|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Vivat Ricardus Rex!
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
RoseofSharon opined:
quote:
my preferred villain in the Princes In The Tower story is Margaret Beaufort
I think this is spot on. She was Henry Tudor's mother, spawn of a bastard line whose later legitimation did not include succession rights. Derby, her husband, was a supposed ally of Richard, who failed to come to the king's aid at Bosworth. It was in Henry's interest that the boys disappeared, even more so than Richard's.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
I think he was easily in danger of being executed himself if the Woodvilles got their way...
That's what I think too... as others have said, his behaviour in usurping the throne was out of character. And in 1483 he didn't just have himself to consider; IIRC his wife and son were still alive then, so they'd have been in danger too if the Woodvilles had got the upper hand.
Doublethink, he would have confessed and received Mass just before the battle; SOP in those days. So he didn't die unshriven.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Pine Marten said:
quote:
I think it was unfortunate that Philippa came over as a bit... well, bonkers
...
And if it wasn't for her grit and determination over 4 years this project would never even have been started, so all credit to her.
She came over as more than 'a bit' bonkers, more 'completely' so. She obviously does not come over well on TV, or perhaps it was edited to make her look bonkers. I appreciate that the society had funded it, which I assumed was the reason she was allowed such access. It obviously did not go down well with some of the specialists!
I would have liked less emotion and more about how they traced the descendant they used for the DNA comparison - I would love to know how they traced him through 17 generations but I don't recall a word about that, although I admit I was losing the will to live.
And, Boogie, we can agree to differ over whether the flag thing was 'sweet' or 'sickening' but I'm interested why you use the fact you are a republican as a reason why you would not usually have been interested? He was a famous person whether you agree with the system of government he represented or not.
I await the programme in 10 years time, when they re-evaluate the evidence and decide it was some hapless nobody after all.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
And, Boogie, we can agree to differ over whether the flag thing was 'sweet' or 'sickening' but I'm interested why you use the fact you are a republican as a reason why you would not usually have been interested? He was a famous person whether you agree with the system of government he represented or not.
True enough - but I still would have changed channels as neither tales of kings and princes nor archaeology interest me. The invested emotions of all concerned did.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
<edited to improve crazy code>
[ 05. February 2013, 09:39: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
I would have liked more science, too - I wanted to know a lot more about his diet (from the teeth), his health, height, and general condition. I gather that they estimate he would have been 5' 8" without the scoliosis, but I'd like to know what they estimate *with* the scoliosis.
I'd have liked more about the DNA research and less emoting, but obviously it was edited that way. *And* fewer adverts, which brought the programme down to about an hour! Still, all in all it was a fascinating programme and a brilliantly successful project. Thank you, Philippa and John.
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
I see that they have reconstructed his face from the skull (although hair colour, etc was based on the portraits). The jaw of the skull (and the reconstruction) has some resemblance to the historic portraits:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21328380
[ 05. February 2013, 10:43: Message edited by: MSHB ]
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
FWIW there was a moot court trial of Richard III which declared him innocent.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
I see that they have reconstructed his face from the skull (although hair colour, etc was based on the portraits). The jaw of the skull (and the reconstruction) has some resemblance to the historic portraits:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21328380
This at the end, though. quote:
"Our facial reconstruction methods have been blind tested many times using living subjects and we know that we can expect that approximately 70% of the facial surface should have less than 2mm of error," said Prof Wilkinson.
30% is huge. Facial reconstruction is a bit less perfect than often represented. Two different practitioners/methods can yield different identifications.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Watcher
Apprentice
# 15999
|
Posted
quote:
It obviously did not go down well with some of the specialists!
That was very evident and it must have been very difficult to maintain a dispassionate approach when your sponsor was so single minded. I thought the incident with the standard illustrated that very clearly.
I suspect however that, as in so many things, how the programme was filmed and edited was the problem.
Posts: 36 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
Knowing how these people work, it wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately edited in all Philippa Langley's most emotional moments and left out the stable bits. It made for a 'better' - that is more generally entertaining - programme to have someone involved who was, well, emotional.
However, whatever criticism may be laid against Ms Langley, there is no doubt at all that without her this event simply wouldn't have happened. It has to be one of the most remarkable historical finds in the last century, and it was brought about by one woman's passion.
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
What to do with the newly identified/discovered Richard III now rests (apparently) with the royal family, which gives them something of a problem. If they agree to Leicester it gives an OK-ish nod to the Tudor disposal; if York, why? And so the answer should be Westminster Abbey - which is where he (probably) would have been buried had he died in his bed.
As for whether or not he was a nepoticide, the Abbey's own history has evidence for this NOT being the case. When Richard and his party met with the young Edward V on his way to London they took the king but sent the young prince's guardians (one his uncle) north where they were summarily executed. Had Richard wanted to do away with Edward V the simplest thing would have been to have staged an attack on the royal party in which Edward V was tragically killed - he didn't; nor did Richard send Edward north but was with him when the new king entered London to a tumultuous welcome. As for "sending" Edward to the Tower, it was normal for monarchs to live at the Tower before coronation - this was the case at least up to the time of the Stuarts.
It is unlikely that Elizabeth Woodville would have sent her second son to join his brother in the Tower: by the time he supposedly entered the Tower (16th June) his brother had been there for 6 weeks and it would have been very obvious that his uncle had no intention of him being crowned. Since the royal children were not well-known by sight (no photographs!) and Richard of Gloucester had spent most of the preceding years in the north a substitution would have been relatively easy to make. Ask yourself this: would a loving mother have consigned another son to the tender mercies of an uncle who gave every sign of usurping the throne?
If Edward V and "Richard" were killed in the Tower during the reign of Richard III it was most likely the work of an over-zealous supporter. If, as seems more likely, they died after Bosworth then the person in the frame is Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII who had had a long-running feud with Elizabeth Woodville's mother and whose treatment of her daughter-in-law, brother of Edward V, must have been truly appalling because even the pro-tudor chroniclers of the time commented on it.
So, let Richard III lie in Westminster Abbey - and DNA test the bones of the supposed Princes in the Tower to see if they really were related to each other.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Lots of people had motive, Henry Tudor, Lady Margaret Beaufort, Richard of York etc. The only person who didn't was Elizabeth Woodville. Only one of those though had custody of the princes at the time they disappeared. He also would have had a strong motive to get rid of Lady Margaret Beaufort if circumstances had given him the slightest smidgen of an opportunity. It may not be possible after all these centuries to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, but it looks fairly obvious to anyone who hasn't got a stake in the issue who is left holding the smoking gun.
With all due apologies to the RIII society and its members, but it's Wicked Uncle Dicky.
As for where he is buried, his mortal remains have been in Leicester since 1485. They should be reinterred there.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Nonsense. Richard was a caring man who cared for his young charges, one of whom grew into a big, strong boy, and after Bosworth Field reigned for 14 glorious years as King Richard IV; succeeded for about 30 seconds by Edmund, as eny fule no.
There was a docudrama about it on UK telly in the early 80s.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huntress
Shipmate
# 2595
|
Posted
I would have hated Starkey to have got his hands on the programme; I think he is a sensationalist entertainer, rather than a good historian.
I admired Philippa for her dedication to a cause she was clearly deeply passionate about and wished that her emotional episodes could have been edited down / out of the programme as I felt they took up too much time, but I guess the programme wanted to present the dual interests of academic archaeology and personal quest.
If I remember correctly, the mention of Richard 'making himself King' did not mention the fact that Princes Edward and Richard and siblings were declared illegitimate when various folk attested that their father was pre-contracted (a binding arrangement) to marry Lady Eleanor Butler, thus making his subsequent marriage to Elizabeth Woodville null and any issue illegitimate. Richard was therefore the lawful King in this circumstance.
The children of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville were subsequently declared legitimate by Henry VII so that he could marry Princess Elizabeth of York (sister to the now-missing-presumed-dead Princes Edward and Richard) and strengthen his hold on the English throne.
I recommend Royal Blood, by Bertram Fields which will hopefully be reprinted soon, which assesses the evidence for and against Richard III being the bad King of popular sentiment.
Posts: 431 | From: Lancashire / Nottingham | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huntress:
If I remember correctly, the mention of Richard 'making himself King' did not mention the fact that Princes Edward and Richard and siblings were declared illegitimate when various folk attested that their father was pre-contracted (a binding arrangement) to marry Lady Eleanor Butler, thus making his subsequent marriage to Elizabeth Woodville null and any issue illegitimate. Richard was therefore the lawful King in this circumstance.
And who was it who promoted that particular volte face?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
At the time of his death, Richard was in the diocese of Lincoln. The present cathedral of Leicester was only a parish church.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nonsense. Richard was a caring man who cared for his young charges, one of whom grew into a big, strong boy, and after Bosworth Field reigned for 14 glorious years as King Richard IV; succeeded for about 30 seconds by Edmund, as eny fule no.
There was a docudrama about it on UK telly in the early 80s.
With Rowan Atkinson and Brian Blessed. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Indeed. Without it, would most people know about about St Ralph the Liar, the traditions of St Leonard's Day, the fact that Morris Dancers have always been fourth rate entertainment, or the true horror of snails?
A very valuable three hours of top notch informational telly, IMO.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I watched the programme, and I certainly found Philippa eccentric, to say the least. She seemed almost as though she had a personal relationship with Richard III, and that his reputation must be defended at all costs. I was bemused by the comment that his reconstructed face was "not the face of a tyrant". What is a tyrant supposed to look like?
However, I understand that she was the prime mover behind this discovery, and I suppose if it wasn't for slightly eccentric people there would be very few significant breakthroughs in this world. So, in the context of the whole story, she deserves the highest praise for her dedication and commitment to her cause.
Talking about her cause: this discovery has exposed a woeful gap in my education. I seem to know next to nothing about Richard III, apart from what I have picked up over the last few days. So perhaps some of the contributors here could explain why they have such a high regard for this king?
I really would be most interested to learn more about this subject.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
hanginginthere
Shipmate
# 17541
|
Posted
Why York? Because he grew up in Yorkshire, in Middleham Castle, ruled the North of England for his brother Edward IV for some years, endowed a chantry chapel in York Minster, which is generally taken as an indication that he wished to be buried there, and was much loved by the people of York (see my previous post). By contrast, what is his connection with Leicester? Apart from happening to get killed near there of course. Most soldiers killed in the field are taken home for burial.
--------------------
'Safe?' said Mr Beaver. 'Who said anything about safe? But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.'
Posts: 72 | From: Eboracum | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I watched the programme, and I certainly found Philippa eccentric, to say the least. She seemed almost as though she had a personal relationship with Richard III, and that his reputation must be defended at all costs. I was bemused by the comment that his reconstructed face was "not the face of a tyrant". What is a tyrant supposed to look like?
However, I understand that she was the prime mover behind this discovery, and I suppose if it wasn't for slightly eccentric people there would be very few significant breakthroughs in this world. So, in the context of the whole story, she deserves the highest praise for her dedication and commitment to her cause.
Talking about her cause: this discovery has exposed a woeful gap in my education. I seem to know next to nothing about Richard III, apart from what I have picked up over the last few days. So perhaps some of the contributors here could explain why they have such a high regard for this king?
I really would be most interested to learn more about this subject.
Yes, without Philippa none of this would have happened. She deserves much credit, as does John Ashdown-Hill for his research into DNA.
EE: Richard and the Wars of the Roses are fascinating. Have a look at the Richard III Society website www.richardiii.net and you'll find lots of information. I've been interested in Richard for many years, and the Society is very good, promoting research into his life and times.
eta: the Society also has a Facebook page.
[ 06. February 2013, 15:25: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
Posted by Pine Martin:
quote:
EE: Richard and the Wars of the Roses are fascinating.
Indeed, as the burst of interest in this news story shows. The first I ever heard about Richard was Eleanor and Herbert Farjeon's book of poems for children: Kings and Queens, first published in the 1930s and reissued several time thereafter.
The Farjeon's start with Edward V.
quote:
Alas for this nice little, poor little lad!
His reign was the shortest that any king had --
And if, gentle reader, you want to know why,
Turn to Richard the Third, and you'll find the reply.
quote:
Crookback Dick
Had nephews two,
Younger than me,
Older than you.
[snip]
Generations of cartoons and horror movies have confirmed this simplistic view, which I suspect remains the only impression that most people -- certainly outside the UK -- have of Richard. I hope the attention given to the discovery of his skeleton changes things.
[Edited to avoid possible copyright violations]
[ 06. February 2013, 16:42: Message edited by: Firenze ]
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
hanginginthere
Shipmate
# 17541
|
Posted
It is perfectly possible to have a Roman Catholic mass/funeral service in York Minster. I have been to several RC masses held there by courteous permission of the Dean and Chapter.
--------------------
'Safe?' said Mr Beaver. 'Who said anything about safe? But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.'
Posts: 72 | From: Eboracum | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
RoseofSharon opined:
quote:
my preferred villain in the Princes In The Tower story is Margaret Beaufort
I think this is spot on. She was Henry Tudor's mother, spawn of a bastard line whose later legitimation did not include succession rights. Derby, her husband, was a supposed ally of Richard, who failed to come to the king's aid at Bosworth. It was in Henry's interest that the boys disappeared, even more so than Richard's.
Here's another vote for Margaret Beaufort. She was renowned for her ruthless ambition for her family. But as history is written by the winners, and the Tudors - at that time - were the winners, it was very unlikely Tudor involvement with dark practices would've been seriously investigated, when one had a handy scapegoat like Richard to exploit.
From an historical point of view I think this is incredibly exciting. I'm not much of a monarchist - especially pre-modern monarchism - but the fact that such an important historical artefact has come to light is tremendous. I love the history of England's royals and protectors, governments and ordinary peoples down through the ages. Wonderful to have this new puzzle piece to fit into the jigsaw.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hanginginthere:
... Most soldiers killed in the field are taken home for burial.
That's a very recent development indeed, as evidenced by the large numbers of war cemeteries in France, the Dardanelles etc.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
True. If you got buried at all, it was where you fell. Transportation was only for kings. I may be about to visit the Chateau of Vincennes, where Henry V died and where, the guide book avers, they boiled him prior to sending him back to England.
('What's the soup of the day?
You don't want to know.')
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hanginginthere
Shipmate
# 17541
|
Posted
OK, general repatriation is a present-day development but
a) this is the present-day, and
b) he was a king.
--------------------
'Safe?' said Mr Beaver. 'Who said anything about safe? But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.'
Posts: 72 | From: Eboracum | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
Well, it has to be said that Ricardus Rex - whether you think him good or bad - is part of our history, and we have to respect him for that.
And, even from a Tudor point of view, he perhaps wasn't as bad as some. There's John, for instance. And Guillaume le Batarde was just that, in all senses.
But, another point. The skeleton showed signs of scoliosis - I'm no medic, but it looked pretty bad to me. And yet, Richard was, it seems, despite the scoliosis, physically strong and a formidable warrior; and, evidently, a man of magnificent courage in battle. That marks him out as something special.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So perhaps some of the contributors here could explain why they have such a high regard for this king?
I really would be most interested to learn more about this subject.
Well, for my part, I was an English major as an undergrad, and was specifically interested in English (as opposed to American) literature. So I got interested in Rchard III through Shakespeare's play, especially the astonishing second scene from Act 1 where Richard (then Gloster, as it's spelled in my edition), manages to maneuver Anne from murderous rage at him for the killing of her husband to accepting him as a suitor in the space of 15 minutes flat!
Of course, it was Shakespeare's incredible wit that captured me (though he does write amazing villains -- witness Iago) rather than any actual history, or particular regard for Richard, at the point.
Of course, while studying this play, I had to read what history had to offer. (And I must confess, I find the War of the Roses incredibly confusing. I've tried and tried, and I still can't untangle it).
While reading the historical material, I came across the Josephine Tey book. And I'm a sucker for an unresolved mystery.
That's what's kept me interested: what did happen to those two boys? It's that, more than any particular regard for Richard himself that attracts my attention.
But I do have to say that the medieval mind might well have been inclined to view Richard as evil (or at least suspect) simply on the basis of his disability; his scoliosis may have been regarded as a mark of divine disfavor -- if not aimed at him, then at his progenitors.
Actually, in some ways, the fact that the remains show evidence of scoliosis slightly confirms for me that Richard's reputation for evil may not have been earned so much as imposed.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
I also became intrigued with Richard III through Shakespeare's play. I think the reason I've felt more warmly about him than most who only know him through the play, is that the actor who played him (Bo Foxworth) was just so gosh-darned cute! Here is a not-very-good picture of him as Richard. He made a charming, devious bad guy.
(Last year I saw David Lee Jones in the part. He did a great job, but wasn't anywhere near as cute.)
At any rate, the play got me interested in Richard, and I'm absolutely delighted that he's been found.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Amazing news. I've been fascinated by Richard in the past, due to Shakespeare and that book -- is it The Thief of Time? I wish I could attend the ceremony . . .
I really don't understand why anyone gets worked up about the remains of someone who's been dead for over 500 years.
Just to muddy the waters - Richard III was a son of Northamptonshire; perhaps his bones should be interred in the contemporaneous village church - apparently it has been described as "a galleon of Perpendicular on a sea of corn" .
I thoroughly recommend Thief of Time however.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I really don't understand why anyone gets worked up about the remains of someone who's been dead for over 500 years.
. . .
I thoroughly recommend Thief of Time however.
Because at some level, R3 isn't dead. For good or ill, he formed a significant chunk of history -- shaped and influenced the world he left for "after-comers" to deal with.
As for the novel, I read the Tony Hillerman one. I've loved some of Pratchett's novels, while others left me cold. Haven't read his Thief of Time The book I was actually trying to reference, though, is The Daughter of Time by Tey.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
Originally posted by Porridge:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I really don't understand why anyone gets worked up about the remains of someone who's been dead for over 500 years.
Because at some level, R3 isn't dead. I presume we agree that, so far as anyone can tell, he's dead: but his actions still have consequences. For good or ill, he formed a significant chunk of history -- shaped and influenced the world he left for "after-comers" to deal with.
I understand that - I just don't see what that has to do with his bones.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Some people like great art. Some people like well-played football. Other people like tangible bits of history like bones.
Frankly, I don't get excited about association football, but that's just me.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Some people like great art. Some people like well-played football. Other people like tangible bits of history like bones.
Frankly, I don't get excited about association football, but that's just me.
Well said. What fascinates one person is a source of utter bewilderment to others.
The TV and popular press are full of stories that bore me rigid, but are clearly of substantial interest to a significant segment of the population.
Different strokes for different folks.
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Well, it has to be said that Ricardus Rex - whether you think him good or bad - is part of our history, and we have to respect him for that.
Yes, I've always thought that too. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 07. February 2013, 12:11: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I really don't understand why anyone gets worked up about the remains of someone who's been dead for over 500 years.
In part, and in this case in particular, it confirms debated/discussed details of his physical nature and death.
But really, it is about the tangible vs. the conceptual. Every step closer to actually experiencing something makes it more real to most people.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
geroff
Shipmate
# 3882
|
Posted
I would assume that the Exhumation Order stated that the remians be reinterred nearby. As the Friary no longer exists it would seem appropriate that he is buried at the parish church, ie St Martins Cathedral Church, Leicester.
--------------------
"The first principle in science is to invent something nice to look at and then decide what it can do." Rowland Emett 1906-1990
Posts: 1172 | From: Montgomeryshire, Wales | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
York Minster has now issued a statement here , so I guess all the wittering and petitions about where he should be buried can now cease.
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Good to see it was thought through ahead of time. To be honest, I think the fact that a religious order in Leicester buried in him in the first place is probably the strongest argument for having him reburied in the city.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
Richard III was a son of Northamptonshire...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) He was a son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York. He may have been *born* in Northamptonshire, but he spent quite a lot of his life in Yorkshire, his favourite estate was here and he was leader of the Council in the North (based in York) under Edward IV.
Royalty and nobility were fairly nomadic during the Middle Ages (due to the inadequacies of castle plumbing), but Richard III has more ties to Yorkshire than anywhere else.
Though I daresay if he'd won Bosworth and died in his bed of old age he'd have been buried in Westminster Abbey. And England might still be Catholic, because Henry VIII would never have been born ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So perhaps some of the contributors here could explain why they have such a high regard for this king?
I really would be most interested to learn more about this subject.
Could the enthusiasts actually answer this question please?
He was king for two years, over 500 years ago. He achieved nothing. He left no legacy apart from a suspicion that he was responsible for killing his nephews. Other monarchs with short reigns don't have societies committed to revisiting their memory. There is no Edward VI, Jane, Mary, James II or William IV society - unless one calls the RCC the Mary and James II Society ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) . Why this one?
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge
Because at some level, R3 isn't dead.
You mean like Elvis, Adolf Hitler or Lord Lucan?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think it's because he's interesting. And I'm sorry to say, a person who is either a) controversial or b) evil or c) both is going to be more interesting almost always than one who was a moral model.
Which is what makes Jesus such an oddity.
ETA: but then he fits under "controversial", doesn't he? I'm losing my marbles. (goes away)
[ 07. February 2013, 21:49: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So perhaps some of the contributors here could explain why they have such a high regard for this king?
I really would be most interested to learn more about this subject.
Could the enthusiasts actually answer this question please?
He was king for two years, over 500 years ago. He achieved nothing. He left no legacy apart from a suspicion that he was responsible for killing his nephews. Other monarchs with short reigns don't have societies committed to revisiting their memory. There is no Edward VI, Jane, Mary, James II or William IV society - unless one calls the RCC the Mary and James II Society . Why this one?
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge
Because at some level, R3 isn't dead.
You mean like Elvis, Adolf Hitler or Lord Lucan?
Because none of those other monarchs has been as slandered as much as Richard III. The interest in Richard III is largely to do with getting an accurate account of the king, and not the Tudor revisionism. I'm not quite sure why you're so angry/frustrated at others being interested in him...?
Within historical circles there certainly are those very interested in those monarchs you mentioned, Richard just captures public interest more.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not quite sure why you're so angry/frustrated at others being interested in him...?
Within historical circles there certainly are those very interested in those monarchs you mentioned, Richard just captures public interest more.
I think Enoch is persuaded that R3 is a cold-blooded child murderer and wishes we'd pay attention to Somebody Nice.
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... He left no legacy apart from a suspicion that he was responsible for killing his nephews ...
I think that's the whole point of our fascination with him: the irresistible combination of child-killing monster and unsolved mystery.
We'll probably never know the whole truth of the matter, but it's not going to stop people trying, and I say long may they continue.
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
I know I'm not the only one to become intrigued by him after seeing Shakespeare's play. The others on Enoch's list didn't get that kind of publicity.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Enoch: quote:
Could the enthusiasts actually answer this question please?
He was king for two years, over 500 years ago. He achieved nothing. He left no legacy apart from a suspicion that he was responsible for killing his nephews. Other monarchs with short reigns don't have societies committed to revisiting their memory. There is no Edward VI, Jane, Mary, James II or William IV society - unless one calls the RCC the Mary and James II Society. Why this one?
Ahem. This is only from Wiki, and others can say if they have it wrong but...
quote:
In December 1483, Richard instituted what later became known as the Court of Requests, a court to which poor people who could not afford legal representation could apply for their grievances to be heard.[55] He also introduced bail in January 1484, to protect suspected felons from imprisonment before trial and to protect their property from seizure during that time.[56] He founded the College of Arms in 1484,[57] he banned restrictions on the printing and sale of books,[58] and he ordered the translation of the written Laws and Statutes from the traditional French into English.[59]
Small claims court, bail, College of Arms, some sort of medieval freedom of the press, and the law translated into the vernacular. I'd say that was a reasonably good legacy for two years' work.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
