Skip to comments.New Battle of Bosworth Field site revealed [along with site of Richard III's murder]
Posted on 02/19/2010 7:43:21 PM PST by SunkenCiv
The true site of one of the most decisive battles in English history has been revealed. Bosworth, fought in 1485, which saw the death of Richard III, was believed to have taken place on Ambion Hill, near Sutton Cheney in Leicestershire. But a study of original documents and archaeological survey of the area has now pinpointed a site in fields more than a mile to the south west. A new trail will lead from the current visitor centre to the new location... The traditional site has a flag at the crest of the hill, a stone to mark the spot where Richard fell and a recently renovated visitors' centre... Of the most recent, and important finds made, was a gilded silver badge in the shape of a boar - Richard's personal emblem. Experts believe this would have been given to one of the doomed king's closest companions and lost in the final stages of the battle... Researchers also believe they have identified the medieval marsh where Richard III was dragged from his horse and killed.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Thanks decimon.Of the most recent, and important finds made, was a gilded silver badge in the shape of a boar -- Richard's personal emblem. Experts believe this would have been given to one of the doomed king's closest companions and lost in the final stages of the battle.Probably torn off and discarded by one of the traitors who pulled him off his horse and stabbed him to death on the ground as his armor inhibited his movements. Henry Tudor was a usurper, murderer, and the dynasty he spawned was the bloodiest and most vicious in British history.
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
I believe the term is regicide. However, I’m with th eTudors here. Richard II was a murderer himself and pretender to the thrown.
Reminds me of the days when Fords could be had in Tudor or Fordor configurations (I’m serious, for once).
Henry VII was much smarter than Richard. So what. Being King means exerting your dominance. Thought we saw through that. We will see. Interesting/scary times ahead.
A day when it was not good to be the King. Very interesting find.
Have you ever read Josephine Tey’s “The Daughter of Time,” in which she goes back and rescues Richard III’s reputation? An excellent book.
Yes...I was just getting ready to pose the question about the theory that Richard was setup as written about in Daughter of Time.
Henry VII was king when John Cabot sailed to Newfoundland in 1497 and established the later English claims to North America. When he returned to England, Henry VII rewarded him with ten pounds. Bit of a tightwad, I guess.
Might makes right.
The whole business of Richard III being a bad guy was all a misunderstanding. This misinformation is corrected in Black Adder.
Hey, a hunchback who gave out gilded silver boar badges can’t have been all bad. Maybe those kids in the tower committed seppuku cause they were caught with copies of “Milkmaid” in the jakes.
If he’d had the press in his pocket like Obama, folks would still be singing hosannas to his name.
But nooooo. He had the luck to be overthrown, couldn’t find a lousy horse to get away and then followed by a line of rival who paid off a pretty fair wordsmith (propaganda ministry) whose alias was Shakespeare and the rest is history...sort of.
I think the most telling testimony on the character of Richard III can be made from the Records of the City of York. The Day AFTER the Battle of Bosworth was fought, and Richard is now dead, with Henry VII the new King, the members of the City Council voted to announce their great sorrow that Richard was "piteously slain" -- this was in effect, an act of defiance and treason against the new administration. I'll find the exact quote in a bit ...
Y’all might also try “The Sunne in Spendour” by Sharon Kay Penman. An extremely interesting novelized biography of Richard from a very early age through his death at Bosworth.
Rats ... it’s “The Sunne in Splendour”.
This kind of proclamation was treason, and all of those who participated were risking their lives. They had absolutely nothing to gain by doing so. Richard was already dead, yet out of respect, loyalty, admiration they wanted to voice their disgust with how he passed. The actual records of York mention the Duke of Norfolk as the traitor, when historically, it was Lord Stanley. The thought has been that councilmen were working from misinformation.
Still, it is not politically correct to praise the passing of one King while the new King has barely sat on his throne.
Thanks MEP, I look forward to it.
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” — Ovid
Thanks tlb. Parliament passed the Titulus Regius, delegitimizing “the little Princes” and naming Richard III the lawful king (after his brother died). After Henry VII seized power, he demanded all copies of the TR be burned and Richard III labelled illegitimate, then married Richard III’s niece. The act of relegitimizing her also relegitimized the little Princes, which meant the elder was the rightful king — so, he had them both murdered and disposed of quietly. It is no wonder his descendants were such bloodthirsty killers, given that he was.
Thanks for the ping. I have read that the location of the Battle of Bosworth Field was controversial.
Source: Paston Letters
This is the original portrait, painted pre 1485. Richard sat for this portrait.
Thanks for the tip. I’ll try find it at the library for some reading on my next trip.
Are you referring to Henry VII or Henry VIII?
Both were known as Henry Tudor.
Henry VIII was born in 1491, so he has a perfect alibi for anything wrong done in 1485.
Other than that, how did you like the . . . .
All true, but the Tudors finally brought an end to endemic civil war, navigated the Reformation and secured a Protestant succession to England with far less bloodshed than many places on the Continent and in the reign of Gloriana defeated a Spanish invasion and staved off a French invasion, they being the greatest European powers of the time.
To be sure there were a few things left to be worked out during the Stuart period, like a couple of revolutions and that England would be a constitutional and not an absolute monarchy, but by the end of the Tudor/Stuart period England was a modern nation and was emerging as one of the great powers of Europe.
Heh... Henry VIII was hideous in nearly all ways; he did however get fed up with the stupid bronze cannon and brought over German experts on iron metallurgy and coal mining, and revolutionized the British navy (iron guns). Everything the British empire became was built on that early work of Henry VIII. But he was still a monster. As he lay dying, he was surrounded by various throw pillows, daggers, and other booty confiscated to a number of his former close friends he’d had executed.
Elizabeth I didn’t have very many burnings at the stake, but did have some Catholic missionaries from the continent disemboweled and stuff. Her (Tudor) sister had some large number of Protestants burned alive, and Elizabeth lived in fear of her own execution (this was after backing Mary for the crown; oh, they had the pretender, another woman, executed; later on Liz had Mary Queen of Scots executed). Essex, whom she sent to Ireland, she had beheaded. One of the largest items of her budget (probably the largest single one) was for the network of spies and paid squealers she built as she turned England into a police state.
James I (VIth of Scotland) was a huge relief to everyone, not least because it meant that Elizabeth had finally kicked off. You’re right, she arranged for the defense of England against the Spanish Armada, but the speech attributed to her was written years after the fact, and Britain enjoyed the services of Drake and a number of others less well known talented captains, along with those iron guns. Drake’s idea for fire ships I think was taught to him by the Spanish, during his raid of one of the ports where the Armada was under construction. Heh. And of course, the deposing and probable execution of the bastard Elizabeth was the objective of the Spanish Armada.
There’s a very vague parallel between Elizabethan/Jacobian England and Sadat-era Egypt — Elizabeth was fairly tolerant of the Old Faith (this went on until the plot to blow up Parliament, at which time the anti-Catholic laws already on the books were enforced with rigor) but allowed and encouraged Protestantism to grow as a sort of balance.
The Puritans got stronger as time went on, and much more bold, and eventually Charles I had his forces defeated by Cromwell and his forces. The story goes that as Cromwell signed the writ of execution, he referred to the coming regicide as “a cruel necessity”. After his rule (often called the first modern dictatorship), an attempt to pass the Protector role to his son, a period of a year of direct rule by Parliament, finally they gave up (no clean break) and invited Chuck II to return to the throne. He demanded (and got) a large specific sum in specie, and had the trunks flipped open on the deck of his ship just to make sure the money was there. After he got esconced in power, he had Cromwell’s body dug up and the traditional penalties for treason were performed on it. What a sorehead.
Charles II was a tremendous adulterer, insatiable really (y’know, for an English guy) and wound up with VD, and no legitimate heir. His brother James II tried to drag the UK back to the Old Faith, and wound up getting replaced by his sister and her husband (William and Mary), an appointment made by Parliament. The Glorious Revolution was the transforming event (IMHO of course) in English politics. The steady decline in the power of the British monarchy to the present-day figurehead status began when they kicked out one ruler and anointed another.
Still, a Parliamentary system isn’t really a democracy, it’s merely a single-party state rule without the oppression (at least on paper) of not allowing other parties to exist. It’ll be nice, for example, when Gordon Brown gets the heave-ho. But there’s an old joke, Margaret Thatcher photo with this caption: in Britain we have the Labour Party, which you would call the Socialist Party, and the Conservative Party, which you would call the Socialist Party...
It only drifted a mile in 500 years. Its a safe bet, for the foreseeable future, the site will remain in England.
Your English History is sound...cough...nerd...
Don’t make me take off my pop-bottle-bottom glasses and propeller beanie to challenge you to a duel (with water balloons, of course).
LOL!! Hey you mind adding me to your ping list? Looks cool.
The Glorious Revolution was the transforming event (IMHO of course) in English politics.
I agree, with a big caveat that the stage for that event was set by the earlier, Cromwellian revolution. IMHO, the English Revolution was the first of the great European revolutions, but was a bit ahead of its time to result in the establishment of a Republic, in contrast to the American and French Revolutions.
a Parliamentary system isnt really a democracy, its merely a single-party state rule without the oppression
True, that system allows the majority party to "get things done" but that can be despite majority opinion. The American system of checks and balances is much more frustrating but tends to result in legislation the majority can live with over a long term. It appears the Obama Party (a rogue wing of the Democrats) is going to illegally repeal the Senate filibuster rule to try to establish parliamentary rule in America. I suspect they have no idea the blowback that may result.
Actually, I agree that the Tudor/Stuart period is at least one of the most interesting, not least because it was the Renaissance, and we wound up with Shakespeare, Bacon, Newton, etc.
Note: this topic is from Friday, February 19, 2010. Just a re-ping three and a half years on because A) there's an update, and B) this is a pretty interesting thread, even with all of my drivel in it.
By analysing documentary evidence, reconstructing the historic terrain and undertaking systematic archaeological surveys using metal detectors, Dr Foard deduced that Bosworth was not fought on the heights of Ambion Hill but two miles away in low lying, ground, close to a Roman Road and beside a marsh known later as Fen Hole. -- Archaeologist locates the real location of the Battle of Bosworth
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.