Royal Gossip
July 28, 2017, 01:30:53 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: King Richard III  (Read 4893 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
HC
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1625



« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2014, 09:21:09 pm »

Just read about the discovery of King Richard III.

King Richard III was a modern King.
He inforced the courts to treat high and low the same way.
Gave free legal aid to the poor.
Got the law translated from french to english.

His body is now found. It shows he was battered to death. His hands had been tied together.
Logged
theduchess
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 955



« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2014, 04:38:59 pm »

I watched the documentary when they found him and it was a horrendous way to die. Not only that but the way he was treated after he died but despite all that its fascinating, I do think he would have made a better king.
Logged

All my life, I've been fighting my way upstream.
Freya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #42 on: April 04, 2014, 06:30:37 pm »

^
It's about time they interred his remains. It's totally disrespectful to be arguing over where he is buried. He was a King for goodness sake and deserves some respect.
Logged
theduchess
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 955



« Reply #43 on: April 04, 2014, 06:48:26 pm »

I couldn't agree more, I do think that as he was from the House of York he should be interred in York, does anyone else agree or do you think Leicester? Either way he was a human who died in a traumatic way not a toy so I hope they pull their fingers out soon.
Logged

All my life, I've been fighting my way upstream.
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13927



« Reply #44 on: April 04, 2014, 07:39:56 pm »

What about mummies? I always think the same about them. All the fanfare to get them interred and then they end up in a museum.

About KEIII I thought he wanted to be interred in York?
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6025



« Reply #45 on: April 04, 2014, 09:18:44 pm »

I think after all the disrespect his memory has endured over the centuries (looking at you Shakespeare!) it is time to honor him properly and move on with this.  I think York is where he should be interred - it would have been his preference, the people there were loyal to him.  Burying him at Leicester is all about tourism money - what a shame.


He was also a Catholic so I do hope he is given a funeral which acknowledges that.

I have seen drawings of the tomb they plan - it seems very fitting and respectful of his status. 
Logged
HC
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1625



« Reply #46 on: April 04, 2014, 10:13:43 pm »

I also thought the precise same about Shakespeare.

Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35802


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 04, 2014, 10:18:12 pm »

Burying him for tourist money is just disgusting. Completely  and utterly disgusting.

I think the Windsors will botch this, like they mess up everything else that they touch.

Just read about the discovery of King Richard III.

King Richard III was a modern King.
He inforced the courts to treat high and low the same way.
Gave free legal aid to the poor.
Got the law translated from french to english.

His body is now found. It shows he was battered to death. His hands had been tied together.

Thing is, I think the Tudors were the worst thing to happen.

A lot of these problems were the Wars of the Roses, but if Edward IV hadn't married Elizabeth Woodville, I think things would have been much different. Warwick was apparently upset that Edward IV married a Lancaster, after fighting them the entire time on Edward's behalf. I admit I would be ticked too.

The Yorks were pure English and had a good connection with the people and it would be good to end up with him at York.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6025



« Reply #48 on: April 04, 2014, 10:25:12 pm »

Windsors have zilch to do with this it is the local councils that have made the mess.  It is so obvious he should be buried at York, a shame really that commercial interests should become more important than what is right.
Logged
berlin
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1985



« Reply #49 on: April 05, 2014, 05:23:59 am »

York is he place to bury RIII.  I'd love to visit his tomb, but not if it's in Leicester.  I havent heard good hinge about hat place.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35802


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #50 on: April 05, 2014, 05:50:06 am »

Windsors have zilch to do with this it is the local councils that have made the mess.  It is so obvious he should be buried at York, a shame really that commercial interests should become more important than what is right.

Well, why isn't HM intervening on behalf of her ancestor? This has everything to do with the royal family and I wonder if they would attend the funeral.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6025



« Reply #51 on: April 05, 2014, 05:58:32 am »

first of all they are not the ancestors of the current occupants of the throne - they were Plantagenets and the Tudors killed every last one of them - down to 70 year old women - to make sure they were never threatened.  Then the Tudors get replaced by Stuarts and then the current crop get imported from Germany.  The only surviving Plantagenet was the child  of Woodville and Edward's second daughter who survives because she marries a commoner and goes to Guernsey (I think).  Her descendant is in Canada now and it was his DNA that proved this was Richard  - which is pretty cool I think.  Except he doesn't want anyone to know who he is - in case the current occupants get nervous about a real Plantagenet floating around.   easter-lol

But yes you would think HM would take an interest but HM cannot over rule the local councils who have decided to keep Richard even if he does not belong there. It is a sad situation.  Maybe Richard will haunt them.
Logged
Freya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #52 on: April 05, 2014, 05:59:26 am »

The Leicester argument about Richard's burial stems from the fact that he was found in Leicester and certain laws apply. The York argument is that this law should not apply to a King who only happens to be buried in Leicester because he died at Bosworth.

Leicester put a lot of work into the research but Richard's associations were with the North. Personally I would like to see him buried in Ripon Cathedral which is nearer to his castle at Middleham. That's not likely to happen though.

Whether Leicester or York they need to get on with it.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35802


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #53 on: April 05, 2014, 07:16:17 am »

I wonder how different history would be if Richard had won. He owuld have married Elizabeth of York and England would not have been alienated from the Catholic Church.

first of all they are not the ancestors of the current occupants of the throne - they were Plantagenets and the Tudors killed every last one of them - down to 70 year old women - to make sure they were never threatened.  Then the Tudors get replaced by Stuarts and then the current crop get imported from Germany.  The only surviving Plantagenet was the child  of Woodville and Edward's second daughter who survives because she marries a commoner and goes to Guernsey (I think).  Her descendant is in Canada now and it was his DNA that proved this was Richard  - which is pretty cool I think.  Except he doesn't want anyone to know who he is - in case the current occupants get nervous about a real Plantagenet floating around.   easter-lol

But yes you would think HM would take an interest but HM cannot over rule the local councils who have decided to keep Richard even if he does not belong there. It is a sad situation.  Maybe Richard will haunt them.

Too bad the genuine English monarchy ended then; the Plantagenet dynasty was purely English and certainly, seemed to be less bloodthirsty than the Tudors were. I do know that the Tudors were largely Welsh and I believe that the monarchy would be a lot less uncertain than it is now.

The Tudors, if you notice, each generation all beheaded large amounts of the nobility. Henry VII, beheaded various aristocrats and married a woman of royal blood to a commoner to neutralize her claims. Henry VIII regularly beheaded nobility and went to the extra outrage of beheading the legendary Sir Thomas More and also has the distinction of going so far as to subject monks to a traitor's death. He has to be the first monarch to butcher monks and hang nuns. Then Edward beheaded his own uncles until his premature death. Mary Tudor burned Protestants and beheaded members of the nobility, threatening her own sister. Elizabeth started out good, but ended up soaking the scaffold in blood (to be fair, the Catholics who were executed were trying to kill her).

In fairness I do think that there is a blessing in disguise that Elizabeth never had any children.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Freya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #54 on: April 05, 2014, 11:47:33 am »

^
I don't think that Richard would have married Elizabeth of York. They would have been unlikely to have been granted a dispensation.

If the Stanley's had not changed sides during the battle the outcome would have been very different. Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort the mother of Henry Tudor so had a foot in both camps.

Quote
In fairness I do think that there is a blessing in disguise that Elizabeth never had any children
.

Elizabeth also executed another Queen. That was a terrible act on Elizabeth's part. The description of Mary's beheading makes horrific reading. Elizabeth did not even grant Mary the same death by sword that her mother (Anne Boleyn) had been given.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35802


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #55 on: April 05, 2014, 03:17:59 pm »

Executing Mary Queen of Scots was in fact the one act that set the precedent for the judicial murder of Charles I, Louis XVI, and Marie Antoinette. Then Nicholas II wasn't even granted the pretense of a trial. I often wonder, at what point will karma please come and bite the monarchy in the arse for that murder?
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Freya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #56 on: April 05, 2014, 04:01:40 pm »

^
Mary Queen of Scots was butchered. It took several blows to sever her head. Makes me go cold to think about it.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2014, 04:05:16 pm by Freya » Logged
HC
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1625



« Reply #57 on: April 05, 2014, 04:13:34 pm »

I think Mary Queen of Scots killed her husbond and eventually paid the karma prize.

Taken all things into account I'm convinced she was crazy, killing her husbond, evicting with a man, then accused him of violent physical attack, running away from Scotland that had enough of her, and in the end plotting to murder Elizabeth the one that actually had paid for her servants, food, clothes for several years.
Why did Mary escape to England when she only wanted to take the crown from her host.

Mary Scot was a crazy woman, just as her son was crazy or her nephew Henry VIII, his daughter Bloody Mary etc.
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2163



« Reply #58 on: April 27, 2014, 10:09:25 am »

first of all they are not the ancestors of the current occupants of the throne -

The Queen is a direct descendant of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York.

Henry VII - Margaret, Queen of Scots - James V of Scotland - Mary, Queen of Scots - James VI and I - Elizabeth - Sophia, Electress of Hannover - George I - George II - Frederick Prince of Wales - George III - Edward, Duke of Kent - Victoria - Edward VII - George V - George VI - Elizabeth.

Logged
Freya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #59 on: April 27, 2014, 10:22:07 am »

^
Darnley was also a descendent of Henry V11 and Elizabeth of York.

If Edward 1V was not the son of Richard of York then that would muddy the waters. There is still the Lancastrian connection but that is illegitimate although legitimised later.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!