The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 08-20-2013, 06:14 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 8,787
Richard III: Leicester mayor rejects 'arrogance' charge


BBC News - Richard III: Leicester mayor rejects 'arrogance' charge
__________________

__________________
4th of August 1900 : Birth of H.M.Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 08-20-2013, 05:17 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 655
My personal opinion is that he should be buried in York, where he wished to be, and with a full Catholic funeral mass, at that. Whatever he was, Richard was England’s anointed king - anointed and crowned King at a grand, solemn and very well-attended ceremony at Westminster Abbey on July 6 1483, and he was of course a Catholic. He was also, in fact, austerely religious, a public benefactor and protector of the Church, a founder of charities, who throughout his life upheld a strict code of sexual morality, in marked contrast to many of his fellow courtiers. He was also an extremely popular King who some dearly loved; the preferences, then, of the large number of his collateral descendents should be respected, just as he respected others' wishes and opinions.

However, it seems likely that he will be buried in Leicester and according to the current formal religious rites of the Anglican Church. Whatever the final decision I hope that he is interred with full regal honours and as soon as possible to mitigate any further fruitless controversy attending the dignity of this good man, particularly as he wasn't only killed, he was brutalised in quite horrific ways and his body forced into a hole in the ground not large enough to accommodate it. This last is unheard of treatment of a King defeated in battle almost everywhere in the world, ever.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 08-20-2013, 05:42 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baroness of Books View Post
Thank you for those salient points, Polly. I also read Daughter of Time and found it very engrossing and compelling in its arguments.

Me too; for a long time, it put me firmly in Richard's corner.

However, as I read more about it, it really became obvious that Richard was the most likely suspect. We will probably never know for certain, but it's difficult to see how anyone else could have done it (at least without Richard's knowledge).

Then too, the fact remains that he made himself king in place of his young nephew (a fact rather at odds with his reputation for high moral principles).
The grounds (that Edward's marriage was not legal) was decidedly shaky; Elizabeth Woodville was his acknowledged Queen for many years.

If Richard was capable of usurping the throne in the first place, then why not of killing other potential claiments?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 08-20-2013, 06:03 PM
cmbruno's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 436
The problem here is that Edward himself might have been a bastard. A possible scenario is that Richard did not want his mother to be shamed, so he preferred to use the argument that his brother's marriage was not legal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 08-20-2013, 09:44 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,145
The keyword is might have been.

Edward ruled as king for years; if he was a bastard, well, it would hardly matter after all that time, even if Richard had any proof (which he hadn't).

Nor can I see Proud Cis, as Cecily Neville was known, foisting off a bastard on her husband.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 08-20-2013, 09:46 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,768
Even if he had been born out of wedlock, Edward's father accepted him as his son which makes him legitimate.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 08-21-2013, 10:10 AM
cmbruno's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 436
Edward's father may have accepted him as legit (if that was the case) but the story might have been different for greedy subjects of that time. And we don't know if Richard had any proof. I think it is very strange that Cecily Neville also supported her second born George in all his schemes against Edward.
As Mirabel wrote, Edward ruled as king for years, he was king foremost because he had conquered the right (as Henry VII did).
But you know what, I am all for Richard.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 08-21-2013, 08:26 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,768
There was never any solid proof about Edward IV's illegitimacy, just a lot of scurrilous rumors that George of Clarence and others capitalized on to discredit Edward later in his reign for their own agenda. Then was revealed the pre-contract to marriage to Eleanor Butler that cast his own children with illegitimacy. And while Edward did rule by right of conquest, he had stronger claim to the throne than did Henry VII who sat on a shaky throne and had to quell insurrection and claimants all through his reign having come from an illegitimate branch of the family. Henry also ensured he married Elizabeth of York to bolster his claim to the throne, although he won it by battle.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 08-22-2013, 07:29 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 8,787
Treachery: What really brought down Richard III

Treachery: What really brought down Richard III | History Extra
__________________
4th of August 1900 : Birth of H.M.Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 08-22-2013, 08:41 AM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
Treachery: What really brought down Richard III
Treachery: What really brought down Richard III | History Extra
All is fair in LOVE and WAR..Isnt it..
__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 08-22-2013, 03:48 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,768
Oh, those Stanleys, hugging the sidelines watching the way the Battle of Bosworth turned and throwing their forces behind the winning side which was Henry Tudor's. What's that adage? Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. I think Richard kept them a little bit too close with disastrous results, knowing that they were capable of betrayal.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:43 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 199
Sigh. Richard III was no more a hunchback than Princess Eugenie of York, Elizabeth Taylor, Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps. He had scoliosis and unless you saw him shirtless you would have hardly noticed. He was also a notable and formidable warrior both on horseback and on foot - with the heavy battle-axe his weapon of choice. Even his enemies recognized that. No "cripple" he. BTW, I have scoliosis too and no one has noticed unless or until I've said something.

And as for the parasites, well, I'm pretty sure most people - rich or poor - in the 15th Century had more wildlife following them around (internally or externally) than most of us would ever want to know about. We just haven't had the opportunity to study their remains in such depth.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 09-04-2013, 02:41 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 8,787
The intestinal parasites of King Richard III

The intestinal parasites of King Richard III
__________________
4th of August 1900 : Birth of H.M.Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 09-04-2013, 06:38 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,768
Ugh! I'll bet he thought Henry Tudor was his only problem.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 09-05-2013, 12:03 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
The intestinal parasites of King Richard III

The intestinal parasites of King Richard III
If you read the actual article in the Lancet and not the summaries and quotations in other publications, you are told that almost everyone, rich or poor, in the 15th Century had multiple parasites: roundworm, tapeworm, liver flukes, lice, etc. Richard III was actually rather unique in that he ONLY had trichinosis (roundworm). Even today, an estimated 25% of the world's population has intestinal parasites, and not all of them live in third-world conditions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 09-05-2013, 07:01 AM
Carminha Stalker's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Posts: 1,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
My personal opinion is that he should be buried in York, where he wished to be, and with a full Catholic funeral mass, at that. Whatever he was, Richard was England’s anointed king - anointed and crowned King at a grand, solemn and very well-attended ceremony at Westminster Abbey on July 6 1483, and he was of course a Catholic. He was also, in fact, austerely religious, a public benefactor and protector of the Church, a founder of charities, who throughout his life upheld a strict code of sexual morality, in marked contrast to many of his fellow courtiers. He was also an extremely popular King who some dearly loved; the preferences, then, of the large number of his collateral descendents should be respected, just as he respected others' wishes and opinions.

However, it seems likely that he will be buried in Leicester and according to the current formal religious rites of the Anglican Church. Whatever the final decision I hope that he is interred with full regal honours and as soon as possible to mitigate any further fruitless controversy attending the dignity of this good man, particularly as he wasn't only killed, he was brutalised in quite horrific ways and his body forced into a hole in the ground not large enough to accommodate it. This last is unheard of treatment of a King defeated in battle almost everywhere in the world, ever.
I agree with you totally. He would have the dignity that wasn´t accorded to him when he died and was buried ina hole.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 09-05-2013, 07:15 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 8,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baroness of Books View Post
Ugh! I'll bet he thought Henry Tudor was his only problem.
I know I made the mistake of reading that before I was about to eat,needless to say I went off my food
__________________
4th of August 1900 : Birth of H.M.Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 09-06-2013, 10:23 AM
lady of hay's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: around the uk, United Kingdom
Posts: 214
Just to throw another hat into the ring as it were, I have it on good authority that the exhumation licence was applied and paid for by Phillipa Langley :-)
__________________
Truth is the daughter of time.
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 09-06-2013, 02:15 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
Do the 'modern Brits' really care for all this reburial stuff?
How serious and imporatant it will be when its carried out?
Will it be a National Service with the Prime Minister and Prince of Wales is attendance?
__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 09-06-2013, 02:34 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
Do the 'modern Brits' really care for all this reburial stuff?
How serious and imporatant it will be when its carried out?
Will it be a National Service with the Prime Minister and Prince of Wales is attendance?
I'm not from the UK but I can almost guarantee that Richard III's reburial will not be a state occasion. I do think it'll be done as a proper burial and a memorial to a king though. I've no clue how interested Charles or any royal other than the Duke of Gloucester would attend. The Duke would most likely attend as he is involved in the Richard III Society.
__________________

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman poland pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:24 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]