The parliament that passed the Act of Attainder against Richard III didn't convene until 7th November 1485. Presumably Richard III had been buried long before then.
So, in your view, Richard remained the true and only king of England until 7 November 1485?
So, in your view, Richard remained the true and only king of England until 7 November 1485?
I've no idea. Richard's reign wasn't declared to be illegal until Henry VII's first parliament was convened in November. Richard himself was buried two days after Bosworth at the end of September.
I've no idea. Richard's reign wasn't declared to be illegal until Henry VII's first parliament was convened in November. Richard himself was buried two days after Bosworth at the end of September.
25 August 1485 actually. Richard was buried as a defeated traitor 'cause Henry Tudor dated his reign from the day before the Battle of Bosworth.......
<sigh>. Like DPS you can't seem to cope with non-simplistic answers.
I didn't think that church was ideal, which I tried to show in my post.
If you can't be bothered to understand that then what is the point conducting any kind of discussion?
York hasn't given up hope through the centuries, they tried several times to repair Richard's reputation, he's honoured throughout the county, and has been since he was Lord of the North. The Minster still holds services for him, and Middleham has an annual celebration of him. He's been remembered and honoured in Sherrif Hutton, Scarborough, and all over the county, for hundreds of years.
If you did a bit of searching, you can find dozens of examples of how Yorkshire has stayed loyal, and not given up on Richard.
What do you mean by 'Yorkshire'?
This ridiculous idea that millions of people in one county all speak and act with one devotion to a dead king.
The vast majority of Ricardians haven't agreed, neither have most historians, and descendants. The church isn't arguing because they don't want to become unseemly, not because they specifically agree.
Your opinion again and nothing more.
And your repeating that the Minster doesn't want him, doesn't make it true
.
Crikey, you really need to pay heed to your own proclamation there.
By the same token, Leicester Cathedral doesn't seem to want him, just the revenue and prestige he'll supposedly bring to them. They treat him with disrespect, are contemptuous of his life and reputation, and didn't even want to take up space with a proper tomb. Now the ugly block they're going to build shows even more disrespect. Their determination is to make Richard's reburial all about them, not about him, which suggests that they don't like him at all.
Leicester could have the most beautiful and magnificent cathedral in the world, and it would still be morally wrong to bury him there. Because it isn't where he wanted to be.
I agree that the nature of the building is pretty irrelevant.
Leicester supporters keep assuming that what they think and would do is also what York supporters would think and do. No, York wouldn't take advantage of the reburial to make money, any income would have been incidental. The primary focus would be on Richard, and on doing what was fitting and appropriate, and most respectful for the King. Richard is loved and respected in Yorkshire, he's just a cash cow to Leicestershire.
Nope. All your usual black-and-white spiel again.
The fact is there are probably people on both sides who'd see reinterment at their preferred location (either York or Leicester) as either something fitting and right, or as something more concerned with making money.
To suggest that all people living in a certain county are virtuous and 'moral' and that all people living in another county are greedy and 'immoral' is a pretty crackpot idea.
Leicester won't make any money from Richard long-term, and not as much as they expect short-term. The only people who would come to see where he was found are Ricardians, and Leicester's treatment of Richard has angered too many of them.
Don't care if Ricardians visit or nor frankly. Leciester is the right place for burial in my opinion, any money-making (should there be any) is purely incidental to me.
Most of his life connects him with Yorkshire, beyond everywhere else. Lots of places within, but the whole county was very much favoured by Richard, and his colossal chantry pins his burial wishes down to York.
Nope. His wishes are unknown. Keep saying it till you're blue, and I'll keep rebutting.
The campaign is not finished. Neither is this issue, it could go on for years. Thousands of people won't stop until Richard is back in York, where he wanted to be.
<sigh>. Like DPS you can't seem to cope with non-simplistic answers.
I didn't think that church was ideal, which I tried to show in my post.
If you can't be bothered to understand that then what is the point conducting any kind of discussion?
You said 'yes', the only proviso being that it didn't look like it could hold a tomb (surely a floor slab would suffice in that case). You had no objections based on the modernity of the building or it's very recent consecration.
You said 'yes', the only proviso being that it didn't look like it could hold a tomb (surely a floor slab would suffice in that case). You had no objections based on the modernity of the building or it's very recent consecration.
No I don't think a floor slab would suffice and said as much when various ideas re. the tomb design were being discussed.
I don't think the modernity of the building has much bearing. If Bosworth had happened near Coventry and we were now talking about interment in Coventry cathedral I'd be happy to see that happen
Oh no. I don't think so. You're the one who raised the question of Richard's status at the time of his burial. So again, when did Henry VII predate his reign so that it started before Bosworth?
LOL - it is funny that all these people who want him returned "to Yorkshire" forget that he wasn't "from Yorkshire" in the first place. And that during the Wars of the Roses, there were as many people from Yorkshire on the sides of the Lancastrians as on the sides of the Yorkists.
Whatever good Edward IV did in terms of getting people onto York's side during his reign had been destroyed by Richard III and his tyranny - regardless of how much or how little you think he was involved in the death of his two nephews.
His murder of the popular Hastings without trial (simply because Hastings shared the same mistress as Edward IV and Thomas Grey, Edward's step-son, so in Richard III's twisted mind he must be conspiring against Richard), and his murder of Earl Rivers and Richard Grey (Edward V's uncle and step-brother on his mother's side) show what an arrogant egotistical t**t he was.
As soon as Edward IV died he declared that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been invalid, therefore Edward V and his younger brother Richard were illegitimate and could not inherit the throne. He never thought to raise this issue while his brother had been alive - because he knew that Edward would have kicked his arse.
The House of Lords and the House of Commons, who were all in Richard's corner at this point because he tended to murder anybody who didn't agree with him backed him up on this decision - presumably because they wanted a King who was already an adult rather than a twelve year old boy who wouldn't be mature enough to retailiate against a further Lancaster rebellion for another four or five years.
And then, after declaring that his brother's sons were illegitimate, he decided he'd better bump his nephews off after all - just to ensure that if anybody did side with them, they weren't going to be around to be crowned anyway. He alse tried to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, after his first wife died, even though he'd declared Elizabeth's two brothers as bastards (and presumably that would make her a bastard too). Fortunately she saw sense and held out to marry Henry Tudor instead.
While Edward IV was alive, Gloucester was an arse-licking little toad who sucked up to his big brother in every way possible. The second that Edward died, and he realised that he had a chance of becoming King as long as he got rid of every other contender in his way, he turned from being a nasty little arse-licker to a nasty little murdering bastard tyrant.
Leave the little shit in the Midlands. That's where he came from, let him stay there.
LOL - it is funny that all these people who want him returned "to Yorkshire" forget that he wasn't "from Yorkshire" in the first place. And that during the Wars of the Roses, there were as many people from Yorkshire on the sides of the Lancastrians as on the sides of the Yorkists.
Whatever good Edward IV did in terms of getting people onto York's side during his reign had been destroyed by Richard III and his tyranny - regardless of how much or how little you think he was involved in the death of his two nephews.
His murder of the popular Hastings without trial (simply because Hastings shared the same mistress as Edward IV and Thomas Grey, Edward's step-son, so in Richard III's twisted mind he must be conspiring against Richard), and his murder of Earl Rivers and Richard Grey (Edward V's uncle and step-brother on his mother's side) show what an arrogant egotistical t**t he was.
As soon as Edward IV died he declared that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been invalid, therefore Edward V and his younger brother Richard were illegitimate and could not inherit the throne. He never thought to raise this issue while his brother had been alive - because he knew that Edward would have kicked his arse.
The House of Lords and the House of Commons, who were all in Richard's corner at this point because he tended to murder anybody who didn't agree with him backed him up on this decision - presumably because they wanted a King who was already an adult rather than a twelve year old boy who wouldn't be mature enough to retailiate against a further Lancaster rebellion for another four or five years.
And then, after declaring that his brother's sons were illegitimate, he decided he'd better bump his nephews off after all - just to ensure that if anybody did side with them, they weren't going to be around to be crowned anyway. He alse tried to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, after his first wife died, even though he'd declared Elizabeth's two brothers as bastards (and presumably that would make her a bastard too). Fortunately she saw sense and held out to marry Henry Tudor instead.
While Edward IV was alive, Gloucester was an arse-licking little toad who sucked up to his big brother in every way possible. The second that Edward died, and he realised that he had a chance of becoming King as long as he got rid of every other contender in his way, he turned from being a nasty little arse-licker to a nasty little murdering bastard tyrant.
Leave the little shit in the Midlands. That's where he came from, let him stay there.
Uh oh! Let's await the DPS backlash when she's read this post!:)
Ironic in the light of the claims pushed forward for St George's Chapel that two of the Leicestershire contingent in the R3 story, William Hastings (taken out and beheaded with a brutality that makes Saddam Hussein look like a pussy cat), and Elizabeth Woodville, mother of Sir Richard Grey (and Edward V), are at peace there.
LOL - it is funny that all these people who want him returned "to Yorkshire" forget that he wasn't "from Yorkshire" in the first place. And that during the Wars of the Roses, there were as many people from Yorkshire on the sides of the Lancastrians as on the sides of the Yorkists.
Whatever good Edward IV did in terms of getting people onto York's side during his reign had been destroyed by Richard III and his tyranny - regardless of how much or how little you think he was involved in the death of his two nephews.
His murder of the popular Hastings without trial (simply because Hastings shared the same mistress as Edward IV and Thomas Grey, Edward's step-son, so in Richard III's twisted mind he must be conspiring against Richard), and his murder of Earl Rivers and Richard Grey (Edward V's uncle and step-brother on his mother's side) show what an arrogant egotistical t**t he was.
As soon as Edward IV died he declared that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been invalid, therefore Edward V and his younger brother Richard were illegitimate and could not inherit the throne. He never thought to raise this issue while his brother had been alive - because he knew that Edward would have kicked his arse.
The House of Lords and the House of Commons, who were all in Richard's corner at this point because he tended to murder anybody who didn't agree with him backed him up on this decision - presumably because they wanted a King who was already an adult rather than a twelve year old boy who wouldn't be mature enough to retailiate against a further Lancaster rebellion for another four or five years.
And then, after declaring that his brother's sons were illegitimate, he decided he'd better bump his nephews off after all - just to ensure that if anybody did side with them, they weren't going to be around to be crowned anyway. He alse tried to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, after his first wife died, even though he'd declared Elizabeth's two brothers as bastards (and presumably that would make her a bastard too). Fortunately she saw sense and held out to marry Henry Tudor instead.
While Edward IV was alive, Gloucester was an arse-licking little toad who sucked up to his big brother in every way possible. The second that Edward died, and he realised that he had a chance of becoming King as long as he got rid of every other contender in his way, he turned from being a nasty little arse-licker to a nasty little murdering bastard tyrant.
Leave the little shit in the Midlands. That's where he came from, let him stay there.
Oh, Lordy, Lord. You really have to have a heart of stone not to burst out laughing at the portentous prose they're using to [fail to] make their case. About 1400 of those straight into File13, I suspect.
Have you read the abuse that has been heaped on Leicester and its institutions? Even today, there are several sites which are full of people who seem to be in competition to find the most degrading thing they can think of to say about the place and all associated with it.
Yes, I've read it. What you call abuse has been mostly justified criticism. And I don't condone any abuse, whichever side it comes from.
No one has ever suggested that there are not sites in the north associated with Richard. The only dispute is the pro-Yorkers' insistence that he wanted to be buried in York Minister which is an inferred assumption and not a fact.
Circumstantial and historical evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
That is your interpretation, that doesn't make it true, simply an opinion.
I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are to yours. But I find it interesting that my posts are considered opinion, but yours are presented as fact.
The idea that York and York Minster is not interested in tourism must come as a great surprise to the Tourism officers in those places. See the latest gleeful handrubbing over the dosh brought to Yorkshire by the Tour de France.
Of course they are interested in tourism. The issue isn't whether or not they want tourism, it's whether or not they'd purposely use Richard's remains to gain more. Just because Leicester behaves in a certain way, doesn't prove that York would too. Respect for Richard is much stronger in Yorkshire, he's not an object to most people, he's a much loved person.
Strangely (and I speak as a Ricardian with links to many sites and groups) the vitriol continuing to be spewed forth on open sites by the pro-Yorkers is starting to have the effect of turning more people towards Leicester.
Not as far as I've seen, the campaign groups continue to grow, and more people are disgusted by Leicester's behaviour.
So it seems to depend on which sites you visit, doesn't it?
Again, you seem to have a different opinion to three High Court Judges - who might be expected to know what they are talking about.
You seem to be assuming that judges never make mistakes, or get judgements wrong. Of course they do, and to many people including myself, in this case they have.
There are millions of people who have no interest in this matter. The constant invoking of petitions and publicity stunts like writing to everyone in Parliament about the matter is a great turn off. All it does, sadly, is reinforce the view that anyone interested in Richard III and his life and times are fruit cakes.
While it's true that most people aren't interested, most of those who are, favour a York reburial.
The campaigners are determined to do what's right for the King, and abide by his reburial wishes. If you choose to criticise, that's up to you, but it doesn't mean that everyone else is being put off. Support is still being expressed, and the campaign is still growing.
Do we know where the remains are at the moment? I'm presuming they're still in a shoe box on a shelf at the university? Surely by now they should've been transferred to a more suitable location?
As far as I know, they're still in a box somewhere in the university. They're not going to release them until the actual reburial, in spite of promising Phillippa Langley that they'd be put in a place of dignified sanctity until then.
To be fair, Henry VII did backdate his reign to the day before Bosworth, so that he had an excuse to go after all of Richard's remaining supporters, and further try to strengthen his almost non-existant claim to the throne.
What do you mean by 'Yorkshire'?
This ridiculous idea that millions of people in one county all speak and act with one devotion to a dead king.
I mean the attitude of the county and the majority of the people, over the last five centuries. Of course not every single one, but the collective majority.
Crikey, you really need to pay heed to your own proclamation there.
Why? My statement doesn't contradict what I said. The church isn't arguing because they don't want to look as if they're fighting. But not arguing with each other and being in full agreement, aren't the same thing. Two churches can have very different opinions, but if neither of them say anything, how does anyone know?
I base my understanding on the letters that some of the campaigners have recieved from the Minster.
Of course the Leicester clergy want to come across as spiritual and caring, that's their job, and they'd be in trouble pretty quickly if they weren't. But their attitude and behaviour betrays how they really feel - shoving Richard's statue away in a corner because they don't want him to dominate, ignoring his faith in favour of a multi-faith crowd-pleaser, planning a celebration of Richard's burial, when they should be planning a more solemn occasion, claiming that the service will include a mention of his 'dishonourable characteristics', building a tomb that would suit their cathedral, not one which is fit for a medieval King, accepting the propaganda that he killed his nephews, in spite of there being no evidence, etc.
There's nothing in what they've said or done that suggests they like him at all. Just what his remains might do for their cathedral.
The fact is there are probably people on both sides who'd see reinterment at their preferred location (either York or Leicester) as either something fitting and right, or as something more concerned with making money.
To suggest that all people living in a certain county are virtuous and 'moral' and that all people living in another county are greedy and 'immoral' is a pretty crackpot idea.
Where have I said that everyone in Leicester is immoral, or that everyone in Yorkshire is virtuous? It's the collective attitude I refer to, not every single individual.
Don't care if Ricardians visit or nor frankly. Leciester is the right place for burial in my opinion, any money-making (should there be any) is purely incidental to me.
But the Leicester authorities do. No Ricardians, no long-term profit.
Any money-making that might occur if he was reburied in York would also be incidental, a side-effect of having him there. But Leicester has made it their main focus, to the point where Richard himself is now being sidelined, almost as if having to rebury him at all was an inconvenience.
Why are my opinions ridiculed, but your opinions supposedly carry weight in this discussion? Just because we disagree with each other, doesn't mean that you're right and I'm wrong. It just means that we disagree with each other.
You're entitled to feel however you want. But it doesn't change the fact that most of Yorkshire is pro-Richard, and the depth of feeling and support for him is still very strong, all over the county.
LOL - it is funny that all these people who want him returned "to Yorkshire" forget that he wasn't "from Yorkshire" in the first place. And that during the Wars of the Roses, there were as many people from Yorkshire on the sides of the Lancastrians as on the sides of the Yorkists.
He was effectively an adopted Yorkshireman, spending most of his life in the county, and choosing to stay for his married life, and raise his son from there. Being born in one place, doesn't make a person always from that place.
I've lived in my current town for more than 33 years of my life, but I wasn't born here. I don't consider myself to be from my birthplace, and I call this town my home. Richard loved Yorkshire, which is why he forged so many connections with the county, and chose to stay.
Whatever good Edward IV did in terms of getting people onto York's side during his reign had been destroyed by Richard III and his tyranny - regardless of how much or how little you think he was involved in the death of his two nephews.
His murder of the popular Hastings without trial (simply because Hastings shared the same mistress as Edward IV and Thomas Grey, Edward's step-son, so in Richard III's twisted mind he must be conspiring against Richard), and his murder of Earl Rivers and Richard Grey (Edward V's uncle and step-brother on his mother's side) show what an arrogant egotistical t**t he was.
Edward IV was far more a tyrant than his brother, murdering the Duke of Clarence, his own brother for starters. What Richard did was to try to bring peace to the country, and end the wars.
Not pretty, and not nice, but certainly no worse than any other medieval King, and considering that Richard wouldn't execute women or children, and was fair in his dealings with the defeated enemy at Berwick, and his reburying the fallen at Towton, it shows that he was rather less a 'tyrant' than most other medieval rulers.
It's popular propaganda that Richard's mind was in any way twisted, historical evidence shows that he was a good King and a fair-minded person. The two articles I posted on the previous page both show how decent and concerned with the welfare of ordinary people he was, and how much justice and the law mattered to him. In these senses, he was well ahead of his time.
As soon as Edward IV died he declared that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been invalid, therefore Edward V and his younger brother Richard were illegitimate and could not inherit the throne. He never thought to raise this issue while his brother had been alive - because he knew that Edward would have kicked his arse.
How could he have raised this issue when his brother was alive? Edward had already murdered their other brother, and was ruthless enough to kill anyone who challenged his behaviour.
Richard did what he thought was best for the peace and stability of the country. Whether you feel that was right or wrong is down to personal opinion.
The House of Lords and the House of Commons, who were all in Richard's corner at this point because he tended to murder anybody who didn't agree with him backed him up on this decision - presumably because they wanted a King who was already an adult rather than a twelve year old boy who wouldn't be mature enough to retailiate against a further Lancaster rebellion for another four or five years.
Parliament had to persuade him to accept the throne, he was reluctant to declare his nephews illegitimate. Titulus Reguis would also have had the effect of removing the immediate threat to the princes' lives - they were seen playing in the Tower gardens, long after it was signed.
Richard swore to protect his nephews, and there's no evidence that he was doing anything else. It could easily be argued that he accepted the throne to try and save their lives, by placing himself directly in the firing line, and removing them from it.
Which you believe is down to choice, but to state that Richard was a tyrannical murderer goes completely against everything we know of him before he was King - his entire personality and behaviour would have had to change dramatically. The two descriptions of Richard are effectively two completely different people.
And then, after declaring that his brother's sons were illegitimate, he decided he'd better bump his nephews off after all - just to ensure that if anybody did side with them, they weren't going to be around to be crowned anyway. He alse tried to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, after his first wife died, even though he'd declared Elizabeth's two brothers as bastards (and presumably that would make her a bastard too). Fortunately she saw sense and held out to marry Henry Tudor instead.
There's no evidence that Richard killed his nephews, or that he was trying to marry his neice either. History records him as arranging a marriage to Joanna of Portugal, at about the time he was accused of trying to marry Elizabeth of York.
She didn't choose to marry Tudor, she was forced to, so that he could strengthen his claim to the throne.
While Edward IV was alive, Gloucester was an arse-licking little toad who sucked up to his big brother in every way possible. The second that Edward died, and he realised that he had a chance of becoming King as long as he got rid of every other contender in his way, he turned from being a nasty little arse-licker to a nasty little murdering bastard tyrant.
Leave the little shit in the Midlands. That's where he came from, let him stay there.
You sound as if you've accepted Shakespeare as fact. There's no evidence that Richard was 'sucking up' to anyone - he was loyal to his brother, hardly the same thing. And everything else you've stated has either been debunked by historical sources and historians, or has no foundation at all. Tudor propaganda was so effective, it still deceives people today. But people accepting the traditional version of events without doing any research to find out for themselves, only shows how little they are willing to actually learn about the truth.
Uh oh! Let's await the DPS backlash when she's read this post!:)
What backlash? I'm always happy to discuss history, and enjoy sharing what I've learned over the last couple of years. Why do you feel the need to be nasty to me, just because I disagree with you, and explain to others that there's no evidence of the traditional view of Richard, or of the Tudor propaganda?
Why? One person from Yorkshire doesn't like Richard, so what? Most others do support him. The campaign has had support from people from Leicester too, is that a PR fail for Leicester?
You're entitled to feel however you want. But it doesn't change the fact that most of Yorkshire is pro-Richard, and the depth of feeling and support for him is still very strong, all over the county.
Bullshit. All my friends and family live in Yorkshire. The only - only - one person who I know out of them who thought Richard was "innocent" was my dad - and that is because he was a staunch anti-Royalist anyway and liked to always side with the people who did "the wrong thing". So Richard in my dad's eyes was a goodie - purely because he was actually a complete shit who defied the King's (Edward's) wishes and who turned everything towards his own means as soon as Edward IV died.
Every other (Yorkshire) person without exception agrees that the guy was a complete ******. They may not all think he was responsible for the murder of the princes - but they all without exception agree that he was an utter bastard who murdered anybody who disagreed in the slightest with him - or sometimes murdered people just on a whim (Hastings). Don't make out I'm in the minority by being a Yorkshire person who (shock! horror!) doesn't love that crippled little c**t - because I'm not. I feel similar towards Richard III as I do towards Peter Sutcliffe - another bastard who this time did come from Yorkshire. Death can't come soon enough for that t**t either.
You might like to claim that Richard III was loved in Yorkshire at the time that he was illegally crowned King, and that he has been loved in Yorkshire ever since, but its a crock of lies. The guy was a corrupt, evil, murdering bastard. Trying to pretend that the Tudors and Shakespeare blackened his holy image just makes you look stupid - he blackened his own image while he was still alive by decapitating his own right-hand man in front of Parliament for no reason whatsoever, for murdering his nephew's two guardians who had been given the task of returning Edward V to London safely by their mother, and for imprisoning not only the heir to the throne, but also the heirs younger brother, before he started calling them bastards to ensure that Parliament would side with him rather than rally round the true heir(s) to the throne. To actually kill them after he had denied them of their father's crown was just pure spitefulness.
And don't come back with the bollocks about there being no proof that Richard III had the two princes killed. The rumours about the boys being murdered was being said in England in 1483 while they were still supposed to be under Richard's lock and key. If he hadn't already had them killed by then, all he would have had to do is present the two boys to Parliament, to their mother and family, to London, and the rumours would have gone away at that point. But no, he couldn't do that, because they were already dead. He didn't kill them himself - no - but Tyrell did under Richard's orders.
Edward IV was far more a tyrant than his brother, murdering the Duke of Clarence, his own brother for starters. What Richard did was to try to bring peace to the country, and end the wars.
Yes Edward executed George, Duke of Clarence. After Clarence had twice committed treason by defecting from York's side to Lancaster's, by Clarence declaring his brother Edward a bastard (and his mother a ****) who was not the true son of the Duke of York therefore should not be King, by marrying Warwick's daughter (who also jumped from Edward's side to Henry VI's). Clarence only changed sides because Henry VI promised Clarence that he would be named as next in line to the throne once he died, jumping over Edward and his sons. Once Clarence found out that Henry VI and Warwick had lied, he crawled back to Edward - only to commit treason again after Warwick's death and Henry VI's murder.
But the difference is - Clarence was guilty of treason several times, Edward forgave him every time but the last one and welcomed him back with open arms. But Clarence was stupid and ambitious and just kept coming back with more and more stupid plots to try and take the Crown from under Edward's nose. He wasn't murdered - he was found guilty of treason (not before time) and therefore had to be executed. Being executed for crimes against one's own King, country and brother is not the same as being murdered.
Not pretty, and not nice, but certainly no worse than any other medieval King, and consideirng that Richard wouldn't execute women or children
...unless they were his own nephews. Oh no, that's right, they weren't executed. Just murdered. There's the difference. He didn't execute women and children, just killed them then pretended he hadn't....
How could he have raised this issue when his brother was alive? Edward had already murdered their other brother,
No he hadn't. He had saved Clarence's life far more times than Clarence deserved, only for Clarence to try and steal the crown from him again, and in the end had him executed after a trial found him undeniably guilty. Richard may have publicly shed tears at Clarence's death, but given that Clarence and Richard had fallen out big time over Warwick's inheritance once they each married a Warwick daughter (Edward stepped in here to ensure that both Richard and Clarence were entitled to shares of Warwick's estates), and once Clarence was executed and Clarence's son also barred from becoming King, suddenly Richard became next in line to the throne once Edward and Edward's two sons were out of the way. Th execution of George, Duke of Clarence, played right into your little heroes hands. Don't pretend otherwise.
Richard did what he thought was best for the peace and stability of the country.
By stealing the throne from his nephew - even though his nephew had been named by the King as his successor? Yes, I suppose, in one way your twisted logic is true. The country should have been more stable under an adult King rather than a King who was only twelve years old, and the Lancastrians would perhaps have been more likely to challenge the authority of a twelve year old King than a thirty year old King. But, as they managed to get rid of the despot usurper only two years after he had crowned himself King, he didn't bring that much peace and stability to the country did he? Perhaps if he hadn't murdered everyone around him he might have been a bit better at keeping the country stable and at peace, eh?
Parliament had to persuade him to accept the throne, he was reluctant to declare his nephews illegitimate.
Sorry - doesn't really matter what you write after this. You're obvioulsy living in some fantasy dreamland. The sentence you have written above is akin to saying Osama Bin Laden didn't set out to kill thousands of Americans on September 11th, he just wanted some of his soldiers to have a nice ride in some aeroplanes and have a look at how beautiful the landmarks of Washington and New York really were. He had no intention of them taking over the planes and flying them on a suicide mission into the twin towers and the Pentagon, he just wanted his men to fly loop-the-loops to illustrate how much he loved and admired George W Bush and his friends in Israel.
He set out to claim the throne from the moment he heard that Edward had died. Every single action undertaken by Gloucester from the minute Edward died until his coronation was undertaken with the sole intention of becoming King. His race to meet Grey and Rivers, Edward V's guardians (and uncle and brother) followed by having them executed without trial purely so that he could have Edward V under his control, his execution of Hastings (again without trial) because Hastings disagreed with his capture of Edward V, his rush to get Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville declared invalid so that Edward V (and his brother Richard) would no longer be allowed to become King. These weren't the actions of somebody who intended to act as Lord Protector to an underage King until the King came of age. These were the actions of a madman who would do anything to gain the ultimate power for himself - but they of course came at a cost. The hatred of the entire country. Even his own ministers were scared to death of him after they saw what he did. Killing his own supposed best friend, simply because the best friend had advised him that he had done wrong in murdering the real King's brother and uncle.
Richard swore to protect his nephews, and there's no evidence that he was doing anything else.
It could easily be argued that he accepted the throne to try and save their lives, by placing himself directly in the firing line, and removing them from it.
Well, sending them back to their mother with a big bag of sweets once he had cheated them out of their inheritance might have been a better way of protecting their lives than having them murdered in the Tower and burying their bodies under an unused stairwell, mightn't it?
Which you believe is down to choice, but to state that Richard was a tyrannical murderer goes completely against everything we know of him before he was King - his entire personality and behaviour would have had to change dramatically. The two descriptions of Richard are effectively two comepletely different people.
Already explained. While Edward IV was king there was no way Richard could become King - so he kept his head down, his nose clean, and just did whatever Edward told him to do. Once Edward was dead, the doorway was open to him, as long as he removed everyone who stood in his way. Which he did.
There's no evidence that Richard killed his nephews
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.
Comments
So, in your view, Richard remained the true and only king of England until 7 November 1485?
They'll be the venal ones, then, will they?
I've no idea. Richard's reign wasn't declared to be illegal until Henry VII's first parliament was convened in November. Richard himself was buried two days after Bosworth at the end of September.
25 August 1485 actually. Richard was buried as a defeated traitor 'cause Henry Tudor dated his reign from the day before the Battle of Bosworth.......
When did that happen exactly?
<sigh>. Like DPS you can't seem to cope with non-simplistic answers.
I didn't think that church was ideal, which I tried to show in my post.
If you can't be bothered to understand that then what is the point conducting any kind of discussion?
What do you mean by 'Yorkshire'?
This ridiculous idea that millions of people in one county all speak and act with one devotion to a dead king.
Your opinion again and nothing more. .
Crikey, you really need to pay heed to your own proclamation there.
Pfft nothing the dean and the other clergy have said shows this at all. The various statements show that their concern in spiritual e.g.
http://kingrichardinleicester.com/reburial/message-from-the-dean/
I agree that the nature of the building is pretty irrelevant.
Nope. All your usual black-and-white spiel again.
The fact is there are probably people on both sides who'd see reinterment at their preferred location (either York or Leicester) as either something fitting and right, or as something more concerned with making money.
To suggest that all people living in a certain county are virtuous and 'moral' and that all people living in another county are greedy and 'immoral' is a pretty crackpot idea.
Don't care if Ricardians visit or nor frankly. Leciester is the right place for burial in my opinion, any money-making (should there be any) is purely incidental to me.
Nope. His wishes are unknown. Keep saying it till you're blue, and I'll keep rebutting.
Then they are foolish and childish imo.
You said 'yes', the only proviso being that it didn't look like it could hold a tomb (surely a floor slab would suffice in that case). You had no objections based on the modernity of the building or it's very recent consecration.
No I don't think a floor slab would suffice and said as much when various ideas re. the tomb design were being discussed.
I don't think the modernity of the building has much bearing. If Bosworth had happened near Coventry and we were now talking about interment in Coventry cathedral I'd be happy to see that happen
Immediately he was in a position to do so.
I'm from Yorkshire.
I think he was a complete c**t.
I couldn't care less where he is buried.
Oh no. I don't think so. You're the one who raised the question of Richard's status at the time of his burial. So again, when did Henry VII predate his reign so that it started before Bosworth?
Is that because he wasn't from Yorkshire?
LOL - it is funny that all these people who want him returned "to Yorkshire" forget that he wasn't "from Yorkshire" in the first place. And that during the Wars of the Roses, there were as many people from Yorkshire on the sides of the Lancastrians as on the sides of the Yorkists.
Whatever good Edward IV did in terms of getting people onto York's side during his reign had been destroyed by Richard III and his tyranny - regardless of how much or how little you think he was involved in the death of his two nephews.
His murder of the popular Hastings without trial (simply because Hastings shared the same mistress as Edward IV and Thomas Grey, Edward's step-son, so in Richard III's twisted mind he must be conspiring against Richard), and his murder of Earl Rivers and Richard Grey (Edward V's uncle and step-brother on his mother's side) show what an arrogant egotistical t**t he was.
As soon as Edward IV died he declared that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been invalid, therefore Edward V and his younger brother Richard were illegitimate and could not inherit the throne. He never thought to raise this issue while his brother had been alive - because he knew that Edward would have kicked his arse.
The House of Lords and the House of Commons, who were all in Richard's corner at this point because he tended to murder anybody who didn't agree with him backed him up on this decision - presumably because they wanted a King who was already an adult rather than a twelve year old boy who wouldn't be mature enough to retailiate against a further Lancaster rebellion for another four or five years.
And then, after declaring that his brother's sons were illegitimate, he decided he'd better bump his nephews off after all - just to ensure that if anybody did side with them, they weren't going to be around to be crowned anyway. He alse tried to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, after his first wife died, even though he'd declared Elizabeth's two brothers as bastards (and presumably that would make her a bastard too). Fortunately she saw sense and held out to marry Henry Tudor instead.
While Edward IV was alive, Gloucester was an arse-licking little toad who sucked up to his big brother in every way possible. The second that Edward died, and he realised that he had a chance of becoming King as long as he got rid of every other contender in his way, he turned from being a nasty little arse-licker to a nasty little murdering bastard tyrant.
Leave the little shit in the Midlands. That's where he came from, let him stay there.
Uh oh! Let's await the DPS backlash when she's read this post!:)
Bit of a PR fail for the Yorkies there!
I think DPS has been busy sticking stamps on envelopes today ... 1,429 of them ... https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=754796261229772&set=o.447170395354540&type=1
Must have run out of whitewash?
Ironic in the light of the claims pushed forward for St George's Chapel that two of the Leicestershire contingent in the R3 story, William Hastings (taken out and beheaded with a brutality that makes Saddam Hussein look like a pussy cat), and Elizabeth Woodville, mother of Sir Richard Grey (and Edward V), are at peace there.
Wow- Who knew Henry Tudor owned a laptop?
Heheh. Or maybe 'tis Holinshed.;-)
The last line's genius.
Oh, Lordy, Lord. You really have to have a heart of stone not to burst out laughing at the portentous prose they're using to [fail to] make their case. About 1400 of those straight into File13, I suspect.
Yes, I've read it. What you call abuse has been mostly justified criticism. And I don't condone any abuse, whichever side it comes from.
Circumstantial and historical evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are to yours. But I find it interesting that my posts are considered opinion, but yours are presented as fact.
Of course they are interested in tourism. The issue isn't whether or not they want tourism, it's whether or not they'd purposely use Richard's remains to gain more. Just because Leicester behaves in a certain way, doesn't prove that York would too. Respect for Richard is much stronger in Yorkshire, he's not an object to most people, he's a much loved person.
Not as far as I've seen, the campaign groups continue to grow, and more people are disgusted by Leicester's behaviour.
So it seems to depend on which sites you visit, doesn't it?
You seem to be assuming that judges never make mistakes, or get judgements wrong. Of course they do, and to many people including myself, in this case they have.
In your opinion.
While it's true that most people aren't interested, most of those who are, favour a York reburial.
The campaigners are determined to do what's right for the King, and abide by his reburial wishes. If you choose to criticise, that's up to you, but it doesn't mean that everyone else is being put off. Support is still being expressed, and the campaign is still growing.
As far as I know, they're still in a box somewhere in the university. They're not going to release them until the actual reburial, in spite of promising Phillippa Langley that they'd be put in a place of dignified sanctity until then.
To be fair, Henry VII did backdate his reign to the day before Bosworth, so that he had an excuse to go after all of Richard's remaining supporters, and further try to strengthen his almost non-existant claim to the throne.
I mean the attitude of the county and the majority of the people, over the last five centuries. Of course not every single one, but the collective majority.
Which I am entitled to.
Why? My statement doesn't contradict what I said. The church isn't arguing because they don't want to look as if they're fighting. But not arguing with each other and being in full agreement, aren't the same thing. Two churches can have very different opinions, but if neither of them say anything, how does anyone know?
I base my understanding on the letters that some of the campaigners have recieved from the Minster.
Of course the Leicester clergy want to come across as spiritual and caring, that's their job, and they'd be in trouble pretty quickly if they weren't. But their attitude and behaviour betrays how they really feel - shoving Richard's statue away in a corner because they don't want him to dominate, ignoring his faith in favour of a multi-faith crowd-pleaser, planning a celebration of Richard's burial, when they should be planning a more solemn occasion, claiming that the service will include a mention of his 'dishonourable characteristics', building a tomb that would suit their cathedral, not one which is fit for a medieval King, accepting the propaganda that he killed his nephews, in spite of there being no evidence, etc.
There's nothing in what they've said or done that suggests they like him at all. Just what his remains might do for their cathedral.
Where have I said that everyone in Leicester is immoral, or that everyone in Yorkshire is virtuous? It's the collective attitude I refer to, not every single individual.
But the Leicester authorities do. No Ricardians, no long-term profit.
Any money-making that might occur if he was reburied in York would also be incidental, a side-effect of having him there. But Leicester has made it their main focus, to the point where Richard himself is now being sidelined, almost as if having to rebury him at all was an inconvenience.
His letters suggest otherwise. You're rebutting his own words.
Why are my opinions ridiculed, but your opinions supposedly carry weight in this discussion? Just because we disagree with each other, doesn't mean that you're right and I'm wrong. It just means that we disagree with each other.
You're entitled to feel however you want. But it doesn't change the fact that most of Yorkshire is pro-Richard, and the depth of feeling and support for him is still very strong, all over the county.
He was effectively an adopted Yorkshireman, spending most of his life in the county, and choosing to stay for his married life, and raise his son from there. Being born in one place, doesn't make a person always from that place.
I've lived in my current town for more than 33 years of my life, but I wasn't born here. I don't consider myself to be from my birthplace, and I call this town my home. Richard loved Yorkshire, which is why he forged so many connections with the county, and chose to stay.
Edward IV was far more a tyrant than his brother, murdering the Duke of Clarence, his own brother for starters. What Richard did was to try to bring peace to the country, and end the wars.
Not pretty, and not nice, but certainly no worse than any other medieval King, and considering that Richard wouldn't execute women or children, and was fair in his dealings with the defeated enemy at Berwick, and his reburying the fallen at Towton, it shows that he was rather less a 'tyrant' than most other medieval rulers.
It's popular propaganda that Richard's mind was in any way twisted, historical evidence shows that he was a good King and a fair-minded person. The two articles I posted on the previous page both show how decent and concerned with the welfare of ordinary people he was, and how much justice and the law mattered to him. In these senses, he was well ahead of his time.
How could he have raised this issue when his brother was alive? Edward had already murdered their other brother, and was ruthless enough to kill anyone who challenged his behaviour.
Richard did what he thought was best for the peace and stability of the country. Whether you feel that was right or wrong is down to personal opinion.
Parliament had to persuade him to accept the throne, he was reluctant to declare his nephews illegitimate. Titulus Reguis would also have had the effect of removing the immediate threat to the princes' lives - they were seen playing in the Tower gardens, long after it was signed.
Richard swore to protect his nephews, and there's no evidence that he was doing anything else. It could easily be argued that he accepted the throne to try and save their lives, by placing himself directly in the firing line, and removing them from it.
Which you believe is down to choice, but to state that Richard was a tyrannical murderer goes completely against everything we know of him before he was King - his entire personality and behaviour would have had to change dramatically. The two descriptions of Richard are effectively two completely different people.
http://mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/livery-maintenance-and-richard-iii/
There's no evidence that Richard killed his nephews, or that he was trying to marry his neice either. History records him as arranging a marriage to Joanna of Portugal, at about the time he was accused of trying to marry Elizabeth of York.
She didn't choose to marry Tudor, she was forced to, so that he could strengthen his claim to the throne.
You sound as if you've accepted Shakespeare as fact. There's no evidence that Richard was 'sucking up' to anyone - he was loyal to his brother, hardly the same thing. And everything else you've stated has either been debunked by historical sources and historians, or has no foundation at all. Tudor propaganda was so effective, it still deceives people today. But people accepting the traditional version of events without doing any research to find out for themselves, only shows how little they are willing to actually learn about the truth.
What backlash? I'm always happy to discuss history, and enjoy sharing what I've learned over the last couple of years. Why do you feel the need to be nasty to me, just because I disagree with you, and explain to others that there's no evidence of the traditional view of Richard, or of the Tudor propaganda?
Why? One person from Yorkshire doesn't like Richard, so what? Most others do support him. The campaign has had support from people from Leicester too, is that a PR fail for Leicester?
I've been gardening for the last few weeks, helping my friend sort out the overgrown mess around their new house.
But thankyou for posting the link. It's now on the Plantagenet Alliance's website as well:
http://www.kingrichardcampaign.org.uk/
There's a new campaign site as well:
http://www.kingrichardthe111.co.uk/wordpress/?page_id=41
Bullshit. All my friends and family live in Yorkshire. The only - only - one person who I know out of them who thought Richard was "innocent" was my dad - and that is because he was a staunch anti-Royalist anyway and liked to always side with the people who did "the wrong thing". So Richard in my dad's eyes was a goodie - purely because he was actually a complete shit who defied the King's (Edward's) wishes and who turned everything towards his own means as soon as Edward IV died.
Every other (Yorkshire) person without exception agrees that the guy was a complete ******. They may not all think he was responsible for the murder of the princes - but they all without exception agree that he was an utter bastard who murdered anybody who disagreed in the slightest with him - or sometimes murdered people just on a whim (Hastings). Don't make out I'm in the minority by being a Yorkshire person who (shock! horror!) doesn't love that crippled little c**t - because I'm not. I feel similar towards Richard III as I do towards Peter Sutcliffe - another bastard who this time did come from Yorkshire. Death can't come soon enough for that t**t either.
You might like to claim that Richard III was loved in Yorkshire at the time that he was illegally crowned King, and that he has been loved in Yorkshire ever since, but its a crock of lies. The guy was a corrupt, evil, murdering bastard. Trying to pretend that the Tudors and Shakespeare blackened his holy image just makes you look stupid - he blackened his own image while he was still alive by decapitating his own right-hand man in front of Parliament for no reason whatsoever, for murdering his nephew's two guardians who had been given the task of returning Edward V to London safely by their mother, and for imprisoning not only the heir to the throne, but also the heirs younger brother, before he started calling them bastards to ensure that Parliament would side with him rather than rally round the true heir(s) to the throne. To actually kill them after he had denied them of their father's crown was just pure spitefulness.
And don't come back with the bollocks about there being no proof that Richard III had the two princes killed. The rumours about the boys being murdered was being said in England in 1483 while they were still supposed to be under Richard's lock and key. If he hadn't already had them killed by then, all he would have had to do is present the two boys to Parliament, to their mother and family, to London, and the rumours would have gone away at that point. But no, he couldn't do that, because they were already dead. He didn't kill them himself - no - but Tyrell did under Richard's orders.
Yes Edward executed George, Duke of Clarence. After Clarence had twice committed treason by defecting from York's side to Lancaster's, by Clarence declaring his brother Edward a bastard (and his mother a ****) who was not the true son of the Duke of York therefore should not be King, by marrying Warwick's daughter (who also jumped from Edward's side to Henry VI's). Clarence only changed sides because Henry VI promised Clarence that he would be named as next in line to the throne once he died, jumping over Edward and his sons. Once Clarence found out that Henry VI and Warwick had lied, he crawled back to Edward - only to commit treason again after Warwick's death and Henry VI's murder.
But the difference is - Clarence was guilty of treason several times, Edward forgave him every time but the last one and welcomed him back with open arms. But Clarence was stupid and ambitious and just kept coming back with more and more stupid plots to try and take the Crown from under Edward's nose. He wasn't murdered - he was found guilty of treason (not before time) and therefore had to be executed. Being executed for crimes against one's own King, country and brother is not the same as being murdered.
...unless they were his own nephews. Oh no, that's right, they weren't executed. Just murdered. There's the difference. He didn't execute women and children, just killed them then pretended he hadn't....
No he hadn't. He had saved Clarence's life far more times than Clarence deserved, only for Clarence to try and steal the crown from him again, and in the end had him executed after a trial found him undeniably guilty. Richard may have publicly shed tears at Clarence's death, but given that Clarence and Richard had fallen out big time over Warwick's inheritance once they each married a Warwick daughter (Edward stepped in here to ensure that both Richard and Clarence were entitled to shares of Warwick's estates), and once Clarence was executed and Clarence's son also barred from becoming King, suddenly Richard became next in line to the throne once Edward and Edward's two sons were out of the way. Th execution of George, Duke of Clarence, played right into your little heroes hands. Don't pretend otherwise.
By stealing the throne from his nephew - even though his nephew had been named by the King as his successor? Yes, I suppose, in one way your twisted logic is true. The country should have been more stable under an adult King rather than a King who was only twelve years old, and the Lancastrians would perhaps have been more likely to challenge the authority of a twelve year old King than a thirty year old King. But, as they managed to get rid of the despot usurper only two years after he had crowned himself King, he didn't bring that much peace and stability to the country did he? Perhaps if he hadn't murdered everyone around him he might have been a bit better at keeping the country stable and at peace, eh?
Sorry - doesn't really matter what you write after this. You're obvioulsy living in some fantasy dreamland. The sentence you have written above is akin to saying Osama Bin Laden didn't set out to kill thousands of Americans on September 11th, he just wanted some of his soldiers to have a nice ride in some aeroplanes and have a look at how beautiful the landmarks of Washington and New York really were. He had no intention of them taking over the planes and flying them on a suicide mission into the twin towers and the Pentagon, he just wanted his men to fly loop-the-loops to illustrate how much he loved and admired George W Bush and his friends in Israel.
He set out to claim the throne from the moment he heard that Edward had died. Every single action undertaken by Gloucester from the minute Edward died until his coronation was undertaken with the sole intention of becoming King. His race to meet Grey and Rivers, Edward V's guardians (and uncle and brother) followed by having them executed without trial purely so that he could have Edward V under his control, his execution of Hastings (again without trial) because Hastings disagreed with his capture of Edward V, his rush to get Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville declared invalid so that Edward V (and his brother Richard) would no longer be allowed to become King. These weren't the actions of somebody who intended to act as Lord Protector to an underage King until the King came of age. These were the actions of a madman who would do anything to gain the ultimate power for himself - but they of course came at a cost. The hatred of the entire country. Even his own ministers were scared to death of him after they saw what he did. Killing his own supposed best friend, simply because the best friend had advised him that he had done wrong in murdering the real King's brother and uncle.
Well, sending them back to their mother with a big bag of sweets once he had cheated them out of their inheritance might have been a better way of protecting their lives than having them murdered in the Tower and burying their bodies under an unused stairwell, mightn't it?
Already explained. While Edward IV was king there was no way Richard could become King - so he kept his head down, his nose clean, and just did whatever Edward told him to do. Once Edward was dead, the doorway was open to him, as long as he removed everyone who stood in his way. Which he did.
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.