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

I find it absolutely impossible to imagine Richard III having a servant to wipe his bum, as H8 did.....

deleted

Might be best not to imagine that.....

It is stomach turning. I will delete.

Only joking!

Of course, one has to remember that JamesVl/l was also tainted with Tudor blood on both hisd father's and mothers side:

Margaret Tudor (28 November 1489 – 18 October 1541), also known as Margaret, Queen of Scots, born at Westminster Palace, was the elder of the two surviving daughters of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, and the elder sister of Henry VIII. In 1503, she married James IV, King of Scots. James died in 1513, and their son became King James V. She married secondly Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus. Through her first and second marriages, respectively, Margaret was the grandmother of both Mary, Queen of Scots, and Mary's second husband, Lord Darnley. Margaret's marriage to James IV foreshadowed the Union of the Crowns - their great-grandson, King James VI of Scotland, the child of Mary and Darnley, also became the king of England and Ireland on the death of Margaret's fraternal niece, Elizabeth I of England in 1603.

Born on 28 November 1489, Margaret was baptised two days later, on St. Andrew's Day, in St. Margaret's Church, Westminster. She was named after Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby, her paternal grandmother.

lily wrote:deleted

It was a bit sh*tty.      

Tudor blood on both hisd father's and mothers side:

Now that would be interesting DNA.  

How on earth did two tall, physically attractive people produce short, ugly James?

 

Well, there were all those rumours about short, ugly Rizzio, and Mary had the most God-awful taste in men...

bb1 wrote:Well, there were all those rumours about short, ugly Rizzio, and Mary had the most God-awful taste in men...

As I recall,  she was 6n months pregnant when Darnley slaughterd  Rizzio in  front of her so violently that the blood drenched her dress.   There was no proof re her and Rizzio, Darnley was paranoid and the Lords that opposed her being Queen fed that belief.    He was aslo jealous that she preferred the Italian musician, a low-born foreigner.   The marriage was a no-go from the start,  Dernley was a druken bully who beat her if she defied him, even though he was her subject.   He tried very hard to get Mary to give him the Ctown Matrimonial, ie make them equal rulers, in this he was aided by the Lords who hated her as she was Catholic, they were egged on by John Knox.   Darnley was Elizl's choice for husband for Mary, she was behind most of the turmoil in Scotland.   LL

ETA   I am not very conversant on medical matters, especially when they are to do with pregnancy, but I have been told that pre-birth incidents, especially violent ones, can affect the unborn child.  As can inbreeding which, as Mary and Darnley were related through a common grandmother, may well have caused the problems with James.  Remember H8 was unable to breed healthy sons.   LL

Yes, that probably is the explanation for Jamie Saxt, LL. But it's one of those odd little niggles that have never entirely gone away.

You learn all sorts of new things here. Thanks Bonny and LL.

There's one other odd niggle. The Tudors, thankfully, were a remarkably infertile lot, but James fathered seven children, three of whom made it to adulthood.

Who knows, maybe some healthy Italian stock was introduced...



It wouldn't make much difference to the English succession, anyway, as that was mainly through James' mother.

LL is probably correct, but it would be the final irony if the Tudor usurpation led to someone whose father was an Italian musician sitting on the English throne.   

Personally, I think if there had been any real doubt that Darnley was the father, then the child would have not lived for very long. And since illegitimacy seemed no bar to the Tudors snatching the English throne, I am sure Regent Moray and the Scottish Parliament could have found a way round his b*stard status. Also he was a Protestant and therefore acceptable to most of the population. LL

I've always felt a bit sorry for Regent Moray, LL. I suspect he would have made a good monarch, if a bit dour. His mother always did insist she and James V were married, but then, she would, wouldn't she?

He'd certainly have been hard pushed to do a worse job than his half-sister, the Britney Spears of the 16th century. Just about any of her illegitimate brothers would have been an improvement.

Odd historical detail for Lily - Regent Moray's death is thought to be the world's first assassination-by-firearm.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Crowning-gloryJewellery-expert-s-striking-design/story-21052037-detail/story.html

Richard III: Jewellery expert's striking design to take pride of place at reburial of king



A new crown fit for a king has been completed for the reburial of Richard III.

The 15th-century-style crown, which has taken 15 months to construct, is plated with gold and set with enamelled white roses, garnets, sapphires and pearls.

It has been designed based on the head measurements taken from the king's remains, which were discovered under a car park in Leicester city centre in 2012.

The crown has been made by medieval jewellery expert George Easton and was designed by Richard III Society member John Ashdown-Hill, who also financed the project.


Dr Ashdown-Hill said: "I was very impressed when I saw it completed. It does look beautiful. I would like to think that Richard III would be very proud of his new crown."

Dr Ashdown-Hill, a historian, was involved in the hunt for the king's remains. After they were discovered at the Greyfriars site, he was carrying a box containing the bones when he had the idea of making the crown.

The plan is for the crown to accompany the remains when they are reburied. It is hoped this will be at Leicester Cathedral – although the burial site is currently the subject of a continuing court battle.

Rev Pete Hobson, the canon missioner at Leicester Cathedral, told the Mercury the crown would be given "pride of place" at the proposed ceremony. The finished crown has also been praised by Philippa Langley, leader of the Looking For Richard team.

She said: "This magnificent crown will honour England's last warrior king by giving him what he didn't receive in 1485."

The reburial is being delayed by a new legal argument over whether or not the University of Leicester's exhumation licence was valid.

The High Court has the power to quash the Ministry of Justice licence, which would overrule the current legal agreement to rebury the king in Leicester.

The Plantagenet Alliance – a group of 15 people in favour of a reburial in York – is arguing there should have been national consultation before the exhumation licence was issued.

Dr Ashdown-Hill said: "I was hoping the latest argument would be settled by the end of April but now we're in May. If the court decides there should be more consultation I don't know how long that will take.

"But if they do come back and say it can go ahead, things should proceed fairly quickly and, hopefully, we can have the ceremony in late summer or the autumn."

He said that while public opinion needed to be taken into account, he was eager the see the king laid to rest.

He said: "I was part of the original process that planned for the ceremony at Leicester Cathedral but I wouldn't have a problem with him being buried elsewhere if there was a strong public opinion about it. But I would like him to be buried somewhere, rather than stored in boxes."

The new crown will go on display for the first time today at an event in Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, to mark the 543rd anniversary of the Battle of Tewkesbury.

Dr Ashdown-Hill said: "I'm very excited people are going to see it publicly and I hope there will be other opportunities in the future as well."

Let's hope those mad harpies from York are told to take a hike before any more time and money is wasted.

Dr Ashdown-Hill said: "I was very impressed when I saw it completed. It does look beautiful. I would like to think that Richard III would be very proud of his new crown."

Personally, I think His Grace would be more than pleased with it. LL   

It's beautiful, isn't it, LL? I wonder, will it reside on the Reconstructed Royal Head after the eventual reburial?

bb1 wrote:I've always felt a bit sorry for Regent Moray, LL. I suspect he would have made a good monarch, if a bit dour. His mother always did insist she and James V were married, but then, she would, wouldn't she?

He'd certainly have been hard pushed to do a worse job than his half-sister, the Britney Spears of the 16th century. Just about any of her illegitimate brothers would have been an improvement.

Odd historical detail for Lily - Regent Moray's death is thought to be the world's first assassination-by-firearm.

I missed this post. That is so interesting Bonny. Thank you and am looking up more information on it as I will thoroughly enjoy that,   

http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2014-05-06/mps-row-over-richard-iii-burial/

MPs row over Richard III burial
Last updated Tue 6 May 2014
UK York North Yorkshire
MPs have been bickering in Parliament again today about the rightful burial place for Richard III. There is currently a court battle over whether the former monarch should be buried in Leicester where his body was recently discovered beneath a car park, or at his ancestral home of York.

Today, York Central MP Hugh Bayley asked the Justice Secretary to reconsider the case, but was quickly slapped down by a Leicester MP.

'Ancestral home of York'? Since when?

I am sick of this, so I can't imagine how people like LL and others who have been involved with Ricardian matters for years feel.

I am afraid that York is NOT the ancestral home of the House of York, no more than Lancaster is the same for the Lancastrians/Tudors, the names come from the titles of the leader of each faction. The ancestral home of all would be somewhere in France where the Plantagenets came from. Richard was born in Fotheringhay, E4 in Rouen, France, while Clarence was born in Dublin. This whole charade and picky-picky attitude of the stupid Plantaganet Alliance and York is really getting to me. I may originally have wanted Richard to be buried in York, but on reflection I think Jeicetsre is the besy place. LL

Agree, LL, York Minster was a nice idea, but simply not practical for starters. Also, the York harpies can't rewrite history - by their logic, he should be buried in Bruges, as he spent just as much time, if not more, there.

I don't know if you follow the York/Leicester internet wars? I do, and the York lot are giant pains in the ar@e. Humourless, ignorant, bigoted, rude - utterly obnoxious trolls, in short.

What's York got planned to commemorate Richard? A supporting role in their tacky Two Kings in One Day touristy thing, in conjunction with, of all the tasteless things, the Henry VII experience.

On the other hand, from what I've seen of Leicester's work, it is superb. Elegant, cohesive, thoughtful - should I find myself down south, I would make a point of going to Leicester.

I wouldn't set foot in York if you paid me after this.

Frankly, I do wonder how many of the 'Plantagenet Alliance' are actually involved in the tourist trade - they do seem to be rather shy about who is actually backing them. Which I, as a UK taxpayer, greatly resent.

I havee nothing against York, it's one of my favorite UK cities. The behavor or idiots who aren't actually conected with York (George Galloway, for starters) would not make me penalise the city. I think most people there don't have much of an opinion, if at all, on yjr matter. LL

Thankfully, I've missed George Galloway's views on the subject, LL....You're right, it's wrong to judge a whole city by a handful of nasty nutjobs.