Richard III (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


wodin -> Richard III (2/4/2013 1:22:19 PM)

Looks like they've found his Skull\skeleton under a car park...



http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2013/february/university-of-leicester-announces-discovery-of-king-richard-iii





teddy -> RE: Richard III (2/4/2013 2:07:56 PM)

I only bought Sharon K Penman's
"Sunne in Splendour" last night aswell...




redcoat -> RE: Richard III (2/4/2013 2:26:02 PM)


He came to a very sticky end at Bosworth. He was the last English monarch to die in battle.

[image]http://25.media.tumblr.com/3237a65275a859901d31cccdd919e883/tumblr_mhoz4wpHr01qfg4oyo1_500.jpg[/image]

Some Yorkists were present for much of the archaelogical excavation.

[image]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma8yglAkEX1qzx1ixo1_1280.jpg[/image]




wodin -> RE: Richard III (2/4/2013 2:39:23 PM)

Last of the Great Plantagenets aswell




parusski -> RE: Richard III (2/4/2013 3:48:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: teddy

I only bought Sharon K Penman's
"Sunne in Splendour" last night aswell...


I love Penman's books. Sunne in Spendor was excellent.




Zorch -> RE: Richard III (2/6/2013 9:42:54 PM)

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




warspite1 -> RE: Richard III (2/6/2013 9:46:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

The next step is to DNA test those 2 boys' bones they found in the Tower...they were Richard's nephews.
warspite1

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




parusski -> RE: Richard III (2/6/2013 9:46:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

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


And that will be very interesting.




Joe D. -> RE: Richard III (2/6/2013 11:46:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Looks like they've found his Skull\skeleton under a car park...


The twist in his spine was clearly visible, but I doubt he was a hunchback; ole Will Shakespeare really did a hatchet job on him to please QE I.




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Richard III (2/6/2013 11:48:54 PM)

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




parusski -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 12:13:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

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


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




wodin -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 1:14:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

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



Apparently the history of Richard III about being an evil tyrant may not be so true..The Richard III society is trying to show that actually alot written was propaganda and myth.




parusski -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 1:57:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

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



Apparently the history of Richard III about being an evil tyrant may not be so true..The Richard III society is trying to show that actually alot written was propaganda and myth.


Yeah, the are called Ricardians. I have just been reading the posts on the Wall Street Journal column about this. And man I had no idea that there was such passion about Richard III, on both sides.

Like this poster:
"The undisputed facts are that all of the Plantagenet heirs who stood in line to the thrown above Richard III disappeared as he rose to power. Only a fool would think Richard III was innocent. Shakespeare was not a fool or a tool of the Tudors"

Or this:

"Although Shakespeare is known to have altered chronology for dramatic effect, it is very likely that he was in possession of better information as to Richards character than is Andrew Roberts. It is also a bit droll that he indicts Stanley for turning his coat at Bosworth. Surely, Richard was not capable of such treachery."


Wonder who is right!




Missouri_Rebel -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 2:01:37 AM)

I just remember the Steely Dan Kings song that made a reference to the 'Good King Richard' with lyrics that mocked him. Killer tune btw.

I wonder if this song was about him?

'While he plundered far and wide
All his starving children cried
And though we sung his fame
We all went hungry just the same
He meant to shine
To the end of the line.

We seen the last of good King Richard
Ring out the past, his name lives on and on
Roll out the bones and raise up your pitcher
Raise up your glass to Good King John'






H Gilmer -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 2:02:41 AM)

quote:

"The undisputed facts are that all of the Plantagenet heirs who stood in line to the thrown above Richard III disappeared as he rose to power. Only a fool would think Richard III was innocent. Shakespeare was not a fool or a tool of the Tudors"


People like that amaze me. Did that guy live at the same time as Shakespeare and know him, gauging why he portrayed Richard III based on his replies? The Tudors could be pretty brutal at times as well.





parusski -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 2:03:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

I just remember the Steely Dan Kings song that made a reference to the 'Good King Richard' with lyrics that mocked him. Jiller tune btw.

I wonder if this song was about him?

'While he plundered far and wide
All his starving children cried
And though we sung his fame
We all went hungry just the same
He meant to shine
To the end of the line.

We seen the last of good King Richard
Ring out the past, his name lives on and on
Roll out the bones and raise up your pitcher
Raise up your glass to Good King John'





I dunno, that "good King Richard..." part is just to vague.[8|]




Missouri_Rebel -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 2:13:09 AM)

quote:

I dunno, that "good King Richard..." part is just to vague.


lol you asshat. I didn't know if there were several King Richards. English history is not one of my strong points. Neither is written English, but I do know it's TOO, not TO, you insufferable scamp.





Zorch -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 2:20:56 AM)

The Steely Dan song refers to Richard I, who ruled England from 1189-1199, and was succeeded by his brother John, as the Robin Hood legends tell.




H Gilmer -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 2:21:41 AM)

King John Lackland succeeded King Richard the Lionheart. Maybe it is about Richard I the Lionheart? I don't know. Richard III was succeeded by Henry VII.




parusski -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 2:29:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

quote:

I dunno, that "good King Richard..." part is just too vague.


lol you asshat. I didn't know if there were several King Richards. English history is not one of my strong points. Neither is written English, but I do know it's TOO, not TO, you insufferable scamp.




Moi?

I forgot you were from Mizzouri. Also, you paste-encrusted wangwipe, you learned what about to and too, I think all of have no idea to what you are referring. Churchill would be proud that I did not end that sentence in a preposition.




Zorch -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 2:33:19 AM)

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

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




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 2:33:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

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


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

[X(]




parusski -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 2:38:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

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

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


And he was so correct.


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




Missouri_Rebel -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 2:43:58 AM)

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

I might have more money than sense.

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




parusski -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 3:16:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

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

I might have more money than sense.

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


Misery indeed.[;)]




rogo727 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 6:17:13 AM)

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

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

The next step is to DNA test those 2 boys' bones they found in the Tower...they were Richard's nephews.
warspite1

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






Punk Reaper -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 8:36:33 AM)

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




Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 10:19:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Det In Requiescant In Pace




[image]local://upfiles/29250/F27423B1C2944ADC8016EA408A291260.jpg[/image]




Joe D. -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 12:35:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper

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


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




Alfred -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 3:14:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Alfred




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.929688E-02