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

Re the disinteering the the Bones in Westminster Abbey:

Previously confidential correspondence reveals that the Church of England, with backing from the Queen and ministers, has repeatedly refused requests to carry out similar forensic tests to those used to identify the remains of Richard III this week to see if the bones buried in Westminster Abbey are those of Richard's two nephews.

DNA testing was refused on the grounds that it could set a precedent for testing historical theories that would lead to multiple royal disinterments. The church was also uncertain what to do with the remains if the DNA tests were negative, potentially leaving the church with the dilemma of how to manage bogus bones. Authorities also resisted on the grounds the tests could not finally establish "if Richard III is to be let off the hook".

Taken from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/05/princes-in-tower-staying-under

Yes, even if they did turn out to be one, or both, of the boys, there isn't going to be a note in the urn saying I dun it, yours ever, Evil Uncle Dickie, is there?

Or, Hee hee hee, I poisoned the brats, love, Mad Maggie Beaufort?

IMO, certain people are more likely to be worried in case they aren't the missing princes because of what that implies.

Incidentally, why do the Tudor apologists never mention the not-too-small detail that H7 was financed by France? Is that something else that spoils the Tudorbethan Merrie Englande propaganda?

Incidentally, why do the Tudor apologists never mention the not-too-small detail that H7 was financed by France? Is that something else that spoils the Tudorbethan Merrie Englande propaganda?

Of course it would, making H7 the same as all the assorted dictators and rules who were/are funded by the enemy. Remember, there was no love lost between the English and the French, espacially after H5 beat them at Azincourt and made himself heir to the French throne once the mad king died. It was a real dog eat dog time. LL

That's the heart of it, LL - it should have been unthinkable for a claimant to the English throne to take money from France to overthrow the legitimate king. IMO, assorted Big Lies had to be told to cover that up. The Biggest Lie being, Richard killed his nephews and seized the throne.

IMO, it's simplified that way deliberately. Because once it dawns on people that he didn't seize the throne, he was asked to take it, the missing princes were alive and well AFTER he'd been crowned, and assorted other Yorkist heirs were similarly alive and well, the lie comes apart.

I am coming round to the viewpoint that the boys were taken out of London to somewhere safer, with their mother's knowledge - it's the only thing that makes sense of her later behaviour. She would have been well-rewarded by H7 if she'd declared that her marriage was genuine, and Richard had killed the boys.

That she didn't, and ended up in poverty, in a convent at H7's command instead, speaks volumes, IMO.

I wonder, has there been a sort of ancestral memory of the truth of all this lurking in the background in much of England all these years? Which has now come to the surface with the unforeseen uproar over King Richard in the 21st century?

In the case of th elder boy, he may well have died soon after he was declared illegitimate, he was described as being very sickly.  In the case of Richard of York, sending him away when H7 started his attempts to claim the throne would be very sensible, IMO.    LL

Lamplighter wrote:In the case of th elder boy, he may well have died soon after he was declared illegitimate, he was described as being very sickly.  In the case of Richard of York, sending him away when H7 started his attempts to claim the throne would be very sensible, IMO.    LL

That is the simplest explanation, which fits in with the few known facts, and is therefore, I think, the most likely to be the truth.

bb1 wrote:

Lamplighter wrote:In the case of th elder boy, he may well have died soon after he was declared illegitimate, he was described as being very sickly.  In the case of Richard of York, sending him away when H7 started his attempts to claim the throne would be very sensible, IMO.    LL

That is the simplest explanation, which fits in with the few known facts, and is therefore, I think, the most likely to be the truth.

The simplest explanation is, IMO, nearly always the answer.  However, in the case of Richard of York, things are not at all simple.  Was he the pretender Perkin Warbeck, or did he vanish into the mists of time?   We know H7 murdered Clarence's son and probably snuffed out all R3's illegitimate offspring.  Could there be direct descendents of Richard of York living somewhere, maybe in Burgundy?    LL

More ....

After Richard was killed in the Battle of Bosworth Field (22 August 1485), Henry VII removed John from the position of Captain of Calais but did not further persecute him and, on 1 March 1486, granted him an annual income of 20 pounds sterling.

In his confession, Perkin Warbeck stated that when he began his impersonation of Richard, Duke of York, in 1491, "King Richard's barsteward son was in the hands of the king of England."[8] In the seventeenth century, an early defender of Richard III, George Buck, claimed that around the time of the executions of Warbeck and Edward, Earl of Warwick, in 1499, "there was a base son of King Richard III made away, and secretly, having been kept long before in prison." Buck, who does not identify John by name, claims that he was executed to prevent him from falling into the hands of certain Irishmen who wished to make him their chief or prince.[9] There are no other sources for John's execution.

Richard's illegitimate daughter Katharine, married William Herbert, 2nd Earl of Pembroke. who remained loyal to R3. LL

I have suspected this since I first got involved. It's what I would have done had I been his mother.

H7  showed what a mean-sprited sad sack he was when he incarcerated Eliz Woodville in a convent for life for the henious crime of 'being nice to R3' as well as being involved in the various uprisings; some historians have posited that her retreat to Bermondsey was forced on her because she was in some way involved in the 1487 Yorkist rebellion of Lambert Simnel, or at least was seen as a potential ally of the rebels.   LL

Lamplighter wrote:H7  showed what a mean-sprited sad sack he was when he incarcerated Eliz Woodville in a convent for life for the henious crime of 'being nice to R3' as well as being involved in the various uprisings; some historians have posited that her retreat to Bermondsey was forced on her because she was in some way involved in the 1487 Yorkist rebellion of Lambert Simnel, or at least was seen as a potential ally of the rebels.   LL

I'll say he was a nasty SOB. His paranoia must have been off the charts? I think that Elizabeth Woodville did ensure at least one of her son's got away to safety. She seems to have been a good mother and why would she not want to do a switch with another boy before he was sent to the Tower?

Of us here, who wouldn't do that if necessary?

In all honesty, I find both H7 and his mother ghastly creatures.

I have always been of the opinion that it was R3 who spirited away his surviving nephew, probably to his sister, the Duchess of Burgundy, as soon as he realised what the French were up to in financing the Welsh pretender.  LL

Probably, LL.

Yes, that makes sense.

Thing is, Elizabeth Woodville only had to make her final years comfortable by denouncing Richard for killing the boys. That would have been pretty much the end of the matter and made life simple for H7 as any strays that turned up claiming the throne would have been KNOWN to be imposters.

Instead she ended up in poverty, in a nunnery on H7's orders. The only reason I can think of for her NOT to help herself is that she knew at least one boy had been taken to safety.

When she fled into sanctuary with the boys at E4's death, Richard personally guaranteed their safety if she would surrender them to him so the elder boy could be crowned in due course.  E4 trusted his brother implicitly as he named him Lord Protector for the underage king to be.  The arrangements for the coronation were put in place, nobility were summoned to Westminster - and then the Bishop of Bath and Welles dropped the betrothal bombshell.   When he was king Richard gave her a pension and she was treated with respect.  However, she didn't respond and schemed with the future H7 supporters to kill the annoinmted king.   But at no time did she denounce Richard as the killer of her sons.  It was H7 who stripped her of all her titles etc; draw your own conclusions.  LL

I've just watched the last episode - what wonderful acting!

But what a horrible man. I did check things in the series had actually happened, and was stunned that his less than loyal subjects persisted in rebelling against him. I loved the conversation he overheard when eavesdropping. Ouch.  

As for even contemplating marrying his dead son's teenage widow to keep the dowry....    

It was made in a time where sticking to the 'known' truth meant far more than the ratings. The BBC had a superb and well earned reputation for their historical dramas. Now, of course, it's the cash that matters, not integrity. LL

LL, they were so superior as were their documentaries. What a shame.

It was also blessedly free of Ye Olde Englishe bonking scenes,  which have unfortunately become a staple of so many historic dramas.

I recall one of the many toe-curling scenes in TWQ involved Edward IV having it off with a strumpet - doubtless to demonstrate that he couldn't keep his hose  on. Meanwhile, assorted members of the court wandered about looking disapproving/bored at this. Even the wolfhound looked bored. As a viewer, I know how they felt.

You feel like shouting, Yes, we know about sex stuff, and unless the human body has changed remarkably in 500 years, Ye Olde Englishe sexe is exactly the same as  21st century sex.

AND IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE STORY.

You would think they would adhere to the refrain, 'No sex please. We are British?

I do commiserate with you though, Bonny. Personally, I'm not one for voyeurism.   

Thank God I'm not the only one who says, "For Christ's sake, not again."

Ye Olde Scottishe Sexe can go horribly wrong:


http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/love-and-hate-in-february-1567-part-iii.html

Since she had a good idea of what really ailed him and syphilis was known to be contagious, her plan was to lodge him at Craigmillar until his pustules dried and his loathsome mercury baths were suspended.

Ah, the romance of a royal wedding!

bb1 wrote:Ye Olde Scottishe Sexe can go horribly wrong:


http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/love-and-hate-in-february-1567-part-iii.html

Since she had a good idea of what really ailed him and syphilis was known to be contagious, her plan was to lodge him at Craigmillar until his pustules dried and his loathsome mercury baths were suspended.

Ah, the romance of a royal wedding!

Ah yes, Lord Henry Darnley, son of Henry 8th sister Margaret by her second husband. With him being part Tudor and an English subject, one can understand why Moray and the Scots Lords hated him. Give me Jamie Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, a wee rogue, any day! LL
http://www.marie-stuart.co.uk/husbands.htm

Interesting. Thanks, Bonny. I'll make a historian yet. I am watching Reign, by the way, although I suspect it's a bit strung out with inconsequentialities.

Yes, Bothwell may have been a sh*t, but at least he was our sh*t.   

I've never been 100% convinced that Darnley was Jamie Saxt's father.

Murdered Darnley was undeniably tall and good-looking, if stupid, depraved and syphilitic.

Murdered Rizzio, on the other hand, was short, plain and intelligent. And didn't have syphilis. James VI was short, plain and intelligent, if understandably neurotic, and didn't have syphilis.

It's a wise man that kens his own faither...

I've always thought it was rather a pity that Lord James Stewart wasn't legitimate, he seems to have been an able, if dour, administrator. And wasn't prone to disastrous marriages, unlike his sister, whose escapades would put Britney Spears to shame.

Oh, I've heard about Reign, Sabot - makes TWQ look like a documentary? Four Marys renamed Zora, Lola and things because the audience it's aimed at couldn't tell one Marie from another?