HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Richard III dig: DNA conf...

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:44 AM

Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are king

Source: BBC

A skeleton found beneath a Leicester car park has been confirmed as that of English king Richard III.

Experts from the University of Leicester said DNA from the bones matched that of descendants of the monarch's family.

Richard was killed in battle in 1485 but his grave was lost when the church around it was demolished in the 16th Century




Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882



It's him! Woo hoo I knew it! So exciting! They will bury him in the Cathedral of Leicester.

84 replies, 8347 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 84 replies Author Time Post
Reply Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are king (Original post)
Scairp Feb 2013 OP
xchrom Feb 2013 #1
gadjitfreek Feb 2013 #2
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #3
Maine-ah Feb 2013 #27
Berlin Expat Feb 2013 #30
ReRe Feb 2013 #44
trayfoot Feb 2013 #47
winter is coming Feb 2013 #60
Berlum Feb 2013 #74
tclambert Feb 2013 #5
Paulie Feb 2013 #6
bedazzled Feb 2013 #10
jwirr Feb 2013 #41
aquart Feb 2013 #46
bitchkitty Feb 2013 #73
mascarax Feb 2013 #24
Beacool Feb 2013 #35
sarge43 Feb 2013 #4
T_i_B Feb 2013 #7
sarge43 Feb 2013 #8
Tansy_Gold Feb 2013 #12
Matilda Feb 2013 #67
aquart Feb 2013 #48
sarge43 Feb 2013 #56
aquart Feb 2013 #79
sarge43 Feb 2013 #84
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #65
aquart Feb 2013 #71
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #72
aquart Feb 2013 #82
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #83
winter is coming Feb 2013 #75
lunatica Feb 2013 #9
Beacool Feb 2013 #36
Ian Iam Feb 2013 #59
Archae Feb 2013 #11
Tansy_Gold Feb 2013 #13
Archae Feb 2013 #16
sarge43 Feb 2013 #19
Sheldon Cooper Feb 2013 #22
happyslug Feb 2013 #33
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #61
happyslug Feb 2013 #66
T_i_B Feb 2013 #20
sarge43 Feb 2013 #25
Scairp Feb 2013 #43
Tansy_Gold Feb 2013 #52
Blowtorch_Evans Feb 2013 #57
sarge43 Feb 2013 #18
Tansy_Gold Feb 2013 #26
sarge43 Feb 2013 #29
Tansy_Gold Feb 2013 #31
aquart Feb 2013 #49
JoeBlowToo Feb 2013 #14
Scairp Feb 2013 #58
FailureToCommunicate Feb 2013 #15
pink-o Feb 2013 #17
NYC Liberal Feb 2013 #21
BigAnth Feb 2013 #45
Ian David Feb 2013 #23
Blowtorch_Evans Feb 2013 #53
hrmjustin Feb 2013 #54
Blowtorch_Evans Feb 2013 #55
thecrow Feb 2013 #28
csziggy Feb 2013 #38
aquart Feb 2013 #50
csziggy Feb 2013 #68
mgc1961 Feb 2013 #32
aquart Feb 2013 #51
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #62
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #64
eggplant Feb 2013 #34
Beacool Feb 2013 #37
T_i_B Feb 2013 #70
Paladin Feb 2013 #39
Kablooie Feb 2013 #40
El Supremo Feb 2013 #42
JoKandice Feb 2013 #63
Gemini Cat Feb 2013 #69
Drale Feb 2013 #76
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #77
Drale Feb 2013 #78
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #80
Matilda Feb 2013 #81

Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:53 AM

1. cool. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:04 AM

2. Geez, everyone knows...

...that Richard III had his head cut off by his idiot grandson Edmund who arrived late for Bosworth Field and had his body dragged into an abandoned barn while the even stupider Lord Percy Percy brought the head along. Richard IV then ascended the throne to reign for several years before Percy and Baldrick accidentally poison their wine. Jeepers, doesn't anyone know history anymore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gadjitfreek (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:21 AM

3. And this man has been alive 600 years to present a documentary about the time ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:36 AM

27. that was definitely worth the time to watch.

very interesting, and thank you for posting it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:56 AM

30. Thanks for posting that!

That was damned interesting to watch. I'm not that up on the Royal Family, though the name Plantagenet does mean something to me (Edward Longshanks). I honestly had no idea that there was still anyone around from that family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:45 PM

44. I really enjoyed this!

...being a family genealogist myself, tracing most of all sides of me back to the British Isles (with a little German thrown in.) It caught my son's eye as he was heading out the door and we watched almost the entire length of it together. He just left, grinning and chortling. Thank so much for the link. That truly made my day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:49 PM

47. That was fascinating!

Thank you for posting it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:11 PM

60. This was great. Thanks for the link! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:32 PM

74. Thank you

interesting tale

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gadjitfreek (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:51 AM

5. A Blackadder reference? Here?

I thought I was the only American fan of that show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:06 AM

6. But I am King Penguin!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:29 AM

10. nuh-uh. i like edna too

yep the slimy one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:52 AM

41. Fan of the show - forget that I have Blacketter's in my family tree!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:47 PM

46. Oh, please.

Where would history be without Blackadder?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:55 AM

73. I LOVE Blackadder! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gadjitfreek (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:11 AM

24. Thank you for confirming!

I thought it might be THAT Richard!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gadjitfreek (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:23 AM

35. I loved that show too.

Blackadder rocks!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:38 AM

4. I wonder if the reburial will be Catholic rites. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:12 AM

7. I'm more concerned about where he will be buried

Personally, I'd rather that Richard of York was buried at York Minster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:16 AM

8. Good point.

The people of York sincerely mourned for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:36 AM

12. York's claims

York mourned and the day after Richard’s death on August 22, 1485 the mayor’s serjeant of the mace wrote, “King Richard, late mercifully reigning over us, was through great treason… piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this city.”


http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/features/features/9942773.If_this_is_Richard_III__should_we_claim_him_back_for_York_/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:19 PM

67. I wish for a York burial, too,

because it was he wished, according to his Will.

But apparently the relevant Ministry, when it granted permission for the dig, stipulated that the bones should remain in Leicester.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:55 PM

48. Good question. It damn well should be.

So. The hunchback was uncorrected scoliosis. We know for sure. That's kind of staggering.

Was Anne of York the one forced to marry Henry VII? Because Henry VII's Plantagenet extermination campaign was thorough. I can't see him leaving any DNA out there that wasn't also his.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:34 PM

56. I believe you're thinking of Elizabeth of York.

Edward's IV daughter, Richard's niece, the Tower princes' sister. She probably wasn't forced any more than most women of the time were forced. "It's either him or the nunnery." Apparently, they had a successful marriage. He didn't horn dog around and he mourn her death.

Yeah, what Plantagenets survived VII, VIII nailed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #56)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:18 PM

79. Yes. As to most women being forced...

Women could make strategic decisions as well as men, but plenty of people married for preference alone. There's an adorable letter in which Richard III comments on the marriage of Jane Shore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #79)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:11 AM

84. Indeed

Most of those women were practical and hard nosed about marriage. They were also romantic and loving, as were the men. As usual with people, one size never fits all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:41 PM

65. No; she married Sir Thomas St. Leger

(2nd marriage; she also had a first marriage, but her child from that died without having children). Michael Ibsen's mother was descended in a direct female line from her, so they could use his mitochondrial DNA as the best possible test to match Richard III.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_York,_Duchess_of_Exeter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #65)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:37 AM

71. How did Henry VII miss her in the purge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #71)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:47 AM

72. Because there wasn't a 'purge'

Henry VII had Perkin Warbeck executed in 1499 (but he was 23, led a rebellion, and only pretending to be Richard of York); but he pardoned Lambert Simnel (he was only 10, and obviously being used by others; he gave him a menial job, too). He did imprison the Earl of Warwick, a nephew of Richard III ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Plantagenet,_17th_Earl_of_Warwick ) , but didn't execute him until 1499, when he allegedly joined in Warbeck's plot. Henry married Warwick's sister, Margaret, to his cousin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Pole,_8th_Countess_of_Salisbury . She survived until the 1530s, well into Henry VIII's reign, when she and a son were executed - for being powerful Catholics, but perhaps the chance of a claim as a Catholic monarch influenced Henry's decision to kill them.

Basically, the males were the ones likely to be imprisoned or executed (they might lead armies, and up to then, England had not had a generally acknowledged reigning queen). Females tended to get married off to cement alliances, and make sure their children were with people on the king's side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #72)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:58 PM

82. And yet so many ended up so dead.

They had to go to Canada to get some DNA? Half of England should have been able to hold up their hands and shout "York blood here!" But no.

And I really appreciate the Warbeck straw man.

Henry VII consolidated his throne. That's the ticket. Consolidated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #82)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:22 PM

83. It had to be a purely female descent, to use thr mitochondrial DNA

If half of England could have been used, then it would have proved nothing - because half of the bodies in medieval England would have been a match. There was an unbroken female line from the man's mother (he lives in London, by the way) to Richard III's sister, so he would be the closest mitochrondrial DNA match possible.

You say "so many ended up so dead". As far as I can tell, Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick was the only descendant of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York (the guy who started the war to make the Yorkist claim to the throne) that Henry VII executed. He also killed Richard III in battle at Bosworth, and John de la Pole in battle at Stoke Field in 1487 - when he supported Lambert Simnel (before that, Henry had trusted him, and appointed him president of the Council of the North). That's out of, I think, 19 descendants of the 3rd Duke of York who were alive and in England in 1485.

Warbeck is not a 'straw man'. He was at the centre of one of the 2 significant rebellions against Henry, and Warwick was not executed until he apparently joined with Warbeck, 14 years after Henry first took power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #48)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:19 PM

75. Could anything have been done at the time to correct/ameliorate it?

Anybody know if a corset/back brace would have helped?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:20 AM

9. Buried under a parking lot

I fear the world is becoming one vast parking lot.

It's really is exciting news though. To finally find the long lost king.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:24 AM

36. How the mighty have fallen.........






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:56 PM

59. He deserved worse

 

Bloody child-murderer!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:35 AM

11. I'm just wondering why Shakespeare hosed him over so badly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:36 AM

13. Shakespeare lived and wrote under the Tudors n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:42 AM

16. I take it then Richard III wasn't liked by the Tudors.

(Little fuzzy here on my British royal history)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:57 AM

19. The founder of the Tudor dynasty was Henry Tudor aka Earl of Richmond aka Henry VII.

Hank defeated Richard at the Battle of Bosworth. Hank's blood line claim to the throne was very shaky. He enforced it by marrying Richard's niece, Elizabeth of York. One of their sons was Henry VIII. One of their daughter, Margaret, married into the Scottish royal family and is the ancestor of Mary Queen of Scots, thus the current royals.

The Tudors were well aware that a throne gained by the sword could be lost the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:04 AM

22. After Richard had Elizabeth's two young brothers murderd so he could claim

the throne that was rightfully theirs. Lot of treachery with those English monarchs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:21 AM

33. Richard III is one of three possible murders of those children

Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Worse, Richard III and Henry VII are the least likely to have have done so. Henry VII after he was in Power acted as if he did not KNOW what happen to those two boys and looked for them. Richard III, when he held the crown, knew the boys were popular and thus would NOT risk killing them UNLESS he had solid evidence of treason (And given they ages, not likely to be provable to most people). Furthermore Richard III had had the boys declared illegitimate and thus NO longer in line for the throne (Through illegitimacy was never a complete bar from becoming King of England, given William the Conqueror himself had been illegitimate).

The third suspect is the most likely, now Wikipedia says he may have been working for Richard III and/or Henry VII, but my position is he was working for himself, while in rebellion against Richard III. He either made the mistake that Richard III would forgive his rebellion if he killed the princes (Richard III apparently did not) or Henry VII would return defeat Richard III and reward the killer for killing the princes (Never happened the Killer fell into the hands of Richard III, who executed him).

Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was Richard's right-hand man and sought personal advantage through the new king. Some, notably Paul Murray Kendall, regard Buckingham as the likeliest suspect: his execution, after he had rebelled against Richard in October 1483, might signify that he and the king had fallen out because Buckingham had taken it on himself for whatever reason to dispose of Richard's rival claimants; alternatively, he could have been acting on behalf of Henry Tudor (later to become King Henry VII). On the other hand, if Buckingham were guilty he could equally well have been acting on Richard's orders, with his rebellion coming after he became dissatisfied with Richard's treatment of him. As a descendant of Edward III, through John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester, Buckingham may have hoped to accede to the throne himself in due course. Buckingham's guilt depends on the princes having already been dead by October 1483, since he was executed the following month. In the 1980s, within the archives of the College of Arms in London, further documentation was discovered which states that the murder was conducted "be (by) the vise of the Duke of Buckingham". Another reference, surfacing this time in the Portuguese archives, states that "...and after the passing away of king Edward in the year of 83, another one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose custody the said Princes were starved to death." However neither document states whether Buckingham acted for himself, on Richard's orders, or in collusion with the Tudor party.


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

And some evidence that the princes were NEVER murdered:

http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html

The above cite mention that Richard III had the DAUGHTERS of his brother (the sisters of the Princes) at Christmas 1484. Given England was NEVER under Salic Law (The law that prohibits inheritance through a woman), these women were as much a threat to his throne as their brothers. In fact several of the revolts of the time period were lead by women, including Richard IIIs own sister in law (Mother of the princes and widow to Edward IV).

Part of the problem with who killed the Princes is that these were all cousins fighting among themselves for various positions within England. The throne was one of many prizes and people shifted sides depending on who offered them what.

Then Henry VII's hold was legally weak (But he had given a lot away to make himself king), thus when Henry VIII discovered by breaking with Rome he could steal all of the property of the Church for himself and re-buy his Father's supporters he was all for it. Henry VIII's take over of the Church Lands of England was the single largest confiscation of land in English History. It is appears smaller then the post WWII nationalization program of England due to the growth in Wealth in England since the 1500s (And the post WWII nationalization included payment to the previous owners, something Henry VIII never did). His Daughter Mary, made it a point that she was NOT going to undo what Henry VIII had done (and thus secured her throne) but a lot of the people on those lands never trusted her for she remained Catholic (And remember their title to the land was based on the king STEALING it from the Catholic Church). Thus massive opposition to Mary till her death (and one of the reason for the people she had to execute, to please her husband Philip of Spain, to secure additional revenue from Puritans who paid up to avoid execution, and such money seems to be more important then the executions, and to keep the Puritans in London in line). Elizabeth, when she became Queen, also executed a lot of people, but breaking with Rome relaxed the fears of all the people who lived on lands taken from the Catholic Church.

Yes, in many ways the Rule of the Tutors lead to the English Civil War of the 1640s. You had to many people on land stolen from the Catholic Church to be comfortable with a ruler who was Catholic or anyway tied in with the Catholic Church all due to Henry VIII's taking of Church land to pay off the supporters of both the house of York and Lancaster. Henry VII had not done so, for by the time he had won, he had defeated all other competitors and thus did not need to. The problem was more competitors to the throne were on the way and they would have become a headache for Henry VIII, Mary and Elizabeth except for the support all three had from the sale and/or granting of those lands to various supporters of the House of York and Lancaster. In many ways the fight between the houses of York and Lancaster ended with them dividing Church land between them and merging.

The problem was London was ignored by the Tutors, except as something to hold and as a source of revenue. The Raising Upper Middle Class wanted more say in how the country was run, complicated by the raise in Sheep Farming for wool to export to the weaving mills of the Netherlands for turning into material. London controlled that trade, was a huge source of revenue, but also power, power that the Tutors had to address but was really NOT part of their power structure.

Thus the English Civil War of the 1640s, in many ways the Houses of York and Lancaster against the raising power of London. England was still rural at that time, but more and more of rural England was tied in with Sheep raising for wool to be shipped out of London. Much of the former Church Land had been traditional pasture areas and thus a lot of the people most fearful of losing they lands to the Catholic Church where the most business with London and thus they loyalty was NOT with the House of Tutor (or later Stuart) but with London. The House of Stuart's ties with France (and France rejection of Puritanism) sealed the alliance, for the House of Stuart represented the one thing these Puritan land owners feared, loss of their land to the Catholic Church.

Notice, religion had little to do with who supported whom, the Religion was just a way to identify who supported who. The English Civil War was less Protestant vs Catholic as London and people tied in with the Wool Trade (Who tended to be Protestant), against people NOT tied in with the Wool Trade (Who tended to be Catholic). England was much more tied in with the trade much more then France, thus turned "Protestant" while France, more tied in with raising crops, stayed Catholic. Areas in both Countries that did NOT confirm to the trend of the rest of the country often were the religion that reflected the difference. Ireland, less affected by Trade remained Catholic (Northern Ireland being the big exception, but Belfast was tied in with Trade). Aquitaine in France turned Puritan, for it was tied in with the Atlantic Trade routes, while most of France remained Catholic.

The above forces were at work even in the 1400s a hundred years BEFORE the Protestant Reformation. People were reacting to those changes AND interacting as family members with each other. I bring it up for it helps explains some of the parts of the War of the Roses that are hard to understand today. The War was driven by the above economic movements (As was the Protestant Reformation) but also various parts of the Royal families and their supporters interacting with each other. The raise of the Upper Middle Class is part of the history, but a part often NOT recorded at the time. The problems of the 1400s England were address in the 1500s, but how those problems were "solved" lead to the English Civil War of the 1640s. The Tutors merged the supporters of the House of York and Lancaster, first by force of arms (Henry VII) then by buying them (Henry VIII). The problem was the money the Tutor's used to buy support had its own price to pay, and that was the raise of the upper middle class as the main source of power in England, replacing the old nobility (and then only on land taken from the Catholic Church, complicating the situation, given most of Europe stayed Catholic).

Many of these problem were resolve only by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 (Similar problems in France had to wait till the French Revolution of 1789 for the simple reason it took a longer time period for the Upper Middle Class to gain power in France then in England, given the better condition for farming in France and the better condition for trade, in England i.e. England is an Island thus easy to get to the sea to trade, France has borders with other countries and thus harder to set up trade routes).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:39 PM

61. I'm apparently descended from Henry VII. Guess he wasn't such a great guy........

Oh well.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:02 PM

66. Old saying "Bastards and Cream float to the top"

Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:02 PM - Edit history (1)

You do NOT get to the top of any organization by being a "Nice Guy", you have had to claw your way up. That goes for Richard III, Henry VII, Reagan or Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:59 AM

20. Er.....no.

The Tudors took the throne from Richard III after the civil war known as the Wars Of The Roses between the houses of Lancaster (booooo!) and York (yay!). The battle of Bosworth, where Richard III was killed was pretty much the final act of the Wars Of the Roses.

After Henry Tudor took the throne he needed to keep the old Yorkists from causing trouble, and to that end he married Elizabeth of York, and waged a propaganda campaign against Richard III.

To be honest Richard III did probably have the princes in the tower bumped off, but I still don't think we was quite as much of a tyrant & pantomome villain as William Shakespeare made him out to be. Certainly no worse then the Tudors who came after him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:16 AM

25. Well, Henry shut down the Yorkists by killing off most of them.

One of his first acts as king was canceling the Titulus Regius thus making Elizabeth eligible to be his queen consort.

I think there's a even chance he had the kids offed. He may have done a Henry II "Will no one rid me of these troublesome brats?" We can be absolutely sure that if they were alive 22 August 1485, they were not 24 hours later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:18 PM

43. I think he is the best suspect

I know the Richard III Society gets all bent out of shape whenever anyone says this but the facts are things were tough for a king in those days. You had to be ruthless to keep both your throne AND your head for any length of time. No one else would have benefited from the deaths of the boys. It doesn't make him any worse than any other medieval monarch so why the the Society freaks out over these claims is kind of weird. There is also the possibility that someone in his service wanted him to become king and took it upon themselves to kill the teenaged king and his brother, but again, with zero contemporaneous evidence I don't see how we will ever find out what happened to them. No one knows what became of them at all and there are no possible graves to dig up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:14 PM

52. After Titulus Regius, the boys were no longer a legal threat to Richard

He actually had far less reason to kill them than did Henry Tudor.

After Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was declared invalid due to his previous "marriage," both boys (and their sister Elizabeth) were illegitimate and could not inherit. That's how Richard gained the throne. It's not like he knocked off the boys and then claimed the throne.


Henry Tudor's claim was fragile because it was through an illegitimate branch on his mother's side. If Henry maintained his claim through an illegitimate link, then that would also make the younger Edward the valid claimant and thus a threat to Henry. And Henry's attempt to solidify his claim by marrying Elizabeth of York, the boys' sister, also either validated the claim in spite of her own illegitimacy or it put the elder prince on the throne. Either way, Henry had far more reason to do away with young Edward and his brother Richard than did Richard III.

And actually there is some contemporary evidence. Not much, but it is there. Which is why the controversy continues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Reply #52)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:49 PM

57. But

....it would have been Richard that pushed that declaration though. These were not times to be subtle - Killing the two boys would have made it certain there'd be no rallying to their cause. At least two tried to make them an issue - Earl Rivers and Lord Hastings - both got slotted by Richard for their efforts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:44 AM

18. The Earl of Richmond's granddaughter could close down the theaters with one word.

She could close you down with less. She was no crazied tyrant, but was never a good idea to be up front about her family background.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:35 AM

26. Excuse me?

Why would she (or you) want to close me down? What did I do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:55 AM

29. Forgive me for using the impersonal "you".

Please allow me to rephrase. "She could close down any of her subjects with less."

Is that satisfactory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:01 AM

31. Okay, that makes more sense!

It's just that some of us who have been RIII supporters for a long time are a bit, er, paranoid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:56 PM

49. Read The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey.

Brilliant history mystery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:41 AM

14. Next Jimmy Hoffa!

 

Unearthed beneath Giants Stadium in the NJ Meadowlands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeBlowToo (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:55 PM

58. Lol

He disappeared near Detroit, right? I think his body was dumped in Lake Erie and is gone forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:41 AM

15. Restless spirit...

Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:25 AM - Edit history (1)


From the dig site:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:42 AM

17. My Kingdom for a Parking Lot...

Just doesn't have the right tone to it, somehow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pink-o (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:03 AM

21. BREAKING: Traces of Richard III DNA found in Tesco burgers

Yes the joke is all over Twitter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pink-o (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:29 PM

45. How about my kingdom for a Jaguar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:10 AM

23. How do you know he's a king? He hasn't got shit all over him. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:22 PM

53. Cockney Rhyming Slang

Made even more applicable as 'Richard the Third' is Cockney Rhyming slang for 'Turd'....As in excuse me gents I'm off for a Richard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blowtorch_Evans (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:25 PM

54. That is funny.

Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:27 PM

55. Thanks n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:48 AM

28. I have Plantagenets in my ancestry...this is as far back as it goes:

Name Geoffrey V, PLANTAGENET, Count of ANJOU, 896, M
Birth 24 Aug 1113
Death 7 Sep 1151, Chateau-du-Loir Age: 38
Father Fulk V "The Young", Count of ANJOU, 904, M
Mother Ermengarde of MAINE, 905, F

Spouses:
1 Matilda Augusta ("MAUD"), 897, F
Father Henry I "Beauclerc", King of ENGLAND, 907, M (1068-1135)
Mother Matilda "MAUD" of SCOTLAND, 906, F


Children: Henry II Plantagenet,, 637, M (1133-1189)

Notes for Geoffrey V, PLANTAGENET, Count of ANJOU
"Geoffrey the Fair" ruled from 1128-54. His nickname "Plantagenet" came from a small sprig of broom he wore in his cap. (genet=broom).
He married one of the strongest women in history, who wnet off to claim her English crown while he subdued the French territories of Anjou, Normandy and Maine. He gloried in the recounting of his ancestor's deeds and played up the image of chivalry.
His career as a count was dominated by the pursuit of his wife Matilda's inheritance of Normandy and England and he was determined to conquer Normandy, Anjou's great enemy, but gave little help in England.

Notes for Matilda Augusta (Spouse 1)
Maud was the widow of Emperor Henry V at the time of her marriage to Count Geoffrey in 1128. She despised her adolescent husband, and they made their way through a loveless marriage producing enough children to continue the lines. Haughty and cold, she was criticized by her contemporaries for not having feminine qualities. She is remembered as a daughter at war with her father Henry I, who never reconciled her differences with him, even as he died.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thecrow (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:34 AM

38. We're extremely distant half cousins!

I'm descended from Henry I through Rohesia, a daughter of his by Sybil Corbet, who married Henry de la Pomeraie, a grandson of Baron Ralph de la Pomeraie who was one of William the Conqueror's generals.

The Pomeroys were granted extensive lands in England but they later backed the wrong wide in one of the wars of succession and lost their titles and lands.

Eltweed Pomeroy, one of the descendants, was our first Pomeroy in the Americas arriving in Massachusetts about 1632.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #38)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:59 PM

50. Eltweed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #50)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:19 AM

68. Yes, it was a common given name in that family

As was Medad. I think they were both old Anglo-Saxon names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:09 AM

32. I hope a copy of his skull is made before burial so his visage can be restored.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mgc1961 (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:00 PM

51. Oh, I want that for Christmas!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mgc1961 (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:18 PM

62. They've done a reconstruction for the TV programme that has just started in the UK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mgc1961 (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:20 PM

64. They're planning to do that, actually

They almost certainly CT-scanned everything in detail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:28 AM

34. Sheesh, you get here late and all the good jokes have already been taken. ;-) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eggplant (Reply #34)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:26 AM

37. Around here if you snooze, you lose.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eggplant (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:16 AM

70. Verdict on Richard III's remains.........

...severe head trauma & bent spine. ATOS confirm Richard III is fit for work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:38 AM

39. It Was The "Aevill MuthreFuchre" Neck Chain That Made Positive I.D. Posible..... (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:38 AM

40. I thought they already knew where Nixon was buried.

Damn.
I'm too American.

I should embrace my Anglophilia a bit more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:15 PM

42. Over acting:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:40 PM

63. It's Good To Be The King

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:24 AM

69. Good.

I have waited a long time for this confirmation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:30 PM

76. Now the Queen needs to allow testing to be done on the Two Princes in the Tower

Edward V and Richard, Duke of York and maybe we can figure out who killed them, if indeed those are their bones. Was it Richard or was it Henry VII after Richard died at the Battle of Bosworth Field? Thats something I would like to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:45 PM

77. I don't think you could be that accurate

You'd have to be able to do dating (carbon dating, I'd think) to within a year. When they carbon-dated Richard III's bones, they said they were 95% confident of being within 40 years of his death. You'd be able to do a DNA test to confirm they are who they've been assumed to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #77)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:48 PM

78. Still its unknown whether the 2 bodies found near the tower

are the 2 princes at all, finding out that would be a first step, but the Queen has been unwilling to allow DNA tests to be done for some unknown reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:34 PM

80. Pretty sure you can't tell who ordered a murder from DNA.. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #80)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:56 PM

81. You could answer some questions from the ages of the children.

Were the age differences between the two right for the two princes? What were their likely ages, which could determine the most likely year of death? And were they even both male? Or even Plantagenets?

The Church of England has the authority to allow the bones to be exhumed, but they've refused, backed by the Queen and the government. It's a pathetic stance, and I hope that once people become educated about the truth of Richard's reign, there might be a popular demand for the bones to be forensically examined again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread