Oh is that all it was. Well she won't get involved - in fact has she *ever* intervened in a matter of state affairs?
The licence was granted by the democratically elected government and then verified by the judiciary. Imagine the uproar if she came wading in trying to overturn that.
Not that she would anyway - she knows her role too well. She's made no indication that she is opposed to a Leicester reinterment either.
<<But it would have been so simple for him to show the world that he didn't kill his nephews - by either letting them return to their family, or even if he was intent on still keeping them prisoner, at least letting the world see that they were still alive. But he didn't do this. Why not? >>
The problem with this is, that for PR reasons Richard would have probably been advised not to do this. Imagine what effect that would have had on the Doubters or even on Potential Dissenters / Rebels? To see, in their view, the deposed King being paraded around would very likely have acted as a visual reminder and been a great distraction. Richard needed to draw attention to his own person as the new king. Nope, I don't think showing the two princes off in public would have been in his interets at that point. It was a no win situation, show them and you're damned, don't show them and you're damned.
You are, actually incorrect, BTW, when you say Richard was an "illegal" king. Parliament did in fact publish "Titulus Regius" - whether he "forced" them or not, fact is, he WAS a king, legally.
One thing please: you say that everything he did after Ed4's death points to Richard's unequivocal intention to seize the throne. So how do you explain his leisurely meander to York Minster and sojourn there for a couple of days praying in the Minster and swearing allegience before man and God to uphold his nephew's inheritance? He didn't seem to be in a mad rush then to grab everything for himself...?
No, there isn't. But it would have been so simple for him to show the world that he didn't kill his nephews - by either letting them return to their family, or even if he was intent on still keeping them prisoner, at least letting the world see that they were still alive. But he didn't do this. Why not? If I had been asked by (say) my brother to look after his cat, and nobody had seen this cat for months, and people started saying that I had killed the cat, do you know what I would do to prove that the cat was still alive? I'd let people see the cat. That's it. It's that simple. Look everyone, the cat isn't dead because - here he is. Breathing. Eating. Sleeping. Licking his arse. Whatever cats do.
Now why didn't Richard do that once people started saying he had killed the boys? Answer - because he had killed them. The only reason to not show the boys alive and well when the whole country demanded it is if they weren't alive and well. There ain't no other explanation for his behaviour. Unless he really had gone round the bend completely by then and couldn't work out that to stop the country from telling lies about him he just shows them the truth.
(Snipped for brevity:o)
Another 60 foot wide hole in that logic is that of course, you wouldn't be in a position to return your brother's cat if the bloke down the road shot him/ran him over/cat bin lady walked past.:) You might also be in no position to return the body (you might not know where it was, or you might feel that if you produced the body, you'd be accused even more of the cat murder).
Also, think you're forgetting - this bloke was now the King of England. Does he have to "show them the truth"? Does he hell.
It might have been handy for him that these princes were dead - let's face it, the Russian Revolution would have been half arsed if the entire Romanov clan weren't wiped out, so it makes perfect sense to leave no martyrs behind to be potential future figureheads for unrest (and cause thousands more deaths, in the long run). No-one can say he did it, or that he didn't.
I can't produce the bodies of the 1888 Ripper murders. It doesn't mean I did the murders. If we applied your logic, I'd be Jack The Ripper.:D (So would you).
Another 60 foot wide hole in that logic is that of course, you wouldn't be in a position to return your brother's cat if the bloke down the road shot him/ran him over/cat bin lady walked past.:) You might also be in no position to return the body (you might not know where it was, or you might feel that if you produced the body, you'd be accused even more of the cat murder).
I can't produce the bodies of the 1888 Ripper murders. It doesn't mean I did the murders. If we applied your logic, I'd be Jack The Ripper.:D (So would you).
Personally, I have no doubt who was carrying out the 1483 Ripper murders, and am sure that's what the "R" in the car park really stood for.
I can't produce the bodies of the 1888 Ripper murders. It doesn't mean I did the murders. If we applied your logic, I'd be Jack The Ripper.:D (So would you).
But you hadn't kept those five prostitutes locked up in your tower for months previously; supposedly, if DPS is to be believed, for their own protection.
If you owned a "safe house" in 1888 London, and if you had persuaded these five prostitutes to move into your safe house for "their own protection" and then they ended up dead, then yes, you should at least have been partly suspected of being guilty of killing them. And if it wasn't you that killed them, then as it was your "safe house" that the killer broke into (four times over a six week period) then you should at least be questioned as to either who did kill them, or why your safe house was so shitty at being safe and why your protection was pretty much non-existent.
Richard took Edward V from his guardians' protection (executing said guardians without trial for no reason at all), then lied to Elizabeth Woodville so that she released her other young son Richard, into "protective custody". The Tower of London was supposedly one of the safest places in England - heavily guarded at every gate. If DPS is to be believed (and I don't really know why she should be believed, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt) the reason that Gloucester took those two children away from their mother when their father died was supposedly to protect them.
If you take two kids away to protect them - then the kids disappear and you don't come up with a good reason for their disappearance - then people start questioning whether they are even still alive or not and you don't even deny that they might now indeed be dead - then of course the finger of suspicion points at you. Who else can it point at?
DPS started claiming that Margaret of Beaufort could have had them killed (how exactly was she supposed to have climbed the walls into the Tower, she wasn't Catwoman!) or that Henry Tudor had them killed after he defeated Richard at Bosworth Field (he certainly didn't have them killed while Richard was King, he wasn't allowed anywhere near London!). If Henry Tudor had murdered the princes after he crowned himself king upon defeating Richard III, why had the rumours about their death two years earlier not prompted Richard to show that they were still alive at that point?
No, sorry, trying to blame anybody else but Richard for their death, when Richard was the only one who could have killed them (or had them killed) at the time, is foolishness. He claimed he had imprisoned them to protect them. Then they died. That is not protecting them. If anybody else but Richard had been involved in their death, then Richard must have known who that other killer was. And yet he didn't reveal who that other killer was, and have him publicly humilated and executed. Why? Because there was nobody else. Or if there was, they were acting under instructions from Richard.
But you hadn't kept those five prostitutes locked up in your tower for months previously; supposedly, if DPS is to be believed, for their own protection.
If you owned a "safe house" in 1888 London, and if you had persuaded these five prostitutes to move into your safe house for "their own protection" and then they ended up dead, then yes, you should at least have been partly suspected of being guilty of killing them. And if it wasn't you that killed them, then as it was your "safe house" that the killer broke into (four times over a six week period) then you should at least be questioned as to either who did kill them, or why your safe house was so shitty at being safe and why your protection was pretty much non-existent.
Richard took Edward V from his guardians' protection (executing said guardians without trial for no reason at all), then lied to Elizabeth Woodville so that she released her other young son Richard, into "protective custody". The Tower of London was supposedly one of the safest places in England - heavily guarded at every gate. If DPS is to be believed (and I don't really know why she should be believed, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt) the reason that Gloucester took those two children away from their mother when their father died was supposedly to protect them.
If you take two kids away to protect them - then the kids disappear and you don't come up with a good reason for their disappearance - then people start questioning whether they are even still alive or not and you don't even deny that they might now indeed be dead - then of course the finger of suspicion points at you. Who else can it point at?
DPS started claiming that Margaret of Beaufort could have had them killed (how exactly was she supposed to have climbed the walls into the Tower, she wasn't Catwoman!) or that Henry Tudor had them killed after he defeated Richard at Bosworth Field (he certainly didn't have them killed while Richard was King, he wasn't allowed anywhere near London!). If Henry Tudor had murdered the princes after he crowned himself king upon defeating Richard III, why had the rumours about their death two years earlier not prompted Richard to show that they were still alive at that point?
No, sorry, trying to blame anybody else but Richard for their death, when Richard was the only one who could have killed them (or had them killed) at the time, is foolishness. He claimed he had imprisoned them to protect them. Then they died. That is not protecting them. If anybody else but Richard had been involved in their death, then Richard must have known who that other killer was. And yet he didn't reveal who that other killer was, and have him publicly humilated and executed. Why? Because there was nobody else. Or if there was, they were acting under instructions from Richard.
The circumstantial does stink a hell of a lot you're right.
We've no actual proof of course... not that this has ever stopped people on here from jumping to conclusions.
DPS started claiming that Margaret of Beaufort could have had them killed (how exactly was she supposed to have climbed the walls into the Tower, she wasn't Catwoman!)
She didn't have to climb the walls. She was married to Thomas Stanley. His job in the autumn of 1483? Constable of the Tower of London.
She didn't have to climb the walls. She was married to Thomas Stanley. His job in the autumn of 1483? Constable of the Tower of London.
But, if Richard found out that the husband of his enemy's mother had actually murdered his two nephews while they were under his protection, do you not think that he might have revealed this to the nation - publicly branding Stanley, and Margaret Beaufort, and therefore her son Henry Tudor, as murderers? Why, if it had been her who had them killed, would he not have used this to his advantage by removing from existence any chance of public support for the whole Lancastrian/Tudor clan in one fell swoop? The public had loved Edward IV, the public loved Edward's sons (Edward V and his brother Richard), and the public would have been horrified if they had found out that Edward IV's enemies had murdered his sons. Lancastrian support would had disappeared overnight.
Richard III was hated - because he was such a disappointment after his elder brother who had been hailed by the whole country. Richard was known to be a madman and a murderer (Hastings, Grey, Rivers - even if you ignore the disappearance of the princes for the time-being). Support was moving back towards the Lancastrian side of things. If Margaret Beaufort had killed the princes, Richard could have totally removed without having to lift a finger all support for his enemies simply by naming her and her husband as the killers. The nation knew who her son was. The nation knew which side of the Roses she supported. The nation knew she despised York and his sons. The job would have been done for him. But he didn't.
The pretenders to the throne, Lambert SImnel and Perkin Warbeck, are interesting. They also make it clear that the Tudors must have needed to believe those princes were dead, more than anyone else on earth. (Which raises the possibility that they weren't). The princes' deaths benefited the Tudors hugely - far more than it ever could have benefited Richard, had he lived - as there would always have been rumours floating about, whereas the Tudors could easily distance themselves from events.
I've never had an opinion either way on the Princes In The Tower. If Richard did it - good on him. Why wouldn't he? They'd have caused endless trouble to him had they lived and in the words of GRR Martin, in the game of thrones you win - or you die. If the Tudors were involved - same applies. Royals are so boring these days.
The pretenders to the throne, Lambert SImnel and Perkin Warbeck, are interesting. They also make it clear that the Tudors must have needed to believe those princes were dead, more than anyone else on earth. (Which raises the possibility that they weren't). The princes' deaths benefited the Tudors hugely - far more than it ever could have benefited Richard, had he lived - as there would always have been rumours floating about, whereas the Tudors could easily distance themselves from events.
I've never had an opinion either way on the Princes In The Tower. If Richard did it - good on him. Why wouldn't he? They'd have caused endless trouble to him had they lived and in the words of GRR Martin, in the game of thrones you win - or you die. If the Tudors were involved - same applies. Royals are so boring these days.
Thankfully. Otherwise, young George would have potential trouble ahead:o
If Richard did kill the boys ( and I do not for one minute think he did ), why not go the whole hog and kill the young Earl of Warwick as well. I know he was under attainder but that would be easily over turned and without attainder, he was the next logical heir to the throne.
It's what Henry did pretty soon after taking the throne ( executing the lad I mean).
But you hadn't kept those five prostitutes locked up in your tower for months previously; supposedly, if DPS is to be believed, for their own protection.
The Tower was a luxurious palace, as well as a stronghold. Two princes living in luxury and comfort, in a secure home. Doesn't sound quite the same as your version, does it?
They were also seen playing in the Tower gardens, long after they were supposedly 'locked up'.
Richard took Edward V from his guardians' protection (executing said guardians without trial for no reason at all), then lied to Elizabeth Woodville so that she released her other young son Richard, into "protective custody". The Tower of London was supposedly one of the safest places in England - heavily guarded at every gate. If DPS is to be believed (and I don't really know why she should be believed, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt) the reason that Gloucester took those two children away from their mother when their father died was supposedly to protect them.
The Woodvilles were trying to install Edward V as King, so that they could control and rule through him. Would be easy to do, as he was so young. Richard stopped them for the good of the country - he was trying to end the wars.
And why would he try to protect one nephew, and leave the other to be used the same way? If the Woodvilles intended to get power, what was to stop them from being the potential murderers, and killing Edward to install Richard as the child King instead? It makes perfect sense why he would remove both children from the Woodville's control.
Especially if he loved his nephews, of course he'd want to protect them both.
DPS started claiming that Margaret of Beaufort could have had them killed (how exactly was she supposed to have climbed the walls into the Tower, she wasn't Catwoman!)
She had access, as Kapellmeister said. Why would you suggest that she couldn't climb the walls, when she could just walk in through the doors?
You have proof of this? Yorkshire certainly didn't hate him, he was very much loved and respected, and York's statement after Bosworth makes it clear how people felt.
All of the contemporary sources show that he was widely considered to have been a fair and decent lord, and then King.
Here's hoping Gove's successor, local MP Nicky Morgan shoe horns R3 and Bosworth into the history curriculum.
Hopefully they'd use factual history, instead of the Leicester Visitor's Centre version - there's already been complaints that they've used York's 1485 statement of grief, without mentioning which city it was issued from. The way it reads at the moment, it sounds to those who don't know as if it came from Leicester. Replies to the complaints have been fobbed off with excuses of how difficult it was to research, which is nonsense, as it takes a few seconds on Google to find the quote in full, and the source.
The inaccurate suit of armour is another example of poor research - that's been complained about by history experts and an armourer who makes it for a living. And it's believed to have been painted white, because someone misunderstood the phrase 'white armour', which means armour that's clean and polished, and not actually the colour white.
Annette Carson of the Looking For Richard Project isn't happy either:
All the reports coming from Leicester have touted the opening as a great success, with 'crowds' of people. Reports coming from journalists outside Leicester suggest otherwise - about 100 people there when Soulsby cut the ribbon:
jess trengove wife;73869239]If Richard did kill the boys ( and I do not for one minute think he did ), why not go the whole hog and kill the young Earl of Warwick as well. I know he was under attainder but that would be easily over turned and without attainder, he was the next logical heir to the throne.
It's what Henry did pretty soon after taking the throne ( executing the lad I mean).[/QUOTE]
The Earl of Warwick wasn't executed till 1499 I believe.
All the reports coming from Leicester have touted the opening as a great success, with 'crowds' of people. Reports coming from journalists outside Leicester suggest otherwise - about 100 people there when Soulsby cut the ribbon:
People pre-bought tickets for a particular time slot. Who would turn up hours before their timed entry slot?
It's therefore not surprising that there were only a few people there at the start.
There have been a number of very positive reports on various FB sites from people who have ACTUALLY been the exhibition.
You'd think that even people who bought their tickets online would want to be there for the official ribbon-cutting. That's the actual grand-opening itself.
There are a lot of negative reports from people who've been there as well. As usual, it depends where you look and who you talk to.
You might have to scroll down a bit, his comment is below the picture of the Storm Trooper. He shows a more accurate suit that is more the kind of thing that Richard would've worn.
Interesting to see that there's now a comment on the page from a former York Minster stone mason, who's criticising the Leicester tomb design and saying that the masons at the Minster could do so much better and more fitting.
The mess Leicester's making of everything seems to be attracting the attention of a lot of experts in their fields, and exposing how awful it all is, even more now.
You'd think that even people who bought their tickets online would want to be there for the official ribbon-cutting. That's the actual grand-opening itself.
Well not if is being opened at 9.30am and your ticket is for 4pm - be sensible.
There are a lot of negative reports from people who've been there as well. As usual, it depends where you look and who you talk to.
Exactly - people who have a closed mind tend to let it remain closed, despite any comment to the contrary........
To be fair, a hundred people is five score. So they're not wrong there!
.
Well not if is being opened at 9.30am and your ticket is for 4pm - be sensible.
I am being sensible. If the ribbon-cutting was at 9.30, and their ticket is for 4.00, why wouldn't they come for that, and then stay to enjoy the festivities on offer nearby while they wait until their ticket time?
Or come back again later, if they were local? That would've been easy to do if they were from Leicester. And if they were from further afield, it makes a lot more sense to have a few hours to visit a new tourist attraction, rather than travel a fair way just for a short time at the end of the afternoon. I shouldn't think there are many people who'd want to make a journey to see something that they only had a short time to see, before having to get home again.
Exactly - people who have a closed mind tend to let it remain closed, despite any comment to the contrary........
Why would positive comments from visitors be fair and accurate, but negative ones be because those people are closed-minded? Isn't it quite closed-minded to disregard the opinion of anyone who doesn't like the centre, or doesn't think it was very good, just because you disagree?
I suspect, DPS that if the Cathedral was surrounded by the modern equivalent of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and the City Council had got the finest academic minds in creation to organise their Visitor Centre, there would be those who are opposed to it in principle.
The most disparaging comments I have read about it, have come from people who boast they have never been to Leicester and would poke their eyes out with sharp sticks before they put a foot in the place. That doesn't stop them commenting on something they have never seen and never will, though.
Comments
Oh is that all it was. Well she won't get involved - in fact has she *ever* intervened in a matter of state affairs?
The licence was granted by the democratically elected government and then verified by the judiciary. Imagine the uproar if she came wading in trying to overturn that.
Not that she would anyway - she knows her role too well. She's made no indication that she is opposed to a Leicester reinterment either.
<<But it would have been so simple for him to show the world that he didn't kill his nephews - by either letting them return to their family, or even if he was intent on still keeping them prisoner, at least letting the world see that they were still alive. But he didn't do this. Why not? >>
The problem with this is, that for PR reasons Richard would have probably been advised not to do this. Imagine what effect that would have had on the Doubters or even on Potential Dissenters / Rebels? To see, in their view, the deposed King being paraded around would very likely have acted as a visual reminder and been a great distraction. Richard needed to draw attention to his own person as the new king. Nope, I don't think showing the two princes off in public would have been in his interets at that point. It was a no win situation, show them and you're damned, don't show them and you're damned.
You are, actually incorrect, BTW, when you say Richard was an "illegal" king. Parliament did in fact publish "Titulus Regius" - whether he "forced" them or not, fact is, he WAS a king, legally.
One thing please: you say that everything he did after Ed4's death points to Richard's unequivocal intention to seize the throne. So how do you explain his leisurely meander to York Minster and sojourn there for a couple of days praying in the Minster and swearing allegience before man and God to uphold his nephew's inheritance? He didn't seem to be in a mad rush then to grab everything for himself...?
(Snipped for brevity:o)
Another 60 foot wide hole in that logic is that of course, you wouldn't be in a position to return your brother's cat if the bloke down the road shot him/ran him over/cat bin lady walked past.:) You might also be in no position to return the body (you might not know where it was, or you might feel that if you produced the body, you'd be accused even more of the cat murder).
Also, think you're forgetting - this bloke was now the King of England. Does he have to "show them the truth"? Does he hell.
It might have been handy for him that these princes were dead - let's face it, the Russian Revolution would have been half arsed if the entire Romanov clan weren't wiped out, so it makes perfect sense to leave no martyrs behind to be potential future figureheads for unrest (and cause thousands more deaths, in the long run). No-one can say he did it, or that he didn't.
I can't produce the bodies of the 1888 Ripper murders. It doesn't mean I did the murders. If we applied your logic, I'd be Jack The Ripper.:D (So would you).
Haha I remember the infamous 'cat bin lady'
Personally, I have no doubt who was carrying out the 1483 Ripper murders, and am sure that's what the "R" in the car park really stood for.
But you hadn't kept those five prostitutes locked up in your tower for months previously; supposedly, if DPS is to be believed, for their own protection.
If you owned a "safe house" in 1888 London, and if you had persuaded these five prostitutes to move into your safe house for "their own protection" and then they ended up dead, then yes, you should at least have been partly suspected of being guilty of killing them. And if it wasn't you that killed them, then as it was your "safe house" that the killer broke into (four times over a six week period) then you should at least be questioned as to either who did kill them, or why your safe house was so shitty at being safe and why your protection was pretty much non-existent.
Richard took Edward V from his guardians' protection (executing said guardians without trial for no reason at all), then lied to Elizabeth Woodville so that she released her other young son Richard, into "protective custody". The Tower of London was supposedly one of the safest places in England - heavily guarded at every gate. If DPS is to be believed (and I don't really know why she should be believed, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt) the reason that Gloucester took those two children away from their mother when their father died was supposedly to protect them.
If you take two kids away to protect them - then the kids disappear and you don't come up with a good reason for their disappearance - then people start questioning whether they are even still alive or not and you don't even deny that they might now indeed be dead - then of course the finger of suspicion points at you. Who else can it point at?
DPS started claiming that Margaret of Beaufort could have had them killed (how exactly was she supposed to have climbed the walls into the Tower, she wasn't Catwoman!) or that Henry Tudor had them killed after he defeated Richard at Bosworth Field (he certainly didn't have them killed while Richard was King, he wasn't allowed anywhere near London!). If Henry Tudor had murdered the princes after he crowned himself king upon defeating Richard III, why had the rumours about their death two years earlier not prompted Richard to show that they were still alive at that point?
No, sorry, trying to blame anybody else but Richard for their death, when Richard was the only one who could have killed them (or had them killed) at the time, is foolishness. He claimed he had imprisoned them to protect them. Then they died. That is not protecting them. If anybody else but Richard had been involved in their death, then Richard must have known who that other killer was. And yet he didn't reveal who that other killer was, and have him publicly humilated and executed. Why? Because there was nobody else. Or if there was, they were acting under instructions from Richard.
The circumstantial does stink a hell of a lot you're right.
We've no actual proof of course... not that this has ever stopped people on here from jumping to conclusions.
She didn't have to climb the walls. She was married to Thomas Stanley. His job in the autumn of 1483? Constable of the Tower of London.
The horse has bolted, it's far too late to lock the stable door.
But, if Richard found out that the husband of his enemy's mother had actually murdered his two nephews while they were under his protection, do you not think that he might have revealed this to the nation - publicly branding Stanley, and Margaret Beaufort, and therefore her son Henry Tudor, as murderers? Why, if it had been her who had them killed, would he not have used this to his advantage by removing from existence any chance of public support for the whole Lancastrian/Tudor clan in one fell swoop? The public had loved Edward IV, the public loved Edward's sons (Edward V and his brother Richard), and the public would have been horrified if they had found out that Edward IV's enemies had murdered his sons. Lancastrian support would had disappeared overnight.
Richard III was hated - because he was such a disappointment after his elder brother who had been hailed by the whole country. Richard was known to be a madman and a murderer (Hastings, Grey, Rivers - even if you ignore the disappearance of the princes for the time-being). Support was moving back towards the Lancastrian side of things. If Margaret Beaufort had killed the princes, Richard could have totally removed without having to lift a finger all support for his enemies simply by naming her and her husband as the killers. The nation knew who her son was. The nation knew which side of the Roses she supported. The nation knew she despised York and his sons. The job would have been done for him. But he didn't.
I've never had an opinion either way on the Princes In The Tower. If Richard did it - good on him. Why wouldn't he? They'd have caused endless trouble to him had they lived and in the words of GRR Martin, in the game of thrones you win - or you die. If the Tudors were involved - same applies. Royals are so boring these days.
Thankfully. Otherwise, young George would have potential trouble ahead:o
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/10984024/Family-days-out-summer-events-at-Britains-best-historical-attractions.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/22/richard-iii-visitor-centre-leicester
It's what Henry did pretty soon after taking the throne ( executing the lad I mean).
Here's hoping Gove's successor, local MP Nicky Morgan shoe horns R3 and Bosworth into the history curriculum.
There's a number of other things going on, besides that. Will post in due course.
The Tower was a luxurious palace, as well as a stronghold. Two princes living in luxury and comfort, in a secure home. Doesn't sound quite the same as your version, does it?
They were also seen playing in the Tower gardens, long after they were supposedly 'locked up'.
The Woodvilles were trying to install Edward V as King, so that they could control and rule through him. Would be easy to do, as he was so young. Richard stopped them for the good of the country - he was trying to end the wars.
And why would he try to protect one nephew, and leave the other to be used the same way? If the Woodvilles intended to get power, what was to stop them from being the potential murderers, and killing Edward to install Richard as the child King instead? It makes perfect sense why he would remove both children from the Woodville's control.
Especially if he loved his nephews, of course he'd want to protect them both.
She had access, as Kapellmeister said. Why would you suggest that she couldn't climb the walls, when she could just walk in through the doors?
You have proof of this? Yorkshire certainly didn't hate him, he was very much loved and respected, and York's statement after Bosworth makes it clear how people felt.
All of the contemporary sources show that he was widely considered to have been a fair and decent lord, and then King.
http://www.richard111.com/what_history_has_to_say_about_ri.htm
Hopefully they'd use factual history, instead of the Leicester Visitor's Centre version - there's already been complaints that they've used York's 1485 statement of grief, without mentioning which city it was issued from. The way it reads at the moment, it sounds to those who don't know as if it came from Leicester. Replies to the complaints have been fobbed off with excuses of how difficult it was to research, which is nonsense, as it takes a few seconds on Google to find the quote in full, and the source.
The inaccurate suit of armour is another example of poor research - that's been complained about by history experts and an armourer who makes it for a living. And it's believed to have been painted white, because someone misunderstood the phrase 'white armour', which means armour that's clean and polished, and not actually the colour white.
Annette Carson of the Looking For Richard Project isn't happy either:
http://www.annettecarson.co.uk/357052365/2085370/posting/richard-iii-visitor-centre-leicester
All the reports coming from Leicester have touted the opening as a great success, with 'crowds' of people. Reports coming from journalists outside Leicester suggest otherwise - about 100 people there when Soulsby cut the ribbon:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/07/27/world/temporary-grave-english-king-richard-iii-opens-public/#.U9TQ1o1dVkJ
It's what Henry did pretty soon after taking the throne ( executing the lad I mean).[/QUOTE]
The Earl of Warwick wasn't executed till 1499 I believe.
People pre-bought tickets for a particular time slot. Who would turn up hours before their timed entry slot?
It's therefore not surprising that there were only a few people there at the start.
There have been a number of very positive reports on various FB sites from people who have ACTUALLY been the exhibition.
DPS, have you a link to the armourer you mention, or some info about the armour? That sounds interesting.
The photo in your links of the original grave lightshow thingy reminds me a bit of The X Factor.
You'd think that even people who bought their tickets online would want to be there for the official ribbon-cutting. That's the actual grand-opening itself.
There are a lot of negative reports from people who've been there as well. As usual, it depends where you look and who you talk to.
To be fair, a hundred people is five score. So they're not wrong there!
The armourer's comment is here, his photo was reposted as a larger image a couple of posts above it:
https://www.facebook.com/PetitionToBringRichardIiiBackToYorkshire?fref=ts
You might have to scroll down a bit, his comment is below the picture of the Storm Trooper. He shows a more accurate suit that is more the kind of thing that Richard would've worn.
The mess Leicester's making of everything seems to be attracting the attention of a lot of experts in their fields, and exposing how awful it all is, even more now.
I am being sensible. If the ribbon-cutting was at 9.30, and their ticket is for 4.00, why wouldn't they come for that, and then stay to enjoy the festivities on offer nearby while they wait until their ticket time?
Or come back again later, if they were local? That would've been easy to do if they were from Leicester. And if they were from further afield, it makes a lot more sense to have a few hours to visit a new tourist attraction, rather than travel a fair way just for a short time at the end of the afternoon. I shouldn't think there are many people who'd want to make a journey to see something that they only had a short time to see, before having to get home again.
Why would positive comments from visitors be fair and accurate, but negative ones be because those people are closed-minded? Isn't it quite closed-minded to disregard the opinion of anyone who doesn't like the centre, or doesn't think it was very good, just because you disagree?
The most disparaging comments I have read about it, have come from people who boast they have never been to Leicester and would poke their eyes out with sharp sticks before they put a foot in the place. That doesn't stop them commenting on something they have never seen and never will, though.