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
interesting
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. :)
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.