Breaking News!!!! Richard III's Body Found!

Well, according to Wiki, King Harold was 'English':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

Harold Godwinson, or Harold II; Old English: Harold Godƿinson (c. 1022 – 14 October 1066) was the last Anglo-Saxon King of England.[a] Harold reigned from 6 January 1066[1] until his death at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October of that same year, fighting the Norman invaders led by William the Conqueror during the Norman conquest of England. Harold is the first of only three kings of England to have died in warfare; the other two were Richard I and Richard III

Harold was a son of Godwin, the powerful Earl of Wessex, and his wife Gytha Thorkelsdóttir, whose supposed brother Ulf Jarl was the son-in-law of Sweyn I and the father of Sweyn II of Denmark.
Godwin and Gytha had several children, notably sons Sweyn, Harold, Tostig, Gyrth and Leofwine and a daughter, Edith of Wessex (1029–1075), who became Queen consort of Edward the Confessor.

He doesn't sound very 'English' to me, more Norse.....

Oh, I'm OK on Stuart genetics, Sabot

They quite undeniably had the right to be the British monarchs (the crowns were united by James VI and I), but with one or two exceptions - James himself, and Charles II - they were singularly bad at ruling, insisting on their Divine Right to do as they pleased, when the assorted parts of the UK were inching towards democracy.

And while Mary, Queen of Scots, is a powerful, romantic figure, who does wonders for the Scottish tourist trade, she was a bit of a disaster, really; Elizabeth never made the mistake of letting her hormones rule her head.

What a mess, eh. And who was it who said a Catholic couldn't Rule? Oh, I know. That syphilitic, wife murdering Tudor.

Just for once, it wasn't him, Sabot.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/6654216/Act-of-Settlement-the-history-of-why-Catholics-cannot-rule-over-Britain.html

Mind you, if his daughter Bloody Mary hadn't incinerated so many English citizens for the betterment of their souls, there might not have been such a strong anti-Catholic feeling in the following years.

The Tudors and the English Throne:

Henry V11 was descended on his mother's side from John of Gaunt and his paramour, Katherine Swynford. Their children were called the Beauforts as they were born in the castle of that name in France. After his wife's death, John married Katherine.; their children were then legitimised by Henry IV when he came to the throne - he was John's legitimate son. However, the legitimisation came with one bar, excepto regio, ie they, and their descendants could never inherit the throne. Henry V11's father was a Welsh squire, Owen Tudor, who was rumoured to be the lover of Katherine of France, widow of Henry V, and who was later executed for treason by Edward IV. Henry based his whole claim to the throne on a very convoluted set of events, which are too numberous to go into on here. However, the excepto regio bar was never repealed and still applied when Henry VII ascended the throne. Because of this, he had to marry Edward IV's daughter, Elizabeth of York, to make his claim legitimate.

Now, with the above in mind, who would benefit from the death of Edward IV's sons, the Princes in the Tower, Richard III or Henry VII? Parliament had debarred the boys from the throne, and also Edward's daughters; if the boys were still alive when Richard died at Bosworth, then Parliament could remove the bar on them and thus make Edward, the elder son, king again. But then why would Henry marry their sister? The boys, if they were alive, (Richard had no reason to kill them as his right to be King had been ratified by Parliament) were in the way of Henry VII and his need to marry their sister to bolster his non-existent claim to the throne. Also, over the years, Henry's descendants, the Tudors, removed and murdered all and anyone who was related to the last Plantaganet kings, thus removing anyone who might do to then what they had done to Richard. LL

bb1 wrote:Just for once, it wasn't him, Sabot.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/6654216/Act-of-Settlement-the-history-of-why-Catholics-cannot-rule-over-Britain.html

Mind you, if his daughter Bloody Mary hadn't incinerated so many English citizens for the betterment of their souls, there might not have been such a strong anti-Catholic feeling in the following years.

What a bunch of bloody hypocrites. It was all the same God. And The Protestants were such a boring bunch. It was a revelation to me on the first occasion that I went to a Catholic Mass. I wouldn't go anywhere else these days. If I was going anywhere.
As it happens, my Paternal family were almost certainly Catholic. You didn't get many Protestants coming out of Southern Ireland in those days, especially with The Earl of Antrim being The Clan Chief of The Irish and The Scots Mitchells.

I do always chuckle when Bennett starts going on about the C of E (no offence intended to C of E members). History would have been very different if it hadn't been for Henry VIII, his need for money, and his problems in the codpiece department...it wasn't a grassroots movement, as elsewhere, it was imposed from above.

Which sort-of comes back to Plantagents....

Also, over the years, Henry's descendants, the Tudors, removed and murdered all and anyone who was related to the last Plantaganet kings, thus removing anyone who might do to then what they had done to Richard. LL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_de_la_Pole,_3rd_Duke_of_Suffolk

I am getting lost; was he directly related to Richard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Pole,_Countess_of_Salisbury

Margaret Pole the Blessed, Countess of Salisbury (14 August 1473 - 27 May 1541) was an English peeress. She was the daughter of George of Clarence, who was the brother of King Edward IV and King Richard III. She was one of two women in sixteenth-century England to be a peeress in her own right with no titled husband.[2] One of the few surviving members of the Plantagenet dynasty after the Wars of the Roses, she was executed in 1541 at the command of King Henry VIII, who was her cousin Elizabeth's son. Pope Leo XIII beatified her as a martyr for the Roman Catholic Church on 29 December 1886.[3]

I didn't know she had been beatified.

Richard was a crookback:

Well, now, that little story started with the Lancastrians and was pumped up by the Tudors. So here are a few reasons why it is as stupid a story as various people and GtheG!!

Richard was the youngest of Richard and Cecily of York's children and sickly. In fact a commentator wrote "Richard liveth yet.". However, though small in stature he was a survivor. So much so that as a teenager his brother Edward was so sure of his loyal allegiance and skill that he gave him charge of the right wing of the army. Doctors have posited that in fact his slightness may well have made his body compensate by building up his sword arm so that it appeared far more muscled than his left one and would therefore possibly pull his shoulder down somewhat making him look lopsided. I am quite sure that if he had been a crookback it would have been remarked upon at the time, since deformity was often the subject of ridicule, even behind closed doors. Also, for those of you who can ride, imagine a hunchback dwarf managing to control a large warhorse - and they were big horses, somewhat along the lines of a Percheron - while applying an axe, which was supposed to be his favorite weapon? No, these stories about him being deformed are straight from the defamer's book. LL

What city would make the following statement as they waited the rule of the man whose army had killed an anointed king, and the retribution that would follow such words, if the king they spoke of was such an evil villain?

"King Richard, late mercifully reigning over us was piteously slain and murdered to the great heaviness of this city". - York City Records, 1485

I rest my case. LL

That's a good quote, LL. If it is him, maybe York Minster should be considered, with an inscription like that? Something official will have to happen if the DNA matches.

bb1 wrote:That's a good quote, LL. If it is him, maybe York Minster should be considered, with an inscription like that? Something official will have to happen if the DNA matches.

It says it all, bonny, doesn't it?

It is said that Richard was a "son of the North"; he loved that part of England. While his brother, Edward IV, lived a life of luxurious debauchery at the court in London, Richard governed the North from York. He was considered a wise and just man; had he lived longer as king, England would have had, just by what was said regarding him and the North, one of the most enlightened kings ever. As it was, they got the Tudors .... LL

Some quotes you might to peruse:

http://www.richard111.com/what_history_has_to_say_about_ri.htm

Also this website (ignore the pop up re membership, just close it and you can still read the article): http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa120197.htm

My, it's a long time since I've read any mediaeval English - or Scots. I had to check exactly why he was praised for not sacking Edinburgh, I couldn't remember which precise war that one was.

I didn't know it was down to him that Berwick is sort-of part of England, interesting.

Those contemporary reports are fascinating; they seem to go further than the usual flattery of kings and princes. That Shakespeare felt compelled to do such a smear job on him suggests that even then, there was still a lingering fear of him.

Oh wait - James VII and I was I through his Tudor predecessors; while there was no doubt about his claim to the throne of Scotland, he was on shakier ground in England?

bb1 wrote:My, it's a long time since I've read any mediaeval English - or Scots. I had to check exactly why he was praised for not sacking Edinburgh, I couldn't remember which precise war that one was.

I didn't know it was down to him that Berwick is sort-of part of England, interesting.

Oh, there's a lot about Richard people in general don't know; Shakespeare, the Olivier film, the various books and pamphlets that vilify him have a lot to answer for. If you want to read a biography that is pro-Richard as such, but is also full of information about him and his times, read "Richard III" by Paul Murray Kendall, who also wrote quite a few books about the medieval period in England, and a good bio of Louis XII, the so called Spider King of France. LL

That has gone down as a truly dreadful piece of ham acting, hasn't it? I've seen other productions of Richard III which, although obviously using the same lines, haven't gone as totally OTT.

Actually I enjoyed and still enjoy the Olivier film as being a good piece of fiction; his Richard is the same as the way he played it at the Old Vic, on the 1940s. Let's face it, Shakespeare is a stage entity, film is too close, too up front, too personal. That pic looks like Gerald Harper, not Olivier! Not from the film, surely, as I don't remember that particular shot and I must have seen it many, many times. LL

ETA Found where you got that pic from, bonny, but it still looks more like one from the stage production rather than the film. LL

This is my fav pic of Olivier as RIII! LL

If you get a chance to see the BBC series The Hollow Crown, you will like it, LL. It's Richard II, Henry IV Parts One and Two, and Henry V.

Obviously, the script stays the same, but the presentation was spell-binding; it was acted out in draughty castles and cathedrals, and Agincourt was suitably muddy and bloody.

What does he look like? To modern eyes, that film is very close to Carry on Richard.

bb1 wrote:If you get a chance to see the BBC series The Hollow Crown, you will like it, LL. It's Richard II, Henry IV Parts One and Two, and Henry V.

Obviously, the script stays the same, but the presentation was spell-binding; it was acted out in draughty castles and cathedrals, and Agincourt was suitably muddy and bloody.

What does he look like? To modern eyes, that film is very close to Carry on Richard.

I've seen The Hollow Crown, it was okay. Richard II I have always found a bore!! When I saw RIII in 1955 it was never considered as a Carry on film. I still remember it with deep affection as it was in fact my introduction to Richard and a life-long belief in his innocence. But I suppose when one is 15 one does see things differently now. One of my uncles saw Olivier play Richard on stage and he said the film was really a replay of the Old Vic performance and, as I have said, too theatrical because one is too close to the screen. LL

I stress, to modern eyes, LL, because Olivier went so totally over the top, it is almost a caricature. Peter Cook played him as a good guy in Blackadder:



It would be truly ironic if Blackadder was actually nearer the truth....

I heard they chose Peter Cook because he looked like Olivier. I love the Blackadder version; Brian Blessed as Richard IV had me in stitches, in fact anything with Blackadder in it, whatever the period, can reduce me to a quivering wreck!! I think however that Richard's death was closer to the Olivier film, in that the records do say Richard was cut down by the enemy as he charged Stanley's men trying to get to Henry Tudor and kill him. The Henry in Blackadder is absolutely spot on, as people fleeing the battle said that Henry cowered behind Stanley's men, weeping in fear, as Richard and his Household Cavalry, charged down on him. Richard was, after all, considered the most fearsome warrior in England at the time! LL

This may also interest you, bonny, http://www.r3.org/bosworth/ballad.html

After commenting on the wondrousness of Fortune

Ah well, much to everyone's amazement, the story isn't actually over yet....

And it looks like it is indeed Richard III:

Human remains found in Leicester car park DO belong to Richard III as scientists prepare to reveal results of DNA testing
Leicester University scientists expected to confirm remains are Richard III's
Conducted a range of tests including carbon-dating and a DNA match with a descendent of the Plantagenet King's sister
Philippa Langley who initially funded excavation said she was '99% sure'
A documentary will also be screened on Channel 4 charting the excavation and subsequent testing




Confirmation: The human remains found under a car park in Leicester are expected to be confirmed as belonging to Richard III

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272653/Human-remains-Leicester-car-park-DO-belong-Richard-III-scientists-prepare-reveal-results-DNA-testing.html#ixzz2JrVIfhLG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Quote:

Once it is confirmed that the body is Richard III, it is believed the remains will be buried inside Leicester Cathedral - more than 500 years after he was killed in battle.

Ah well, it's not often you get to watch a Plantagenet king being buried....

And the remains had a humped back, apparently, as history has said. The Plantagenets were French, by way.