Richard III lived in very harsh times he imprisoned and then killed his nephews, yet neither had a true claim on the throne. His Mum got pregnant with his older brother, the two princes' father, whilst their dad was off fighting the French. If you look at the dates there is no way, his older brother was anything other than a barstard. So poor old Dick had to watch his half brother ascend to the throne and then leave it to his sons.
Richard's other brother was drowned in a cask of alcohol, he got to decide how he was put to death.
Then again killing two yound lads is not easily over looked.
Not very nice, but very badly portrayed none the less.
No such thing as a good king. They all exploited the common man to further their personal wealth and power. Isn't Leicesters ground the King power stadium. Says it all!
Richard III, younger brother of Edward of March (Later King Edward IV) and George, Duke of Clarence. Allegedly killed Henry VI, Henry VI's son Edward of Lancaster, then married Edward of Lancaster's widow, Anne Neville, later murdered Edward IV's two sons (the princes in the Tower). Also accused of murdering his Brother George Duke of Clarence by drowning in a barrel of Claret. Poisoned 1st wife, sounds a right bastard, probably would have become a Sheffield Wednesday supporter as all the family were in the house of York! Hope this helps!
It's him! Results say beyond reasonable doubt that the skeleton, which showed evidence of an abnormal lateral curvature of the spine, was the monarch after DNA tests.
No such thing as a good king. They all exploited the common man to further their personal wealth and power. Isn't Leicesters ground the King power stadium. Says it all!
I was more than hacked off that both BBC & Sky News broke off coverage of this momentus finding to talk about Chris Huhne's guilty plea - kind of sums up british media culture today.
Sorry but maybe I'm in the minority, but how can they use DNA to test (100%) that someone living 500odd years ago is a specific person. It's impossible.
The bones, which are of a man in his late 20s or early 30s, have been carbon dated to a period from 1455-1540.
Richard was 32 when he died at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.
So the person could have been living 50 years after the king died.
Love that it's experts from Leicester claiming it to be a great day for Leicester.
Sorry but maybe I'm in the minority, but how can they use DNA to test (100%) that someone living 500odd years ago is a specific person. It's impossible.
The bones, which are of a man in his late 20s or early 30s, have been carbon dated to a period from 1455-1540.
Richard was 32 when he died at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.
So the person could have been living 50 years after the king died.
Love that it's experts from Leicester claiming it to be a great day for Leicester.
They traced relatives of his and took their DNA to compare.
What a piece of history! Richard would've been mad not to have killed his half nephews in the tower. Was simply a man trying to keep the country from melting down into another long civil conflict. Then that welshy Henry came along, who, I would actually say was one of the best kings we've ever had.
What a piece of history! Richard would've been mad not to have killed his half nephews in the tower. Was simply a man trying to keep the country from melting down into another long civil conflict. Then that welshy Henry came along, who, I would actually say was one of the best kings we've ever had.
Why would you say Henry VII was one of the best kings ever? Killed anyone and everyone who got in his way.
What a piece of history! Richard would've been mad not to have killed his half nephews in the tower. Was simply a man trying to keep the country from melting down into another long civil conflict. Then that welshy Henry came along, who, I would actually say was one of the best kings we've ever had.
Why would you say Henry VII was one of the best kings ever? Killed anyone and everyone who got in his way.
Answered your own question there Henry. Man of his times
It's by no means certain that he did kill his nephews. There were others who stood to gain from their deaths (such as Henry Tudor) and in any case, it's not know for sure that they were even murdered at all. They disappeared but their bodies were never found.
We wait to find out this morning if the body found in a Leicester car is Richard III
Was he a nephew murdering hunchback or a good king whose reputation was trashed by the Tudors who usurped his thone.
Discuss.
He must have ponged a bit, being stuck in a car for all those years :-) Anyway, how did he get into this car & where was he for the previous 600 odd years ? No replies necessary.
What a piece of history! Richard would've been mad not to have killed his half nephews in the tower. Was simply a man trying to keep the country from melting down into another long civil conflict. Then that welshy Henry came along, who, I would actually say was one of the best kings we've ever had.
Why would you say Henry VII was one of the best kings ever? Killed anyone and everyone who got in his way.
Not really, he pardoned a few who actively fought against him as long as they swore loyalty to him. He took a bankrupt war torn country and created so much wealth for the country that his child and grandchildren were able to fight expensive foreign vanity wars and break from the Catholic Church. He created peace and prosperity that ultimately allowed the foundations for the Royal Navy and the British empire. Colombus approached him to finance his journey to the West Indies but Henry vii decided it was too much of an expensive risk. He passed laws to stop private armies (which had swayed the war of the roses) and spent every day til the day he died working on administration and creating peace. Quite the opposite to many Plantagenet kings before and many kings and queens since.
In a time when 'royals' and 'barons' were the Tony Sopranos of their time, life was cheap, rivals just had to be eliminated, even family . At stake ? .. total control over and the taxation from the whole of England, a prize well worth murdering for. Dick 3 probably ordered the execution of his nephews. Nothing personal, just business and pragmatism.
I think the best thing we can say about him is that he died in battle fighting for his crown. Not many have done that. Running from the field defeated more the done thing.
Comments
Richard's other brother was drowned in a cask of alcohol, he got to decide how he was put to death.
Then again killing two yound lads is not easily over looked.
Not very nice, but very badly portrayed none the less.
Isn't Leicesters ground the King power stadium. Says it all!
They will make up what they want us to believe.
they'll be on a right high now.
The bones, which are of a man in his late 20s or early 30s, have been carbon dated to a period from 1455-1540.
Richard was 32 when he died at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.
So the person could have been living 50 years after the king died.
Love that it's experts from Leicester claiming it to be a great day for Leicester.
or will he get a royal send off ?
Anyway, how did he get into this car & where was he for the previous 600 odd years ?
No replies necessary.
dont cross the krays
I think it was the modern day equivalent of the police at Selhurst?