Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Skeleton found in Leicester could be Richard III
CBC News ^ | Sept 12, 2012 | CBC News

Posted on 09/12/2012 9:09:02 PM PDT by MrsEmmaPeel

Archeologists at the University of Leicester in central England say they have discovered a human skeleton with battle wounds and a curved spine that could be the remains of King Richard III.

(Excerpt) Read more at cbc.ca ...


TOPICS: Education; History
KEYWORDS: coupdetat; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; henrytheusurper; henryvii; kingrichardiii; murderedbytraitors; plantanget; richardiii; shakespeare; unitedkingdom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last
This is a fascinating article. I truly hope the bones of the much maligned King are laid to rest, and his reputation restored.
1 posted on 09/12/2012 9:09:09 PM PDT by MrsEmmaPeel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Check this out ...


2 posted on 09/12/2012 9:10:10 PM PDT by MrsEmmaPeel (a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

His reputation restored?

Isn’t this the same Richard III who usurped the young Edward VI and had him banished to the Tower of London, never to be seen again?


3 posted on 09/12/2012 9:15:35 PM PDT by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

I don’t know if Richard’s reputation is maligned, but I know his brother John got the bad end for reputations.


4 posted on 09/12/2012 9:17:13 PM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

I thought it was his brother John who had the curved spine


5 posted on 09/12/2012 9:17:48 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

interesting


6 posted on 09/12/2012 9:25:25 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

Yes, if you believe his enemies.


7 posted on 09/12/2012 9:26:36 PM PDT by Cowboy Bob (Greed + Envy = Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

Edward V and his brother Richard of Shrewsbury.
Edward VI was Henry VIII’s son.


8 posted on 09/12/2012 9:27:02 PM PDT by moose07 (The truth will out, one day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

Henry Tudor had more reason to have the young prince killed.


9 posted on 09/12/2012 9:28:03 PM PDT by chae (I was anti-Obama before it was cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chae

But Richard was the immediate beneficiary.


10 posted on 09/12/2012 9:29:57 PM PDT by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater
Before the young king could be crowned, Edward IV's marriage to the boys' mother Elizabeth Woodville was publicly declared to be invalid, making their children illegitimate and ineligible for the throne.
On 25 June an assembly of lords and commoners endorsed these claims.
The following day, Richard III officially began his reign.
He was crowned on 6 July. The two young princes were not seen in public after August and there arose subsequently a number of accusations that the boys had been murdered by Richard, giving rise to the legend of the Princes in the Tower

wiki

11 posted on 09/12/2012 9:36:25 PM PDT by moose07 (The truth will out, one day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
I don’t know if Richard’s reputation is maligned, but I know his brother John got the bad end for reputations.

Richard I (the Lionhearted) was King John's older brother. Richard III came along three centuries later and usurped his nephew Edward V.

12 posted on 09/12/2012 9:46:56 PM PDT by Huntress ("Politicians exploit economic illiteracy." --Walter Williams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

Clearly you need to read Josephine Tey’s “the Daughter of Time” which is truth.

Say no more, you’ll enjoy it!


13 posted on 09/12/2012 9:56:16 PM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel; a fool in paradise; Slings and Arrows
How do they now it's the Third Richard and not, say, the Fourth one, does he have a III tattooed on his skin?


14 posted on 09/12/2012 10:00:00 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

His reputation restored? It is an undeniable fact that he illegally usurped his nephews, and the idea that it was Henry Tudor who had the princes’ murdered from France in a Royal fortress under Richard’s control is very far fetched revisionism.
Sure, Henry Tudor had some motive to have them murdered, but Richard III had more so and had much more opportunity.


15 posted on 09/12/2012 10:02:32 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Senator Goldwater

I tend to think it was Tudor. If Elizabeth woodville really believed Richard had her sons killed, she wouldn’t have let her daughter elizabeth go to Richards court and leave sanctuary. Also, as their parents marriage had been declared invalid, Richard was the rightful heir in that case. Henrys claim was that his great grandmother was catherine of valois, who had been married to a king. I also think that Richard was very honorable, and I can’t see him doing that, but can totally see tudor having those boys murdered. He and his son did their best to wipe out any person with any drop of royal blood.


16 posted on 09/12/2012 10:03:21 PM PDT by chae (I was anti-Obama before it was cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Those damn k’s: now=know!


17 posted on 09/12/2012 10:04:43 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Richard the Lionheart may have had a good rep retrospectively, but he deserves a much worse reputation. He held England in contempt, couldn’t even be bothered to learn English, and viewed England simply as a source of power and money to support his wars in France (which he considered his real home) and the crusades in the Holy Land, for which he ravaged England severely in taxes.
His anti-semitic rhetoric also led to a massacre of Jews in London during his coronation.

Richard II wasn’t much better either. During his reign, the peasant’s revolt over poll tax occurred, (although that was an important demonstration to the government that the common people could only be pushed so far) and his brutal intransegence and pettiness led to his deposition and the the brutal slaughter of the Wars of the Roses.


18 posted on 09/12/2012 10:10:40 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

Who are the two guys in armor in that photo?


19 posted on 09/12/2012 10:23:08 PM PDT by MS.BEHAVIN (Women who behave rarely make history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huntress

I figured out after that I had gotten the good Richards mixed up. :)


20 posted on 09/12/2012 10:54:34 PM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson