Possible discovery of Richard III :D

[Smokey]

I just thought i'd start a thread on this as i have been ( well not patiently) waiting for months on this discovery... And now they have delayed the results on the DNA until January very unhappy.

But for History lovers this is so very exciting, the remains they found have already shown sign of possible Scoliosis- could that mean that at least some of the myths about him where true?

The government have confirmed that if the remains do turn out to be him, he will be reburied in Leicester Cathedral rather then Westminster Abbey or St Georges at Windsor Castle.

Of course the other question is, are those particular two graves in Westminster Abbey really the graves of the missing Princes? The boy King Edward V and his brother. And do fellow history buffs believe there could be any truth in the rumors that Richard may have murdered his nephews? When you look at was happening around that time there was so much going on, i do find it odd how Richard ordered his nephews to be kept in the Tower and for their mother and sisters to remain under guard nearby, it's all just so fishy.

There is some evidence that there sister who went to marry Henry VII (Elizabeth of York) was staying nearby the tower at the time one of the so called pretenders, claiming to be one of the lost Princes was kept a Prisoner there- i wonder if she paid a visit?

As much as i love the Tudors, the Wars of the Roses really fascinates me- so much plotting, intrigue and throne switching going on, it's hard not to be enthralled by it all.

Any other fellow History buffs eagerly awaiting this news on the DNA results?

[count tiszula]

Obviously I don't understand DNA, but I do wonder why the news kept saying that that of the remains was being compared to that of some obscure fellow because he was descended them a sister of Richard, when the whole royal family and loads of others are descended from Edward IV. I expect I'm being silly, though.

The Wars of the Roses are fabulous because as we all know the kings actually got in the wrong order, so their dates cannot be remembered. And if you wanted to be king you had to go to Warwick the Kingmaker's and fill in the application, which began..

" 1 Are you Edmund Mortimer?

2 Have you got him?"

Years ago I remember reading an historical novel about Elizabeth in which she indeed met Wermkin before he became a blot on Henry's skitchen. One of them was supposed to be Richard of York, and in the book he left her uncertain and of course produced movable type from Burgundy .

The locus classicus is surely Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time" folowing which I still feel that the Princes were killed by Henry VII.

[Smokey]

I wondered the exact same thing, as you said the Royal family is descended from Edward IV ( through his daughter Elizabeth of York and possibly others), but then i suppose the idea of subjecting The Queen to a DNA test would probably be a little bit embarrassing .

There's a great book out at the moment by Sarah Gristwood- a lovely Historian who i have had the absolute pleasure of meeting a few times, it's called 'Blood sisters: The hidden story of the women behind the Wars of the Roses' such as Cecily Nevile, the wife of Richard Duke of York, who was deprived of being queen when her husband died at the Battle of Wakefield; Margaret of Anjou the fierce She-wolf wife of Henry VI, Elizabeth Woodville, a widow with several children who married Edward IV in secret and was crowned queen consort; Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII, whose ambitions centred on her son and whose persuasions are likely to have lead her husband Lord Stanley, previously allied with the Yorkists, to play his part in Henry's victory, Margaret of Burgundy sister to Edward IV and never able to remain out of English politics ( especially when it concerned Henry VII and the 'pretenders') and Elizabeth of York the women who united the houses of York and Lancaster with her marriage to Henry VII. I strongly recommend this fantastic book that shows how the wives mothers, sisters and daughters and very influential during the wars.

I'm interested Count, as to why you think Henry VII was to blame for the murders of the two Princes? Surely he wouldn't have had much to gain at that time as there was no talk then of a marriage between him and Elizabeth at that time, and there where even rumors of Elizabeth marrying Richard beforehand. Oh i how i love talking about history

[count tiszula]

I can't remember all the details; they are all in Tey; but roughly, Richard had nothing to fear from the Princes; had he not had them declared illegitimate or something, and anyway he was in possession, Moreover he was not a wicked uncle, and if he had been the tears from their little blue eyes would have put out his redhot poker.

By contrast, when HVII came to the throne and found two princes growing up in his nice Tower, it would have been remiss of him not to arrange for their disappearance.....The Tudors did not get on well with the Yorkists. The strange death of Wermkin and Warwick "while trying to escape" is a repeat of the Princes. Even HVIII kept killing them, despite his Yorkist blood [ending with Lady Salisbury, of course].

[Smokey]

Ah fair point, but then Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort didn't strike the deal of Henry Tudor and the young princess Elizabeth marrying until after the Princes 'disappeared'- and Henry's claim was incredibly weak so surely around 1483 he wouldn't have had much hope of ever reaching the throne- it was always a sore spot with him, how his wife had the far greater claim then he did- and the whole country knew it

Even declaring his nephews and nieces illegitimate,there presence would have been a constant thorn in the side for old Richard surely?

[Smokey]

Of course it would be great to find out if two of the graves in Westminster Abbey really do belong to the missing Princes, at the moment The Queen refuses anyone to disturb the graves, but i believe that Charles has said he would allow testing to done to determine if they are indeed the lost King and Prince.

[Smokey]

Well i have to give this thread a bumpy bump after yesterdays incredible announcement- i'm not ashamed to admit i was on the edge of my seat watching the live broadcast before the announcement, and then lept up into the air when it was announced - a 528 year mystery has FINALLY been solved, history buffs around the world rejoice right now . All those years of being teased at school for being more interested in reading my history books instead of playing football etc, where finally compensated seeing Richard III trending 1st on Twitter yesterday

it must be said the University of Leicester have done fantastic work in this, hats of to them, though i have to say i think the Richard III society have embarrassed themselves slightly in all this, i'm starting to wonder if Philippa Langley believes she is the reincarnation of Anne Neville :/

Now next stop- let's find the two Princes, could be either, Westminster or Windsor

[count tiszula]

Yes, it's been an exciting weekend. Perhaps Philippa thinks she is the heiress of Edward of Langley, Duke of York; she does seem a little fey. No sign of Prince Richard of Gloucester, who has supported them in the past despite his hideous Tudor blood..... And nice to see Dr Xanthe with the reconstruction; which actually looked very like Olivier.

The very long drama on Saturday had the somewhat obvious really idea that it was Lady Margaret Beaufort who was responsible for the Princes' fate; which had never occurred to me though it should have done. Why do people keep saying HVII had no claim to the throne when he was her son and clearly seen by the Lancastrians as the next heir? Why wasn't Warwick more of a problem? Was he another person with a wicked uncle, like Arthur of Brittany?

Of course Tony Robinson , as a good republican, hates the Royal family and has therefore decided that only Clarence's descendants are legitimate. He especially likes the idea of an Australian Princess Tracey. Though in fact the title he bestows is fascist; it would be like saying Princess Zara or indeed Princess Louise.

[murphy dee]

They paved Richard III, put up a parking lot~

[Smokey]

Ooh interesting Count- to be fair to Tony Robinson he comes across as a fairly decent bloke and i think he was generally being provocative with his book/documentary and mentioning something which historians had often overlooked- not that i think there's any truth in it whatsoever! Either way i don't think he hates the Royal family that much as he did do a special Time Team for the Queen's 80th birthday at each of her Palaces- so i doubt the where offended at all ! As for the Princes we will disagree on that- personally i think the evidence firmly at Richard as the murderer- don't forget Henry's claim was very very weak and it was only after the two princes 'disappeared' that his opportunity rose with the deal struck between him and Princess Elizabeth marrying! Even when Richard had them proclaimed illegitimate they where still very much a threat- and he was after all a usurper!!

[count tiszula]

Which one was a usurper? It all depends on your point of view. As I said, it's odd to me that HVII's claim is seen as weak. Lancastrians saw him as the true heir of his uncle HVI. And it was only 14 years since the usurping Yorkists had murdered HVI; just like the alternation of modern governments [only of course with less betrayal and backstabbing].

We forget how many of all branches of the royal family were slaughtered in all those battles; amazing really that enough were left to execute each other.......

Perhaps ttime that Richard is reburied in the HVII chapel.................

[Smokey]

Fair point- but HVII had very little Lancaster blood in him- the senior line had mainly been slaughtered by the Yorkists once they took the throne! His claim was really only made stronger by his marriage to Elizabeth of York she had a much stronger claim then him and many saw her as the rightful ruler! I noticed that a Henry VII society has now been formed it had to happen eventually!!