Printable View
War has broken out again over Richard III. They found him, a historical mystery has been solved, but are Richard fans happy bunnies? No. I think this one will run and run.
As for Amy Licence's 'new evidence' about the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, I'm not sure it amounts to much, but I am looking forward to seeing what her new biography of Anne Neville will be like, given the very limited amount of information there is about her. Another candidate for least-known Queen.
.........
Just read an article that mentioned Richard's marriage to Anne Neville was more advantageous for him than her. He was the third son in an insecure monarchy. Because of his deformity he was banned from becoming a priest - which might have been his first choice as he was a devout man. Anne legitamised his Lordship of the North.
Richard III's marriage to Anne Neville was greatly to his advantage, because it gained him the loyalty of her father Warwick the Kingmaker's followers. They became 'his men' so to speak. He and his brother Clarence behaved less than ethically when they carved up the Warwick lands between them, including lands which rightly belonged to Warwick's widow, Duchess Isabel. This was achieved by declaring her legally dead! She was stashed away in a nunnery, living on a pittance. Anne's 'affinity' was also crucial for Richard when it came to the usurpation.
Here come the lawyers! Richard III's ancestors (14 of them) have asked for a Judicial Review ( whatever that is) of the arrangements for his reburial. They want him in York. Liecester are going to keep him at all costs
Couldn't we just have a good old fashioned battle to sort it out? It'd be cheaper and more fitting.
Looks like they may have found King Alfred. News item on South Today reported that an exhumation had taken place at a churchyard in Winchester and bones removed for archaeological forensic investigation. Apparently a nineteenth century archaeologist had been excavating nearby Hyde Abbey where Alfred is said to have been buried, came upon the bones and asked the then incumbent of St Bartholomew's if he would rebury them in his quiet little churchyard as 'they may be the remains of King Alfred'. The work was undertaken very quietly at the weekend without any prior announcement as the authorities did not want the world and his press descending on the place with all the ballyhoo that Richard's exhumation caused.
I think someone joked a few posts back about splitting him up, but that may in fact be the only option short of another battle of Bosworth.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
I'm guessing the spine would be split by equal number of vertebrae, skull cut in half?
St. Cataherine's head was smuggled out of Rome and brought back to Siena while the rest of her remains in Rome.
If we could find Henry I as well then we could have a share-out of all the bones. Two of Richard's ribs, Henry's pelvis and Alfred's fibia to York, Henry's skull, Richard's spine and Alfred's patella To Liecester - and so on. All the spare bits and pieces could go on tour, a leg here a radius there.
There is a stately home near here that has the head of an ancestor in a niche. It was rescued from London bridge where it was on display after he was executed for treason during the Jacobean rebellion. A faithfull servant took a cart down to London, drove onto the bridge reached up and grabbed the head as he passed beneath and returned it to his widow. A brave act, had he been caught he would've joined his master on display.
It's a bit ridiculous for the descendants of Richard III to take legal action over an ancestor they didn't even know they had until recently. And now there are fourteen of them! There were only two a couple of months back. I'm not sure exactly what a judicial review is, but I bet it doesn't come cheap. I hope they're paying for the lawyers themselves.
One solution would be for the cathedral clergy of York Minster and Leicester Cathedral to fight it out. The medieval king burial rights smackdown. I'd watch that.
Another option is to compromise and bury him at a midpoint between Leicester and York.
I'd suggest Sheffield.
Of the three or four solutions offered up on here, I think Zaza's is best. It has the merit of honesty and openness. However John Sentimu the Archbishop is too much a man of peace I fear, he would probably start blessing his opponents.. offering his other cheek and the like.
York Minster would probably like Richard III's body as much as Leicester, but they will conceal ruthless competitiveness behind a facade of Christian beneficence, Sentamu-style.
On telly now (BBC1) The White Queen. The story of Elizabeth Woodville, as discussed above.
Oh Gawd, it's a soap.
'The White Queen' - didn't expect a great deal, as the books by Philippa Gregory are pretty pedestrian. Done with a very broad brush and no feel for the period. There is a good drama to be made about the Wars of the Roses, but this isn't it. Having said that, I'll keep on watching.....
King Alfred the Great's pelvic bone.
Mick, it's likely you're now waking up to this...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/1...in-museum.html
LOL terrible is it not. I feel sometimes most of the stories showcased on tv are all made up for effect. I cannot believe everything they say about these famous people.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
for example everytime I read about an author or a poet they all seem to have had a tempestuous life relationship wise affairs and what not. One that comes to mind is Byron. I find his life rather written for a novel or a tv soap.
The best comment so far about the significance of Alfred's newly discovered bone. "This tells us that Alfred the Great is dead and that he had a pelvis."
haha that is a great sentiment indeed. where would be without a pelvis?Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick