To: StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; decimon; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; 2ndDivisionVet; ...
It's not often anyone takes a look at the remains of an English monarch; parasites probably were commonplace.
37 posted on
09/04/2013 4:19:15 PM PDT by
SunkenCiv
(It's no coincidence that some "conservatives" echo the hard left.)
To: SunkenCiv
As often happens when I learn a little bit about some figure in English history, I am now wanting to learn more. In all honesty, my current perception of Richard III is mostly formed from Shakespeare’s treatment of him.
40 posted on
09/04/2013 5:14:50 PM PDT by
Bigg Red
(Let me hear what God the LORD will speak. -Ps85)
To: SunkenCiv
He was NOT a hunchback!!! That portrait of him with a hunchback was doctered later by Tudor stoolpigeons to make him appear so. There is NO WAY a Medieval Warrior King like Richard III - who fought his OWN battles unlike that toad Henry Tudor - could wear the armor of the day and ride a horse with a lance in combat if he was deformed.
The Tudors STINK. Offspring of Owen Tudor, a Welsh Gigolo.
44 posted on
09/04/2013 5:55:02 PM PDT by
ZULU
(Barack Hussein Obama is the Prince of Misrule)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson