Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Nobody knows for sure what happened to the boys ….it is all speculation. But the version that most history books contain is the Tudor version. Henry VII and then Henry VIII and Elizabeth made sure of that. So Richard III was said to be the murderer. I just don’t believe that he could have been. He was a very studious and quiet man. He was happy in York with his wife, and didn’t want the throne. When his brother died, he stepped up to the mark and was Regent but the boys disappeared, interestingly, there is proof that they were placed in the Tower of London with their sister. And their sister then married Henry VII.
That is why there are people who suspect that all is not what it seems, and that Richard, who was not war like, but really a bit bookish, was framed.
@panda12 wrote:
@minim wrote:
@sceptical guy wrote:
He might well be nnocent of that murder of the Princes….
the Royals have said they’ll refuse to let him be buried in Windsor or Westminster..they suggest Leiecester Cathedral…
I reckon York Minster would be good…he was very popular in York and always felt it was his home…
Henry very likely killed the boys in the tower. He married their older sister and of course he would have not wanted any little boys to threaten his rather rocky claim to the throne. The shakespeare version was for the Tudors, so no wonder it painted Richard III in a bad light, they needed a patsy to blame for the murders!
And.. he was very popular in York, it was his home, it is the Plantagent centre, and there is a Richard III museum in the wall. He was very popular with everyone, a kind and thoughtful man, it would have been out of character for him to have murdered his two little nephews.
I still think, replicas in the museum, and bury his bones. Poor man should be laid to rest.
The Princes were last seen in 1483 – Henry didn’t come to the throne until 1485 so by then it is likely they had already been dead for two years.
Richard III’s claim to the throne was precarious to say the least and he only became King by an Act of Parliament in 1483 which declared Edward and his younger brother, Richard illegitimate.
From what I studied, the two boys and their older sister were being held by Henry Tudor. He betrothed himself to her in 1483, at which point he no longer needed the boys and killed them. It took a further two years before Richard was killed. If the boys and their sister had been in the hands of Richard III, how did Henry Tudor manage to get hold of Elizabeth and get himself betrothed to her as a way of cementing his claim on the throne?
@sceptical guy wrote:
He might well be nnocent of that murder of the Princes….
the Royals have said they’ll refuse to let him be buried in Windsor or Westminster..they suggest Leiecester Cathedral…
I reckon York Minster would be good…he was very popular in York and always felt it was his home…
Henry very likely killed the boys in the tower. He married their older sister and of course he would have not wanted any little boys to threaten his rather rocky claim to the throne. The shakespeare version was for the Tudors, so no wonder it painted Richard III in a bad light, they needed a patsy to blame for the murders!
And.. he was very popular in York, it was his home, it is the Plantagent centre, and there is a Richard III museum in the wall. He was very popular with everyone, a kind and thoughtful man, it would have been out of character for him to have murdered his two little nephews.
I still think, replicas in the museum, and bury his bones. Poor man should be laid to rest.
I am sure he was a lovely person Mrs T, and we all know how much he did for Stoke Mandeville etc. But most people who molest and abuse are charming and seem beyond reproach. That is how they all get away with it.
In my opinion, and it is only my opinion…. I think he did what Jen-Jen said and more. I can remember having a conversation with a group of friends (male and female) some time in the 80s. The subject of whether he was gay or straight came up, and one of the blokes said, both probably because he’s into little kids. We then proceeded to have a very long argument about whether he was a kiddy fidler or a perve or not. The consensus was that he may not have actually done anything, but he almost definitely wanted to!
They could make replicas of the bones, and put those on display, and bury the others with pomp and circumstance. Thats if they are really sure they are the bones of Richard III.
@toybulldog wrote:
I’ll tell ya what bores me rubes.
Women saying that ALL MEN are cowards and don’t recognise Truth. The same women like Vee and Mims who pontificate endlessly on boards about what great mothers they are and how their golden female offspring are more important than life itself.
Did they ever for one second think that if they gave birth to sons instead of daughters that they would ( and this in bloody middle age mind you ) have to re-evaluate their own existence and basic attitudes to the opposite sex ?
Why should a brand new baby boy be subject to such lazy, casual, unthinking invective ? If it wasn’t for male offspring these unsentient bit/ches would’nt even be around to clumsily drop their retard paws upon a keyboard.
I think they get a bit confuddled by the 80 % of other members who share their gender.
Bless.
Stupidity abounds. And why aren’t you at home.
I was in wind up mode!!!! :) seems it worked a tad too well
why are you putting this here instead of at Pats place? I was unlikely to read it here. Maybe you were being cowardly and hoping I wouldn’t :wink:
Lights are on but nobodys home
click click
:lol:
Its not only simple its obvious, so why is it difficult to do? Why do people make everything complicated? Pride? Embarrassment? Fear of rejection?
There has been a recurring theme of mixed messages and misunderstandings in my life. And even when I did do what it says on the poster, I still managed to coc k things up! Mostly because what I thought was simple was complicated for the other person, and visa versa.
I still try and do all of those things, and sometimes that takes courage. But, we really do only have one life. Take a few risks!
I think we call it Vetting and Barring though. No difference and interchangeable with Scotland. And I think my lot have to be in the system by 2014.
But….. how sucessful will it be? It will only work if everyone is updated regularly, and that relies on computers, and computers rely on human input, and we know how unreliable that can be. :)
And that was kind of my point, that they are worthless bits of paper. And that a certificate obtained in France is no proof of anything.
In the UK its the VBS not the PVG, although not 100% sure of that. We are all being moved onto the register before 2015, so not sure when we have to apply to be registered yet. They still use the CRB checks though, so not sure if this is the equivalent of an enhanced CRB. I think it replaces the PoVA and the education list.
