Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Richard III may have been horrid and murdered the two little boys, but the Tudors who usurped him had an even more dubious claim to the throne so persisted in painting Richard as the devil incarnate (Shakespeare, I'm looking at you). There's no reason to think that he was any more or less bloodthirsty or ruthless than any other monarch at around that time.


Great piece of archaeology though...

I saw the entire Live news broadcast from Leicester University, where about six professors in their field - archeology, forensics, geneology, genes, armoury and others all delivered their own explanation of how they came to the conclusions they did. It was most moving, as they also thanked all those who had contributed their knowledge (and their DNA in the case of the relatives!) Then the head of Leicester University announced with pride that Leicester Uni was the one who had discovered DNA and now this, ie. GIVE US MORE MONEY! It was interrupted by the news of Huhne (who I hope goes to prison), then back to the news conference in Leicester.


Back to the news anchors on BBCNews24 and one said, "Well they strung that out, didn't they!"

If the change in the law of primogeniture had happened a few hundred years ago Henry Tudor's claim to the throne would have seemed less dubious. I wonder though - where will they bury Richard III? Pesumably Leicester's primary Roman Catholic Church has a very strong claim.

I am not convinced that he was as white as snow, what happen to his nephews who murdered them? if he did not physically kill them I think he knew about it.


As for his relatives who think that Richard 111 was demonised by Shakespeare may have point. But the fact remains there are unanswered question about this point in history. I also find relatives of infamous people always try to justify their relatives behaviour i.e.???.. Captain Blythe as an example.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I’m basing it on the fact that Jeremy Corbyn had repeatedly and on record said he is against mandatory vaccinations in any situation, and he wouldn’t disclose wether he had the Covid vaccine himself    as I said. Not as bad as his brother but very definitely a bit weird about the whole thing. Just say you had the vaccination Jeremy, say that everyone should and stop being weird in the middle of a global pandemic    it’s the same slippery evasive nonsense about Brexit and him. About Putin poisonings and him.     if you are happy with his evasiveness then you do you.  But there is a reason the country wouldn’t get behind him 
    • It was my understanding that Jeremy Corbyn was embarrassed by his brother and had distanced himself from his brother's views. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Why on earth should "the overall view of that family inform Jeremy's response to the pandemic"? What exactly are you basing that assumption on?
    • I guess it's best to do what most Brits do these days, keep your head down and say nothing! although that's probably why this country is in the mess it is today!  😞
    • @Dulwichway Absolutely - I'm in no way trying to say that what happened was life-changing. I've encountered way worse situations and think of myself as pretty tough, which is why I took them on and got pelted. I suppose I'm just taken aback because the park always seemed so safe. But the stats I've just posted contradict that.   I suppose the one of the points of this thread is to point out that they weren't just numpty youths - I'd bet money on some of them being involved in more serious criminality. And to tell others to be vigilant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...