Richard III

[Zorch]

Churchill gave his 'Iron Curtain' speech in Mizzouri, if I remember correctly...

"up with that I will not put" he said, referring to bad grammar

[Titanwarrior89]

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Why was he so bad?  I have read very little on him.

He is hated because he slept with Dutch women, which has been a sign of moral weakness for thousands of years.

[X(]

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Churchill gave his 'Iron Curtain' speech in Mizzouri, if I remember correctly...

"up with that I will not put" he said, referring to bad grammar

And he was so correct.


Titanwarrior89, don't be so shocked. There has been a Dutch problem in the world for a long time. We even have a horrible Dutch person here(I can't say who-Josh, so don't ask).

[Missouri_Rebel]

Thanks Zorch and Gilmer. There is never a shortage of subjects that perk my interest. With that said, and somewhat related, I bought Crusader Kings II and could not get into it. Probably for the fact that I know nothing of the subject. To me it seemed nothing more than a match making and bureaucrat nightmare and not really a game at all. So it sits collecting dust along with so many other titles.

I might have more money than sense.

And yes. Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech in Misery.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

Thanks Zorch and Gilmer. There is never a shortage of subjects that perk my interest. With that said, and somewhat related, I bought Crusader Kings II and could not get into it. Probably for the fact that I know nothing of the subject. To me it seemed nothing more than a match making and bureaucrat nightmare and not really a game at all. So it sits collecting dust along with so many other titles.

I might have more money than sense.

And yes. Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech in Misery.

Misery indeed.[;)]

[rodney727]

I watched all four seasons of the Tudors and I must say... Good god!!! Was that how it really was? I can only imagine how the French court would have been! No doubt the two boys were killed more than likely starved to death.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

The next step is to DNA test those 2 boys' bones they found in the Tower...they were Richard's nephews.

warspite1

Let's hope so - could help to piece another part of the jigsaw...

[PunkReaper]

The series the Tudors was fiction..... Bad fiction, unfortunately most people seem to take their history from crap tv shows and Hollywood... Yeh I'm looking at you Mel Gibson!

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper

The series the Tudors was fiction..... Bad fiction, unfortunately most people seem to take their history from crap tv shows and Hollywood... Yeh I'm looking at you Mel Gibson!

+1. Braveheart being the most obvious pack of nonsense.
It should have been called BraveFart, as the film was just a load of hot air.

Back to Richard. Richard has been treated badly by history, and his vile murderer and usurper Henry Tudor had a very shaky claim to the the throne through his father, John of Gaunt.

Richard was a brave and noble King, who died as he had lived....valiantly.

Let us hope he is given a State Funeral and that history is re-adjusted back to fact and not the fairytale nonsense of Shakespeare's play, which I loathe.

Richards last reputed words on this earth were 'Traitors, Traitors, Traitors'!! before succumbing to the fatal blow. The desperation and betrayal of those words echo down the centuries.

Here was one of our warrior kings who almost got to the coward Henry Tudor personally, fighting his way through his escort, killing his standard bearer before being unhorsed, and eventually cut down.

Det In Requiescant In Pace

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper

The series the Tudors was fiction..... Bad fiction, unfortunately most people seem to take their history from crap tv shows and Hollywood...

Back in the day, Shakespeare and the Globe were London's Hollywood; the Globe was also home to cut purses and other rascals who loved Will's double entendres.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Why was he so bad?  I have read very little on him.

He wasn't at all a bad king but he had to be destroyed to justify the Tudor's usurpation of power.

1. Henry Tudor had a very weak claim to the throne. His claim flowed from his mother Margaret Beaufort and was several steps removed from a legitimate male lineage. It was, by any reading of succession law so far inferior to Richard's own claim, as to be laughable.

2. Because Henry Tudor knew how weak his claim was, he married Edward IV's daughter to bolster his "legitimacy" and make the Yorkist supporters more tolerant of his usurpation.

3. There is now good evidence that Edward IV himself was the result of an adulterous affair and therefore held no legitimate claim to the thrown. As a result the boys of the tower did not have a rightful claim to the throne.

4. Furthermore there is evidence that Richard was aware that his father had not sired his "half brother" but instead, for the welfare of the country, did nothing to oppose his "half brother's" or nephew's accession. If he had been schemeing for the throne himself it would have been far better to have prevented his nephew's accession.

5. Had there been no treachery at Bosworth from the Stanleys, the battle would have resulted in a crushing victory for Richard.

Alfred

[rodney727]

I didn't say it was true.... But I can't help to think there is some truth behind it. And you are right the non history folk who see programs such as these take it for fact. One fact they did get right however..the the view of the rich nobles who had every right to everything. Now back to Richard III. Was it not he who declared the two princes right to the thrown invalid? The boys were killed way before Henry VII took the crown on the battlefield. Maybe my British friends can help me out with this as I must confess I am not of much knowledge on said matter.

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper

The series the Tudors was fiction..... Bad fiction, unfortunately most people seem to take their history from crap tv shows and Hollywood... Yeh I'm looking at you Mel Gibson!

[stockwellpete]

I don't think Richard III was altogether innocent. He was loyal to Edward IV until he died in 1483, but then Richard moved very quickly and brutally to secure the throne for himself. Of course, this does not mean that we have to accept all the Tudor claims about him at face value either. But most medieval kings were a bit like gangsters really.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I don't think Richard III was altogether innocent. He was loyal to Edward IV until he died in 1483, but then Richard moved very quickly and brutally to secure the throne for himself. Of course, this does not mean that we have to accept all the Tudor claims about him at face value either. But most medieval kings were a bit like gangsters really.

The whole notion that Richard III ordered the death's of the The Prince's in the Tower is a convenient Tudor sub plot to casting Richard as 'The Evil King', but there is not one jot of evidence to support this.

It is true that Richard had the most to gain from the Prince's 'disappearance', but did he have anything to do with it?

My instinct says no.

Richard loved his brother Edward IV and his sons, and he took his duties of Lord Protector seriously after Edwards death.
Let us not forget, that several years previously, Edward IV had his younger brother, George, murdered in the Tower for plotting against him, a fact that is sometimes overlooked.

The rumours of Edward IV's illegitimacy ( after his birth which were quashed, and after his death ), were given very big wheels by his own mother Cecily Neville, who started a campaign to a) declare the Prince's in the Tower illegitimate, and b) to declare that it was Richard, not Edward who should have been King.

One can easily see in the swirling backstabbing politics of the court one of Richards supporters quietly doing Cecily's or another powerful family members bidding, to clear the way for Richard.

There was no way Cecily was going to let power slip from her fingers into Edwards wife hated family, the Woodville's

[Chickenboy]

I don't have a horse in this race, but is it beyond the pale to consider that, some 600 years ago, you may have had a real SOB for a king?

All long-lived dynasties have had their share of winners and losers over time, including the papacy, other religious leaders, monarchs everywhere, and democratically elected officials. Why is it so hard to believe that Shakespeare *may* have had a point? From an outsider's perspective, making Richard III's legacy as 'misunderstood nice guy' just sounds like revisionist history.

Unless there's some crystaline-clear, newly-uncovered (other than his bones) documents or historical study of which I'm unaware, it just doesn't seem worth the effort to whitewash his existing legacy. IS there universally embraced documentation that positively and incontrovertibly refutes his previous image?

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Empire101

The whole notion that Richard III ordered the death's of the The Prince's in the Tower is a convenient Tudor sub plot to casting Richard as 'The Evil King', but there is not one jot of evidence to support this.

It is true that Richard had the most to gain from the Prince's 'disappearance', but did he have anything to do with it?

My instinct says no.

I was actually thinking more of the fates of Anthony Woodville and William Hastings in 1483 shortly after the death of Edward IV. As for the two princes, my instinct says "yes".

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I don't have a horse in this race, but is it beyond the pale to consider that, some 600 years ago, you may have had a real SOB for a king?

All long-lived dynasties have had their share of winners and losers over time, including the papacy, other religious leaders, monarchs everywhere, and democratically elected officials. Why is it so hard to believe that Shakespeare *may* have had a point? From an outsider's perspective, making Richard III's legacy as 'misunderstood nice guy' just sounds like revisionist history.

Unless there's some crystaline-clear, newly-uncovered (other than his bones) documents or historical study of which I'm unaware, it just doesn't seem worth the effort to whitewash his existing legacy. IS there universally embraced documentation that positively and incontrovertibly refutes his previous image?

With SOB, do you mean sobbing or is it an acryonism for something else?

Shakespeare certainly would'nt have written a play to be seen by anybody that would cast any doubt on the legitimacy of the Tudors.....he was'nt going to commit suicide.

So the facts have been effectively whitewashed ( your words ) anyway, long before I came on the scene.
His existing legacy ( left mainly by the Tudors ), is that he was a 'bad' King, when contemporary evidence from that time point in the opposite direction. The historical evidence from that time points to a more enlightend monarch than Henry Tudors character assassination.

They even altered his official portrait for God's sake, to make him look more 'evil'

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: Empire101

The whole notion that Richard III ordered the death's of the The Prince's in the Tower is a convenient Tudor sub plot to casting Richard as 'The Evil King', but there is not one jot of evidence to support this.

It is true that Richard had the most to gain from the Prince's 'disappearance', but did he have anything to do with it?

My instinct says no.

I was actually thinking more of the fates of Anthony Woodville and William Hastings in 1483 shortly after the death of Edward IV. As for the two princes, my instinct says "yes".

Anthony Woodville was part of the despised Woodville family, and had fought for the Lancastrian cause, so Richard would have suspected his loyalty.

Hastings of course is more problematic. Did he conspire against Richard, or was he an obstacle in Richard's path that had to be got rid of?
We may probably never know the full story.
Medieval politics were quite brutal, and all King's and Queen's dealt with enemies very harshly in those days, but as the old saying goes;'...dead men tell no tales...'[;)]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Empire101

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I don't have a horse in this race, but is it beyond the pale to consider that, some 600 years ago, you may have had a real SOB for a king?

All long-lived dynasties have had their share of winners and losers over time, including the papacy, other religious leaders, monarchs everywhere, and democratically elected officials. Why is it so hard to believe that Shakespeare *may* have had a point? From an outsider's perspective, making Richard III's legacy as 'misunderstood nice guy' just sounds like revisionist history.

Unless there's some crystaline-clear, newly-uncovered (other than his bones) documents or historical study of which I'm unaware, it just doesn't seem worth the effort to whitewash his existing legacy. IS there universally embraced documentation that positively and incontrovertibly refutes his previous image?

With SOB, do you mean sobbing or is it an acryonism for something else?

Shakespeare certainly would'nt have written a play to be seen by anybody that would cast any doubt on the legitimacy of the Tudors.....he was'nt going to commit suicide.

So the facts have been effectively whitewashed ( your words ) anyway, long before I came on the scene.
His existing legacy ( left mainly by the Tudors ), is that he was a 'bad' King, when contemporary evidence from that time point in the opposite direction. The historical evidence from that time points to a more enlightend monarch than Henry Tudors character assassination.

They even altered his official portrait for God's sake, to make him look more 'evil'

Hi Empire,

Thanks for the response. By SOB-I meant an acronym for a son of a...something. You can figure out the balance.

We've seen our share of revisionist history on this side of the pond, of course. In general, I tend to discount the efforts of those to revise the historical point of view / status quo after some modern historical event, UNLESS there is compelling evidence to repudiate the existing assumptions. Altered portraits and Shakespeare's personal animus towards Richard III don't vindicate the assumed historical balance, in my opinion.

Can you point me towards this exculpatory historic evidence (a summary, please) that hasn't been biased by the Tudor's character assasination?

I'm open to the possibility that the Tudors may have had the right measure of the man and that Richard III apologists are simply expressing their revulsion of all things Tudor. I'm also open to the possibility that the Tudor's wanted to re-write history by painting Richard III in an ill light and thereby justifying their backstabbing and regicide.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Empire101

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper

The series the Tudors was fiction..... Bad fiction, unfortunately most people seem to take their history from crap tv shows and Hollywood... Yeh I'm looking at you Mel Gibson!

+1. Braveheart being the most obvious pack of nonsense.
It should have been called BraveFart, as the film was just a load of hot air.

Back to Richard. Richard has been treated badly by history, and his vile murderer and usurper Henry Tudor had a very shaky claim to the the throne through his father, John of Gaunt.

Richard was a brave and noble King, who died as he had lived....valiantly.

Let us hope he is given a State Funeral and that history is re-adjusted back to fact and not the fairytale nonsense of Shakespeare's play, which I loathe.

Richards last reputed words on this earth were 'Traitors, Traitors, Traitors'!! before succumbing to the fatal blow. The desperation and betrayal of those words echo down the centuries.

Here was one of our warrior kings who almost got to the coward Henry Tudor personally, fighting his way through his escort, killing his standard bearer before being unhorsed, and eventually cut down.

Det In Requiescant In Pace

warspite1

I find all this fascinating - not least that there seems to me to be so many people who have a real hard-on for the idea that Richard III was so badly wronged.

I understand from the TV program that many members of the Richard III society were adamant (before the skeleton was found) that Richard III did not have a deformity of the spine and that that too was a Tudor myth.

As for me I have no idea, and certainly the fact that Richard's body has been found does not change anything at this stage, but I would love to know more about this now.

One thing I do know - he was our King and Head of State and he deserves a state funeral.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hi Empire,

Thanks for the response. By SOB-I meant an acronym for a son of a...something. You can figure out the balance.

We've seen our share of revisionist history on this side of the pond, of course. In general, I tend to discount the efforts of those to revise the historical point of view / status quo after some modern historical event, UNLESS there is compelling evidence to repudiate the existing assumptions. Altered portraits and Shakespeare's personal animus towards Richard III don't vindicate the assumed historical balance, in my opinion.

Can you point me towards this exculpatory historic evidence (a summary, please) that hasn't been biased by the Tudor's character assasination?

I'm open to the possibility that the Tudors may have had the right measure of the man and that Richard III apologists are simply expressing their revulsion of all things Tudor. I'm also open to the possibility that the Tudor's wanted to re-write history by painting Richard III in an ill light and thereby justifying their backstabbing and regicide.

Son of a bitch....of course!![:D]

As to this debate being part of some revisionist plot to rewrite history, I say pah!! to you sir!

Its not 'revisionist', its trying to get to the facts, not rewriting history to conform with modern trends or culture.

I shall re-examine my sources and get back to you asp with the facts and references, pronto