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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 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