Richard III

Ely is truly beautiful at this time of the year with trees in blossom and everything 'greening up' along the riverside.

I miss our cabin cruiser but we're too old and creaky for messing about on the river now unfortunately.

Digressing here- but Ely Cathedral and its unique lantern is a LOT MORE impressive than Leicester's ;). I've done my fair bit with bringing foreign visitors and their money to Ely btw ;)

Oh yes. The cathedral is magnificent.

If you are in Ely, then you also have the of the most beautiful Cathedrals in the world too?

I rather envy Leicester. We've got Oliver Cromwell's house.

Those monks were always great at marketing

On reflection, the City of Leicester's use of the discovery of the grave to boost tourism (and who can blame them?) reminds me of the use the monks of Glastonbury made of the discovery of King Arthur's grave under the abbey. Of course they salted the grave to make it convincing, but they certainly cashed in. Plus ça change....

King John wasn't succeeded by the Tudor PR machine. Shakespeare had him bumping off a child as well, but the play isn't as good.

I read Alison Weir talking about the way that Josephine Tey was very selective with the evidence she used. However she does make people realise that being an historian doesn't make you infallible. The Daughter of Time is still a good read and is a good basis for judging other people's ideas against.

I'm not sure how Richard became our most maligned monarch when King John goes almost un noticed.

I think that what he is alleged to have done is no worse than was usual in those times as you say, Nelliemoser. Thank goodness it is not the norm in this country today.
And would a jury convict him today on what is circumstantial evidence?

I did not realise it was all going on this week with the procession etc and I was busy with baby minding but I would have gone otherwise.
I watched the reinternment ceremony it was very moving.

On a forum I was on when the remains were first found there were a number of people who thought it would be an undignified jamboree.
I was very impressed by the way the City of Leicester and the Cathedral handled it all.
I might be a wee bit biased as it is my birthplace.

Richard was no better or worse than many others during the period of the wars of the roses. As others have said The first 2 Tudors were a lot more ruthless.

In his two years in power Richard made some very good laws to protect the interests of the common people.

www.richardiiiboarandbanner.com/richard_iii_lawmaker.html

Thanks Anno- will look for it and read.

In my teens, I was impressed with Josephine Tey's 'Daughter of Time', in which her detective, laid up with a broken leg (I think), researches the history behind the princes in the tower and reputed villainy of Richard III. So I have decided that this is a good time to revisit this excellent book which I have now acquired for my Kindle and is now on my TBR list.

Just got back from the Cathederal, not many people were gathered outside so we could see quite well. There was a big screen, showing the service, but it was drizzling and cold.

John Lewis had it on their TV screens, so I went there for coffee and mooched about watching it in the dry! I did buy something, as well!

x

Well you pick a date early, and I'll try and be there.

Is this, perhaps a good time to mention a possible meet up in Leicester in May if people are interested?

Oh my God! I was beginning to think today's service was becoming a bit of a farce, as perhaps, the whole week's events have been. But then, that poem by Carol Ann Duffey! Made it all seem right!

I'm not sure that Thomas More is that reliable as he would only have been 7 years old at the time of the battle of Bosworth! He was certainly relating/slanting these events for the benefit of the Tudor kings to shore up their tenuous claim to the crown, and quieten any dissenting voices. As for the Princes, I find it hard to believe that Richard was totally unaware of their fate, but it certainly suited a number of ambitious people that they had 'disappeared' including Henry Tudor! Illegitimacy could be reversed as was the case with the Prince's sister/s in order for Henry to marry Elizabeth! So if they had lived, insurrection would have been a constant threat whoever was on the throne, so, like poor Jane Grey, they had, like her, perhaps regretfully, to be permanently removed. Why their bodies weren't produced under the pretext of natural death, common enough in those days, which would have taken the onus off Richard IS a mystery! The bodies were supposed to have been moved after their original disposal, so perhaps Richard simply didn't know where they were, lost without trace so to speak! If Henry Tudor found the alive and had them murdered, why did he get so hung up over Perkin Warbeck, as he would have known he was an imposter?! This would indicate that there was no sign of them after Bosworth, so back to Richard, and the mysteries deepens!!

Just because a person fervently believes something does not make it true.

We don't know all the facts, even well-researched historians differ, and we may never know the truth.

Wasn't Thomas More on of the main sources of Shakespeare's play? His account of the life and times of Richard III was not contemporaneous and rather a long way from unbiased.

Whoever said that history is written by the victors is so right. In this case I reckon Margaret Beaufort ordered the killing of the princes and the Tudors wrote the history. I'm just re-reading Philippa Gregory's book about all this and it is very interesting. I would tell you what it is called but my kindle is charging somewhere else and I'm too tired to go and get it. Deedaa is right, of course, that our Will would have fitted the facts to his story rather than the other way around. I'll stop now as I'm probably making no sense at all.

And the facts had already been filtered by the Tudor propagandists.

I just think that anyone using Shakespeare as a basis for historical fact is pretty uninformed. He never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Well my family, friends and neighbours went to Dadlngton, it is our locality so they didn't have to travel far. They were all very pleased they went.

It is reported that 4-5 'thousand' people attended this tiny village area so I think a lot of people were interested and I like that. It was good for the local school children to be able to attend as they are taught in school the history of the area they reside in, naturally. Obviously the history of the Battle of Bosworth is something you just learn about when you come from the surrounding area, the same as those who live in Bath know all about the Roman Baths for example.

Some people say it was overkill and costly but was it really? It was not a day of massive extravaganza, I thought It was quite low key in some parts actually.. The service at Fenn Lane farm, Stoke Golding was a private, very understated affair. The route from there to Dadlngton and Sutton Cheney was relevant and obviously the Bosworth Battlefield was going to be part of it too. The scene of the Bosworth Battlefield was not a costly affair as there is a strong re-enactment society who put on shows regularly and obviously this was manna for them. I didn't think the service at Leicester was that extravagant either, must be me.

All in all I thought it was a respectful day but I understand those who have a totally opposite view .

Deedaa I was surprised to read the DM article as they have covered the finding of the body and subsequent events quite well. This person obviously has his own ideas and I am surprised they published it without giving an alternative viewpoint from someone who is 'pro-Richard'.
Or perhaps they think they have done that previously.