Richard III

User avatar
shireling
Frodo's Stewed Coney
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:37 pm
Location: Mordor? Make it so!

Re: Richard III

Postby shireling » Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:53 pm

Image

'By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me! Engage!'
Avatar courtesy of Candy Kane, Webmistress Extraordinaire and Slayer of Trolls

User avatar
Padfoot
Rampaging Blood Elf
Posts: 1840
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:15 pm
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Richard III

Postby Padfoot » Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:59 am

Well, it depended on the material they were working with. As you already mentioned before, "The Sunne in Splendour" would have been the much better choice.

Tomorrow, then. August 22nd. Deathday of one Richard, birthday of another.
Imagerichardkf7 by Martina Immel, auf Flickr

User avatar
shireling
Frodo's Stewed Coney
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:37 pm
Location: Mordor? Make it so!

Re: Richard III

Postby shireling » Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:30 pm

"King Richard, late mercifully reigning over us, was, through great treason, piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this city"


The York city records, reporting Richard III`s death.

All the feels, again.

As an aside, I am absolutely certain Francis Lovell saw it as murder, too. - fuckyeahrichardiii


530 years ago today...
Image

'By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me! Engage!'
Avatar courtesy of Candy Kane, Webmistress Extraordinaire and Slayer of Trolls

User avatar
shireling
Frodo's Stewed Coney
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:37 pm
Location: Mordor? Make it so!

Re: Richard III

Postby shireling » Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:39 pm

Image

Profound despair at usurpation betrayal and regicide can be exhausting! - fuckyeahrichardiii
Image

'By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me! Engage!'
Avatar courtesy of Candy Kane, Webmistress Extraordinaire and Slayer of Trolls

User avatar
shireling
Frodo's Stewed Coney
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:37 pm
Location: Mordor? Make it so!

Re: Richard III

Postby shireling » Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:47 pm

"
Five-month-old Dickon had taken a liking to his aunt immediately, and now, propped quietly upon her lap, was gazing earnestly at his mother across the hearth.

“How delicate he is,” Alice pronounced, allowing the child to take hold of her little finger. “Nay, Dickon, we do not suck on fingers,” she told him gently as he pulled it toward his mouth.

Cecily chuckled. “But I pray you, look at that chin. I have not seen such a determined chin on any of my other children. He will not let go of life without a fight, this one. Will you, sweeting,” she cooed at him. Dickon gurgled happily, making them both laugh.

"
Queen By Right, Anne Easter Smith (via peremadeleine)

Tags: gross sobbing turned out she was right about the chin - fuckyeahrichardiii
Image

'By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me! Engage!'
Avatar courtesy of Candy Kane, Webmistress Extraordinaire and Slayer of Trolls

User avatar
shireling
Frodo's Stewed Coney
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:37 pm
Location: Mordor? Make it so!

Re: Richard III

Postby shireling » Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:36 pm

It was certainly different this year. The anniversary had a whole different feel. Even after he'd been found and identified, August 22cd wasn't like this (last year, I had brought roses to the church and left them at the feet of the Virgin Mary - didn't do that this time.)

It makes a difference - having a genuine tomb, a grave marked with his name and the heart of a lovely cathedral. I talked to a friend, who was just all smiles about the reburial ("Didn't they do a beautiful job?") He feels 'official' now, somehow, if that makes any sense...
Image

'By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me! Engage!'
Avatar courtesy of Candy Kane, Webmistress Extraordinaire and Slayer of Trolls


User avatar
shireling
Frodo's Stewed Coney
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:37 pm
Location: Mordor? Make it so!

Re: Richard III

Postby shireling » Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:21 am

Thanks for posting this, Paddy - especially this comment from PHOENIXWOMANMN

A few things to bear in mind:

-- The Tower area has been the site of burials for as long as humans have lived there. An Iron-Age skeleton of a child was found there back in the 1970s, and the recent discovery of a large Roman cemetery in the Minories -- which likely extended into what are now the Tower grounds -- has bones found at depths similar to that of the 1674 discovery. Speaking of which:

-- The bones were found in 1674, and at the foundation level of the Tower, which was well over ten feet down at the time. That puts these bones well out of the fifteenth century by at least four hundred years, and likely many more.

-- In 1674, it took several workmen several days to dismantle the stairs and then dig down to foundation level. The idea that two persons in 1483, armed with only shovels, could dig down ten feet in a single night is laughable. The idea that they could do this in secret at the foot of a stair that was next to what was the Tower's only entrance - and therefore a very heavily trafficked area, day or night - is pure fantasy.

Therefore, the bones are likely those of a pair of Romano-British or Saxon children and have nothing to do with the Plantagenets or Woodvilles. A DNA test should show this quite readily.

By the by: Henry Tudor spent most of his reign hunting down and killing off as many Plantagenet and Yorkist heirs as he could find, and the ones he didn't kill were liquidated by his even nastier son Henry VIII. Yet that's considered to be the prudent act of a wise monarch, whereas the alleged murders of Edward IV's eldest known natural sons -- sons their uncle would have had no reason to kill as they were already declared illegitimate and thus not in the direct line of succession -- is an act of pure evil.

Also: The boys' mother, Elizabeth Woodville, hated Richard for dislodging her and her family from the positions of increasing power they had occupied for over twenty years. And all the evidence we have indicates that she loved her boys very much. Yet even after Richard was dead, she never once said that her sons were as well. She never once called for a Requiem Mass for them, much less accused the now-dead Richard of killing them -- and she was desperate to say and do anything that might cause Henry Tudor to restore to her a smattering of her former wealth, if not power. Instead, she died all but penniless in a nunnery, Henry having stripped her of everything she owned.


One other thing that she didn't mention was that the Tower was a residence. It was peopled with staff, and both boys had their own. I would really love to know who Perkins Warbeck was. This is the best known portrait of him, and I've added Edward IV for comparison.

Image Image
Image

'By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me! Engage!'
Avatar courtesy of Candy Kane, Webmistress Extraordinaire and Slayer of Trolls

User avatar
Padfoot
Rampaging Blood Elf
Posts: 1840
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:15 pm
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Richard III

Postby Padfoot » Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:44 am

I wish they'd get permission to examine the remains of the two skeletons found. With Richard's DNA confirmed and comparable DNA at hand, it would be possible to confirm or rule out their royal descent. Personally, I think it would rule them out.

Henry Tudor spent most of his reign hunting down and killing off as many Plantagenet and Yorkist heirs as he could find, and the ones he didn't kill were liquidated by his even nastier son Henry VIII. Yet that's considered to be the prudent act of a wise monarch

They paid their history writers well... Don't forget Elizabeth I, she did a "great" job in discrediting the Yorks as well, along with her regular writer Shakespeare.

I believe Warbeck could have been one of Edward's illegitimate children, but I don't think he was the young Richard. In any case, a leader desertig his army, panicking while facing the enemy, isn't a worthy king. Somehow I can't believe that either Edward's or Richard's sons would have acted so cowardly. From all I know, the Yorks were natural born soldiers.
Imagerichardkf7 by Martina Immel, auf Flickr

User avatar
shireling
Frodo's Stewed Coney
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:37 pm
Location: Mordor? Make it so!

Re: Richard III

Postby shireling » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:04 pm

Padfoot wrote:I wish they'd get permission to examine the remains of the two skeletons found. With Richard's DNA confirmed and comparable DNA at hand, it would be possible to confirm or rule out their royal descent. Personally, I think it would rule them out...


I agree. They've been handled by Lord knows who, DNA's been transferred, and there were other bits and pieces (which makes me think that the Tower might have been built over a Roman midden or earlier.) This is from November 17, 2014 in murreyandblue.

THE BONES IN THE URN
The main accusation against Richard III has always been the assumption that he murdered his nephews, and the discovery of the skeletons of two children under a Tower staircase in the 17th century has often been quoted as virtual proof of this dastardly act.

I should like to try and put a few of these assumptions into perspective. In 1674 at the Tower of London a group of workmen were employed to demolish the stone staircase attached to the White Tower, and over several days had dug a full ten feet down to the level of the Tower foundations, when they came upon two human skeletons. Seeing little of interest in this discovery, they threw the bones, along with the surrounding rubble, onto the rubbish dump.

When the workmen related these facts afterwards, others realised that this find could be of some importance. Since the skeletons appeared to be of two young people, being neither of fully grown adults nor of small children, someone began to wonder if these could be the remains of the so-called ‘princes in the Tower’ – i.e. the two sons of the late King Edward IV who had seemingly disappeared during the subsequent reign of King Richard III. The bones were therefore recovered from the dump. The reigning monarch at the time (Charles II) subsequently ordered the bones entombment in an urn, to be kept in Westminster Abbey. The assumption, given that forensic examination was unknown at that time, was to accept the bones as those of the allegedly murdered ‘princes’.

This was certainly not the first time that human bones had been discovered in and around the Tower. However, not only did these particular skeletons seemingly, judging by size alone, match the ages of the king’s lost boys, but they were discovered under a staircase, and this rang bells with the unfinished story written long before by Sir Thomas More and entitled “The History of King Richard III.” So those are the simple facts. But a considerable number of myths, misinterpretations and assumptions have gathered around these facts ever since, and the principal one concerns that same unfinished story left by Sir Thomas More.

Neither at the time, nor during the Tudor age following, did anyone else conjecture as to such precise details concerning the boys’ fates – though assumption continued and increased as the blackening of Richard III’s reputation became a political tool of the Tudors. The only reliable account of when they were last sighted (at least by anyone who cared to write of it) appears in the Crowland Chronicle which indicates they were still resident in the Tower in late August or early September 1483. Yet surprisingly the actual contemporary evidence appears to indicate that little interest was aroused in the vicinity at the time of this disappearance, and Londoners went about their business as usual. Many today speak as though contemporary rumour of the murder was rife, but this is absolutely untrue as far as surviving documentation tells us. Whether the sons of Edward IV then died, were murdered, or were simply smuggled safely away, was guessed at but never proved.

It was not until around 1515 (30 years after the death of Richard III) that Sir Thomas More started to write his ‘history’. Over the years he wrote several versions of this but neither finished nor published any of them. They have survived however, and many researchers have chosen to take them seriously in spite of the anomalies, excessive number of mistakes, and insistence on recording discussions word for word even when the possibility of knowing what had been said was completely non-existent.
Within his pages, More initially records that the fate of the boys remained in doubt. Then later and quite suddenly he offers a detailed scenario of their heinous slaughter. He gives no explanation of how he could possibly know the exact details which he relates, however the story appears to be partially inspired by Polydore Vergil, the man recently employed by Henry VII to write a history of England. More, however, elaborates hugely on Vergil’s account, adding no end of specific extra colour. How (more than 30 years after the fact) he suddenly came by this wealth of gossip is difficult to imagine. Did More chat afterwards with the murderers? Did he talk with the priest, yet decide to confide in no one else even though he then wrote it down for anyone to read? Did he receive information from some other nameless soul, who also chose to disclose these essential facts to no one else? More, however, now confidently tells us that after their violent deaths the two sons of Edward IV were secretly buried at the foot of a staircase in the Tower of London. He then goes on to explain that Richard III (who had ordered the murders) objected to such an improper burial and ordered a priest to dig up the corpses and rebury them in another more suitable (but unnamed) place, and that this was promptly done.

So the burial under a stairwell is certainly mentioned. Yet according to More, (the only one ever to mention burial under a staircase at all) that is NOT where the two bodies were finally left. He specifically says they were moved to a secret place more appropriate to their station. And here the secret supposedly remained – no longer under a staircase at all.

Yet the actual ‘bones in the urn’ were found under a stone stair attached to the exterior of the White Tower (known as the Keep). Apart from the contradiction within More’s absurd story, such a rigorous endeavour is difficult to accept as this area was the access point to the only entrance, and would certainly have been one of the busiest parts of the Tower. Anyone digging there would have been clearly visible. So we are asked to accept that a couple of amazingly determined murderers managed between them to dig 10 foot under solid stone, avoiding all passing gentry including the guards, and to deposit there two suspicious bundles – all while the princes’ staff raised no alarm nor even blinked in curiosity. And the subsequent solitary priest somehow dug them up again? And so, in accordance with More’s little book – why were they still found under the staircase?

At that time hundreds of busy people, many with their entire families, lived and worked in the Tower. This was no dreadful place of isolated dungeons and cold haunted corners. It was a royal palace with grand apartments and a number of council chambers, beautiful gardens complete with gardeners, clerks and administrators, a menagerie and its keepers, the Royal Mint and all its wealth of workers, a whole garrison of guards, kitchens, cooks, scullions and cleaners. How a pair of strange and suspicious ruffians could have dug such a deep secret grave in one night completely unnoticed by anyone is frankly an impossible situation. Even at night the Tower really was a hive of industry and activity, and the ‘princes’ themselves had servants day and night. They were not under arrest and nor were they locked in the dungeons – they lived together in a comfortable apartment and more than 14 personal staff were paid to look after them. Yet we are asked to believe that their murder was magically accomplished without anyone at all knowing how, who, or even exactly when.

But let us return to the urn. It rested undisturbed in the Abbey for many years, but in 1933 it was decided to open it and discover just what was inside. The complete description of the contents is on record of course, and the remains were immediately examined by experts of the time. Apart from the fragmented human remains, there were a number of animal bones – clearly all collected together from the rubbish pit nearly 300 years previously. There were, however, no textiles of any kind. So please – let’s forget that other silly myth of the scraps of expensive velvet. Yes – hundreds of years ago an anonymous scribble in a margin evidently mentioned velvet – but no such thing is mentioned elsewhere, no such thing has survived in any form, and the anonymous scribble has also disappeared – if it ever existed in the first place. So no velvet. Another red herring.

I have also read that a dark stain which ‘could’ be blood, was found on one skull. After 200 years underground we are asked to accept an anonymous stain as an indication of violent murder??? And when this same skull had been left for some time rolling around with fresh animal remains from the butchers? Indeed, those who mentioned the possibility of the stain being blood, later entirely retracted their statement, although this important development is often overlooked. Another ludicrous myth.

Now the more important evidence – the scientific examination. But this was 1933 and science has moved a long, long way since then. No DNA examination was possible back then. Carbon dating was not employed, impossible anyway with bones that had been so contaminated for so long. Their antiquity could not therefore be established, so simple assumptions were made – which have been seriously questioned since. The age of the children when they died is also extremely open to opinion. There is absolutely no possibility of sexing these bones. They could have been girls and this remains perfectly likely. At the time a conclusion was made that the two children had been related (this from an examination of the teeth and not from DNA) which has now been shown as probably erroneous. Historians and orthopaedic experts are divided. Some still maintain that these remains ‘could’ be the sons of Edward IV, while others point out the inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

And there are other anomalies. For instance, it has been shown that the lower jaw bone of the elder child indicates the presence of a serious bone disease. This would have been both painful and visible. Yet the young Edward V is documented as having been fit, active, prepared for coronation, and described as ‘good looking’. No record is shown of any such existing disease which would have seriously undermined his future life and reign.

There’s another red herring here. Doctor Argentine, the elder prince’s long-standing physician, related that, “the young king, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed death was facing him.” But Dr. Argentine did not visit his charge because of ailing health. All junior royalty were under the permanent care of doctors who were responsible for their day to day health ever since birth. And the prince’s recorded statement, apart from being second-hand hearsay, is extremely ambiguous. I doubt he was cheerful at the time, poor boy – with his status in doubt, and his expected coronation suddenly delayed. He may well have expected (and been warned by his dour and pessimistic Lancastrian and Woodville guardians) a bitter end. This does not mean it actually occurred.

So these are the basic facts, and as anyone can see, they do not point specifically in any direction. They prove nothing, not even circumstantially, and any assumption that the bones in the urn are almost certainly those of the two lost boys of Edward IV is absolutely unjustified. Until permission is finally given (many have asked and always been denied) for the urn to be opened once more and the contents subjected to up-to-date forensic examination, we cannot know anything at all. So far the very sketchy facts (based on depth of burial and the type of soil, etc) point towards the bones dating from Norman, or even from Roman times, and at least some experts strongly suggest that the elder is female.

Those interested authors of articles claiming these bones are definitely those of the lost boys, are either fooling themselves or attempting to fool their readers. Should the bones eventually be examined and proved by DNA matching to be the ‘princes’ after all – we may with our present level of technology discover roughly when they died (to the nearest 50 years). We may perhaps also ascertain the causes of their deaths, but unless there are signs of injury it is unlikely we will learn whether they were killed – still less who killed them. If, on the other hand, as seems most likely, they are proved NOT to be the ‘princes’ it will settle a long-standing controversy, and provide some very interesting material for archaeological study. In particular it will silence some of the more exaggerated and erroneous myths. - superblue, from murreyandblue
Image

'By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me! Engage!'
Avatar courtesy of Candy Kane, Webmistress Extraordinaire and Slayer of Trolls

User avatar
shireling
Frodo's Stewed Coney
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:37 pm
Location: Mordor? Make it so!

Re: Richard III

Postby shireling » Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:43 am

Image

'By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me! Engage!'
Avatar courtesy of Candy Kane, Webmistress Extraordinaire and Slayer of Trolls

User avatar
Padfoot
Rampaging Blood Elf
Posts: 1840
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:15 pm
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Richard III

Postby Padfoot » Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:47 pm

3) Richard climbed out of his Greyfriars tomb one morning and bought a day return to Windsor after Lady Grey died, placed the coffins in the tomb himself (as (2)) during the days that it was opened for her funeral before catching the trains back to Leicester before his bedtime.
4) Richard didn’t die in 1485 but someone else was buried in his place. After smuggling the corpses into Edward’s tomb, as (2/3) above, he eventually really died and was substituted for the decoy corpse in Greyfriars – because he knew how important his mitochondrial DNA was to be five hundred years later. Nobody in the days after Bosworth had noticed that the wrong body was being exposed.


Nice theories! I think I like 3 best... :lol: :D

But seriously. They are quite right. It's time to open up the urn and examine the remains.
Imagerichardkf7 by Martina Immel, auf Flickr

User avatar
shireling
Frodo's Stewed Coney
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:37 pm
Location: Mordor? Make it so!

Re: Richard III

Postby shireling » Wed Sep 09, 2015 11:19 pm

Well, I won't hold my breath when it comes to the Queen. She said no, and I think that's that. Maybe Charles will. Or better still, William - unless he's promised Grandma that he won't.

A number of people have thought that what was found was Roman, and probably from a midden. So we're talking animal bones and trash - maybe some human remains, if the individuals weren't valued and were just chucked out with the peelings and gristle. They just can't be from the 1400s, I can't go with that.

I want a time machine so bad, I can't stand it!
Image

'By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me! Engage!'
Avatar courtesy of Candy Kane, Webmistress Extraordinaire and Slayer of Trolls

User avatar
Padfoot
Rampaging Blood Elf
Posts: 1840
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:15 pm
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Richard III

Postby Padfoot » Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:23 am

Imagerichardkf7 by Martina Immel, auf Flickr

User avatar
shireling
Frodo's Stewed Coney
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:37 pm
Location: Mordor? Make it so!

Re: Richard III

Postby shireling » Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:46 pm

ImageImage

Christine Hamlett says this photo (left) she took in Leicester Cathedral appears to show the face of Richard III peering out from the stone slab on the floor. Right: The image is clearer after Ms Hamlett darkened the photo.

Very interesting :) .
Image

'By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me! Engage!'
Avatar courtesy of Candy Kane, Webmistress Extraordinaire and Slayer of Trolls


Return to “The News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest