Richard III

That is probably why they visit the Uk in their thousands I suppose whitewave, that and the fabulous architecture and scenery.

We must also remember that Richard III had a Catholic burial by the Greyfriars, 500 years ago. So his soulless was redeemed. x

Good point J52.

There is a wonderful symmetry in the fact that it was proved the body was that of Richard III using DNA. DNA being largely the result of work done at Leicester University!

Well, the event finally made out local rag here- there is a lot of interest from abroad. The father of a friend of mine here used to be a real British history buff- and he loved talking about all the great historical places of the Midlands. Perhaps a good resting place for Richard would have been the magical small village of Fotheringhay- where he was born, adn where Mary Queen of Scotts was executed for treason.

But that debate has long gone- so Leicester it is, whether we like it or not. I am looking forward to visiting the site when I next visit.

Prof Jeffrey did was indeed the discoverer of DNA finger printing. A very 'ordinary', friendly and humble man, despite his fame- which we always admired, and who sent his kids to the local Comprehensive.

(apologies for the terrible English- I type very fast, and really must check before pressing on 'send' sorry!). What a pity GN will not allow editing!

Well the Daily Mail article is well up to the standard we have all learned to love! What a lot of uninformed garbage! There is no evidence that Richard personally stabbed Henry VI. He may or may not have ordered the killing of the princes but Henry VII wiped out practically the whole Plantagenet dynasty, including the Duke of Clarence's unfortunate son who was the true heir to the throne having been named by Richard instead of his own illegitimate son. As a king Richard would have been far better than Henry Tudor - inventor of Morton's Fork and The Star Chamber!

Mid week, radio 4, is discussing the search for Richard 111 with the Leicester University archaeologists. X

Deedaa Surely we have to keep an open mind as none of us were there?

It's only 'uniformed garbage' because it's not your point of view.

Deedaa I was surprised to read the DM article as they have covered the finding of the body and subsequent events quite well. This person obviously has his own ideas and I am surprised they published it without giving an alternative viewpoint from someone who is 'pro-Richard'.
Or perhaps they think they have done that previously.

Well my family, friends and neighbours went to Dadlngton, it is our locality so they didn't have to travel far. They were all very pleased they went.

It is reported that 4-5 'thousand' people attended this tiny village area so I think a lot of people were interested and I like that. It was good for the local school children to be able to attend as they are taught in school the history of the area they reside in, naturally. Obviously the history of the Battle of Bosworth is something you just learn about when you come from the surrounding area, the same as those who live in Bath know all about the Roman Baths for example.

Some people say it was overkill and costly but was it really? It was not a day of massive extravaganza, I thought It was quite low key in some parts actually.. The service at Fenn Lane farm, Stoke Golding was a private, very understated affair. The route from there to Dadlngton and Sutton Cheney was relevant and obviously the Bosworth Battlefield was going to be part of it too. The scene of the Bosworth Battlefield was not a costly affair as there is a strong re-enactment society who put on shows regularly and obviously this was manna for them. I didn't think the service at Leicester was that extravagant either, must be me.

All in all I thought it was a respectful day but I understand those who have a totally opposite view .

I just think that anyone using Shakespeare as a basis for historical fact is pretty uninformed. He never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

And the facts had already been filtered by the Tudor propagandists.

Whoever said that history is written by the victors is so right. In this case I reckon Margaret Beaufort ordered the killing of the princes and the Tudors wrote the history. I'm just re-reading Philippa Gregory's book about all this and it is very interesting. I would tell you what it is called but my kindle is charging somewhere else and I'm too tired to go and get it. Deedaa is right, of course, that our Will would have fitted the facts to his story rather than the other way around. I'll stop now as I'm probably making no sense at all.

Wasn't Thomas More on of the main sources of Shakespeare's play? His account of the life and times of Richard III was not contemporaneous and rather a long way from unbiased.

Just because a person fervently believes something does not make it true.

We don't know all the facts, even well-researched historians differ, and we may never know the truth.

I'm not sure that Thomas More is that reliable as he would only have been 7 years old at the time of the battle of Bosworth! He was certainly relating/slanting these events for the benefit of the Tudor kings to shore up their tenuous claim to the crown, and quieten any dissenting voices. As for the Princes, I find it hard to believe that Richard was totally unaware of their fate, but it certainly suited a number of ambitious people that they had 'disappeared' including Henry Tudor! Illegitimacy could be reversed as was the case with the Prince's sister/s in order for Henry to marry Elizabeth! So if they had lived, insurrection would have been a constant threat whoever was on the throne, so, like poor Jane Grey, they had, like her, perhaps regretfully, to be permanently removed. Why their bodies weren't produced under the pretext of natural death, common enough in those days, which would have taken the onus off Richard IS a mystery! The bodies were supposed to have been moved after their original disposal, so perhaps Richard simply didn't know where they were, lost without trace so to speak! If Henry Tudor found the alive and had them murdered, why did he get so hung up over Perkin Warbeck, as he would have known he was an imposter?! This would indicate that there was no sign of them after Bosworth, so back to Richard, and the mysteries deepens!!

Oh my God! I was beginning to think today's service was becoming a bit of a farce, as perhaps, the whole week's events have been. But then, that poem by Carol Ann Duffey! Made it all seem right!

Is this, perhaps a good time to mention a possible meet up in Leicester in May if people are interested?

Well you pick a date early, and I'll try and be there.

Just got back from the Cathederal, not many people were gathered outside so we could see quite well. There was a big screen, showing the service, but it was drizzling and cold.

John Lewis had it on their TV screens, so I went there for coffee and mooched about watching it in the dry! I did buy something, as well!

x

In my teens, I was impressed with Josephine Tey's 'Daughter of Time', in which her detective, laid up with a broken leg (I think), researches the history behind the princes in the tower and reputed villainy of Richard III. So I have decided that this is a good time to revisit this excellent book which I have now acquired for my Kindle and is now on my TBR list.

Thanks Anno- will look for it and read.

I did not realise it was all going on this week with the procession etc and I was busy with baby minding but I would have gone otherwise.
I watched the reinternment ceremony it was very moving.

On a forum I was on when the remains were first found there were a number of people who thought it would be an undignified jamboree.
I was very impressed by the way the City of Leicester and the Cathedral handled it all.
I might be a wee bit biased as it is my birthplace.

Richard was no better or worse than many others during the period of the wars of the roses. As others have said The first 2 Tudors were a lot more ruthless.

In his two years in power Richard made some very good laws to protect the interests of the common people.

www.richardiiiboarandbanner.com/richard_iii_lawmaker.html

I think that what he is alleged to have done is no worse than was usual in those times as you say, Nelliemoser. Thank goodness it is not the norm in this country today.
And would a jury convict him today on what is circumstantial evidence?

I read Alison Weir talking about the way that Josephine Tey was very selective with the evidence she used. However she does make people realise that being an historian doesn't make you infallible. The Daughter of Time is still a good read and is a good basis for judging other people's ideas against.

I'm not sure how Richard became our most maligned monarch when King John goes almost un noticed.