Skeleton found in Leicester could be Richard III

CBC News ^ | Sept 12, 2012 | CBC News

[fella]

Read “The Daughter of Time” years and years ago and have been interested Richard III ever since. Another good book about him is “We Speak No Treason”.

[Mike Darancette]

Had a hunch he’d show up.

[GreenLanternCorps]

http://instantrimshot.com/

[bmwcyle]

Kings and Queens should all be laid to rest.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

There perhaps is not a more polarizing image in recent history, then that of Richard III. On the one hand he is the story of the evil, vicious monster, an insensitive ogre, a hunchback with a withered arm who ate live frogs for breakfast, who barely had enough family to satisfy his lust for murder, then, there is a different view.

The other view has him as a reformer. Extensive legal reforms whose effects we are feeling to this day. Richard III invented the system of bail-- he did not think it appropriate for offenders of small crimes to be detained of their liberty before trial.

Richard III legislated that the law of the land must be in the language of land. Prior to Richard, those unaware of either Latin or Old French did not know what the law was. It was a Ricardian measure that had the law translated and posted in public market places for all to see and read.

Richard III standardized the system of weights and measures. A yard of cloth did not necessarily measure the same from merchant to merchant. A pound of beef did not necessarily weigh the same. With standardization, consumers were assured of consistency.

Richard III abolished the system of benevolences. This was a system whereby members of the gentry could actually pay for high offices (for example, positions on the judiciary without necessarily having qualifications). It was Richard's belief that the best man should be presented with the job most suited to his talents regardless of birth.

Richard was clearly loved in the north, in his city of York. One of the greatest contradictions to start with is the resolution passed by the city of York after the death of Richard III (to the peril of the individual members) which was an enormous insult to Henry VII. (Remember, Henry VII actually backdated his reign before Bosworth, so that those who fought for Richard could be executed for treason.) In that climate for such a resolution to come from the city of York is rather remarkable. Richard 'was piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this City'.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. He was still a usurper and a murderer.

[fella]

“It was a Ricardian measure that had the law translated and posted in public market places for all to see and read.”

Good Lord! For us to do that now would require something like the great wall of China.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

There is no evidence that substantiates that narrative.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

Yes there is. It is a demonstrable historical fact that he declared his brother’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodeville invalid, his nephews declared bastards and took the throne for himself. Then the princes disappeared. He failed to produce them to quell rumours that they were dead, which was causing a lot of people to turn against him. Suggesting to anyone with common sense that they were almost certainly already dead.
Granted this is not conclusive evidence, but if you apply Occam’s razor to the case, this is certainly the most likely version of events and any other story is frankly, a conspiracy theory...

[MrsEmmaPeel]

I think you're overlooking the fact that Edward IV made Richard Protector of the country should he die before his son reached his majority. Elizabeth Woodville staged a coup - her son, Dorset by husband #1, ransacked the treasury and news was delayed to Richard (living in the North) that his brother, the King has passed. When Richard marched toward London, he did so, unarmed with a small entourage, leaving his own Middleham Castle undefended. His entourage was attacked by Dorset. Richard and his mourning party was not even allowed to enter London in peace.

What happened next - we know, but not why. Evidence was brought to Richard that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth was invalid, and the marriage was declared null and void. We do not know if Richard believed it, or if it was a legal maneuver made in panic because of Elizabeth's failed coup.

What happened to the boys is pure speculation. We simply do not know. We know that Elizabeth Woodville sought sanctuary after her marriage was declared invalid and after the boys disappeared, and that Richard publicly asked her to leave sanctuary and promised her a pension if she did so. She left sanctuary, was not mistreated. Richard kept his word. By contrast, her treatment by Henry VII was much worse!

Richard's actions probably would have been totally different had he been allowed to enter London as a mourner, if Elizabeth had not staged a coup and if Dorset had allowed him to mourn in peace. We know Richard hated London, and loved living in the north.

[SevenofNine]

Yeah according to Thursday UK Telegraph they did DNA result on the dude it may be him

[SevenofNine]

Yup the same dude who did Casey Antohy reset on his nephew THAT GUYYYY

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

Nobody knows exactly what happened to the boys, but why in 1483, with speculation mounting that the Princes had been murdered, did he not produce them? The simple fact is that as long as they were alive, his claim to the throne was extremely dubious. Nevertheless, if he could have produced them, it might have stemmed the died of people defecting to Henry Tudor or dropping their support for Richard.
The simplest and most reasonable assumption is that the Princes were murdered some time in 1483 to secure Richard III’s hold over the throne.
The most charitable plausible scenario is that they died of natural causes... at the same time...

[MrsEmmaPeel]

We can't say for certain what exactly happened to the Princes. We know that legally, Richard was the Protector of the country until Edward V reached majority age. We know that Elizabeth Woodville staged a coup that failed. We do know the boys disappeared. We know that Elizabeth sought sanctuary. We further know that Elizabeth publicly reconciled with Richard. We also know that Richard never produced the boys publicly when there was pressure to do so. It could be that the boys were already dead (at Richard's direct command, or as a consequence of a over zealous follower), or that they were alive, but hidden. It is possible that Richard produced the boys for Elizabeth only, hence Elizabeth's interesting reconciliation. I believe it was Paul Murray Kendall who speculated that the boys (now declared illegitamate) were in the protection of his mother, Duchess of York, Cecily Neville. He has a fanciful theory that the boys escaped to the country, where they were raised and lived to an old age.

There are a lot of fascinating twists and turns in this story. Richard didn't need to move on the boys until they became of age, or not at all, if they were considered illegitimate. Henry VII had more to gain from their removal, as his entire family was considered illegitimate by act of Parliament. And weighing claims to the throne (illegitimate Prince versus illegitimate family), Prince Edward had the better claim.

Don't forget that Henry backdated is reign to the start the Day Before the Battle of Bosworth, so that any who fought for Richard III could be considered traitors, rounded up and executed.

[SunkenCiv]

It is an undeniable fact that you have it entirely backwards.

Richard III was legally made king due to the fact that his elder brother’s heirs (the two princes, and their sister) were not legitimate.

Henry VII didn’t have much of a claim to the throne; he bribed some of Richard’s allies to pull the king off his horse, and murder him on the ground.

Henry VII then had parliament relegitimize the kids so that he could marry the girl and give him a claim to the throne.

Trouble was, the two boys were now the heirs of their father, and had to be done away with lickety-split, or Henry would have been out of luck. That the princes were still alive at that time Richard III was murdered is likely, as they are referred to as such in the paper trail.

Later on, Henry executed one of his own henchmen, on the basis of the henchman’s confession to having murdered the little princes — but see, the henchman claimed to have done so on behalf of Richard III, a ludicrous claim.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Thanks MrsEmmaPeel. Shakespeare's Richard III Buried in a UK Parking Lot? Have UK archaeologists found Richard III's skeleton? New Battle of Bosworth Field site revealed [along with site of Richard III's murder] Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.