"If" Richard III had won at Bosworth? | Page 3 | Historical Debates | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
"If" Richard III had won at Bosworth?
March 13, 2014
1:40 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bob the Builder said

Anne Boleyn would possibly still be a figure of some hIstorical importance – she was the Grand-Daughter and Great-Grandaughter of the Howard Dukes of Norfolk: they were both the closest and most important friends and supporters of Richard III. i think i’ve read somewhere that R3 (as Richard, Duke of Gloucester) stood as Godparent to AB’s mother, Elizabeth Howard – though quite where i can’t recall – this relationship would put the future AB right at the center of the Richardian/Yorkist court.

Would Thomas Boleyn have been considered as a suitor of Elizabeth had the Howards been in favour with Rihard III? Surely there would have been better, more noble men earger to wed with the daughter of the king’s strongest ally.

When Thomas and ELizabeth married, she was daughter to the Earl of Surrey since the title of Duke of Norfolk had been stripped from her father.

It's always bunnies.

March 13, 2014
2:11 pm
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 611
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well, if Dickie had won we would have:-
1. Good King Richard with the straight back and handsome face.
2. Princes in the Tower? Killed by the evil Tudor’s.
3. Cruel, miserly, murderous Henry (without the VII)
3 No VIII for his son, who would just have been ‘the fat bloke with the gammy leg’.
4. Anne Boleyn? Never heard of her.
5. Shakespeare plays entitled, ‘King Richard The Valient’, parts I, II, III, IV and V, and, ‘Henry V: Monster’.
6. The Tudor’s TV show would be limited to one brief episode.
7. Phillippa Gregory would be a sales assistant with Marks and Spencer.
8. A very successful website called ‘The Elizabeth of York Files’.Kiss

March 13, 2014
2:40 pm
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Louise said

Well, if Dickie had won we would have:-
1. Good King Richard with the straight back and handsome face.
2. Princes in the Tower? Killed by the evil Tudor’s.
3. Cruel, miserly, murderous Henry (without the VII)
3 No VIII for his son, who would just have been ‘the fat bloke with the gammy leg’.
4. Anne Boleyn? Never heard of her.
5. Shakespeare plays entitled, ‘King Richard The Valient’, parts I, II, III, IV and V, and, ‘Henry V: Monster’.
6. The Tudor’s TV show would be limited to one brief episode.
7. Phillippa Gregory would be a sales assistant with Marks and Spencer.
8. A very successful website called ‘The Elizabeth of York Files’.Kiss

Wonderful! Laugh

March 29, 2014
6:57 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It seems as if there has been a whole new spanner been put in the works concerning R3?
Some boffin from London university (I Think) has said that he doesn’t believe the body (bones) found is good old dicky. He believes that it is possible that the bones found are from a close relative of Dicky’s such as a cousin. I think his arguement is based on the fact that one of his cousin’s, also had spinal problems or something. He also states that microcondial DNA is not a reliable method of indentification, etc.. well that’s all they have, unless Stephen Hawking invents time travel (Perfectly possible according to some scientists)
Personally I think it’s a case of sour grapes. I think he’s another one like that silly woman, (Who with respect put in the time and tide to actually get Leicester Council to allow her and her team to did up the carpark) who simply won’t accept that Dicky had a deformaty. Personally if this spinal deformaty run in his family, and they all met sticky ends in the various wars that they had, it just goes to prove that they didn’t allow their deformaty to bugger up their lives in anyway. Think that what you call strength of will and sheer determination. Disability is a word not an ailment.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 29, 2014
7:04 am
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Michael Hicks is a virulent anti-Richard historian from Winchester, not London University. I suspect he has a new book coming out which is why he has made these statements. It would be coincidence beyond imagining to think that there is someone other than Richard III buried in a place of honour in a priory in Leicester, of the right age, who ate a high status diet, who died from battle injuries, who had scoliosis which led to what contemporaries described as one shoulder higher than the other, and who was found precisely where the contemporary writer John Rous said Richard III was buried.
How many other battles of TWOTR were fought near Leicester?

March 31, 2014
12:52 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

There has actually been speculation about this since the minute the UoL announced that the remains were his. The UoL should probably just publish their findings instead of blustering.

March 31, 2014
1:51 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It does seem as if Micheal Hicks, and the whole of the UoL have a serious case of sour grapes. Personally I think it’s because an outsider John Rous(I’m assuming he’s an outsider) put in the time and research to pinpoint exactly where Dicky was.
I totally agree Olga. if they going to fart out B******S and ballast, then they should be prepared to back it all up. Right now as far as I am concerned they have found Dicky last year, “IF” or until they can prove otherwise that is the then of the story.
To put it slightly more poetically If the UoL and M.Hicks etc are going to write checks, they better make sure that their arses are fully prepared to cash them.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 31, 2014
2:49 pm
Avatar
Barnettbuff
Murray, Kentucky USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 88
Member Since:
October 1, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I thought I had read that DNA tests had fully answered that question; and it really is Richard. Does UofL NOT accept that outcome?

March 31, 2014
3:22 pm
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The University of Leicester have poured scorn on Hicks’s interview. They have reiterated the evidence which led them to the conclusion that the bones discovered at Greyfriars are indeed Richard’s.

I am sure Hicks is getting any publicity he can for a book which will, no doubt, be published soon.

March 31, 2014
4:22 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

To be frank the DNA tests can’t answer that question 100%. The written evidence of where Richard was buried is what backs it up and makes the probability higher. Hicks is correct about the possibility of the remains being of another descendent if you were going on the DNA identification alone. But there is plenty of evidence to back up the location of his grave so it’s a moot point.

Pouring scorn and giving a one paragraph summary of their evidence is not what I am talking about Jasmine. Regardless of how you feel about Hicks this speculation is old news, it is only being addressed now because it’s been featured in the BBC history magazine. Terry Brevetton has already written about it in his book published last year.

March 31, 2014
4:39 pm
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

With regard to peer review stuff, it all takes time and I am sure the University will publish in due course.

March 31, 2014
4:46 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

They might work a little faster now Laugh

March 31, 2014
4:53 pm
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Laugh

When I went to their Conference a few weeks ago, they talked about papers coming out shortly so I guess it won’t be too long. Wink

March 31, 2014
6:52 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Is there just a tinsy winsy chance that the DNA is indeed wrong? I doubt it myself, but that purely my own opinion. But now that M.Hicks has brought up his doubts, I had a little recap/refresher to do with “The King in the Car Park” When they first type/time line tested the bones.
If my rotton stinking memory is right (which is rare) the person who gave out the info on the bones dated them for around 20/30 years before Bosworth, but then went out on some tangent about diet etc which then aged the bones to the right age. This is suggesting to me at least that M.Hicks may have a point. If the Carbon/time dating of those bones was correct, then yes the DNA was correct too, but the bones are not Dicky’s but a close relative, such as a cousin.

DNA is very complecated it does my head in, but I do remember once many years ago, that a DNA test was proformed on a lady who had had a baby with man who had an identical twin brother, the identical twin brother also claimed that he was the father of the ladies child, so he too was given a test. When the results came back it turned out the men were both found to be the child’s father, because of a very rare genetic code that is found in a vey small procentage of ident Twins. However the boffins were able to somehow manage to find out exactly which man fathered the child by Microcondial DNA , which is what has been used in Dicky’s case. and to be honest I don’t think Microcondial DNA is entirely fool proof.

I rather think that the only way we can truly get to the bottom of this new saga in Dicky’s History, is if DNA could be taken from the bones of E4 and his Father and Mother. If the microcondial DNA from the bones in the car park match up with either of E4 or daddy or better yet mummy, which is where microcondial DNA comes from, then yes we can can suck up M.Hicks theory and blow him out in bubbles. But somehow I can’t see the Queen allowing anymore diddling about with the DNA of her relatives sadly.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 31, 2014
7:14 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said
…This is suggesting to me at least that M.Hicks may have a point. If the Carbon/time dating of those bones was correct, then yes the DNA was correct too, but the bones are not Dicky’s but a close relative, such as a cousin….

i disagree – the DNA might say that this could be a relative, the problem is that we know where those relatives who could be carriers (100 years either way..) are buried, and its not in Leicester, as well as being absolutely sure that Richard was buried there.

thats the problem Hicks conveniently ignores – theres no one else with that DNA, with those injuries, in that dating period, who is buried in Leicester.

you’ll notice that Hicks hasn’t mentioned anyone else it could be…

March 31, 2014
11:12 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree Bob 100% with the findings of last year in my mind there is no doubt that the bones they found were indeed Dicky’s. Considering the amount of work/time and money that has been put into the search for Dicky it is highly unlikely they could afford to make any mistakes. And bear in mind history spoke of Dicky having a hunch shoulder or twisted back, ok so old Bill Shakespeare did over do the deformaty etc, but then the propagandarists, were out to make Dicky a villian and H7 the hero. In much the same way as the Catholic propagandarists slandered Elizabeth where they could.
Personally I think M.Hicks is clutching at straws and still drowning. all he says is that he doesn’t believe they are dicky’s bones. He’s entitled to his opinion, as we all are, but the way he has said it is in the form of a statement not an opinion and he has nothing to back up his words, that (His words) The bones found aren’t Richard 3rd’s. The question/answer to that one is “Ok well where is your evidence to state otherwise, and to offer a reasonable argement for your doubts, and if they aren’t Richard’s just who do you think the bones belong to, and again, ok so where’s your evidence to back it up.”

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 1, 2014
4:49 am
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hicks is a historian, not an expert on DNA, carbon dating or archaeology. He is also a man with an agenda – one of the most anti-Richard historians around today. The bones were formally identified two years ago – why has it taken him so long to make his statement? As I said before, I’ll bet there is a new book in the offing.

By the way, Hicks is not amenable to criticism or correction of his ‘ideas’. He has made a mistake with regard to the necessity of Richard and Anne Neville needing a particular type of dispensation for their marriage. He has misinterpreted canon law and despite this being pointed out to him, with evidence to back it up, he refuses to acknowledge he is wrong.

April 1, 2014
7:03 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Jasmine, it sounds as if M.Hicks is a bit of a bombastic, know it all but knows F all sort of historian. None of us are infallible and we all make mistakes, Jeez I’ve dropped plenty of clangers in my time both historically and in other things but at least I can sit and hold my hands up and say “Hey I’ve messed up here and I’m sorry” learn from it and move on.

I confess I don’t know too much about Dicky as he never really caught my attention, but thanks to people like you and others I have learnt a lot more about him.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 1, 2014
7:27 am
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

He’s a worthwhile study, Boleyn, from whichever side of the divide you’re on.

April 1, 2014
8:17 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hicks is a good historian Bo. Jasmine and I usually disagree on how anti-Richard he is, but despite that he has done a great deal of invaluable work on George Duke of Clarence, who no-one else cares about.

His book is not out until next year Jasmine Laugh Not sure of the month yet but he’s doing a new one on Richard’s family for Amberley. As for why this is coming out after two years it is because the BBC had nothing new on Richard this month. We should be grateful they’re not discussing his intestines again..

I just subscribed to the BBC History magazine, finally, and after reading the article Biddle is actually challenging the archaeological work. Hicks mainly seems to be challenging the accuracy of the radio carbon dating.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 427586

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1711

Posts: 23075

Newest Members:

Goldyy, klftault, Opilacetault, 415berna, modwynVom, Thelmaaledo

Administrators: Claire: 959