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

    • There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda and far more across their briefs than any minister I've seen in years. The consensus was that Labour are so unpopular and untrusted by the electorate already, as are the Conservatives, that breaking the manifesto pledge on income tax wouldn't drive their approval ratings any lower, so they should, and I quote, 'Roll The Dice', hope for the best and see where we are in a couple of years time. As a strategy, i don't know whether I find that quite worrying or just an honest appraisal of what most governments actually do in practice.
    • They are a third of the way through their term Earl. It's no good blaming other people anymore. They only have three years left to fix what is now their own mess. And its not just lies in the manifesto. There were lies at the last budget too, when they said that was it, they weren't coming back for more tax and more borrowing. They'd already blamed the increase in NIC taxes on what they claimed was a thorough investigation. They either knew everything then or they lied about that too .   They need to stop lying and start behaving. If they don't the next government won't be theirs, it will be led by Nigel Farage.  They have to turn it round rapidly. Blaming other people, telling lies and breaking promises isn't going to cut it any more.
    • Is it lame? Or is it Lamey? (sorry)
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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