Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 04:39 pm |        |
Hi,
For some good reading on this subject, check out The Princes in the Tower, by Allison Weir (I'm sure many of you already have).
Personally, I think Richard did it--he had motive and means, and sightings of the Princes stopped well before 1485 (I'm pretty sure, but I'm writing from memory). Even if taken out of the line of succession, sons of royalty could still stir up a lot of trouble. And don't forget that you're still in living memory of the Wars of the Roses, so there's that haunting any king. Plus, there's also Richard's growing paranoia (which of his Council members did he have beheaded during a meeting--I've forgotten).
Richard should have spent some time cozying up to his sister-in-law. He was trapped the minute Edward died, and only bad choices were left for him. He reminds me of Nixon 
Best,
Dave |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 08:29 pm | |
It was Lord Hastings, a righthand man to Edward IV
but a traitor to Richard |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 09:18 pm | |
Thank you, Rick--that's who I was thinking of.
David |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 11:52 pm | |
Greetings all:
Waaaaay off the subject, but I was just dying to say:
Long live Queen Jane, who really got the short end of the stick!
I found her to be a most fascinating historical figure... she refused to be a puppet, and stood up for her beliefs in the face of death. Can you imagine what would have happened if she had kept her throne?
Okay, I'll shut up now.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 12:57 am | |
See, Ally? I've started a new thread, and not on purpose, I SWEAR!!! Mostly I was just rambling, and wanted to sound off about Anne, who has always been treated as a second-class wifely prospect. I just wanted to defend her a bit, and Richard and Henry got pulled in by accident..... well, not TOTALLY by accident, I must admit.
Greetings to all; thanks for the words of encouragement from Chris George, and from those who think Richard has been badly treated by Shakespeare and history. For those who think he was a stinker, and not treated badly enough by history, I have a lovely bridge for sale...any takers?
Cheers, and thanks for the fun; you're a great bunch. I'm lucky to be here.
Judy |
Author: stephen miller
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 12:59 am | |
Hi Ally yes they could have been put back in the line of succession later but not when Richard had them imprisoned in the tower
The only threat they held for Richard was if they escaped
If an uprising occurred whilst they were in the Tower he could easily have them killed
best wishes
steve |
Author: Graham Jay
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 02:52 am | |
| Of course Richard III got a raw deal from Shakespeare - he was writing for the granddaughter of the usurper! From what I have read at least, Richard in his 2 years looked like he would have been a good king (a rarity!) and while I think he caused the princes to be killed I don't think he had any choice if there was a question of their legitimacy. Not after having come out of the War of the Roses a few years earlier, England needed stability. It's all Edward III's fault for having too many kids! Richard II came to a sticky end for the same reason. |
Author: Timsta
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 11:59 am | |
Divia:
"Can you imagine what would have happened if [Queen Jane] had kept her throne? "
Well, we wouldn't have gotten to see Helena Bonham Carter getting whipped, for one.
I leave it to you to decide whether this would be a good thing or a bad thing.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 12:31 pm | |
Hi Timsta:
I'm not going to ask if you thought seeing Helena Bonham-Carter whipped was a good or a bad thing!
As to my own opinion, I'll keep quiet to avoid further incriminating myself.
Though I found Trevor Nunn's movie to be thoroughly enjoyable, I know that it was a rather romanticised version of the events. From what I understand, Guildford threw a little wobbly about Jane not allowing him to be crowned along with her. But I admire the way he went to his death, maintaining his conviction that Jane was the true queen. Not that he had much choice in the matter, mind you.
And let's face it, anything with Carey Elwes in it has my mark of approval *grrrr*!
Sorry to have diverted the thread off topic!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 12:41 pm | |
Divia,
I live about a mile away from Lady Janes family home in Bradgate park. When she was beheaded they lopped off the tips of all the trees in the park. No idea why. The local scout packs kneckers are orange and grey in colour. Orange for King William of orange who passed through the village and grey after Lady Jane.
That well known sequel Richard the Third has a strong Leicester connection too. He stayed in the city the night before Bosworth. In a Inn called the White Boar (which, as some many know, is a emblem of one of the Kings allies.) When news filtered back to Leicester about the Kings demise and tudors march on the city the quick thinking Inn owner painted the White boar sign Blue. which happened to be the emblem of one of Tudors followers...or was it Tudor himself ? The Blue Boar still stands in Highcross street today.
Another Plantaganet story was that as Richard III was crossing the west bridge over the Soar (on his way to Bosworth) he kicked an old woman who was in his way. She cursed him on the spot saying "when you cross this bridge again you shall strike your head upon this spot". When he died at Bosworth his men collected his body and dumped it on the back of a cart. Upon the crossing of the west bridge his head (which was hanging slightly off the cart) struck a stone pillar, the same pillar which Richard had kicked the old woman against.
Local talk says that his body way dumped in the river Soar. Yep, we are certainly a Richard city.
Monty, who has got a load of boring stuff like this as long as your arm.....see !
|
Author: Graham Jay
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 02:03 pm | |
Hi Monty,
Nothing boring about history at all! I think the White Boar was actually the emblem of Richard himself, Henry Tudor was the Red Dragon, and the Blue Boar was the Earl of Oxford who, as you said, was a supporter of Henry (boo hiss) |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 03:32 pm | |
Graham,
You're probably right, sorry.
Richard III statue stands in Castle park, we have a King Richards way, King Richards road and school. There is a local football team named after him, a pub and even a working mens club.
And every August someone puts in a memorial to him the the local paper !!
Monty
|
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 07:22 pm | |
| The memorial could very likely be from "THE RICHARD III SOCIETY. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 07:52 pm | |
What was this theory again ?
Maybe we could convince Helena Bonham-Carter to become interested in Ripperology and get her to come to one of the Conferences ? If we paid her enough money , maybe she would consent to being whipped as well for us !
It would certainly liven things up a bit , wouldn't it ? Better than a quiz night with Jeremy Beadle ! |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 01:29 am | |
Dear Simon:
I'd pay good money to see that, and even more money if I get to wield the cane!
Not that I have anything against her, goodness knows... I happen to like Helena Bonham-Carter very much.
We could cast her in the role of Frances Coles....
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 06:58 am | |
Rick,
Partly correct, I think it was a lady who was a member.
I havent see it this year though.
Monty
|
