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
 
  #81  
Old 02-05-2013, 08:43 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Why the Duke of Gloucester?

-----------------------------
How fascinating is this discovery?! So we know that Richard had scoliosis but wasn't a hunchback or a monster so this might have a small impact on how he is viewed but not much I think.

To me he will be the brother who at the end of the day, let his brother down. Don't get me wrong, while alive he appeared to be a great supporter of Edward, but the whole Princes in the Tower thing seems to negate (at least to me) any good work he might have done.
The Duke of Gloucester is the Patron of the Richard III Society. Plus, King Richard had been the Duke of Gloucester prior to ascending to the Throne - just like his namesake, the current Duke of Gloucester. Wherever and whenever the burial is, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester will be there unless they have a prior engagement.

I am really amazed just how much this story resonated across the world. I mean, I expected a certain degree of interest in the UK and among history/royalty lovers worldwide but this has been just massive! Philippa called it surreal, and I agree with her.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-05-2013, 08:44 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Probably because HRH The Duke of Gloucester is Patron of the Richard III Society and of course holds the same title as Richard did before taking the throne. Also BP have aready announced that the events in Liecester have nothing to do with them so very unlikely QEII would ever attend.
Right now the City of York are claiming that the remains should be buried at York Minster and not in Liecester so it seems Richard III will still cause trouble centuries after he was killed in battle.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-05-2013, 08:55 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 1,887
Saw on another site a photo of the King's reconstructed face next to a photo of Robert Pattinson! Add a pageboy wig and Robert could be his twin. Perhaps the Pattinson family might want to take a closer look at their family tree.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-05-2013, 09:21 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,776
For those of you who find the character of Richard III compelling, author Josephine Tey wrote a mystery years ago called THE DAUGHTER OF TIME about Richard's culpability in the disappearance of the Princes. If you are a fan of mysteries, the plot and writing are among my favorites,
Tey situates her detective in hospital, unable to move after injury and he takes a look at the mystery of the Princes in the Tower to keep his mind active. The characters in the supporting cast are well written and the plot compelling - despite the fact that no one is in danger and no one get hurt because the mystery is centuries old. Critics loved the plotting but niggled at the facts as Tey presented them. Even knowing that, to this day this is a favorite rainy day read.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-05-2013, 09:42 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The man isn't a descendent of Richard III but of Richard's sister. There are also 1000s of descendants of Richard's brother still living including HM The Queen, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and many of the other royals across Europe.
Be that as it may, though there may be numerous descendants of the Plantagenent family existing, I would still find it mind-blowing if I were the particular descendant whose DNA confirmed that this was Richard III and to be the first to have a vis-à-vis look at his reconstruction.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Co...otoblog900.jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
For those of you who find the character of Richard III compelling, author Josephine Tey wrote a mystery years ago called THE DAUGHTER OF TIME about Richard's culpability in the disappearance of the Princes. If you are a fan of mysteries, the plot and writing are among my favorites,
Tey situates her detective in hospital, unable to move after injury and he takes a look at the mystery of the Princes in the Tower to keep his mind active. The characters in the supporting cast are well written and the plot compelling - despite the fact that no one is in danger and no one get hurt because the mystery is centuries old. Critics loved the plotting but niggled at the facts as Tey presented them. Even knowing that, to this day this is a favorite rainy day read.
I did read this book after it was mentioned on a related thread, and I found it to be a good cerebral mystery. Highly recommended for avid fans.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-05-2013, 09:57 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,717
Richard III was Duke of Gloucester before becoming King. The present Duke of Gloucester is the patron of the Richard III society as well.

And of course they are/were both originally Prince Richard.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-06-2013, 05:34 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,476
Perhaps we should have a brief look at the battle of Bosworth and how Richard the III was killed.
Please correct me if this is incorrect or outdated.

This was the last battle of the Wars of the Roses.
By now, 1485, Henry Tudor had gathered an army in France and landed in England and both armies was marching towards each other.
Richard III ought to have won, he had the largest army and he had more experience as a commander than Henry Tudor.
However, for various reasons Richard III had alienated large segments of the noble houses in England, who either defected to Henry Tudor or reluctantly joined Richard III.

22. August 1485. The armies met as Bosworth, a perfect ground for an medieval army, Richard III even commanded the highground, the odds were on his side.
His army was divided into divisions, one commanded by Northumberland and one division comming up under the command of Sir William Stanley.
Initially Henry Tudor's army was under pressure, but Northumberland's division remained passive (and actually later left the battle without taking part). Stanley's division was still on the march.
That meant that Richard III's much reduced army came under pressure. At that point Henry Tudor moved closer to the actual battle - within charging distance. Richard III who at this point was still positioned on a hill, led a do or die charge towards Henry Tudor personally. The momentum of the charge meant that Richard III got so close that he personally killed Henry Tudor's standard bearer, William Brandon. Henry Tudor refused to retreat and by now his escort had reorganised and a furious melee started.

This is also about the time that Stanley's division arrived and instead of attacking Henry Tudor, they sided with him. The situation was now unwinnable for Richard III, with Northumberland in his back, retreating from the battlefield, and the combined forces of Henry Tudor and Stanley to his front and flank.
By this time Richard III was cut off from most of his escort and unhorsed. This is the scene of "A horse. My kingdom for a horse". Here he was set upon, most likely by men from Stanley's division. His standard bearer, one of the less than a handful of retainers who were still with him, was killed and the king overwhelmed and most likely hacked to death. He did go down fighting the chroniclers tell.

The actual fighting differed very considerably from the Hundred Year War, that preceeded the Wars of the Roses.
During the Hundred Year War nothing happened most of the time. Litterally.
The war mainly consisted of raids, small scale skirmishes and sieges here end there. And every few years there was a battle. The major battles took place about once every generation. - That was typical of the all the professionally conducted meideval wars, albeit stretched out on a much longer time scale.
The fighting apart from raiding and patrol skirmishes was dominated by archers and crossbowmen, and close combat was reduced, simply because it was problematic to close in with the enemy.

That changed with the Wars of the Roses. This was warfare every young knight dreamed of. None of the sides were particular interested in raiding as no one had any interest in devastating the land. They did after all need to pay for their armies!
The campaigns were also shorter and didn't include that much skirmishing, for the simple reason that armies, and these were professional armies, were insanely expensive! So a campaign usually culminated in a battle leading to a temporary polictical result, which people had to live with, until the next conflict started.
At Bosworth the campaign and political situation was final and the Tudor dynasty started.

This was also the highmark of the full medieval armour suits. Being very expensive, they were also extremely sophisticated weighing 25-35 kilos, which meant that a fit man could move, run and jump without difficulty.
By this time shields were rarely used. If they were used at all, they were used by cavalry during a charge, usually to be discarded after an attack - or at tournaments but that's a very different story.
The sword was still the high status weapon but on the battle field it had by now been reduced to a back-up weapon. Mounted knights used mainly mazes and warhammers and to a lesser degree axes, once their lance had been discarded. All weapons designed to smash through armour or to break bones and harm tissue under the armour.
The professional footsoldiers were surprisingly well armoured but also very mobile and their favorite weapons were staff weapons, bills, pole axes and the emerging halberds. They were efficient murderous looking weapon and any knight, no matter how well armoured he was, was in serious trouble if set upon by a group of infantry. That's what happened to Richard III.

Richard III had scoliosis to some degree, obviously not enough to handicap him on the battlefield and as he was well armoured and the tactic didn't require fighting in dense formations it wouldn't have meant that much - unless you are unhorsed and outnumbered.
An initial cavalry charge would normally be with the visor of the helmet down, mainly as a protection against arrows, but it reduces visibillity and breathing very considerably. So once the first contact had taken place and the melee had started most flung open their visors.
Close combat was short. Even the most fit man couldn't fight for more than five-ten, at the very most fifteen minutes in such a melee before being completely exchausted. By then a division either retreated to catch their breath, just like their opponents, or broke. And that meant that the exchausted men were killed off with ease or taken prisoner.
A lost battle usually ended in a rout, where fleeing men were cut down by persuing cavalry suffering massive casualties.

An examination of a mass grave of victims of the battle at Towton in 1461, showed that all, every single one, of the around 100 skeletons found had at least one wound to the head, apart from the (usually) other wounds on their bodies. That led to the conclusion that most had been killed during a rout, where they had thrown away their helmets or that they had been finished of by a final stab or a blow to the head - consitent with what you might expect a professional soldier of that time to do.

Even up to the Napoleonic wars it was perfectly normal to rob and strip the fallen and dying on a battlefield. So just a couple of days after the battle the field would have been littered with halfnaked mangled corpses. And as the battle took place in August decomposing would have started to set in and that combined with carrion birds would have meant that already by now indentification would have been very difficult.
So even if Richard III's body was treated with disrespect and just tossed in a grave, it might also be for the simple fact that he was just another unidentified body among many.

Well, if you made it this far, you are probably a medieval-geek like me.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-06-2013, 05:52 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
...
Well, if you made it this far, you are probably a medieval-geek like me.
I totally am. And that was a great read. I would like to add only one thing: Richard III's personal courage during the battle was marked by almost all historians, including pro-Tudor ones. In fact, he was called the only gentleman on the battlefield for his valour.

I'll never understand why Richard trusted the Stanley brothers though. I mean, one of them was married to Margaret Beaufort (Henry Tudor's mother) and the other was about to lose significant portion of his lands due to Richard's ruling in favour of his opponent. Why leave around 6,000 people under their command? Even bearing in mind he had Lord Stanley's son held as a hostage, that was no guarantee on the batterfield.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-06-2013, 06:09 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
I totally am. And that was a great read. I would like to add only one thing: Richard III's personal courage during the battle was marked by almost all historians, including pro-Tudor ones. In fact, he was called the only gentleman on the battlefield for his valour.

I'll never understand why Richard trusted the Stanley brothers though. I mean, one of them was married to Margaret Beaufort (Henry Tudor's mother) and the other was about to lose significant portion of his lands due to Richard's ruling in favour of his opponent. Why leave around 6,000 people under their command?
Well, perhaps as at least one author suggests, Richard the III was a man of honour and as such a poor politician, who actually trusted people to stand by their word.
The Stanley's had pledged loyalty and Richard III, somewhat naive perhaps, expected people would not break an oath.
He appears to have reacted with anger, even outrage, when allies acted in a more "politically sound" matter. Ie. being unreliable. His inabillity to understand how politics works may have been his undoing.

Richard III certainly was not in the same league as his older brother and IRC he admitted that himself.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-06-2013, 07:09 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 514
Not being familiar with The War of the Roses, could someone explain simply why Henry Tudor had a claim to the throne? I know he was descended from Catherine of Valois and later married the sister of the Princes in the tower, but as far as I can tell he had no descent from the Platagents
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 02-06-2013, 07:17 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 9,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearghas View Post
Not being familiar with The War of the Roses, could someone explain simply why Henry Tudor had a claim to the throne? I know he was descended from Catherine of Valois and later married the sister of the Princes in the tower, but as far as I can tell he had no descent from the Platagents

I believe it was through the line of his mother,Lady Margaret Beaufort,who was a descendant of Edward III .
__________________
December 5th,2014 -Death of H.M.Queen Fabiola of Belgium
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-06-2013, 07:21 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearghas View Post
Not being familiar with The War of the Roses, could someone explain simply why Henry Tudor had a claim to the throne? I know he was descended from Catherine of Valois and later married the sister of the Princes in the tower, but as far as I can tell he had no descent from the Platagents
Henry's father, Edmund Tudor was indeed the son of Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor and thus half-brother to Henry VI.

Henry Tudor was, however, of Plantagenet line though his mother, Margaret Beaufort as a great-great-great-grandson of Edward III of England:
Edward III -> John of Gaunt -> John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset -> John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset -> Lady Margaret Beaufort -> Henry Tudor

The War of Roses saw most of those who had solid claims to the Throne murdered on the battlefield or executed so although there were several people with better claims to the Throne by rules of primogeniture, Henry's claims by blood weren't too shabby either. The only problem is, Henry Tudor couldn't have any claims to the Throne from the legal point of view: Margaret Beaufort may have been a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt but it was through an illegitimate line. John of Gaunt (third surviving son of Edward III) had a bunch of children with his mistress Katherine Swynford. He later married Katherine and an Act of Parliament legitimised those children. However, a subsequent Act specifically barred them or any of their descendants from ever ascending to the Throne of England.

Basically, Henry's claim to the Throne was by right of conquest and supported by a royal lineage, not unlike that of William the Conqueror.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-06-2013, 07:48 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
The War of Roses saw most of those who had solid claims to the Throne murdered on the battlefield or executed so although there were several people with better claims to the Throne by rules of primogeniture, Henry's claims by blood weren't too shabby either. The only problem is, Henry Tudor couldn't have any claims to the Throne from the legal point of view: Margaret Beaufort may have been a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt but it was through an illegitimate line. John of Gaunt (third surviving son of Edward III) had a bunch of children with his mistress Katherine Swynford. He later married Katherine and an Act of Parliament legitimised those children. However, a subsequent Act specifically barred them or any of their descendants from ever ascending to the Throne of England.

Basically, Henry's claim to the Throne was by right of conquest and supported by a royal lineage, not unlike that of William the Conqueror.
Which is probably also why the Tudors, with the aide of Shakespeare, were so busy tarnishing the image of Richard III.
It was seen as justifiable to overthrow a tyrant in medieval time, but an otherwise legal king.... That was from a moral standpoint a bit harder to justify!
Which is why all rebels or usurpers, no matter what, made sure to declare the king a tyrant - or at least that the king had been misguided or put under the spell of someone else.

I don't think Richard III was an innocent little lamb, but perhaps he wasn't so bad as his legacy suggests.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-06-2013, 09:33 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Maybe there is truth in it that his eldest brother was not his father's son and Richard knew that. Surely he didn't want to blame his mother in public - in medieval times a mother and a lady who had been a "Royal womb" could get away with close to anything. As things were, his brother secured the victory for the Yorkists and thus Richard supported him. Maybe he really believed either that his brother hab been plight trothed to another lady when he married Elizabeth Woodville. Thus after his brother's death he might have felt that it was in fact himself who had the best claim to the throne and enforced titulus regius. When Henry Tudor contested his kingship he might have wanted to enforce a final confrontation in order to secure his claim once and for all, believing that if he really was the rightful king, then the Lord would protect him.

Just an idea, though.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-06-2013, 01:47 PM
Duchess of Durham's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 619
Last year I read "Stolen Crown: The Secret Marriage that Forever Changed the Fate of England" by Susan Higginbotham - it was free on the Nook so figured what the heck. Had no idea how handy it would be to me now as the book is about Elizabeth Woodville's marriage to Edward IV and included the aftermath of Edward's death.

Obviously I am no expert on this period of English history, though am now fascinated. Any thoughts on what would have happened to England had the two princes not been declared illegitimate and disappeared?

Any theories on who was ultimately responsible for their disappearance? IIRC, Richard was instrumental in getting them declared illegitimate, I'm not sure he really would have had his nephews killed.

This is probably the biggest historical find we are likely to see in our lifetime, which makes it so intriguing for me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-06-2013, 02:06 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Well, perhaps as at least one author suggests, Richard the III was a man of honour and as such a poor politician, who actually trusted people to stand by their word.
Hmmmm, if Richard was indeed responsible for the Princes in the Tower and for their death then perhaps "man of honour" is not the most apt description of the man.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-06-2013, 02:16 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess of Durham View Post
Obviously I am no expert on this period of English history, though am now fascinated. Any thoughts on what would have happened to England had the two princes not been declared illegitimate and disappeared?
It's really hard to predict what would have happened if the Princes in the Tower didn't die and sired children. In all probability, the Tudors would never come anywhere near the Throne. That might mean the Reformation would never take place and England would still be a Catholic country. The English Revolution, the Act of Settlement, the British Empire, the progresses and outcomes of both World Wars - all of that could have been different for better or for worse.

Quote:
Any theories on who was ultimately responsible for their disappearance? IIRC, Richard was instrumental in getting them declared illegitimate, I'm not sure he really would have had his nephews killed.
You might want to have a look at this thread - Edward V (1470-1483?) and Prince Richard (1473-1483?): the Princes in the Tower. Some of the posts deal with possible culprits; the likeliest candidates are Henry Tudor, the Duke of Buckingham, Margaret Beaufort and of course Richard III.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-06-2013, 02:32 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Hmmmm, if Richard was indeed responsible for the Princes in the Tower and for their death then perhaps "man of honour" is not the most apt description of the man.
Indeed, the same author, Christopher Gravett, suggests Richard III may have had serious problems with the rumours about the princes in regards to his (few) genuine allies.
But honourable in the sense that he was a man who stood by his word, once given. He was IMO no doubt perfectly able and willing to be as ruthless and brutal as anyone else.

It would be fantastic if they ever found the remains of the Princes.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-06-2013, 02:57 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
It would be fantastic if they ever found the remains of the Princes.
They probably have. In 1789 coffins of two small children were found in the Tower.
Unfortunately, the Church and the Queen won't allow any testing on the remains to determine whether they belong to the Princes or not.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-06-2013, 03:35 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
They probably have. In 1789 coffins of two small children were found in the Tower.
Unfortunately, the Church and the Queen won't allow any testing on the remains to determine whether they belong to the Princes or not.
Have they said why they won't allow the testing?
__________________

__________________
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





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:17 AM.

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]