was declared invalid and after the boys disappeared, and that Richard publicly asked her to leave sanctuary and promised her a pension if she did so. She left sanctuary, was not mistreated. Richard kept his word. By contrast, her treatment by Henry VII was much worse!
Richard's actions probably would have been totally different had he been allowed to enter London as a mourner, if Elizabeth had not staged a coup and if Dorset had allowed him to mourn in peace. We know Richard hated London, and loved living in the north.
Yeah according to Thursday UK Telegraph they did DNA result on the dude it may be him
Yup the same dude who did Casey Antohy reset on his nephew THAT GUYYYY
Nobody knows exactly what happened to the boys, but why in 1483, with speculation mounting that the Princes had been murdered, did he not produce them? The simple fact is that as long as they were alive, his claim to the throne was extremely dubious. Nevertheless, if he could have produced them, it might have stemmed the died of people defecting to Henry Tudor or dropping their support for Richard.
The simplest and most reasonable assumption is that the Princes were murdered some time in 1483 to secure Richard III’s hold over the throne.
The most charitable plausible scenario is that they died of natural causes... at the same time...
There are a lot of fascinating twists and turns in this story. Richard didn't need to move on the boys until they became of age, or not at all, if they were considered illegitimate. Henry VII had more to gain from their removal, as his entire family was considered illegitimate by act of Parliament. And weighing claims to the throne (illegitimate Prince versus illegitimate family), Prince Edward had the better claim.
Don't forget that Henry backdated is reign to the start the Day Before the Battle of Bosworth, so that any who fought for Richard III could be considered traitors, rounded up and executed.
It is an undeniable fact that you have it entirely backwards.
Richard III was legally made king due to the fact that his elder brother’s heirs (the two princes, and their sister) were not legitimate.
Henry VII didn’t have much of a claim to the throne; he bribed some of Richard’s allies to pull the king off his horse, and murder him on the ground.
Henry VII then had parliament relegitimize the kids so that he could marry the girl and give him a claim to the throne.
Trouble was, the two boys were now the heirs of their father, and had to be done away with lickety-split, or Henry would have been out of luck. That the princes were still alive at that time Richard III was murdered is likely, as they are referred to as such in the paper trail.
Later on, Henry executed one of his own henchmen, on the basis of the henchman’s confession to having murdered the little princes — but see, the henchman claimed to have done so on behalf of Richard III, a ludicrous claim.
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.