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

Skip to comments.

Body Under British Parking Lot May Be King Richard III
National Geographic ^ | December 28, 2012 | Heather Pringle

Posted on 12/29/2012 12:47:51 AM PST by nickcarraway

Search for infamous monarch’s remains is the latest in the rush to dig up the dead and famous

For centuries, William Shakespeare seemed to have the last word. His Richard III glowered and leered from the stage, a monster in human form and a character so repugnant "that dogs bark at me as I halt by them." In Shakespeare's famous play, the hunchbacked king claws his way to the throne and methodically murders most of his immediate family—his wife, older brother, and two young nephews—until he suffers defeat and death on the battlefield at the hands of a young Tudor hero, Henry VII.

(Related: "Shakespeare's Coined Words Now Common Currency.")

To shed new light on the long vilified king, a British scientific team has tracked down and excavated his reputed burial spot and exhumed skeletal remains that may well belong to the long-lost monarch. The team is conducting a CSI-style investigation of the body in hopes of conclusively identifying Richard III, a medieval king who ruled England for two brief years before perishing at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. Results on the investigation are expected in January.

But the much maligned monarch is not the only historical heavyweight to be exhumed. Since the 1980s, forensic experts have dug up the remains of many famous people—from Christopher Columbus (video) and Simón Bolívar to Jesse James, Marie Curie, Lee Harvey Oswald, Nicolae Ceausescu, and Bobby Fischer. Just last month, researchers in Ramallah (map) disinterred the body of Yasser Arafat, hoping to new glean clues to his death in 2004. Rumors long suggested that Israeli agents poisoned the Palestinian leader with a fatal dose of radioactive polonium-210.

(Read more about poisoning from National Geographic magazine's "Pick Your Poison—12 Toxic Tales.")

Indeed, forensic experts have disinterred the legendary dead for a wide range of reasons—including to move their remains to grander tombs befitting their growing fame, collect DNA samples for legal cases, and obtain data on the medical conditions that afflicted them. Such exhumations, says anatomist Frank Rühli at the Centre for Evolutionary Medicine, University of Zurich, always raise delicate ethical issues. But in the case of early historical figures, scientists can learn much that is of value to society. "Research on ancient samples provides enormous potential for understanding [questions concerning our] cultural heritage and the evolution of disease," Rühli notes in an emailed response.

Franciscan Resting Place?

Archaeologists from the University of Leicester began actively searching for the burial place of Richard III this past August. According to historical accounts, Tudor troops carried Richard's battered corpse from the Bosworth battlefield and displayed it in the nearby town of Leicester before local Franciscan fathers buried the body in their friary choir. With clues from historic maps, the archaeological team located foundations of the now vanished friary beneath a modern parking lot, and during excavation, the team discovered the skeleton of an adult male interred under the choir floor—exactly where Richard III was reportedly buried.

The newly discovered skeleton has scoliosis, a curvature of the spine that may have resulted in a slightly lopsided appearance, and this may have inspired Shakespeare's exaggerated depiction of Richard as a Quasimodo-like figure. Moreover, the body bears clear signs of battle trauma, including a fractured skull and a barbed metal arrowhead embedded in the vertebrae. And even the burial place points strongly to Richard. English armies at the time simply left their dead on the field of battle, but someone carted this body off and interred it in a place of honor.

Taken together, these early clues, says Jo Appleby, the University of Leicester bioarchaeologist studying the remains, strongly suggest that the team has found the legendary king. Otherwise, she observes, "I think we'd have a hard time explaining how a skeleton with those characteristics got buried there."

But much work remains to clinch the case. Geneticists are now comparing DNA sequences from the skeleton to those obtained from a modern-day Londoner, Michael Ibsen, who is believed to be a descendant of Richard III's sister. In addition, forensic pathologists and medieval-weapons scholars are poring over signs of trauma on the skeleton to determine cause of death, while a radiocarbon-dating lab is helping to pin down the date. And at the University of Dundee in Scotland, craniofacial identification expert Caroline Wilkinson is now working on a reconstruction of the dead man's face for a possible match with historic portraits of Richard III. All this, says Richard Buckley, the lead archaeologist on the project, "will help us put flesh on the bones, so to speak."

Digging Up History

Elsewhere, teams digging up the historic dead have contented themselves with more modest goals. In Texas, for example, forensic experts opened the grave of Lee Harvey Oswald in October 1981 to identify beyond doubt the man who shot President John F. Kennedy. A British lawyer and author had claimed that a Soviet agent impersonated Oswald and assassinated the American president. To clarify the situation, the forensic experts compared dental x-rays taken during Oswald's stint in the United States Marine Corps to a record they made of the body's teeth. The two matched well, prompting the team to announce publicly that "the remains in the grave marked as Lee Harvey Oswald are indeed Lee Harvey Oswald."

More recently, in 2010, Iceland's supreme court ordered forensic experts to exhume the body of the late world chess champion Bobby Fischer from his grave in Iceland in order to obtain DNA samples to determine whether Fischer was the father of one of the claimants to his estate. (The tests ruled this out.) And that same year, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez ordered forensic experts to open the casket of Simón Bolívar, the renowned 19th century Venezuelan military leader who fought for the independence of Spanish America from colonial rule. Chavez believes that Bolívar died not from tuberculosis, as historians have long maintained, but of arsenic poisoning, and has launched an investigation into the cause of his death.

For some researchers, this recent spate of exhumations has raised a key question: Who should have a say in the decision to disinter or not? In the view of Guido Lombardi, a paleopathologist at Cayetano Heredia University in Lima, investigators should make every effort to consult descendants or family members before proceeding. "Although each case should be addressed individually," notes Lombardi by email. "I think the surviving relatives of a historical figure should approve any studies first."

But tracking down the descendants of someone who died many centuries ago is no easy matter. Back in Leicester, research on the remains found beneath the friary floor is proceeding. If all goes according to plan, the team hopes to announce the results sometime in January. And if the ancient remains prove to be those of Richard III, the city of Leicester could be in for a major royal event in 2013: The British government has signalled its intention to inter the long-maligned king in Leicester Cathedral.


TOPICS: Books/Literature; History; Science
KEYWORDS: coupdetat; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; henrytheusurper; henryvii; kingrichardiii; murderedbytraitors; murderedmonarch; plantanget; richardiii; royals; shakespeare; unitedkingdom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
The latest in the Richard III parking lot saga...
1 posted on 12/29/2012 12:48:21 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Shakespeare was the MSM of his day, just doing the bidding of King Henry VII. Replace Richard III with George W Bush, and you’ll get the picture...


2 posted on 12/29/2012 1:57:07 AM PST by Cowboy Bob (Soon the "invisible hand" will press the economic "reset" button.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

Interesting theory, but as far as I know Henry VII was dead more than 50 years before Shakespeare was born.
Now, it’s true, Shakespeare might have been including things that would make Queen Elizabeth and King James I happy. To openly make them unhappy may not have been a good idea. But, check it out, there are a lot of people who think that he was being subversive, if not openly so. And there’s a good case to be made Shakespeare thought those kinds of things to be trivia, to what he considered his real art. You make hims sound like some kind of spokesman for the Tudors.


3 posted on 12/29/2012 2:08:33 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
"researchers in Ramallah (map) disinterred the body of Yasser Arafat, hoping to new glean
clues to his death in 2004. Rumors long suggested that Israeli agents poisoned the Palestinian
leader with a fatal dose of radioactive polonium-210."
LOL!..that'll be one report that won't get public viewing; he buggering himself to death
(HIV & STDs), w/ little boys & young PLO soldiers...according to Israeli sources.

4 posted on 12/29/2012 2:16:09 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Bozo man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

He was a shill for the Tudors. Richard III had nothing to gain by killing those boys in the Tower. Henry VII had everything to gain.


5 posted on 12/29/2012 2:23:31 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (q\\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

A free parking spot for 527 years. Could be a record.


6 posted on 12/29/2012 3:14:27 AM PST by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; SunkenCiv

Interesting, thanks for that.

SC.......Ping.......


7 posted on 12/29/2012 4:02:51 AM PST by moose07 (the truth will out ,one day. I'm off to the edge of the World to Scream, be back later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

They found BlackAdder’s dad?


8 posted on 12/29/2012 4:20:01 AM PST by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Vendetta))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“A free parking spot for 527 years. Could be a record.”

LOL. That’s funny.....


9 posted on 12/29/2012 4:21:12 AM PST by flaglady47 (When the gov't fears the people, liberty; When the people fear the gov't, tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Read “Truth is the daughter of Time” by Josephine Tey. The Tudor propaganda machine had to ensure that the Tudors were the legitimate rulers of England.


10 posted on 12/29/2012 4:28:21 AM PST by MustKnowHistory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
But, check it out, there are a lot of people who think that he was being subversive, if not openly so. [Shakespeare]

Ah, but what if he (the author of most of the plays) was really the Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford (1550–1604) or alternatively, Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)? Was the author subversive or 'recusant' (abstaining from attending the [Anglican] state church)?

Sorry just cannot resist, it helps me cope with my current angst over the world stage by remembering those past raging controversies that once ignite and destroyed! Perspective helps us better cope with our current difficulties after all.

11 posted on 12/29/2012 4:46:26 AM PST by SES1066 (Government is NOT the reason for my existence but it is the road to our ruin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Shakespeare relied on a book about Richard the Third by Thomas More. It was More who helped destroy Richard’s reputation. Some say inadvertantly (his book might have been a satire) or deliberately to help solidify the kingdom of the Tudors. It was never published but found upon his death.

I’ve heard that Richard’s body has already been identified at Leicester University. There is also a rumor that he was buried with a piece of jewelry that identifies him as king.


12 posted on 12/29/2012 4:53:46 AM PST by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
The thing I find the most interesting is; He was buried under a parking lot. Sounds to me like the Brits were disposing unwanted bodies under parking lots five hundred years before Jimmy Hoffa. Well 490 years for the literalist here.
13 posted on 12/29/2012 5:14:43 AM PST by Tupelo (I'm an old man and most people hate me, but I don't like them either so that makes it all even.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein
One review of the Historia Richardi Tertii "Thomas More’s History of King Richard III: Educating Citizens for Self-Government Dr. Gerard Wegemer"
14 posted on 12/29/2012 5:30:12 AM PST by RitchieAprile (the obstreperous gentleman..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

http://thomasmorestudies.org/study.html


15 posted on 12/29/2012 5:32:47 AM PST by RitchieAprile (the obstreperous gentleman..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Richard III had nothing to gain by killing those boys in the Tower. Henry VII had everything to gain.

I have to disagree with your view. Even though "The Princes in the Tower" were officially disinherited by an act of Parliament, Royal History and Richard's prior historical action would tend towards Richard III having seen a necessity here. We are talking about the "War of the Roses" time, and no King's head could rest peacefully, no matter how legitimate (or not).

Edward V, was the recognized and legitimate successor to his father, until deposed by Parliament under the control of Richard, two and a half months later. By most accounts of likely death, he is the shortest lived King of England. As for Henry Tudor (Henry VII), he was in Brittany until his re-entry into Wales a year later and given that Richard would have been insane to not have assured himself that the 'Princes' were guarded by his most loyal men, it is difficult to see how he would have engineered their deaths UNLESS they were still alive when he emerged the victor at Bosworth Field in 1485. Since that was almost a year and a half since they were last seen alive, I deem it unlikely.

Interestingly enough, Richard III may again be following his nephews in history. In 1674, a wooden box containing two small human skeletons was found buried close to the White Tower in the Tower of London complex. The siting of the grave seemed to match where Sir Thomas More (Saint Thomas More RC) put it in his "History of King Richard III". Charles II had these bones placed in an urn and interred in Westminster Abbey. In 1933, these bones were examined and then reinterred. It was found that many bones were missing and the urn included some animal bones as well. Photographs of the bones indicate two individuals, 11–13 and 7–11 years old with nothing to disclose gender. DNA analysis could do so and if Richard III is so analyzed then there should be a strong match to such near kin, if that is who they were.

16 posted on 12/29/2012 5:39:51 AM PST by SES1066 (Government is NOT the reason for my existence but it is the road to our ruin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob; JCBreckenridge; MustKnowHistory; miss marmelstein; RitchieAprile; AdmSmith; ...

A few months back I saw a live performance of Richard III — anyone who watches the denouement to that play has to realize that it was political agitprop. Lame-assed text he was required by the regime to include (”The Master of the Revels”, as portrayed in that great chick-flick “Shakespeare In Love”, was a real job, and a lucrative one) is not confined to Richard III.

Michael Wood’s documentary on Shakespeare is delightful, btw; I love how he points out that, later in his career, Shakespeare helped open a second theater, Blackfriars, that had been the site of the proceedings against Henry VIII’s first wife — and the company performed his “Henry VIII” there.

Henry VII was a usurper, that should be clear and obvious — Richard III was the recognized monarch, confirmed and reinforced by parliament, Henry landed with an army. Henry was a ruthless schemer who married the sister of the little princes in order to have a claim to the throne — but she had to be relegitimized, and that process would also relegitimize the little princes, nullifying his grasp. So, they had to die. Richard III, who had been murdered on the field by traitors in the employ of Henry, made the ideal fall guy.

Of course, all this is of only historical interest, since monarchy is itself both antiquated and illegitimate.

Thanks all!


17 posted on 12/29/2012 6:11:41 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: moose07; nickcarraway

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks nickcarraway for the topic, and thanks moose07 for the ping! This doesn't appear to be an update per se, merely a synopsis. The DNA studies have for months been rumored to be inconclusive due to the poor condition of the samples.
For some researchers, this recent spate of exhumations has raised a key question: Who should have a say in the decision to disinter or not? In the view of Guido Lombardi, a paleopathologist at Cayetano Heredia University in Lima, investigators should make every effort to consult descendants or family members before proceeding. "Although each case should be addressed individually," notes Lombardi by email. "I think the surviving relatives of a historical figure should approve any studies first."
Ridiculous, and the same stupid argument as NAGPRA supporters use. "Oh, you can't dig that *unknown remains*, because *I* say it's *my* relative!"

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.


18 posted on 12/29/2012 6:13:13 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

Henry VII - died 1509. Shakespeare - born 1564.


19 posted on 12/29/2012 6:17:46 AM PST by wtc911 (Amigo - you've been had.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Was he buried in a handicapped space?


20 posted on 12/29/2012 6:24:04 AM PST by artichokegrower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


21 posted on 12/29/2012 6:25:08 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Thank god he wasn’t shot. What would the Brits have to say about that?


22 posted on 12/29/2012 6:49:42 AM PST by Lockbar (Quality factory loaded ammunition ---- The New Gold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Exactly.

Shakespeare was the Goebbels of his time.


23 posted on 12/29/2012 6:50:22 AM PST by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

How can they be sure it’s NOT Jimmy Hoffa?

(can’t believe I’m first with a Hoffa joke)

;^)


24 posted on 12/29/2012 7:02:39 AM PST by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

How can they be sure it’s NOT Jimmy Hoffa?

(can’t believe I’m first with a Hoffa joke)

;^)


25 posted on 12/29/2012 7:06:16 AM PST by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

That would be a royal pain in the ass to tear up the parking lot to find out.


26 posted on 12/29/2012 7:10:18 AM PST by crosshairs (They are only assault weapons in the hands of tyrannical governments and criminals. Ban both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: artichokegrower

27 posted on 12/29/2012 7:14:11 AM PST by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Paging Jimmy Hoffa.....


28 posted on 12/29/2012 7:17:54 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Now is the winter of our disinterment.


29 posted on 12/29/2012 7:21:16 AM PST by Sirius Lee (Sarah Palin - "Republicans like Rove... are said to be concerned she will win.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Now is the winter of our disinterment.


30 posted on 12/29/2012 7:21:28 AM PST by Sirius Lee (Sarah Palin - "Republicans like Rove... are said to be concerned she will win.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

31 posted on 12/29/2012 7:24:03 AM PST by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Richard III was the recognized monarch, confirmed and reinforced by parliament

Never heard the bit about why treason never prospers, have you?

The last truly legitimate King was Henry VI, who was much too kind and decent a man to hold onto his crown.

The Crown had been fought over for several decades when Henry VII landed, changing hands from York to Lancaster several times. Parliaments did not deliberate and express the will of the people, they merely rubber-stamped the results of the various wars and intrigues.

The Wars of the Roses, BTW, featured the greatest battle ever fought in the British Isles. Probably 80k fought, and around 20k died. Towton.

To my mind the notion that RIII kept the little princes locked up till they were found by the victorious HVII and murdered by him, makes little or no sense.

RIII had been ruling with some success till the rumor got around that he had not only displaced the little princes but had murdered them. This rumor was a, possibly the, major factor in his progressive loss of support.

To squelch this rumor and regain the lost support, all he had to do was display the live princes. Since he never did, it seems likely to me that he was unable to, they being already dead.

HVII continued to himself face rebellions and invasions of the type that brought him to power throughout his reign, often headed by an impostor pretending to be one of the lost princes.

However, the notion that this was some sort of burning political issue by Shakespeare's time is just silly. AFAIK there were no Yorkist rebellions during HVIII's reign or those of any of his children. Nobody cared any more.

32 posted on 12/29/2012 8:31:03 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade

Great uncle, I believe. But, yes...I immediately thought of Black Adder!


33 posted on 12/29/2012 8:37:58 AM PST by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Interesting theory, but as far as I know Henry VII was dead more than 50 years before Shakespeare was born. Now, it’s true, Shakespeare might have been including things that would make Queen Elizabeth and King James I happy. To openly make them unhappy may not have been a good idea. But, check it out, there are a lot of people who think that he was being subversive, if not openly so.

Sunstitute Sir Thomas More (who wrote the book Shakspear adapted for the stage) for Shakspear.

IN the opening sentence of More's Richard III, he gives precise age of death for Edward IV (a near-contempory and hardly obscure individual) which is totally wrong - the opening sentence! (trust nothing herein).

34 posted on 12/29/2012 8:40:10 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (I think, therefore I am what I yam, and that's all I yam - Rene "Popeye" Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Al Pacino is dead? How did I miss that?


35 posted on 12/29/2012 8:43:23 AM PST by Daffynition (Self-respect: the secure feeling that no one, as yet, is suspicious. ~ HLM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Oh, come on! You don’t believe that Richard the Third was in his mother’s womb for two years and when finally born had a full set of teeth and hair to his shoulders?? Oh, you Doubting Thomas, you!


36 posted on 12/29/2012 9:10:57 AM PST by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Actually, the rumors (and there were really very few) simply suggested that young Edward may have died - not that he was murdered. There were some notions floating around that he was not in good health. Just as a point of fact, Richard was no where near the Tower during the time it is said that they disappeared. He was on a progression throughout England.

Happily, several pretenders showed up claiming to be the two brothers, making stingy, nasty, cowardly Henry VII’s life a misery!


37 posted on 12/29/2012 9:17:21 AM PST by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SES1066

The current queen will not allow the bones of the children to be disinterred so that modern dating methods can be used. I have seen the dental records made in 1933 and they are very interesting. Some say the young (unanointed) king died from a disease of the jaw and the records do show signs of serious illness.

Most Ricardians tend to think that the Duke of Buckingham (who had charge of the kiddies, I believe) killed them - without Richard’s knowledge. I, myself, don’t know. All I know is that at this point in history, we have no proof Richard did away with them.


38 posted on 12/29/2012 9:24:39 AM PST by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Last British monarch to die in battle iirc.


39 posted on 12/29/2012 9:27:14 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

If Edward died, then his brother Richard would have inherited his claims to be the “legitimate” Yorkist King.

I think the history is very clear that RIII’s main problem was his own supporters deserting him or switching sides, some of them on the field of battle itself. And a prime reason for that was the rumors that he had killed the Princes.

On a practical note, none of these kings of the period had any greater or lesser “right” to the throne than any of the others. It was a clearcut power struggle, that was all.

Of course, a king who came to power by these means soon found that his throne was insecure and that he could be overthrown by exactly the same methods. A good example of poetic justice.

Henry VII was actually a reasonably good king, as compared with other kings, admittedly not a particularly high standard to beat. He mostly kept England out of foreign wars. He was “oppressive” to the high nobility that threatened his throne, though to be fair the high nobility needed to be taken down several pegs. They had, after all, put England through several decades of horrible civil war pursuing their own interests.


40 posted on 12/29/2012 9:37:26 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Blackadder actually got the closest match of actor to Richard III of any portrayal.


41 posted on 12/29/2012 9:41:52 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (I think, therefore I am what I yam, and that's all I yam - Rene "Popeye" Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Shakespeare was the Goebbels of his time.

Shakespeare took no more liberty with the truth than our "entertainment media", really, and there was no gain in ticking off the powers that were--but much could be lost, including one's head.

We do not know the particulars surrounding the Play, but I'd wager the accuracy is about on the level of an Italian Indian riding up and saying "How!" in an American Western flick, and of little more significance.

Aside from using plots based in the foibles of human nature, that his plays have been preserved for so long may be an unintended consequence of pleasing the people in power. Note, too, that Bowdler subjected the plays to some severe editing. Apparently no one is immune to PC revision.

42 posted on 12/29/2012 10:01:58 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SES1066

Richard III took the throne over Edward V, not by deposition, but by virtue of being of age. Given that Edward IV was likely poisoned by the Lancastrians, it was a legitimate fear. Both Richard and Edward were Yorkists! Having Richard on the throne would protect the kids.

The problem for Henry VII, is that his wife was junior to Edward V and his younger brother Richard. With them out of the way, Elizabeth of York became the senior claimant.

Edward IV died in 9th April of 1483, from a protracted illness, possibly poisoning. Edward V in his will was designated his heir, while the then Richard of Gloucester (later Richard III) was designated the Protector. Edward V was never coronated - Richard took over as King, 22nd of June. The Princes were last seen that summer, but we don’t know when they died.

Follow with me here.

December of 1483 - Henry Tudor agrees to marry Elizabeth of York.

Richard III dies in Bosworth in 22 August of 1485, after just two years on the throne.

Henry takes the throne and then states that the princes were murdered in the tower, and blames Richard III. Of note - he did not state this until after he acceded to the throne after Bosworth. No bodies were produced, nothing. It is possible that the boys were still alive in the tower when Henry VII came to the throne in August of 1485, just two years after the accepted date of their death.

Henry VII would have been 26 in 1483, and 28 when he came to the throne. Elizabeth would have been 17 in 1483.

So, it all fits. Poison Edward IV. Pledge to marry his oldest daughter the year later. Defeat, and kill Richard III, in battle. Kill Edward V and Richard in the tower, before you marry their sister, after Bosworth. Claim, after Bosworth that the boys were missing and that Richard III was responsible.

Ir all fits together, and it makes what happened in this extraordinary 3 year period make sense.

There was no motivation for Richard to kill the princes that his brother left in his will for him to protect. There was every motivation for Henry VII to kill them after his accession.


43 posted on 12/29/2012 10:07:11 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (q\\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wtc911

Shakespeare wrote during the reign of Elizabeth I, granddaughter of Henry VII. I don’t think it would have helped Shakespeare’s career by writing the Elizabeth’s family came to the throne through illegitimate means. The worse Richard III looked, the better for the Tutors, grandfather or granddaughter.


44 posted on 12/29/2012 10:48:14 AM PST by Cowboy Bob (Soon the "invisible hand" will press the economic "reset" button.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I don’t believe for one second the nobles who turned against Richard the Third did it because he “killed” his nephews. After all, when Richard took Lord Stanley’s son hostage during Bosworth, sending Stanley a message that he would kill his son if he didn’t throw in with him, Stanley replied: “I have other sons.” Those nobles were cold! (Richard did not kill the kid, by the way.)

The nobles, especially the Stanleys, changed sides constantly. They were never satisfied with what they had and so always threw in with the “usurper.” Richard apparently did not do enough for some of these guys; that’s why they turned against him.

Richard, of course, in his short tenure, was an excellent king as he had been a duke. He legislated that all laws were to be written in English rather than Latin, set up courts of justice for poor people and established the Royal College of Arms.

Henry VII, was a miserly, reclusive monarch who gave the world the horrible Henry the VIII.


45 posted on 12/29/2012 10:56:39 AM PST by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I don’t believe for one second the nobles who turned against Richard the Third did it because he “killed” his nephews. After all, when Richard took Lord Stanley’s son hostage during Bosworth, sending Stanley a message that he would kill his son if he didn’t throw in with him, Stanley replied: “I have other sons.” Those nobles were cold! (Richard did not kill the kid, by the way.)

The nobles, especially the Stanleys, changed sides constantly. They were never satisfied with what they had and so always threw in with the “usurper.” Richard apparently did not do enough for some of these guys; that’s why they turned against him.

Richard, of course, in his short tenure, was an excellent king as he had been a duke. He legislated that all laws were to be written in English rather than Latin, set up courts of justice for poor people and established the Royal College of Arms.

Henry VII, was a miserly, reclusive monarch who gave the world the horrible Henry the VIII.


46 posted on 12/29/2012 10:58:01 AM PST by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

:’) I have — “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” — John Harington

Performance of Shakespeare’s “treason” section of Henry VI pt III (includes “take the crown, and, with the crown, my curse”) was prohibited in Elizabethan times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harington_(writer)

http://www.searchquotes.com/search/None_Dare_Call_It_Treason/

(wrong:) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1255809/posts?page=8#8


47 posted on 12/29/2012 11:14:39 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“The last truly legitimate King was Henry VI, who was much too kind and decent a man to hold onto his crown.”

Who inherited it from the son of Usurper Bolingbroke.

Really, the last legitimate king was Richard II, King of England, son of the black prince.

It’s best to understand things from the perspective of Edward III - everything revolves around him. The other important king is Charles I, oddly enough. Despite his execution, every one of his 5 children, were either King/Queen (in that order), or are the current senior heirs to the King of England.

Edward III
.Edward the Black Prince
..Richard II (Deposed and killed)
..Lionel of Antwerp Duke of Clarence
...Philippa of Clarence 5th Countess of Ulster
....Roger Mortimer 4th Earl of March
.....Edmund Mortimer 5th Earl of March (died of Plague)
.....Anne Mortimer Countess of Cambridge
......Richard Plantagenet 3rd Duke of York
.......Edward IV King of England
........Edward V King of England (killed in tower)
........Richard of Shrewsbury (killed in tower)
........Elizabeth of York Queen of England
.........Arthur Prince of Wales (died on marriage)
.........Henry VIII King of England
..........Edward VI King of England (died in teens)
..........Mary Tudor Queen of England (died without kids)
..........Elizabeth Tudor Queen of England (never married)
........Margaret Tudor Queen of Scotland
.........James V King of Scotland
..........Mary I Stuart Queen of Scots
...........James VI/I King of Scotland and England
............Henry Duke of Wales (Died of Typhoid)
............Charles I King of Scotland and England
.............Charles II King of Scotland and England
.............James VII/II King of Scotland and England
..............James Francis Edward Stuart (Test act)
...............Charles Edward Stuart
...............Henry Benedict Stuart
.............Henry Stuart Duke of Gloucester(smallpox)
.............Princess Mary of Orange (no kids)
.............Princess Anne of England (no kids)
.............Henrietta Marie of Orleans
..............Marie Louise of Spain (no kids)
..............Anne Maria Queen of Sardinia
...............Victor Amadeus Prince of Peidmont(smallpox)
...............Charles Emmanuel III King of Sardinia
................Victor Amadeus III King of Sardinia
................Charles Emmanuel IV King of Sardinia
.................Victor Emmanuel I King of Sardinia
..................Maria Beatrice of Savoy
...................Francis V Duke of Modena
...................Archduke Ferdinand of Austria
....................Maria Theresia Queen of Bavaria
.....................Rupprecht Crown Prince of Bavaria
......................Albrecht Duke of Bavaria
.......................Franz Duke of Bavaria (alive today)
TRUNCATING HOUSE OF SAVOY
...........Elizabeth of Bohemia
............Henry Frederick Prince Palatine (drowned)
............Charles I Louis Elector Palatine (no kids)
............Prince Rupert of the Rhine (no kids)
............Prince Maurice of the Palatine (drowned)
............Edward Count Palatine of Simmern (Test Act)
.............Luise Marie of Salm
..............Louis Otto Prince of Salm
...............Dorothea Agnes Princess of Salm
TRUNCATE HOUSE OF SALM
............Elizabeth of Bohemia (Nun)
............Louise Hollandine of Bohemia (unmarried)
............Henriette Marie of Bohemia (died young)
............Sophia Electress of Hanover
.............George I King of Great Britain
..............George II King of Great Britain
...............Frederick Prince of Wales
................George III King of Great Britain
.................George IV King of Great Britain
.................Frederick Duke of York (no kids)
.................William IV King of Great Britain (no kids)
.................Edward Prince of Kent
..................Victoria Queen of the United Kingdom
...................Edward VII King of UK
....................George V King of UK
.....................Edward VIII King of UK (abdicated)
.....................George VI King of UK
......................Elizabeth II Queen of UK

There’s a few other Plantagenet lines out there that are still in existence. The present lineage is the third most senior line, behind the Jacobins and the Salm branches.


48 posted on 12/29/2012 11:17:35 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (q\\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Agree with you about the nobility of the period. A pretty dishonorable bunch.

The nobles, however, were leaders. Couldn’t accomplish much of anything if large numbers of people chose not to follow.

After Bosworth the nobles appeared to lose their ability to mobilize sufficient popular support to launch effective armed rebellion. Didn’t stop noble intrigues and such, but it moved to another level. Generally competition for the favor of the king rather than competition against him.

Of course there are alternate explanations for the loss of aristocratic independence. My personal favorite is artillery. As long as effective armies consisted largely of mobilizing men, horses and personal weapons, the aristos (if enough of them got together) could go one on one with the King.

When an effective army required efficient artillery, they lost this potential. Artillery cost too much for local lords. And even if you could get the guns and men together, you couldn’t practice with it in secret. And effective artillery requires a lot of practice.


49 posted on 12/29/2012 11:19:03 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

BUMP


50 posted on 12/29/2012 11:21:19 AM PST by timestax (AMERICAN MEDIA= DOMESTIC ENEMY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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