Richard III | Page 4 | 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

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Richard III
September 15, 2012
3:12 pm
Avatar
Gill
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
June 15, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Also, the DNA results will hinge on whether the relative they found really *is* a relative. I know they believe he is, but there is always the possibility they made a mistake, in which the DNA results would prove nothing.

September 15, 2012
3:58 pm
Avatar
Janet
ON Canada
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 153
Member Since:
February 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’ve marked the 12th week on my calendar. Smile

September 15, 2012
6:35 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gill said

Also, the DNA results will hinge on whether the relative they found really *is* a relative. I know they believe he is, but there is always the possibility they made a mistake, in which the DNA results would prove nothing.

As it goes Gill I share that view. Nothing is no means certain to all this. It could be Richard, which as I’ve said in a previous post will be the biggest find since the Princes. However there was a few more Royal burials at this site, One in particular was a lady aptly named Joan of the Tower, due to her birth place. She was the daughter of Isabella the She Wolf and Edward 2nd and was married to David 2nd King of Scots she died in her mothers arms at Hertford Castle in 1362 and was buried at Greyfriars. So the bones mystery is not so cut a dried as first thought.
Anyway I’m counting down the days just as Janet is, with my fingers and toes crossed…

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 15, 2012
9:09 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I do have scoliosis. When I was 14, I went through this big rigamarole where I was in a cast and they partially straightened my spine and fused it. I tell you this because there are many degrees of a curvature of the spine. I had an 80 degree curve in the thorasic spine and a 40 degree curve in the lumbar region. Still do. My right shoulder is higher than my left, but not as noticeable as it was before the surgery. And my right shoulder and rib cage area are quite prevalent. My left leg is one inch shorter than my right leg, but I have learned to walk so that a limp is barely noticeable. There are many complications that come with severe scoliosis. For instance, lungs are not at full capacity. Heart may be affected. Migraines are also associated with a misalignment of the spine.
I only tell you this because back in Richard’s day, if his curve was severe, the people around him may have said he had a hump. Of course it would depend on how bad his curve was. I think they said in the report that it was severe. I have read that Richard was a sickly child. If this is true, his lungs may have been compromised by the scoliosis and he may have had illnesses such as really bad colds and every other illness that effected the lungs back then. If he suffered from severe scoliosis, I give him a lot of credit. First of all, he survived in a time when ignorance was bliss. He overcame a disability to become a pretty competent soldier.
I hope that if these remains do turn out to be Richard’s, that he will be interred in a place of honor due a king of England. Actually I hope they would bury him him next to his Anne.

September 15, 2012
11:36 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

I do have scoliosis. When I was 14, I went through this big rigamarole where I was in a cast and they partially straightened my spine and fused it. I tell you this because there are many degrees of a curvature of the spine. I had an 80 degree curve in the thorasic spine and a 40 degree curve in the lumbar region. Still do. My right shoulder is higher than my left, but not as noticeable as it was before the surgery. And my right shoulder and rib cage area are quite prevalent. My left leg is one inch shorter than my right leg, but I have learned to walk so that a limp is barely noticeable. There are many complications that come with severe scoliosis. For instance, lungs are not at full capacity. Heart may be affected. Migraines are also associated with a misalignment of the spine.
I only tell you this because back in Richard’s day, if his curve was severe, the people around him may have said he had a hump. Of course it would depend on how bad his curve was. I think they said in the report that it was severe. I have read that Richard was a sickly child. If this is true, his lungs may have been compromised by the scoliosis and he may have had illnesses such as really bad colds and every other illness that effected the lungs back then. If he suffered from severe scoliosis, I give him a lot of credit. First of all, he survived in a time when ignorance was bliss. He overcame a disability to become a pretty competent soldier.
I hope that if these remains do turn out to be Richard’s, that he will be interred in a place of honor due a king of England. Actually I hope they would bury him him next to his Anne.

Thank you for that bit of info Sharon, about migraines. I’ve suffered with them all of my life so am used to them, but in the last 2 or 3 years since my back has got worse I’ve been sufferring from dizzy spells and black outs which can last from a few hours to a few days. Now I’m wondering if it is entirely possible that the 2 problems are connected in some way. I’ll mention this one to the ortho surgeon..

Quite right about Richard I guess you could say he was the forerunner to every disabled person everywhere, that just because you have a disability doesn’t mean you can’t do or acheive anything. If you really want something neither mountains or molehills can stand in your way to getting or fulfilling your dreams. I think they will bury him next to Anne, he’s owed that much at least.
Some people condemn Richard as a child killing maniac who got everything he deserved at Bosworth. Personally I just see Richard as doing what he felt was best and right for the country after Edward’s death, and ultimately got betrayed in the end.
Like I said in a previous post I don’t agree with what Richard did but I do understand why.
In short Britain was in a muddle and it couldn’t afford to have all the problems they had during the Wars of the Roses, people wanted peace, and with a child on the throne, the council that would be ruling for Edward 5th, would be a case of every man for himself. Britain needed a strong hand at the helm, Richard was that strong hand. Although his reign consisted of putting down uprising upon uprising, can anyone say that wouldn’t have happened with Edward 5th on the throne? Remember the Wat Tyler Riot came with a whisper of completely overturning the monachy.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 16, 2012
2:40 am
Avatar
Gill
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
June 15, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yes, I too admire the way he overcame his disability (assuming this IS Richard). I work in disability services and I see every day what a struggle people have just to try to live a normal life. He clearly had a lot of courage and determination.

I’m like you Boleyn, Richard may (or may not!) have been responsible for the Princes ‘disappearance’ but I think it was a difficult time when England needed a strong hand at the tiller. Re-reading all my old RIII books though, I’m wavering a bit over whether he did kill them…there are things that give me pause. Their mother Elizabeth Woodville seems to have come to some accord with him, to the point that there were rumours he would marry her eldest daughter when Anne died. And then in Henry VII’s reign, when her daughter was queen of England and her grandson set to inherit the throne, Henry suddenly stripped her of her lands and banished her to a convent. Why? There is no record of what happened to them, but then again Henry allegedly had a LOT of documents from Richard’s reign destroyed.

I’ve just read ‘The Lost Prince’ by David Baldwin. It rather unconvincingly made the case that the younger prince survived and ended up as a bricklayer, but one point he made was that two sons of a king couldn’t just disappear without anyone knowing what happened to them. Questions would have been asked, people would be wanting to know what happened to them, including their mother, and I can’t imagine her just shrugging her shoulders and then allowing her daughters to cavort with the murderer of her sons. But then, they did both disappear and there is no record of either of them ever again…although it’s possible the elder prince may have died of natural causes. He appeared to have some kind of malady (infection?) in his jaw and was being regularly attended by a doctor when he was in the tower. But what about the younger one? It’s so hard to know what to think.

September 29, 2012
11:28 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gill said
I’m like you Boleyn, Richard may (or may not!) have been responsible for the Princes ‘disappearance’ but I think it was a difficult time when England needed a strong hand at the tiller. Re-reading all my old RIII books though, I’m wavering a bit over whether he did kill them…there are things that give me pause. Their mother Elizabeth Woodville seems to have come to some accord with him, to the point that there were rumours he would marry her eldest daughter when Anne died. And then in Henry VII’s reign, when her daughter was queen of England and her grandson set to inherit the throne, Henry suddenly stripped her of her lands and banished her to a convent. Why? There is no record of what happened to them, but then again Henry allegedly had a LOT of documents from Richard’s reign destroyed.

That is pretty much the impression I have without doing too much reading on the matter, and I have to admit it’s only because of PG’s fiction series that I lean towards that opinion (she basically uses the point that Elizabeth Woodville didn’t think he murdered her sons) But the argument makes some sense, doesn’t it? I was just poking around the University of Leicester blog. Apparently David Baldwin has a new book on Richard III which I’ll be adding to my list

http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog…..-confirmed

I know she in pretty heavily influenced by Baldwin so I think it should be interesting to read his books if they’re “pro” Richard.
And I seriously envy anyone who can attend this

http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog…..conference

October 6, 2012
4:54 pm
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A really good book which examines the evidence against Richard from an objective standpoint is ‘The Maligned King’ by Annette Carson.

One point to remember about the bones in Westminster Abbey – there is absolutely no proof that they are the Princes. The bones were discovered 10 feet down under a flight of stone steps which were demolished in the reign of Charles II. Now imagine, you have just killed two children in the middle of the night and have to bury them in secret. Of course, you would choose to dig down 10 feet under stone stairs – no one would hear the noise and no one would notice you doing it. How long would it take, by hand?

Anyway, the bones were thrown on a rubbish heap after discovery and lay there for a couple of years until someone suddenly thought – those bones, they must be the Princes. The bones were collected, along with some unrelated bones and animal bones, and put in the nice urn in the Abbey.

In the 1930s, two doctors examined them. They started from the premise that they WERE the princes and proceeded to find that they were, indeed, the princes. However, there is no knowledge how old the bones are – they could have been buried hundreds of years before the princes disappeared. Modern techniques would be needed just to establish the age of the bones, but permission so far has not been granted.

Richard III’s title to the crown was confirmed by Act of Parliament – Titulus Regis. When H7 suceeded, he ordered all copies of the Act to be repealed and destroyed UNREAD. By some chance, one copy survived. Without it, we would not know that Richard had legitimate title to the throne. Why did Henry repeal it? Well it confirmed that the children of E4 were illegimate and of course, H7 had just married the eldest daughter. The repealing of the Act made her legitimate again. It also made her two brothers King and Duke of York again. So, H7 needed the princes to be dead. However, after Bosworth, H7 passed an Act of Attainder against Richard. It accused him of all sorts of crimes, including ‘the shedding of infants’ blood’ which was a standard phrase of the time. It did NOT accuse Richard of killing the princes.

That poses an interesting question – why not? Perhaps because H7 did not know where the princes were. It was only 20 years later, after Sir James Tyrrell had been conveniently executed by H7, that a confession by Sir James was publicised in which he said he had killed them on orders of Richard III…….!

I do not think Richard had the princes killed. I do think, however, it is possible they were removed from The Tower and sent to a place of safety – perhaps Burgundy, where their Aunt Margaret was Dowager Duchess.

October 6, 2012
5:49 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Jasmine said..
I do not think Richard had the princes killed. I do think, however, it is possible they were removed from The Tower and sent to a place of safety – perhaps Burgundy, where their Aunt Margaret was Dowager Duchess.

Interesting idea Jasmine however I don’t believe that was what happened, otherwise why did Margaret go to all the trouble of giving suppoert annd money to both Perkin Warbeck, and Lambert Simnel if she had both Princes safely within her court.. As it was she wouldn’t have known either of the boys anyway as she was married and out of the country years before they were even born.
Where the bones were found, were exactly as Thomas More descibed although he was only young at the time of the Princes Murder he obvisiously must have remembered what he may have seen or had heard from someone else and wrote it down for perhaps postirity. I don’t think the hole the bones was actually dug purposely but simply more of an out of the way place that these bodies (if they were the princes) were just put and a load of rubble was just chucked on to of them, bear in mind the Tower probably went through a lot of changes during it time and what we have now is very different to what William the conquror and Ranulf designed, with Henry 3rd (known as Henry the Builder) adding to it as have successive monarchs done so over the years.. Personally I think the princes were probably chucked into the Thames. It would kind of make sence to me that would have been their fate. After all where did the guards chuck the rotton heads of those who had been executed? Into the Thames of course.

Richard at one time was rumoured to have designs on making Elizabeth his Queen. Henry overturning Richard’s order I don’t think had much to do with the Princes, it was more to do with making his own claim to the throne stick, after all if you look at it it was a rather tenuous claim and I’m not entirely sure but I think Edward declared Henry a Bastard, stating something like the son of a bastard cannot rule the throne. Henry was the Son of Edmund Tudor the son of Owen Tudor and Catherine of France, and there is little evidence that I’ve seen that says that Owen and Catherine’s marriage was actually legal anyway. Although Henry 6th declared Edmund and Jasper etc as legitimate, he made it clear that they would have no rights to the throne.
By overturning Richard’s order all he did was say I’m entitled to this throne as I married a King’s daughter, but she was that with or without Richards order. I think it was more to do with him claiming the throne of England because he was Nephew of Henry 6th and therefore was the only possible claiment. Or so he believed, Buckingham’s boy was of course a much closer threat but he was only about 5 or 6 and England needed a man to rule not a shirt button.
Elizabeth was a girl she was by right more Royal than Henry but still just a girl. All girls were good for was having babies not ruling, that was a man’s job.
This purely my opinion, here.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

October 7, 2012
6:30 am
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Interesting, Boleyn. Of course Margaret of York may have thought that Perkin Warbeck was the younger boy, Richard. Lambert Simmnel was something like a stalking horse. If he had been successful, then the ‘true’ heir would have been revealed perhaps. After all, Lambert started off as Edward of Warwick, before shifting his identity to Edward V – so obviously a pretender.

With regard to Moore’s account, it is so full of holes, it’s worse than Swiss cheese. He never intended it for publication – it was found in his papers after his death – and it has been argued that it is not really a history, but more a morality story and that is why the ‘facts’ are so dubious. For example he got the age of Edward IV completely wrong – and that was a fact that was widely known and easily checked. It’s also full of ‘he said’ and ‘they say’ and what purports to be ‘conversation’ which is obviously made up to ‘prove’ a point.

The fact remains that Richard did not need the princes to be dead, but H7 did. If Richard had had them killed, then it would serve absolutely no purpose to do this secretly, because anyone in later years could come forward to claim he was either Edward or Richard (as in fact happened with Lambert and Perkin). No, the obvious thing was to give out the news – dead of a fever or whatever – and have the bodies exposed and then buried. Just what H7 did with Richard – to prove beyond doubt that he was dead.

With regard to Richard marrying Elizabeth of York, that would have not served any purpose either. In fact, after the death of Queen Anne, negotiations were started for his marriage with Joanna of Portugal (who was a descendant of John of Gaunt and had a weak Lancastrian claim).

H7’s tenuous claim to the crown came via his mother, Margaret Beaufort. The Beauforts were children of John of Gaunt by Katherine Swinford, born before their marriage. When they were made legitimate by the King, they were specifically excluded from having any claim to the crown. There were several Yorkist claimants still alive after Bosworth. H7 gradually got rid of the majority of them, leaving H8 to mop up the rest.

H7 claimed the crown by right of conquest, not through blood or marriage. In fact he delayed his marriage to Elizabeth for some time, just to make the point. He dated his reign from the day BEFORE Boswoth, so that the people who fought for their annointed King Richard, could be declared traitors and their lands/stuff confiscated. That was very sneaky and had not been tried before…….

October 7, 2012
11:19 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Quite right Jasmine. I’d forgotten the bit about Henry claiming his right to the throne before Bosworth. Henry was extremely sneaky when he inposed his taxes n the nobels he went about it in a very brutal (for want of a better word) way. Let’s say he charged £100 for every nobel those who coughed up readily, he said ok well you obviously have more oney then you are declaring so give me more. Those Nobels that were finding it difficult or asked for more time to come up with the money, were hiding something so therefore they had to give him more money. They had no chance..
I agree he did claim the throne by right of Conquest, however although his mother was decended via John of Gaunt/Catherine Swynford Margaret’s father was a declared traitor, although he allegely killed himself rather than face trial and execution, that claim was watery to say the least.
He was also decended from Henry 6th too. Lets face it H7 claim to the throne was somewhat very watered down. I agree holding off from marrying Elizabeth was a ploy if he had of married her straight away then people would have said “Huh he is only King because he married a King’s daughter”
He wanted people to recognise that he had won the throne on his own talents and that he was the big cheese.
Thomas More’s account well you could strain Cabbage with it, but you must admit what he said was true, there were bones found exactly where he said there was.
If my rotton memory serves wasn’t Joanna of Portugal also put forward as a bride for Edward 4th? Negotiations I believe to were too the point where it only needed Edward’s signiture and rubber stamp to make it legally binding, when he revealed that he was married to Elizabeth Woodville. This would have been a great insult to the Portugese ambassador and to the lawyers who had come over from Portugal to see that everything was ship shape and bristol fashion before continuing with the proxy wedding and packing up and parcelling Joanna off to England.
I think Margaret was just out to make trouble in England. If you actually look at it, with both Edward and Richard dead, she herself could have claimed the throne of England Salic Law wasn’t in force in England and therefore she did have the right to the throne.. Hmm something for you to ponder on.. What if Henry had married Margaret instead of Elizabeth. That would have been a whole new ball game.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

October 8, 2012
4:28 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

He was also decended from Henry 6th too.

er…no he wasn’t…Henry VI had one child , a son Edward of Westminister(1453-1471).

It's always bunnies.

October 8, 2012
7:05 am
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn wrote: ‘Thomas More’s account well you could strain Cabbage with it, but you must admit what he said was true, there were bones found exactly where he said there was.’

In fact, More said that they’d been buried first under a pile of stones, then a bit later, they were dug up and buried somewhere else (but he couldn’t say where), because Richard didn’t like the idea that they hadn’t had a Christian burial. Now a cynic might think that More (and everyone else) had no idea where they were buried, so put this bit in to explain that point. Also in a busy place like the Tower, two ‘secret’ burials going unnoticed by anyone is really stretching a point.

I’m afraid that what More wrote was not a historical study t and very little in his so-called ‘History….’ is factual.

When Edward IV secretly married Elizabeth Woodville, his cousin the Earl of Warwick was negotiating for him to marry a French Princess, not a Spanish or Portuguese one.

If H7 had married Margaret of York, there would not have been a H8 – Margaret was much older and her childless marriage to Charles the Bold probably meant she was unable to have children – so that would have been a result Laugh

October 8, 2012
9:47 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

Boleyn said

He was also decended from Henry 6th too.

er…no he wasn’t…Henry VI had one child , a son Edward of Westminister(1453-1471).

I should have made H7 claim a little clearer I meant of course that H7 was the son of Edmund Tudor who was the half brother of H6. Either way H7 claim was watery..

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 11, 2013
3:05 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Just watched “Richard III King in the car-park” PVRed from Saturday 9th March CBCNN

PLease please no more “Zardok the Priest”….

It's always bunnies.

November 22, 2013
3:58 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It's always bunnies.

November 22, 2013
5:13 am
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

How fascinating. I wonder how much of it will be used.

November 22, 2013
11:23 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I still think he should be interred with his wife, in Westminster Abbey. Oh well ours is not to reason why the people involved have insisted on his bones being laid to rest in Leicester, but I can only hope that a memorial is also going to be placed in Westminster Abbey too. Regardless of how people feel about him personally he was a King, and he was crowned there too. He was the last King to die in battle as well

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

November 26, 2013
8:49 am
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

well, its up at the High Court again today. the Plantaganet Alliance are seeking a Judicial review of the Justice Secretarys’ decision to grant a licence to Leicester University to decide where RIII is to be buried.

the court will almost certainly reserve judgement for a while – which will make a May 2014 reburial somewhat problematic. it will not decide for itself where the burial is to take place, purely whether the decision making process was lawful. very broadly, the Justice Secretary and Leicester University have followed the normal procedure for the interment of remains (effectively, the nearest consecrated ground to the location of the remains) discovered through archeology, however the PA argue that the normal procedures are designed to deal with the remains of unidentified and unidentifiable remains of, to put it crudely, peasants – they are not designed to deal with the remains of an indentifiable annointed King of England.

the Judge at the previous hearing, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, said he was of the view that an independant commision should decide on the best place for the re-burial. his comments, and the fact that its got this far so late in the day, suggest to me that the Juduciary think the PA have a point.

November 26, 2013
11:09 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bob the Builder said

well, its up at the High Court again today. the Plantaganet Alliance are seeking a Judicial review of the Justice Secretarys’ decision to grant a licence to Leicester University to decide where RIII is to be buried.

the court will almost certainly reserve judgement for a while – which will make a May 2014 reburial somewhat problematic. it will not decide for itself where the burial is to take place, purely whether the decision making process was lawful. very broadly, the Justice Secretary and Leicester University have followed the normal procedure for the interment of remains (effectively, the nearest consecrated ground to the location of the remains) discovered through archeology, however the PA argue that the normal procedures are designed to deal with the remains of unidentified and unidentifiable remains of, to put it crudely, peasants – they are not designed to deal with the remains of an indentifiable annointed King of England.

the Judge at the previous hearing, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, said he was of the view that an independant commision should decide on the best place for the re-burial. his comments, and the fact that its got this far so late in the day, suggest to me that the Juduciary think the PA have a point.

Whilst I understand the reasons for the the people involved that they want R3 buried in Leciester, I do think they are overstepping their mark somewhat too.. It’s seems to me at least that they have forgotton just who R3 actually was.. A little bit in the sense of the finders/keepers idea..
In normal circumstances this would be true, they found him etc, but R3 wasn’t just some jumped up tin pot napoleon, he was a King crowned and anoited, in Westminster Abbey his family are buried in Westminster abbey.. Save for George and his missus, they are in Tewksbury… But again there is the Answer, George was buried with his wife in Tewksbury, although he was executed in the Tower. Doesn’t R3 deserve to be buried with his wife too?, not to mention his brother etc… Certainly he should be given a memorial honour in Leicester, as is only right. Perhaps in the form of a small Cenotaph, the same with York Minster, but I also agree that York Minster is suitable for his bones to buried there.
It strikes me at least that the R3 sociaty are doing there upmost to spoil what is without doubt the biggest find since the Princes (if the bones found were the Princes) R3 memory shouldn’t be tarnished by by a stupid arguement like 2 dogs arguing over a bone (pardon the pun) R3 deserves to remembered as he truly was a KIng of England, who faught and died for his country and his people..

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 70

Currently Online:
16 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2345

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 934

DuchessofBrittany: 847

Mya Elise: 782

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 426038

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1679

Posts: 23600

Newest Members:

ashleyro2, franklingo18, HorinadR, estherqw4, enriquebo2, Delaquand

Administrators: Claire: 998