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

    • Surely only where the local businesses offer clear advantages, otherwise you are rewarding what should be failure. I want to be served by a better bakery than Gail's, not a worse but local independent one. Certainly give a local independent some time to get the offer right, but don't buy goods which are worse and or more expensive just because the outlet isn't a chain. 
    • Let’s just boycott all chains in favour of local businesses.  Places like Gail’s popping up everywhere has a very damaging impact on small businesses. It’s just the same as the new empanadas place but on a bigger scale. I’ll say it a million times more, we hold the power with our choices. Let’s use our power to look after ourselves and our environment (which includes small local family businesses). And yes, I also love Chacarero.
    • You know that the top 1% of earners pay 30% of all total tax in the UK right? If they leave who picks up the tax slack? This is an inconvenient truth ignored by many. This is why Labour did a u-turn on non-doms because they started leaving and left the Treasury with a growing tax hole to fill. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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