Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Skeleton found in Leicester could be Richard III
CBC News ^ | Sept 12, 2012 | CBC News

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 ...


TOPICS: Education; History
KEYWORDS: coupdetat; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; henrytheusurper; henryvii; kingrichardiii; murderedbytraitors; plantanget; richardiii; shakespeare; unitedkingdom
This is a fascinating article. I truly hope the bones of the much maligned King are laid to rest, and his reputation restored.
1 posted on 09/12/2012 9:09:09 PM PDT by MrsEmmaPeel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Check this out ...


2 posted on 09/12/2012 9:10:10 PM PDT by MrsEmmaPeel (a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

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?


3 posted on 09/12/2012 9:15:35 PM PDT by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

I don’t know if Richard’s reputation is maligned, but I know his brother John got the bad end for reputations.


4 posted on 09/12/2012 9:17:13 PM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

I thought it was his brother John who had the curved spine


5 posted on 09/12/2012 9:17:48 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

interesting


6 posted on 09/12/2012 9:25:25 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

Yes, if you believe his enemies.


7 posted on 09/12/2012 9:26:36 PM PDT by Cowboy Bob (Greed + Envy = Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

Edward V and his brother Richard of Shrewsbury.
Edward VI was Henry VIII’s son.


8 posted on 09/12/2012 9:27:02 PM PDT by moose07 (The truth will out, one day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

Henry Tudor had more reason to have the young prince killed.


9 posted on 09/12/2012 9:28:03 PM PDT by chae (I was anti-Obama before it was cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chae

But Richard was the immediate beneficiary.


10 posted on 09/12/2012 9:29:57 PM PDT by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater
Before the young king could be crowned, Edward IV's marriage to the boys' mother Elizabeth Woodville was publicly declared to be invalid, making their children illegitimate and ineligible for the throne.
On 25 June an assembly of lords and commoners endorsed these claims.
The following day, Richard III officially began his reign.
He was crowned on 6 July. The two young princes were not seen in public after August and there arose subsequently a number of accusations that the boys had been murdered by Richard, giving rise to the legend of the Princes in the Tower

wiki

11 posted on 09/12/2012 9:36:25 PM PDT by moose07 (The truth will out, one day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
I don’t know if Richard’s reputation is maligned, but I know his brother John got the bad end for reputations.

Richard I (the Lionhearted) was King John's older brother. Richard III came along three centuries later and usurped his nephew Edward V.

12 posted on 09/12/2012 9:46:56 PM PDT by Huntress ("Politicians exploit economic illiteracy." --Walter Williams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

Clearly you need to read Josephine Tey’s “the Daughter of Time” which is truth.

Say no more, you’ll enjoy it!


13 posted on 09/12/2012 9:56:16 PM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel; a fool in paradise; Slings and Arrows
How do they now it's the Third Richard and not, say, the Fourth one, does he have a III tattooed on his skin?


14 posted on 09/12/2012 10:00:00 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

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.


15 posted on 09/12/2012 10:02:32 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

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.


16 posted on 09/12/2012 10:03:21 PM PDT by chae (I was anti-Obama before it was cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Those damn k’s: now=know!


17 posted on 09/12/2012 10:04:43 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

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.


18 posted on 09/12/2012 10:10:40 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

Who are the two guys in armor in that photo?


19 posted on 09/12/2012 10:23:08 PM PDT by MS.BEHAVIN (Women who behave rarely make history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huntress

I figured out after that I had gotten the good Richards mixed up. :)


20 posted on 09/12/2012 10:54:34 PM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
Read “The Daughter of Time” years and years ago and have been interested Richard III ever since. Another good book about him is “We Speak No Treason”.
21 posted on 09/12/2012 11:01:50 PM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

Had a hunch he’d show up.


22 posted on 09/12/2012 11:28:32 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Take two Aspirin and call me in November - Obama for Hindmost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

http://instantrimshot.com/


23 posted on 09/13/2012 4:35:26 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

Kings and Queens should all be laid to rest.


24 posted on 09/13/2012 4:39:43 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Corollary - Electing the same person over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle; SunkenCiv; Mike Darancette; GreenLanternCorps; fella; Jonty30; Senator Goldwater; ...
There perhaps is not a more polarizing image in recent history, then that of Richard III. On the one hand he is the story of the evil, vicious monster, an insensitive ogre, a hunchback with a withered arm who ate live frogs for breakfast, who barely had enough family to satisfy his lust for murder, then, there is a different view.

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'.


25 posted on 09/13/2012 8:22:28 AM PDT by MrsEmmaPeel (a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. He was still a usurper and a murderer.


26 posted on 09/13/2012 9:05:01 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

“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.


27 posted on 09/13/2012 9:12:17 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

There is no evidence that substantiates that narrative.


28 posted on 09/13/2012 9:46:18 AM PDT by MrsEmmaPeel (a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

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...


29 posted on 09/13/2012 10:03:04 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
I think you're overlooking the fact that Edward IV made Richard Protector of the country should he die before his son reached his majority. Elizabeth Woodville staged a coup - her son, Dorset by husband #1, ransacked the treasury and news was delayed to Richard (living in the North) that his brother, the King has passed. When Richard marched toward London, he did so, unarmed with a small entourage, leaving his own Middleham Castle undefended. His entourage was attacked by Dorset. Richard and his mourning party was not even allowed to enter London in peace.

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.

30 posted on 09/13/2012 11:40:16 AM PDT by MrsEmmaPeel (a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

Yeah according to Thursday UK Telegraph they did DNA result on the dude it may be him


31 posted on 09/13/2012 11:59:38 AM PDT by SevenofNine (We are Freepers, all your media bases belong to us ,resistance is futile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

Yup the same dude who did Casey Antohy reset on his nephew THAT GUYYYY


32 posted on 09/13/2012 12:00:26 PM PDT by SevenofNine (We are Freepers, all your media bases belong to us ,resistance is futile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

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...


33 posted on 09/13/2012 12:54:44 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
We can't say for certain what exactly happened to the Princes. We know that legally, Richard was the Protector of the country until Edward V reached majority age. We know that Elizabeth Woodville staged a coup that failed. We do know the boys disappeared. We know that Elizabeth sought sanctuary. We further know that Elizabeth publicly reconciled with Richard. We also know that Richard never produced the boys publicly when there was pressure to do so. It could be that the boys were already dead (at Richard's direct command, or as a consequence of a over zealous follower), or that they were alive, but hidden. It is possible that Richard produced the boys for Elizabeth only, hence Elizabeth's interesting reconciliation. I believe it was Paul Murray Kendall who speculated that the boys (now declared illegitamate) were in the protection of his mother, Duchess of York, Cecily Neville. He has a fanciful theory that the boys escaped to the country, where they were raised and lived to an old age.

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.

34 posted on 09/13/2012 1:35:06 PM PDT by MrsEmmaPeel (a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan; Senator Goldwater; Cowboy Bob; chae; moose07

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.


35 posted on 09/13/2012 2:42:58 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel; nickcarraway

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks MrsEmmaPeel. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


36 posted on 09/14/2012 8:30:43 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson