Richard III | Tudor Personalities | 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
Richard III
August 24, 2012
10:39 am
Avatar
SarahD
Yorkshire, UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 28
Member Since:
December 17, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Ok, I know Richard III wasn’t a Tudor, but he was defeated by one so I’m hoping this is right place to post this!

Saw this article today

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/archa…..24776.html

Archaologists at the University of Leicester are starting a dig which they hope will uncover the site of Greyfriars Church where it is believed Richard III was buried, and they’re hoping to find his remains.

I’m still not 100% sure whether or not he was a bad or a good person but i’m continuing my research to make my own conclusions. I’m almost certain that he did have some hand in the murders of the Princes in the Tower and he did appear to be a bit of a heel (Smile) but i’m not sure. What does everyone else think? And do you know of any impartial references I could look at?

Hope everyone in the AB community is ok.

love,
Sarah x

August 24, 2012
12:10 pm
Avatar
Neil Kemp
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 447
Member Since:
April 11, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi Sarah, nice to ‘hear’ from you again. In my opinion the best biography of Richard is by Paul Murray Kendall, called very simply, “Richard 111”. It was published in 2002 and is (once again, imo) an impartial and definitive reference article on Richard. There are many others, but as most are recommended by the “Richard 111 Society”, one must question their impartiality! Another book, Cheetham’s “The Life and Times of Richard 111” (1972), is probably best avoided as it features on the list of research books used by PG!Yell(to steal ideas from one person is plagiarism, to steal from many is research!Wink).
I can’t ‘speak’ for anyone else, but I’m doing fine, thanks Sarah, and I trust you are too.Smile

August 24, 2012
1:21 pm
Avatar
SarahD
Yorkshire, UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 28
Member Since:
December 17, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thanks for that, Neil, I’ll definitely look up that book you recommended!

Also, your quote about stealing ideas is great, so I’m going to plagiarise it some time Laugh

take care,
Sarah

August 24, 2012
1:30 pm
Avatar
Gill
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
June 15, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

How cool is that? I suspect the chance of finding his remains is pretty slim though.

I second the suggestion of Kendall – I’ve read a few books about Richard III and his is easily the best. Avoid Alison Weir’s ‘Princes in the Tower’ at all costs…I’m far from being a Ricardian (I think he has to be at least one of the prime suspects in the murder) but Weir’s book was so obviously biased it made me all stabbity.

August 25, 2012
2:39 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Ok there are a few schools of thought about what happened to Richard’s body after Bosworth. Some say that he was buried on the battlefield.
Another rumour says that H7 had his body brought to London and hanged his corpse basically to show the people of London that 1. Richard was dead and 2 to show the people of London that he was King by trial of Combat and any of them who choose to make a issue out of t would also find themselves at a rope’s end. H7 is said to have buried Richard in Greyfriars and erected an albaster effigy above his tomb. When H8 disolved the Monastries Richard’s bones were allegdely thrown in the River Soar. I find this rumour to be a little suspect as the same rumour was spoken of when Mary came to throne in 1553 she was allegdely supposed to have dug up her father and thrown his bones in the River Soar too.

I think that Richard is still in what is left of Greyfriars or possibly his body was returned to Middleham Castle which was for most of Richard’s life his home.
I don’t believe that H7 would have just left Richard where he died after all he was a King and deserved a respectable funeral, despite any personal feelings nice or nasty H7 had of Richard.
Did Richard have anything to do with the Princes’ murder? Again this has been debated about for centuries. Somewhere on one of the forum pages I think it’s called The Prince’s in the Tower, we had debate about other tthan Richard who was more than likely the obvisous choice as murderer, just who else would gain from the boy’s deaths and just what were they hoping to acheive.. I don’t think Richard meant them to die but I think he had a hand in them disappearing, but I don’t think he was the one who killed them. There are many suspects but nothing that I have read has pointed the finger at any of the suspects firmly enough to make me think possitively that, that person was responsible. It’s a case of all smoke but no fire where their murder is concerned.. Yes I agree that 2 bodies were found in 1674 allegedely to do with some document that Thomas had written over a 100 years before pinpointing the exact position the Princes were buried, these bones were determined to be that of 2 children of approx the Princes’s ages when they went missing. However without the Queens permission for DNA sampling of the bones we can never be entirely certain if they were the Princes’ or not. However it was assumed that they were the Boys and given a decent burial at Westminster Abbey paid for by Charles 2nd..
However Maggie I think pointed out that when the Victorians (I think) opened the tomb of Edward 4th and Elizabeth Woodville it seemed as if there were 2 extra sets of bones there and judging by the way these bones lay they were buried there in a hurry. Is it possible that whoever murderered the boys, quickly stuffed their bodies in their parents coffins. and then carried on as if nothing had happened and acted the picture of innocence when it was discovered that the boys were now missing.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 25, 2012
3:57 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Elizabeth didn’t die for quite some time after her son’s disappeared though Bo, so if that were the case the bones would need to have been moved there later. I haven’t heard that theory before actually, it’s interesting.

August 25, 2012
5:04 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

Elizabeth didn’t die for quite some time after her son’s disappeared though Bo, so if that were the case the bones would need to have been moved there later. I haven’t heard that theory before actually, it’s interesting.

It’s such a long time since I’ve read this debate I’ve probably got myself a little muddled up Olga. But I’m sure the boys were buried hastily with their father and their mother was a later edition, so as strange as this seems perhaps nobody noticed anything amiss in Edward’s crypt when Elizabeth Woodville was buried or if they did it was perhaps thought better of to keep their mouths shut. After all to say anything after this length of time would acheive nothing and it would only open up old wounds.. H7 was excepted as King he was married to the York white Rose and as far as H7 was concerned that was the end of the matter. Elizabeth never questioned H7 about what happened to her brothers, and no one as far I know ever mentioned the fact there were 2 princes named Edward and Richard that disappeared. What I do find strange is that when Lambert Simnel turned up on the scene in 1487 Elizabeth Woodville would have known if this was her son or not. Did no one think to ask her? I also find it astounding that Margaret of Burgundy the aunt of both the princes should back first Lambert and then in 1499 Perkin as being her nephews when she had seen neither of them in the first place. As she was married off to Charles the Bold in 1468 and packed up and shipped out to Burgundy.
The princes being born Edward (1470) and Richard (1473) Did Margaret even think about her niece Queen Elizabeth? and just what would happen to her should either Lambert or Perkin succeed in their plans to topple H7? Somehow I doubt it. Margaret I believe was just out to make trouble she was perhaps a little put out because I suppose in theory Margaret could have been Queen of England in her own right. All 3 of her brothers were dead and Richard had declared Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage to her brother Edward as null and void and declared their children as bastards.
She was then in theory the only legigimate successor in her mind perhaps. Even H7 was declared illigitimate by Richard I believe so even Henry wouldn’t have been able to wriggle out of that one if Margaret had wanted to nit pick etc.
The Princes Mystery is a weird one to untangle one day I’m sure something will turn up which will solve this mystery once and for all.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 25, 2012
9:08 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn,
I think Simnel claimed to be the Earl of Warwick, Clarence’s son. Not one of the Princes. A priest found Simnel as a young boy and educated him in the manners of court. At first he was going to say the boy was Richard, Edward’s son, but when he heard that the Earl of Warwick had died in the Tower he decided to use his name.
I don’t get any of these people’s lack of reaction to the boys being alive or dead. There seems to be a lot of history lost here. We don’t know whether Elizabeth inquired about her brothers or whether by the time Henry came to the throne, she already knew what had happened to them. Same with her mother Elizabeth. Now Margaret I can understand her using anybody she could in her desire to topple HenryVII. If she thought about Elizabeth’s feelings at all, she probably felt Elizabeth would be better off with Henry dead.
Richard said Henry was illegitimate, too? Was everyone illegitimate in his book? Smile

August 25, 2012
10:07 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yeah you are right Sharon Simnel was paraded about as the Earl of Warwick although at first he was considered for the role of Richard the younger son of Edward 4th. I don’t know why Richard Symonds who thought that Lambert looked like Edward’s youngest son, changed his mind and decided to parade Simnel around as the Earl of Warwick instead, but taking a wild guess it’s possile that as their names were similar it would be better for Simnel to play Warwick..
I’m not to sure about Richard called H7 a bastard, he may have meant it in the swearing sence rather than the actual sence..
However just to get back to Richard 3rd. In The Sun today it appears that Leicestershire city council have granted a man called Richard Buckley permission to dig up 2 aches of a car park. It seems that the car park was built on what was once a local friary which is on the outskirts of Bosworth field, and Richard Buckley believes that Richard 3rd’s remains are under the tarmac. Mr Buckley has also managed to trace a direct living relative called Micheal Ibsen who has agreed to DNA testing if they do find something because of this dig. If it turns out to be Richard 3rd then Mr Buckley has agreed to hand the bones over to the family. It’s a case of waiting with baited breath and on tenderhooks to see what they unearth..

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 26, 2012
3:12 am
Avatar
Gill
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
June 15, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

However Maggie I think pointed out that when the Victorians (I think) opened the tomb of Edward 4th and Elizabeth Woodville it seemed as if there were 2 extra sets of bones there and judging by the way these bones lay they were buried there in a hurry. Is it possible that whoever murderered the boys, quickly stuffed their bodies in their parents coffins. and then carried on as if nothing had happened and acted the picture of innocence when it was discovered that the boys were now missing.

It was a couple of mysterious coffins they discovered, not extra bones in their coffins, as they were never opened. The story is right here here in St George’s chapel archives –

http://www.stgeorges-windsor.o…..log/?p=837

August 26, 2012
9:13 am
Avatar
Rosie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 15
Member Since:
August 13, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Its quite exciting, isn’t it? Too think that they will find the remains of one of the most controversial king’s in history! Do you guys think they will find them? I hope they do

August 26, 2012
12:52 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Oh I thought everybody called all the Tudors illegitimate, Henry VIII did it to his own kids. The dolt.

I haven’t read enough about Richard yet, but I lean towards him being painted far worse than he was. Discovering his remains would be great Rosie, so he can be buried properly. I do feel a bit negative towards people messing with actual graves though. But if he is under a carpark, by all means get him out

August 26, 2012
1:05 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thank you Gill as I said I wasn’t really too sure. To be fair I’ve not read a lot about Richard 3rd, but I don’t believe he’s a murderer.
What he did I believe he did for the good of England. Taking the throne from the Princes was perhaps not the best idea, especiallythe way on how he did it, but you can see his point. It was only a couple of years since Edward and finally put down H6 and there were still a few insurrections and little scurmishes still going on. To have a boy on the throne at this time would have been madness, England needed a strong hand at the helm not a boy who would be ruled by a council.
Richard was simply the best man for the job as King at this time. He has been described by some scholars as being deformed and a tryant. Bullplop I think perhaps he may have been perhaps not as tall as his Brother and perhaps he could be pretty ruthless in his way as Hastings murder proves.. but that doesn’t make him a monster.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 28, 2012
3:10 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Actually I’ve just been doing a little bit of refreshing my memory.. Edward Earl of Warwick was still alive in the Tower at the time of the Lamert Simnel uprising. Edward didn’t die until 1499 and Lambert Simnel uprising was in 1487. Perhaps Richard Symonds had thought wrongly that Edward had died at around the same time as the Princes? When Lambert was exposed as a fraud H7 had Edward brought from the Tower and paraded both around the streets of London to prove that 1. Edward was alive and well and 2. Lambert was imposter to be ridiculed. As it goes H7 saw that poor Lambert was just a pawn in one man’s lust for power, and instead of punishing Lambert gave him a job in the Royal Kitchens as a turnspit. Lambert eventually worked his way up to become the Royal Falconer and died around 1525.
Symonds who was behind the whole uprising was spared execusion due to him being a preist however, but was imprisoned for life.
All the other conspiritors were captured and executed or escaped. It is also interesting to note that Simnel was actually crowned as King Edward 1V of England in Christ Church Catherdral in Ireland.
The real Edward it seems was considered as retarded, and due to his father’s (George Duke of Clarence) treasonable acts against his brother Edward 4th both Edward and Margaret his sister were disregarded as heirs to the throne. However it has been rumoured that Richard named Edward as his heir shortly after the death of his own son and as a favour to his dying wife, when Anne died less then a year after her son Richard named his sister Elizabeth’s son John Earl of Lincoln as his heir. Edward Earl of Warwick as I said was considered as being retarded the reason being is unknown, but one historian pointed out it was because Edward couldn’t tell the difference beween a Goose and a Capon. I think that was being a little unfair personally. Whatever Edward was or wasn’t he died in the Tower at the age of 24, and upon his death the legitimate Plantagenet male line became extinct.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 28, 2012
4:57 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Rosie,
I think it is exciting too. He was a king of England and the thought of his bones being tossed in the river as if he was nothing is just so sad. He deserves an appropriate burial.

August 28, 2012
9:39 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I actually question the theory of Richard’s bones being thrown into the River Soar for 2 reasons.

1. This theory also came about when Mary came to throne about her father. It was said she dug up his bones and chucked them in the River Soar. Of course we know that to be bunkum, but it does seem strange that 2 theories about bones being thrown in the River Soar were put about..

2 Whatever Richard was or wasn’the was an annoited King and I don’t believe that H7 would have been such a pig to do something like that or ordered anyone else to do it either. Richard died as King and his body deserved the respect and desency of a Royal funeral befitting his status.

If Richard is found I can only hope that his bones are still given the respect they deserve.

Richard I believe wasn’t as black as he’s been painted, he did what he felt was best for England and it’s people. I don’t agree with the reasons he used to usurp the throne but I think I can understand why he did it.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 28, 2012
11:54 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

Actually I’ve just been doing a little bit of refreshing my memory.. Edward Earl of Warwick was still alive in the Tower at the time of the Lamert Simnel uprising. Edward didn’t die until 1499 and Lambert Simnel uprising was in 1487. Perhaps Richard Symonds had thought wrongly that Edward had died at around the same time as the Princes? When Lambert was exposed as a fraud H7 had Edward brought from the Tower and paraded both around the streets of London to prove that 1. Edward was alive and well and 2. Lambert was imposter to be ridiculed. As it goes H7 saw that poor Lambert was just a pawn in one man’s lust for power, and instead of punishing Lambert gave him a job in the Royal Kitchens as a turnspit. Lambert eventually worked his way up to become the Royal Falconer and died around 1525.
Symonds who was behind the whole uprising was spared execusion due to him being a preist however, but was imprisoned for life.
All the other conspiritors were captured and executed or escaped. It is also interesting to note that Simnel was actually crowned as King Edward 1V of England in Christ Church Catherdral in Ireland.
The real Edward it seems was considered as retarded, and due to his father’s (George Duke of Clarence) treasonable acts against his brother Edward 4th both Edward and Margaret his sister were disregarded as heirs to the throne. However it has been rumoured that Richard named Edward as his heir shortly after the death of his own son and as a favour to his dying wife, when Anne died less then a year after her son Richard named his sister Elizabeth’s son John Earl of Lincoln as his heir. Edward Earl of Warwick as I said was considered as being retarded the reason being is unknown, but one historian pointed out it was because Edward couldn’t tell the difference beween a Goose and a Capon. I think that was being a little unfair personally. Whatever Edward was or wasn’t he was executed in the Tower shortly after the Warbeck uprising was squashed at the age of 24, He had supported Warbeck’s claim to the throne as Richard Duke of York. Edward’s death ended the legitimate Plantagenet male line became extinct.

I meant Lambert was crowned in Ireland as Edward V1.
Honesty I must stop hitting myself over the head with a tin tray, it’s damages the old grey matter, but then being married to a fossilised grumpy old Dinosaur it’s enough to make you want to hit yourself over the head with a tin tray.
Guess it save chewing the furniture although I’ve been known to do that on the odd occation too..

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 29, 2012
2:08 am
Avatar
Gill
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
June 15, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

Whatever Edward was or wasn’t he died in the Tower at the age of 24, and upon his death the legitimate Plantagenet male line became extinct.

Isn’t he one of the people Henry VII had executed to satisfy Ferdinand and Isabella that there was no more doubtful royal claims in England, when he was trying to arrange Arthur’s marriage to KOA?

August 29, 2012
1:40 pm
Avatar
Neil Kemp
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 447
Member Since:
April 11, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

I actually question the theory of Richard’s bones being thrown into the River Soar for 2 reasons.

1. This theory also came about when Mary came to throne about her father. It was said she dug up his bones and chucked them in the River Soar. Of course we know that to be bunkum, but it does seem strange that 2 theories about bones being thrown in the River Soar were put about..

2 Whatever Richard was or wasn’the was an annoited King and I don’t believe that H7 would have been such a pig to do something like that or ordered anyone else to do it either. Richard died as King and his body deserved the respect and desency of a Royal funeral befitting his status.

If Richard is found I can only hope that his bones are still given the respect they deserve.

Richard I believe wasn’t as black as he’s been painted, he did what he felt was best for England and it’s people. I don’t agree with the reasons he used to usurp the throne but I think I can understand why he did it.

After the battle Richard’s armour and clothes were removed and his naked body was carried on horseback to Leicester where he was put on public display for three days. Not too much respect there methinks! However I believe this was more of a message from Henry stating that, “I’m in charge now and if you don’t like it this is how you’ll end up”. After this Henry had Richard buried at Greyfriars. I can’t see any future Tudor monarch having his body removed and thrown into the river, what would be the point? Henry Tudor had won his battle, made his point with Richard’s body and then had him buried. There was nothing to avenge and no useful point to be made in removing his bones, so I just don’t believe anybody removed Richard’s bones from his final resting place.
Regarding Richard’s reputation. I believe he was certainly a victim of Tudor propagandists whom it suited to show him as a power-mad child-killer, a reputation enhanced by Shakespeare. Richard did in fact do many good things in his short reign, being an innovator of modern legal principles such as jury duty and bail. He was brave in battle and almost certainly not the physical deformity depicted by Shakespeare (people like their monsters to actually look the part as well!). So yes, I believe history has painted Richard a lot blacker than he actually was, however he still remains (at the very least) the prime suspect in the disappearance of his nephews, Edward and Richard. Even if he was guilty of their murders, or arrangement thereof, would that make him any worse than a lot of rulers in those times? Would he have been unique in arranging the deaths of others to either rise to or cling onto power?
One thing I do find fascinating about all this is how events from history can be given a different interpretation over the years. The events don’t change, but what people believe (or are led into believing) does, usually depending on who is in charge and what story suits their own purposes best. I wonder how Richard, the Tudors and indeed Anne will be viewed in say, a hundred years from now? I’m sure some new theories will come to light, just so long as nobody believes PG then!Wink

August 29, 2012
1:44 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gill said

Boleyn said

Whatever Edward was or wasn’t he died in the Tower at the age of 24, and upon his death the legitimate Plantagenet male line became extinct.

Isn’t he one of the people Henry VII had executed to satisfy Ferdinand and Isabella that there was no more doubtful royal claims in England, when he was trying to arrange Arthur’s marriage to KOA?

Yes. Ferdinand and Isabella, basically saw the Tudor dynasty as a flash in the pan. To hammer home the point that the Tudor Dynasty were here and here to stay, plus to secure KOA for Arthur. H7 had to execute Edward.

It’s funny how history repeats as well. If you look at the situation with Mary 1st and Jane Grey in order to get Philip to come to England and marry her, Mary had to kill Jane. Althought the situation is different it still ended up with a rival to the throne dead.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 70

Currently Online:
14 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2345

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 934

DuchessofBrittany: 847

Mya Elise: 782

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 426041

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1679

Posts: 23600

Newest Members:

franklingo18, HorinadR, estherqw4, enriquebo2, Delaquand, esperanzamt3

Administrators: Claire: 998