Richard III

@panda12 wrote:

@sceptical guy wrote:

@anc wrote:

@panda12 wrote:

@sceptical guy wrote:

Nobody is too cute to be tortured….

and I would like to assure all my well-wishers here that it was not me who killed the Princes.

Their skeletons were discovered, by the way, during an excavation of the Tower in 1674, so by 1674 they were dead. Of that, there can be no doubt..I don’t think so anyway.

I’m far too cute to be tortured, Scep.

Just look @ me – I’m irresistable!

Blimey! Talk about bending over! :lol:

Probs that curry you ate last night! Did I tell you I hid sliced cucumber in it?! :lol:

I was going to say that panda’s pic was almost an invitation to get the paddle out until anc pointed out what may be about to happen

Psst! Scep! I’m not a really a real panda!

Honest!

*pads off to the woods

:P

don’t believe ya

History is written by the victors, as they say. The modern perception of Richard derives from Thomas More and Shakespeare. More was a bit of a Tudor spin-doctor before losing his head and we all know that Shakes was writing entertainment for the public and his Tudor queen.
As has been said Henry had more of a motive for doing away with the princes, and Henry proved to have no qualms about judicial murder. Richards young nephew the earl of Warwick for instance. No-one can say for sure. The princes ‘disappeared’ in 1483 but did they die in 1483?

As for where he (if it is him) should be buried, well I say York. Westminster and Windsor have enough royalty.

Apologies for putting this back on topic…..

when panda denied she was a panda(!!) I thought she was going to reveal that she was one of the princes in the Tower.

To me, how you line up on this tends to do with who you are, rather than with whodunnit.

The anti-Richard crowd tend to be people who loved Olivier’s portrayal in the movie. The Shakespeare Richard is a scrumptious character – so evil he makes us laugh and chills us in turns – the bunch-backed bottled spider, the originbal Wicked Uncle. One historian, AL Rowse, really went overboard and compared Richard’s usurpation with Hitler’s takeover of Germany, with Yorshiremen in the role of the SA (only 4 people were killed, ffs – 6 if you count the two pore ickle princes).

The pro-Richard crowd tend to be people who felt that they’ve been misunderstood and smeared – you know them, they appear in f3 chat all the time. Josephine Tey wote a lovely little detective novel The Daughter of Time about what an honest and loyal man Richard was, while Paul Murray Kendall in his literary biography (more like a gripping novel than history) sees Richard as a kind family man who was made an Outsider, an existential hero no less by the swine at court.

I think it’s impossible to say who killed em..it was impossible then, and this is overe 500 years on.

So all I can say – it was a pretty cruel age and if it wasn’t Richard, it was some other bug ger.

@sceptical guy wrote:

if it wasn’t Richard, it was some other bug ger.

Unless of course, they committed suicide.

@panda12 wrote:

@desmondy wrote:

History is written by the victors, as they say.

Whoever “they” maybe, they are talking bollards – you only need to look @ Anne Frank to realise that.

Are they? And who were the victors in that particular case? If the Nazi’s had won that war do you think we would know of Anne Frank?

Read one of Murray Kendall’s book on the Kingmaker but never the Richard one. Might have to take a look!