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

**bb1** Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:51 pm

It always comes down to, How the Hell did that git Tudor get the throne, doesn't it?

I know it's often said that he ended the Wars of the Roses, but didn't they just carry on for another 100 years under different names? Despite H7 establishing a Stalin-like grip on England, there were endless rebellions in the north, put down with yet more barbarity.

**bb1** Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:54 pm

I watched a programme about medieval marriages last night, and now properly understand why Edward IV's love life caused such havoc. biggrin

**lily** Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:53 pm

A bit like a modern day Mick Jagger? Shocked

**bb1** Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:00 pm

Yes....with the added complication that you didn't actually need a priest to be regarded as legally married.

I reelly, reelly love you, Ermintruda, and I think you are my wife, now get up the stairs, wench said in front of witnesses, pretty much did it.

Which didn't matter too much with commoners, they just went on their merry way, but was a bit of a problem when it came to royals and inheritances.

It was very entertaining, actually. It was possible to obtain a form of divorce. One woman divorced her husband, Edward IV's doctor, because he'd taken up with whores in some French war.

When he came back to London, he carried on a-whoring and neglecting his family....so she got her 'divorce', but neither could remarry, just lead seperate lives.

Marriages could be annulled on various grounds, one being impotence. So the church court took a robust attitude to that.

They rounded up some of the local whores (there seem to have been lots of them around) and got them to take the hapless husband into another room to use their professional skills to judge whether he really was impotent... rofl

**bb1** Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:02 pm

Oh, and as Edward IV didn't do any of his marrying in church, God knows who he was actually legally married to.

Which is why it all became clear....

**lily** Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:03 pm

At least they didn't say, "burn the witch."

**Lamplighter** Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:36 pm

bb1 wrote:Oh, and as Edward IV didn't do any of his marrying in church, God knows who he was actually legally married to.

Which is why it all became clear....

Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Welles, betrothed E4 to someone whose identity has been disputed over the years. The betrothal was a normal procedure in the upper classes and royalty, the practice being to unite two families who were mutual friends so that the lands etc stayed in those families. E4 apparently desired this woman so he went through a secret betrothal. His big mistake was not getting the Bishop to annul it, for by secretly marrying E Woodville he commited adultery and made their children bastards. However, though his marriage to Elizabeth was in secret he was, as far as is known, married by a priest, but in which church I think is not known. The Queen mum was descended from one of E4's illegitimate chkildren by one of his official mistresses. LL

**bb1** Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:13 pm

They were a very busy lot, weren't they, with complicated love lives?

**lily** Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:16 pm

It makes you wonder why Prince Andrew was called Randy Andy when you read the exploits on this thread. rofl

**bb1** Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:20 pm

Current royals are just amateurs in comparison. Though Harry would fit in perfectly, what with the large flying war machines and incidents in Vegas....

**lily** Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:59 pm

I think Harry's fabulous, Bonny. I really do. rofl

**bb1** Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:39 am

Lovely bit of anti-York propaganda from His Grace's supporters in Leicester:

A judge has ruled that taxpayers should pay the legal fees of campaigners fighting to have Richard III buried in York.
The Plantagenet Alliance is involved in a legal battle with the University of Leicester and recently won a judicial review, allowing it to go to the courts to fight to have the bones reburied at York Minster instead of Leicester Cathedral.

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-judicial-review-Taxpayers-foot-York/story-19955541-detail/story.html#ixzz2iLcYyi8J
Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook

Whatever his own views on his next resting place, I am sure His Grace would admire the skill with which his Leicester supporters have made his York supporters look as if they are oppressing the poor of the realm and stealing alms which could have been better spent on the care of lepers.

**Lamplighter** Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Received today. As you can see, I originally signed this in favor of York, but my vies have now changed. I thought, however, you might like to see how things are progressing. LL

HM Government e-petitions: The petition 'Richard III to be re-interred at York Minster' has reached 31,342 signatures‏

Dear ........................

The e-petition 'Richard III to be re-interred at York Minster' signed by you recently reached 31,342 signatures and a response has been made to it.

As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: The Secretary of State grants licences to exhume buried human remains under Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857. Around 200 licences are issued each year for archaeological purposes. On 3 September 2012 the Ministry of Justice granted a licence to Leicester University to exhume human remains found during the excavation of a Leicester car park. The excavation was primarily to investigate a Franciscan friary but also to locate the remains of King Richard III who, evidence suggested, was buried there in 1485. The University carried out a series of tests on the remains and on 4 February 2013 announced that one set was those of King Richard III “beyond reasonable doubt”. The MoJ licence prescribes that the remains should, no later than 31 August 2014, be deposited at Jewry Wall Museum or be reinterred at St Martin’s Cathedral or in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place; and that in the meantime they should be kept safely, privately and decently by the University of Leicester. The University intends to reinter Richard III’s remains at St Martin’s Cathedral in Leicester. The Secretary of State for Justice and the University are currently defending a judicial review of the decision to grant the exhumation licence to the University of Leicester. This judicial review touches on the question of where Richard III should be reinterred. It would be inappropriate to comment further while the judicial review is ongoing.”

View the response to the e-petition

Thanks,

HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

**bb1** Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:00 pm

Thanks, LL. It's tricky, isn't it? The obvious choice at first is York, but York Minster doesn't seem that bothered one way or another, whereas Leicester is genuinely keen to keep him. And though it's small, Leicester Cathedral isn't that bad-looking; it's Gothic revival, not some ghastly Paddy's Wigwam job.

I can't help feeling he will be treated more honourably in Leicester, and not just as an addition to the Viking and Roman tours. I also think Leicester is better placed to tell the story of his last days on earth, and obviously, his strange arrival in the 21st century.

**Lamplighter** Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:22 pm

And Leicester is mid country, easy to reach ffrom London by train. York Minster have already said they are happy with him being in Leicester, it's those stupid Plantaganet Alliance numbnuts who are making waves. LL

**bb1** Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:05 pm

Just watched the Medieval Dead documentary I taped last night, about the Battle of Towton and the search for Richard's lost chapel.

Fascinating; assorted medieval battle specialists, etc, used the Towton skeletons found under the Hall when it was being renovated to recreate how the men died, and others were on the trail of the chapel.

Long story short, the chapel isn't actually lost; it's now thought those men were IN the chapel, which is now in the fabric of Towton Hall, as the Hall grew over the centuries.

Must say, Richard's getting a very good press this year - quite a turnaround on the last five hundred-odd.

**lily** Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:27 pm

His story is such a compelling one. Who can get enough? Thanks for all the posts. smile

**bb1** Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:19 pm

I've just watched BBC4's Medieval series, which ended with Death.

Oh dear, Henry 7 didn't come out of it very well. He was described as a paranoid tyrant who'd terrorised his subjects....Apparently, he was a very scared man on his deathbed, convinced he was going straight to the Bad Fire for what he'd done. So, left orders to have no fewer than 10,000 masses said for his shrivelled soul.

I laughed when his funeral was being described. Apparently, a knight on horseback, in full armour, came clanking into Westminster, and then had his armour ceremonially removed. This symbolised H7's temporal power, apparently, but it did seem rather 'off' for one of history's most notorious cowards.

Richard didn't figure in this, possibly because he didn't have time to worry about where he was heading next in his final moments, but he would probably be OK, anyway, having done good deeds, not slaughtered civilians, refrained from grinding the faces of the poor, and generally not done much tyranting at all, really.

It would be nice to think that in H7's final moments, he got a glimpse of the future, with his predecessor getting a bigger and better funeral than any medieval monarch could even dream of, not to mention ladies of the future crying over Richard and baking intepretative three-fingered cakes.

**lily** Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:27 pm

It would be nice to think that in H7's final moments, he got a glimpse of the future, with his predecessor getting a bigger and better funeral than any medieval monarch could even dream of, not to mention ladies of the future crying over Richard and baking intepretative three-fingered cakes.

Yes please! rofl

H7 was pathetically paranoid. What a weak person and typically hiding at the back of the battles. I think his mother can take some of the blame?

**bb1** Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:27 pm

Contest now on for commemorative artwork:

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Shortlist-King-Richard-III-artwork-revealed/story-19968386-detail/story.html

I shudder to think what His Grace would make of a contemplative steel cube that lights up at night, though he might appreciate the beacon.

I think a giant-size version of the interpretative cake with the three-fingered salute would say it all, really!

**Lamplighter** Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:42 pm

I would prefer a statue of Richard with the White Boar, his emblem. at his feet. I no more like the offered ideas than I do the rows of concrete blocks in Berlin supposedly representing the slain Jews. But then, I don't like 'modern art'. LL

**bb1** Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:48 pm

I thought that smashed head thing was horrid, personally, LL. Also, I am not sure how practical any of them are. With the best will in the world, glass gets broken and signs get graffiti-ed. And modern art dates very quickly.

The only one vaguely reasonable is that one with the monks, but it's twenty feet high! And a bit spooky...

Your idea is much better.

**lily** Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:50 pm

Modern art is something that I cannot be bothered with.

LL, I vote for your timeless idea too. hug

**bb1** Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:22 pm

Wonder what the Plantagenets and Tudors would make of an heir who didn't greatly want to be monarch because he was more interested in other things?

http://news.sky.com/story/1159391/charles-prison-fear-due-to-charity-limits

Charles 'Prison' Fear 'Due To Charity Limits'
A writer who said Prince Charles was worried about becoming King says it is due to constraints it will place on his charity work.

**lily** Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:07 pm

You know what they say, "uneasy lies a head that wears a crown"?

Sponsored content