HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Discuss Richard III and t...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:22 PM

Discuss Richard III and the War of the Roses

This week's news that Richard's body has been positively identified got me reading up on the War of the Roses.

Some thoughts:

- This was a war where high nobles and even kings personally fought in the battles. Nasty, backstabbing bastards that they were, they did put their own a$$es on the line.
- It was not good to be on the losing end left on the battlefield after the fight, especially if you were a noble or royal. Neck, meet axe - right there on the bloody battlefield.
- It's hard to keep track of just how many times Warwick, Clarence, and so many other characters switched sides and stabbed each other in the back.
- Edward IV, despite his reputation as some sort of halfway decent monarch, murdered poor King Henry VI
- Yes, Richard had the two princes murdered
- Henry VII and his goddawful Tudor line - with the possible exception of Elizabeth I - were murderous squatters
- Richard's supporters, up through today, claim that his historical reputation as a monster has been due to Tudor-inspired propaganda, such as Shakepeare's Richard III, and that you can't trust most of the Tudor contemporary history written about him. However, the positive identification of his remains is entirely consistent with what the Tudor "propagandists" wrote concerning his death: that Richard was killed in battle, that he was buried in a Greyfriars unmarked grave, clothes removed, and that he had a serious back deformity.

83 replies, 4946 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 83 replies Author Time Post
Reply Discuss Richard III and the War of the Roses (Original post)
brentspeak Feb 2013 OP
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #1
shenmue Feb 2013 #3
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #4
PDJane Feb 2013 #51
UTUSN Feb 2013 #2
ananda Feb 2013 #5
brentspeak Feb 2013 #8
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #11
ananda Feb 2013 #13
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #16
SheilaT Feb 2013 #52
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #55
MattBaggins Feb 2013 #6
msanthrope Feb 2013 #21
Blue_In_AK Feb 2013 #7
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #9
CatWoman Feb 2013 #10
brentspeak Feb 2013 #75
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #12
Spider Jerusalem Feb 2013 #14
madinmaryland Feb 2013 #17
brentspeak Feb 2013 #19
Spider Jerusalem Feb 2013 #22
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #26
frogmarch Feb 2013 #15
aquart Feb 2013 #29
frogmarch Feb 2013 #46
aquart Feb 2013 #34
frogmarch Feb 2013 #48
flamingdem Feb 2013 #18
AnnieBW Feb 2013 #20
CatWoman Feb 2013 #23
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #57
AnnieBW Feb 2013 #80
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #81
AnnieBW Feb 2013 #82
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #83
aquart Feb 2013 #30
cali Feb 2013 #24
aquart Feb 2013 #28
cali Feb 2013 #31
aquart Feb 2013 #35
cali Feb 2013 #36
aquart Feb 2013 #38
cali Feb 2013 #41
aquart Feb 2013 #42
cali Feb 2013 #45
lapislzi Feb 2013 #49
cliffordu Feb 2013 #25
JimDandy Feb 2013 #33
Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #54
JimDandy Feb 2013 #60
Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #61
AmBlue Feb 2013 #69
JimDandy Feb 2013 #73
aquart Feb 2013 #27
joesdaughter Feb 2013 #32
d_r Feb 2013 #37
aquart Feb 2013 #44
Skittles Feb 2013 #39
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #59
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #40
aquart Feb 2013 #43
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #64
dsc Feb 2013 #77
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #47
frogmarch Feb 2013 #50
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #53
Moonwalk Feb 2013 #56
tavernier Feb 2013 #58
randome Feb 2013 #62
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #63
cali Feb 2013 #65
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #72
cali Feb 2013 #78
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #79
Cyrano Feb 2013 #66
DearAbby Feb 2013 #67
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #71
brentspeak Feb 2013 #74
DearAbby Feb 2013 #76
JoDog Feb 2013 #68
jpak Feb 2013 #70

Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:26 PM

1. Hey, now. You watch what you say about Henry VII!

He's my g-g-g-g-g-g-(etc)-grandfather.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:27 PM

3. Wow!

So are you officially umpteenth in line for the throne? Cool!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shenmue (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:29 PM

4. That's probably umpteen-bazillionth, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:23 PM

51. My father claims that lineage, too.

Frankly, I think he was a reincarnation of Henry VIII. If the theory is correct, Henry VIII was bi-polar, and a son-of-a-bitch to live with.


This is, of course, speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:27 PM

2. Why, again?! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:44 PM

5. Weelll...

There were two rival Plantagenet houses, one of the York White Rose and the other the Lancastrian Red Rose. In the Shakespeare version, first Hotspur was on top but then he was rolled over and Bolingbroke was on top. Lancaster wins. Real history of course is much different and more complex than that, but it was all pretty much up when the little princes were killed in the tower.

So.. who had the princes killed?

First, Josephine Tey's mystery novel *The Daughter of Time* claims that Richard III was innocent of the dastardly deed of having the cute little princes smothered (strangled or drowned). Tey's vote was for Richmond/Henry VII.

But then comes along a history book by Alison Weir called *The Princes in the Tower* which argues the case against Richard. So maybe he was the cuprit and that Shakespeare was right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:11 PM

8. There's the theory that Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, killed the princes

The theory being that Buckingham himself would then be a step closer to the throne with Edward V out of the way. But testing that theory, why then throw his lot in with Henry Tudor, who had an equal claim to be king? Doesn't add up. But it's possible that Buckingham, before breaking with Richard, might have knowledge of the killings or even advised Richard to proceed with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:22 PM

11. Hotspur was never 'on top' (even in Shakespeare); he was not royal

He was from the Percy family, the earls of Northumberland. First 'on top' was Richard II, son of the Black Prince, Edward III's oldest son. Henry IV, another grandson (via John of Gaunt, 3rd son of Edward III) deposed Richard II, with the Percys' help, and established the Lancaster line. The Percys rebelled (unsuccessfully) when they didn't get the favours they expected from Henry IV.

The Yorks derived their claim via Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence, and 2nd son of Edward III. He died before his father, but his daughter's family (one of whom probably should have succeeded Richard II, by the strict laws of succession, which allowed succession through a female line, but not succession by a woman herself) married into the House of York, who were descended from Edward III's 4th son, and it's via Clarence that the Yorks made their claim to the throne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issue_of_Edward_III_of_England

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:27 PM

13. Disconfusion.

Remember, Shakespeare's version is not pure history but pure drama.

Also consider, "on top" can mean winning the war without consideration of any designation of royalty per se. Think in terms of a metaphorical wrestling match.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:41 PM

16. Well, to say Hotspur was on top at first would be to come in half way through

the story of Henry IV. There may have been some time when it looked like his rebellion would succeed, but neither he nor his father was ever in control of England; and his rebellion wasn't part of the Wars of the Roses, either. The Yorkists didn't make their claim until well into Henry VI's reign, and it was unconnected to the Percys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:36 PM

52. Thanks for bringing up

Daughter of Time. It's an amazing book on many levels, and everyone who thinks Richard did it (or had the boys killed) really should read it. I read the Alison Weir book also, and she left out all the evidence that Tey brings up against Richard's guilt. She basically asks the legal question, Who Benefits? And the notion that Richard was responsible wasn't out there until a long time later, when the Tudors really needed to scrub away some of the nastiness around their coup.

The two Henry Tudors systematically murdered anyone with any reasonable claim to the throne, which even included the beheading of Margaret Pole in 1541. She was 67 at the time, and was being sentenced on totally false and trumped up charges. She did not go quietly to her execution, and grown men had to forceably hold her down for the execution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #52)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:00 PM

55. +1

Given his character, as illustrated by Tey and his actual actions (as opposed to alleged actions that we hear about from Tudor allies and historians), Richard didn't do it.

Many other heirs, including other Woodville children like Elizabeth (who eventually married Henry VII) were all walking around free and very much alive when Richard died. They didn't last long after that, though: locked up or judicially murdered by the Tudors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:46 PM

6. Hold on a sec. I need to go read his wiki page real quick

so I can pretend I know what the fuck I'm talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattBaggins (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:54 PM

21. I gave you a heart for that reply...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:48 PM

7. Fun movie.

Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas had great chemistry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:14 PM

9. And anyone who doesn't think that the power that be aren't

killing each other off (figuratively and literally) are living with their heads buried in the sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:21 PM

10. I love you Brentspeak

Thanks for this thread!!!!

History is not discussed enough around here!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:05 AM

75. You're welcome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:24 PM

12. Well, SOMEbody doesn't like the Welsh! P.S. I became a teacher of Brit Lit because, in grade 2,

I read a classroom book that included British history.

Later, I visited England (with a wee bit o'Scotland, Wales, and Ireland) about ten times.

I am a proud Anglophile (and am part English, Irish, and Welsh)!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:33 PM

14. Nah

Royalty and nobility fought back then because they had to fight; medieval society was built on personal loyalty, the loyalty of men at arms to their liege lord (knights to a baron or earl, barons and earls to the king). A lord who wouldn't fight was undeserving of loyalty, and if he wouldn't fight, why should you fight for him?

Being wounded wasn't good, really; wounded men would take days to die, and would frequently be killed on the battlefield by men stripping their clothing and armour and weapons to sell it for its value, usually with a small dagger, known as a "misericord" (mercygiver). Anyone not of noble or gentle birth on the losing side? Probably dead. But nobles and men at arms were valuable because they could be ransomed.

There's probably some truth to the "Tudor propaganda" line, but there's also probably some truth to the "Richard III was a monster" line (this was not far out of living memory, gross distortions of the record would have been noticed, by someone, even if pleasing the Tudors was in people's best interests).

If there'd been no Tudors? Then no British Empire, and probably no United States. Whether Richard III was a good king or not, or whether the Plantagenets should have stayed on the throne and whether Harry Tudor was a usurper? All irrelevant, because, if Richard walked off Bosworth Field the victor and successfully crushed the Lancastrians (or the Lancastrian pretenders, at any rate)? History as we know it would have been significantly and unknowably different; without Henry VIII's split with Rome, without the Elizabethan flourishing of arts and letters and exploration, without the English Civil War, without English colonisation of the New World? One can argue that much of this may have happened anyway, but how much? Especially in an England still Catholic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:49 PM

17. Wow! That would make for a great Alternative History novel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:46 PM

19. Losing nobles were treated differently during the War of the Roses

Prior to the conflict, yes, defeated nobility would often be kept alive for ransom. But the Lancastrian and Yorkist belligerents dispensed with all that in favor of immediate execution. Edward IV, in particular, instructed his men to leave the escaping common enemy soldiers alone -- go after the nobles instead and chop their heads off. The major exception was the Battle of Towton, where none of the retreating Lancastrian army was allowed to escape alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:14 AM

22. Well, civil wars were somewhat different to fighting in France

whoever led men against the legitimate king was a traitor and deserved no better than a traitor's death, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:33 AM

26. Interesting concept.

So... had England remained Catholic they may have been less likely to take on Spain in the New World?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:35 PM

15. Now, more than ever,

I am intrigued with the story of Richard III. I came across an article a couple of years ago that I thought presented a good argument against anything Richard III defenders have come up with.

Excerpt:

In 1956, Winston Churchill pointed out the major flaw in the pro-Richard (or revisionist) position: “It is contended by the defenders of King Richard that the Tudor version of these events has prevailed. But the English people who lived at the time and learned of the events day by day formed their convictions two years before the Tudors gained power. . . . Richard III held the authority of government. He told his own story . . . and he was spontaneously and almost universally disbelieved. Indeed, no fact stands forth more unchallengeable than that the overwhelming majority of the nation was convinced that Richard had used his power . . . to usurp the crown and that the princes had disappeared in the Tower. It will take many ingenious books to raise the issue to the dignity of a historical controversy” (A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, I , 486).

While there have, of course, been a number of ingenious books and theories in the almost forty years since Churchill wrote, his argument has not been refuted. In his 1976 The Wars of the Roses, Charles Ross explains Richard’s problems in establishing his power: “It took time to live down the legacy of suspicion and mistrust generated by the violence of his usurpation. Even in that ruthless age, many men were appalled by what they clearly believed to have been his crime against the princes” (London: Thames and Hudson, 100). In 1993, Michael Bennett, though he was not willing to declare Richard’s guilt to be incontrovertible, was sure that it was not the Tudors who first accused him: “What is clear is that over the course of the summer the populace of London, many of whom after all must have worked in or supplied the Tower, came to believe that they were no longer alive” (The Battle of Bosworth , 45).

Indeed, as time went on, Richard’s need to establish his innocence became greater rather than less. Not only the disaffection of the English populace but also the threat of Henry Tudor would have been sensibly reduced if the two boys had been alive and visible. The earl of Richmond’s royal ambitions could scarcely have continued alongside two surviving sons of Edward IV, no matter how many stories of their bastardy Richard III had spread. And Ricardian theories that Henry VII was guilty of the princes’ deaths come up against the inescapable fact that when Richard might have saved himself by producing living nephews, he did not. It is hard to escape the conclusion that he could not.

There are also, of course, the skeletons in the Tower. Found in 1674 during the reign of Charles II, they were, on the evidence then available, believed to be the remains of the murdered princes. Re-examined in 1933, they provided yet more evidence against Richard, and in the words of Robin Neillands, “These bones are probably those of the princes” (The Wars of the Roses , 201).


More: http://www.bard.org/education/studyguides/richardiii/richard3monster.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frogmarch (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:50 AM

29. "Probably" ?

You'd sit on a jury and convict on "probably"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #29)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:49 AM

46. No, I wouldn't convict

Richard III based on any of the "evidence" that's been presented against him, but I do think he was involved in the disappearance of the princes. Opinion, not verdict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frogmarch (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:09 AM

34. Winston Churchill got his information....where?

Because it ain't history.

Now I'm delighted with this OP because it led me to two corpses I knew nothing about:

In 1789, workmen carrying out repairs in St. George's Chapel, Windsor, rediscovered and accidentally broke into the vault of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville, discovering in the process what appeared to be a small adjoining vault. This vault was found to contain the coffins of two unidentified children. However, no inspection or examination was carried out and the tomb was resealed. The tomb was inscribed with the names of two of Edward IV's children: George, 1st Duke of Bedford who had died at the age of 2, and Mary of York who had died at the age of 14; both had predeceased the King. During the excavation for the royal tomb house for King George III under the Wolsey tomb-house in 1810–13 two lead coffins clearly labelled as George Plantagenet and Mary Plantagenet were discovered and moved into the adjoining vault of Edward IV's but at the time no effort was made to identify the two lead coffins already in the vault.

Oh, golly TWO EXTRA DEAD KIDS! Wowza.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower

Case ain't closed. Especially when the stairwell bones were an incomplete mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #34)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:10 PM

48. Interesting! Thanks for

the link.

All bones aside, the two young princes soon disappeared after having been taken to live in the Tower. What became of them?

Were they whisked away to a foreign land and given false identities so they could be adopted by commoners? Of course, this could take place only with the princes’ cooperation, because they were old enough to know who they were. Or did they die in the Tower from natural causes? What reason would there have been for keeping their deaths secret if they died from illnesses or from accidental injuries?

I don’t know what happened to them, but I think Richard III knew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:24 PM

18. Ye bloody paved over me grave

Are you calling me an ASSphalt? I say!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:52 PM

20. Elizabeth (or her minions) killed a lot of people, too

But they were just Catholics, so I guess they don't count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnnieBW (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:16 AM

23. as opposed to what Mary and her minions did to the protestants, jews, etc. etc. etc.

as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #23)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:06 PM

57. Need I point out that Elizabeth and Mary were both Tudors?

Whatever their religion. Nasty blood-thirsty bunch, even for the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #57)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:14 PM

80. Word that

But they were still better than Oliver (spit) Cromwell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnnieBW (Reply #80)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:14 AM

81. True.

Everybody was better than that pile of...of...

I have no words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #81)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:58 PM

82. Cromwell Statue Outside of Parliament

When I went to London back in '05, I saw that there was a statue of the Lord Protector outside of Parliament. While I was disgusted to see it, my disgust was tempered by the fact that it was covered in bird shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnnieBW (Reply #82)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:19 PM

83. Justice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnnieBW (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:55 AM

30. Elizabeth killed as few Catholics as she could.

There was no equivalent of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in England.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:02 AM

24. Interesting OP.

The lineage of the Lancastrians/Yorks is pretty interesting. It comes from Henry of Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt and his first wife, Blanche (the Duchess of Chaucer's Book of the Duchess and also commemorated by Froissart). Gaunt was the 3rd son of Edward III, brother to the Black Prince. Anyhow, Henry deposed Richard II, son of the Black Prince and grandson of Edward II in 1399 so he was just as much a "squatter" as the Tudors, despite his bloodline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:47 AM

28. Well, no. Blood squats way less than no blood.

And legitimate blood stands tall.

Which is why Henry VII married the niece of the man he killed as fast as he could drag her to the altar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:56 AM

31. "way less"? why?

and of course, as far as this discussion goes, they're all blood squats. Henry's mother was Margaret Beaufort making him a direct descendant to Edward III. Were there others with a better claim? Sure. But they were all related.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #31)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:18 AM

35. Legitimate vs legitimated heirs.

Kid of the king's wife or kid of the king's....not wife. At least, not while she was turning out those Beauforts.

Divine right of....bastards?

Which is why Henry VII didn't want anyone to know about WHY the princes were deposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #35)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:21 AM

36. They were legitimized by Richard II

As far as Henry and the Princes go, most experts in the period, think he's an unlikely suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #36)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:39 AM

38. "Most experts" think the one who benefits most is NOT a likely suspect?

Damn that makes sense!

Now tell me where the OTHER bodies are? You know, the household. The tutors, the guards, the cooks, the people who cleaned the rooms. So quiet they must have been killed at the same time. Didn't their families notice? Maybe they just promised not to tell why they were out of work.

What about the tailor who did NOT get a new order to measure growing boys for new clothes? So quiet. Dead, too?

But they were ALL out of work when Richard III was killed. Out now, Tudors taking over. See ya.

People disappear in transitions all the time. York tailor doesn't expect to hear from Tudor transition team. Tudor tailor is never summoned.

Easy as pie and nobody knows a thing.

"Most experts" never thought of that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #38)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:46 AM

41. So Richard didn't benefit? LOL.

He's the one who declared Edward, the heir, to be illegitimate. That's not "Tudor history". It's documented fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #41)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:50 AM

42. Under Richard, they were bastards and could not rule.

But Henry repealed that decree which made them royal princes again. Not doable with live boys. For Henry they had to be dead.

And stop pretending that Richard made himself king by executive order. It was a parliamentary statute.

And Henry VII was so scared of it he had it repealed without reading and all copies destroyed. One only survived. That sounds suspiciously like Richard had a good case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #42)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 08:02 AM

45. yes, but they poised a real danger in that many would have

taken their side.

Richard II had greater motive and opportunity- much greater opportunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #42)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:19 PM

49. Henry VII had to make those boys legitimate

To legitimize his own line. He married their sister, after all. It was a neat tying up of loose ends.

Interesting that this thread doesn't talk much about the roles of the women. There was a great deal of moving, shaking, and machinations behind the scenes by the royal women--Margarets and Elizabeths. These were some ruthless ladies. Two had to switch sides mid-stream and lived to tell the tale.

Good, juicy soap opera.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:21 AM

25. This OP is one of the reasons I LOVE DU.

I had NO idea how tangled and epic this was.

Bless each and every one of you for taking the time to know this history.

Outrageous intelligent conversation at 12:20 my time on a Friday night.

Perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cliffordu (Reply #25)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:06 AM

33. What you said!

Amazing read at 2:06 am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #33)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:59 PM

54. I'll third that.

Can you imagine a discussion like this developing on a wingnut board?

Illiterate twits who have no lives outside their own twisted little selves, hatreds, and fears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #54)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:37 PM

60. We've got good conversation,

spirited debates and a quality education all here on DU. What more could you want? Well, perhaps some soft jazz in the background and a glass of wine... Cheers, Jackpine!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #60)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:44 PM

61. Skål, JD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #60)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:55 PM

69. Pandora's playing in my headphones...

...we've got it all but the wine. That one's up to you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AmBlue (Reply #69)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 08:09 PM

73. Nice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:36 AM

27. Your evidence about the princes would be...?

See, the Tudors knew what happened to Richard's body BECAUSE THEY DID IT. THEY stripped him and tossed him in an unmarked grave. THEIR statements to that effect are CONFESSIONS.

But they claim NOT to have been present when the boys vanished so how would they know who did what to whom?

Or are you claiming the Tudors know exactly what happened to the boys because they did it? In which case they would know, wouldn't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:58 AM

32. Plight Shaw

I am in awe of the knowledge displayed in this thread. I am an amateur.

My mnemonic for remembering royal houses-

PLYTSHW

Plantagenet
Lancaster
York
Tudor
Stuart
Windsor*

*Saxe-Coburg Gotha

It is said that when young Kaiser Wilhelm heard that his cousin George changed the family name from Saxe-Coburg Gotha to Windsor, he remarked that he was looking forward to seeing a production of the Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg Gotha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:21 AM

37. Richard III

I think that he was a much better man than Shakespeare portrayed and that the Tudor propaganda portrayed. But, and this is a huge BUT, I find it difficult to believe that he didn't order the death of the Princes in the Tower, or at least let it happen on purpose. There's like two years in the timeline between when they were put in the tower and when Richard was killed. So I just have a hard time believing he wasn't responsible.

Reminds me a lot of Game of Thrones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to d_r (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:55 AM

44. Yes, Game of Thrones is meant to remind you of the Wars of the Roses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:40 AM

39. at least he wasn't the hunchback he was portrayed as

he had scoliosis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #39)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:32 PM

59. He WAS called, appropriately, "Crookback."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:43 AM

40. At the end of the day, does it matter all that much? He's the subject of a pretty famous play

even if he's the bad guy.

FWIW, Ian McKellen did a great job in this reimagining of it;

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114279/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #40)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:52 AM

43. Does truth matter? Hopefully, to Democrats, it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #43)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:09 PM

64. Oh, come on.

Please, spare me the lecture. We're talking about events 500 years ago. Sorry if I don't really have a dog in the "Tudors versus Yorks versus Plantaganets versus other Rich Feudal Landowning Family that probably fucked over more than their fair share of the Peasantry" fight. Know what? They were all Aristocrats, and given the era it's fairly certain that they were ALL, in their own way, pretty bad, mean fuckin' dudes.

Beyond that, everyone who knows for SURE is long dead. So good luck establishing some definitive final "truth" on this fundamentally meaningless dealio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #40)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:19 AM

77. No kidding

just amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:53 AM

47. I'll take Hanse davion. (Battletech early fiction has all

in common with it, since it is based on them...including the back stabbing, palace intrigue and the king jumping onto his war steed to lead the troops)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:20 PM

50. I hope this isn't too OT, but

I received an email this morning from a friend of mine who lives in Yorkshire, England. Here’s part of what she said:

Oh, there is something quite funny going on here. Big debate over where Richard III should be buried, now that they have found him under a parking lot in Leicester. All his roots are in Yorkshire, where they really liked him in the day. So Yorkshire folk want him back, to be buried in York Minster. Leicester says they are keeping him. Now the new Dean of York Minster says they don't want him, he should stay in Leicester. But guess where the new Dean has come from....yes, Leicester. There was a funny letter in the local paper today saying they should cremate the bones, then they could share. We're signing the petition to have him brought back.


Richard III, what to do, what to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:42 PM

53. Think Mafia turf wars on a larger and much bloodier scale.

Which pretty well describes all wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:01 PM

56. Read: Winter King by Thomas Penn--WONDERFUL bio on Henry VII...

...which also gives a lot of insight into Richard III and the tail end of the War of the Roses. Henry VII there didn't have much claim to the throne (in fact, it was really, really flimsy) and had to do all he could to legitimize that claim. He won the war with Richard III mainly by luck (a LOT of it) and a determined mother who is the real reason England ended up Tutor.

And ironically enough, all the headaches Henry VII gave Richard III came back to haunt Henry VII once he was on the throne as others with stronger claims to the throne--and not a few pretenders saying they were the lost princes--challenged him. In the end, of course, those who supported Henry VII over Richard III lived to regret it. The man turned into the worst sort of tyrant, finding way to rob and then execute anyone he saw as a threat. And by his later years that was almost everyone. His greed for wealth and the way he extorted it was legendary.

Awesome read this book. I recommend it highly: http://www.amazon.com/Winter-King-Henry-Tudor-England/dp/1439191565/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360436293&sr=1-1&keywords=winter+king

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:28 PM

58. Philippa Gregory, in her book, The White Queen,

contends that Elizabeth Woodville, mother of the two princesses, feared both Richard and the Tudors and replaced her youngest son with a page. The prince was sent out of the country to be raised anonymously by a family loyal to her. The page met his death in the Tower, along with the older prince, Woodville's first born son.

I am a visiting nurse, and I chew up audio books by the dozens since I drive 60 to 100 miles a day. Last summer I got hooked on the Roses books and later all things Tudor. It didn't hurt that I had been to the Tower twice in my travels to London and curious about the back stories. I was thoroughly chuffed (see?) when I spotted this thread.

Thanks!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:53 PM

62. The War of the Roses.

It all started when this woman tried to start her own landscaping business.



And then matters escalated when her gay partners tried to take the company public.



Things got out of hand and, well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:55 PM

63. I recommend everyone read "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey

(as others have suggested on this thread).

You will never trust an historian again. And since you are here, you probably already don't trust Conventional Wisdom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #63)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:15 PM

65. It's a great fun book, wonderfully written. I've read it 3 or 4 times.

I believed her when I first read DoT at age 12 or so. Studying history convinced me that she was likely wrong. And some historians earn trust with their work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #65)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:23 PM

72. I studied history too,

and that book was a large part of the reason why. And while some historians earn trust, far too many do not.

But my studies led me to conclude that Richard didn't do it. Maybe I can't be trusted either since I like my roses white.


Edited to add: There have been three mock trials held in recent years, one in Britain (1984), and two in the U.S. ('94 and '97 I think). The ones in this country involved 3 Justices from the Supreme Court. All of them found Richard not guilty.

Which is not to say he was, but certainly casts doubt on the slam dunk case history books claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #72)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:24 AM

78. I've recently watched the th '96 trial with Rehnquist

Cute stuff.

Who was it that stole the throne from the Edward, the crown prince? Why, that would be Richard. Who had Edward and his brother declared illegitimate? Again Richard. who had the greatest motive and opportunity? Richard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #78)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:56 AM

79. "Cute."

That's some in-depth historical analysis there.

Enjoy your day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #63)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:32 PM

66. "Daughter of Time" is a great book.

We'll never know about Richard III for sure, but Josephene Tey makes a great case that he was framed. The idea that history is written by the winners is just one of the factors she uses to clear Richard's name.

Recommended reading for everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:51 PM

67. It was a notorious propaganda scheme

Henry VII had no legitimate claim to the throne. Marrying Elizabeth Woodville didn't enhance his claim. Nasty rumors about the legitimate birth of her Father, being sired by a lowly archer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #67)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:03 PM

71. Robert Baratheon had no legitimate claim to the Iron Throne of Westeros, either, which by rights

still belongs to the Targaryens.

And Aragorn son of Arathorn was the last in the line of kings of men, in Middle-Earth.

Oh, wait a minute, those are made-up, fictional stories: unlike the "legitimate" English Monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings, which is ...

oh, yeah, that's a fundamentally fictional, made-up story too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #67)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:01 AM

74. I think you mean Elizabeth of York

Henry VII married Elizabeth of York, who was the daughter of (Queen) Elizabeth Woodville and King Edward IV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #74)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:13 AM

76. thank you, yes. N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:54 PM

68. I think it was Henry VII's mother

who did in the princes. Margaret Beaufort had means, motive, and, thanks to her marriage to the lord high constable (the man in charge of The Tower), a cartload of opportunity.

Perhaps now that Richard has been identified, that body's DNA can be compared with that of the 2 bodies thought to be the princes to confirm their identities. If nothing else, it will but to rest stories about one of the boys escaping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:00 PM

70. I'm gonna roust some rabble!!!




Fabersham!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread