AVENUE VIET Forum Index AVENUE VIET
An Online Community
 
AlbumAlbum   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of the webmasters, administrators and moderators of this forum. Refer to the complete disclaimer.
The "Richard III Is Innocent" controversy
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AVENUE VIET Forum Index » Writers' Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
inkling7
Admin Pro Tem


Joined: 01 Jun 2008
Posts: 6341
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:34 pm    Post subject: The "Richard III Is Innocent" controversy Reply with quote

Kerowyn wrote:
I'm rereading Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time.

After discussing the War of the Roses and Richard III with Seed when we met two days ago, I wanted to re-read the books based on the theory that Richard III was innocent of the murder of the Princes in the Tower. Josephine Tey makes a very convincing case of it.

There is a world wide society who are dedicated to proving he was innocent and didn't even have a hump - The Richard iii Society based in the UK but with branches all over the world.

It was even on the news last month that they found his skeleton during an archeological dig in Leicester.
_________________
The Grumpiest Old Woman on Ave Viet.....
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Kerowyn
Herald


Joined: 04 Sep 2011
Posts: 1797
Location: Queendom of Valdemar

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:05 am    Post subject: Richard III Reply with quote

inkling7 wrote:
It was even on the news last month that they found his skeleton during an archeological dig in Leicester.

Seed told me that during our conversation. I wan't aware of it. Seems like it really was his skeleton, it was bearing what could be the marks of the shameful treatment his body was subjected to after his death. Henry Tudor was far from a nice man.

Quote:
There is a world wide society who are dedicated to proving he was innocent and didn't even have a hump.

I know about the society. Its members are called Ricardians. They work under the patronage of the current Duke of Gloucester (which was Richard's title before he acceded the throne).

Of course he had neither a hump nor a shrivelled arm. He couldn't have been the great warrior he was if he had. Remember, he was leading his own army as a commander at 18, during the War of the Roses, and a general at 25. Even his enemies acknowledge his prowess in battle. He couldn't have fought well with a hump and a shrivelled arm. Besides, they would have had to make a special armour to fit the hump. No such armour was found.

What we did have, apparently, was one shoulder higher than the other. Seed told me that they did find an armour to accommodate that, while still looking like a regular armour. No hump, however, nor shrivelled arm.

They do say that history is written by the victors. Henry VII and the "sainted Thomas More" prove that. Thomas More, whose "history of R. III" is considered the gospel in the matter, was 5 years old when Richard was crowned, 8 when he was killed. That hardly makes him an eyewitness. He couldn't have been anywhere near Richard's court or at Bosworth.

We had a good debate about it on CoS, in Hogsmeade, in the History Buffs thread that I created there when I was FleurduJardin, a Hogsmeadian in good standing, unbanned. super grin
_________________
Valdemar's Warrior Women


Last edited by Kerowyn on Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:35 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
cindy1970



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 532
Location: usa

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:12 am    Post subject: Richard III Reply with quote

So Shakespeare's Richard III is a fabrication?

If he didn't kill the Princes in the Tower, who did? confused
_________________
Music Get along home Cindy, Cindy
Get along home, Cindy, Cindy
I'll marry you some time wink Music
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
inkling7
Admin Pro Tem


Joined: 01 Jun 2008
Posts: 6341
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:26 am    Post subject: The Princes in the Tower Reply with quote

There was actually no foolproof evidence of the princes ever being imprisoned in the tower and if they were murdered I suppose unless something turns up in written history we will never know who did it. They could have died of an illness or an accident. That seems to be the likeliest scenario to me... super grin
_________________
The Grumpiest Old Woman on Ave Viet.....
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Kerowyn
Herald


Joined: 04 Sep 2011
Posts: 1797
Location: Queendom of Valdemar

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:31 am    Post subject: Re: Richard III Reply with quote

cindy1970 wrote:
So Shakespeare's Richard III is a fabrication?

Pretty much, yes. Remember, he, like Thomas More, worked and wrote under Henry VIII, they had to go with the Tudor party line. The Tudors were not particularly tolerant. They got rid of all possible claimants to the throne, whom Richard had let live and prosper though they could have threatened him, too.

In fact, someone on CoS (I think it was Melaszka) pointed out to me some lines of dialogue in Shakespeare's play where someone tells one of the Princes not to believe everything that's said or written. Possibly as a way of telling the public "I have to write this in the circumstances but don't take it as Gospel truth."

Quote:
If he didn't kill the Princes in the Tower, who did? confused

The most likely culprit would be Henry Tudor. It could be the Duke of Buckingham. Or, take this, it could be nobody at all. It is possible that the Princes were spirited out of the Tower (which at the time was a royal residence part of which served as a prison) and that Perkin Warbeck was, as he claimed, Richard of York, the younger of the two Princes. After all, he convinced his aunt, Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy (Edward IV and Richard III's sister) and several European kings that he was.

Next category of "Ten books" could be Ten books based on the premise of Richard III's innocence. Very Happy

ETA: Inkling and I posted at about the same time. No, there was no proof at all, just suppositions and hearsay. The two skeletons that are supposed to be the Princes' and are entombed at Westminster were never subjected to DNA testing or even carbon dating.

As I said just now, it is quite possible that the Princes survived their "wicked uncle". And if you look at portraits of Perkin Warbeck, his ressemblance to Edward IV is striking.
_________________
Valdemar's Warrior Women
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
inkpot



Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 1297
Location: On a desk, where else?

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Richard III Reply with quote

Kerowyn wrote:
The two skeletons that are supposed to be the Princes' and are entombed at Westminster were never subjected to DNA testing or even carbon dating.

I wonder why the powers that be always refused to submit those poor bones to carbon dating or DNA testing?

It's DNA testing that proved that Anna Anderson was not Grand-Duchess Anastasia Romanova, and DNA testing that determined that the little boy who died in the Temple prison was indeed Louis XVII, Marie-Antoinette and Louis XVI's son - that the Scarlet Pimpernel did not save him and smuggle him out of the country, whatever Baroness Orczy wrote. wink

What are the Brits afraid of? Finding out that those were not the York Princes bones? Question

Despite the Ricardians' efforts, most people still think that Richard III murdered his nephews. Most history books and dictionaries still say so quite bluntly. Only on Wiki is there some little doubt expressed. Poor Richard!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
cindy1970



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 532
Location: usa

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Richard III Reply with quote

inkpot wrote:
Despite the Ricardians' efforts, most people still think that Richard III murdered his nephews. Most history books and dictionaries still say so quite bluntly. Only on Wiki is there some little doubt expressed. Poor Richard!

Well, take heart, the discovery of his skeleton may make things change a bit.

I got curious reading your posts so I looked up the skeleton in Leicester story. This is what I found:
Body Found Under Parking Lot is King Richard III's

The last three paragraphs of the article should give heart to Ricardians:

Quote:
Supporters of the infamous king, including members of the Richard III Society, hope the discovery will now force academics to re-examine history, which they say has been tainted by exaggerations and false claims about Richard III since the Tudor era.

Screenwriter Philippa Langley, who championed the search for several years, told CNN she wanted "the establishment to look again at his story," saying she wanted to uncover the truth about "the real Richard, before the Tudor writers got to him."

"This has been an extraordinary journey of discovery," Langley said. "We came with a dream and today that dream has been realized. This is an historic moment that will rewrite the history books."

_________________
Music Get along home Cindy, Cindy
Get along home, Cindy, Cindy
I'll marry you some time wink Music
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
inkling7
Admin Pro Tem


Joined: 01 Jun 2008
Posts: 6341
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:55 pm    Post subject: Richard III Reply with quote

This made me laugh...
Quote:
Mitochondrial DNA extracted from the bones was matched to Michael Ibsen, a Canadian cabinetmaker and direct descendant of Richard III's sister, Anne of York, and a second distant relative, who wishes to remain anonymous.

_________________
The Grumpiest Old Woman on Ave Viet.....
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Wildflower



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 6652
Location: Shuttling between France and the US

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Richard III Reply with quote

inkling7 wrote:
This made me laugh...
Quote:
Mitochondrial DNA extracted from the bones was matched to Michael Ibsen, a Canadian cabinetmaker and direct descendant of Richard III's sister, Anne of York, and a second distant relative, who wishes to remain anonymous.

Why? Because even now someone distantly related to him wishes to conceal the relation? uhh!

Poor Richard... I think the article is optimistic. I don't see them rewrite the history books, despite many attempts, since the 1600's actually, to set the record straight and clear Richard's name.

Despite his interest in the War of the Roses, and the discovery of Richard's body, on which he knew quite a lot, Seed still told me I was going against the vast majority of the people in believing in Richard's innocence. He was unaware of the Richard III Society.

To think that, in fact, Richard was one of the most enlightened, liberal and compassionate kings of his time... And that if he had been ruthless and put his enemies down (executing Lord Stanley for example, after Stanley plotted to murder him) he would have gone on reigning. It was Stanley changing sides at the last minute at Bosworth that lost Richard the battle, his throne and his life.
_________________
My Most Prestigious Award wink
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageYahoo Messenger
inkling7
Admin Pro Tem


Joined: 01 Jun 2008
Posts: 6341
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:52 pm    Post subject: Richard III Reply with quote

I laughed because he gave his name and allowed himself to be quoted in the article and even let himself be photographed and yet wished to remain anonymous ... What happened to your wicked sense of humour MC? Oh well a few of us here had a laugh when we read the article....
_________________
The Grumpiest Old Woman on Ave Viet.....
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AVENUE VIET Forum Index » Writers' Forum All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group