A week to the day it was all "official" I was completely disorientated. I have no idea why I became so intrigued by Richard III over ten years ago - yes I do! Nothing made sense. I've become used to being labelled a "loony". But if you have facts on your side logic is more powerful than sentiment. I didn't join the RIII Society for years...Mind you they don't have them in Wales but the reason I joined was simply to get hold of certain articles and all I can say for the Society is that they are more "cerebral" than so many others I've encountered.
I suppose that I've been taunted by many, but frankly it didn't matter because they didn't know their stuff BUT it taught me well...I had no idea what animosity there was to the rehabilitation of Richard III, nor the truth. Call me naive. It is so strange to hear people say positive things about Richard III.
But I promise you that anyone who scratches the surface of this whole episode will have questions to ask. There are so many accounts of money changing hands all going to Burgandy and Portugal...The tale we have been spoon fed is rubbish. Richard III did not kill the princes BUT I have little doubt that will soon be shown in some way.

My family who are so bored with all of this have seen the program of last Tuesday seperately. I've been surprised that all were touched and moved by it. I have avoided all links, news and articles about the dig. I didn't want to know. For me it was all about a simple wrong which may have been corrected. And he's been found. So many Philippas! I could understand how Philippa Langley felt and admire her persistence but thought she should have been less emotional. Not good. I watched it alone and when they said it had began to rain torentially, it did here as I watched...Odd but it's Wales.
What I found strange was that I worked in those rooms and remember that corridor so well where I sorted out sherds to draw. That was very odd. But the curvature of the spine means little. What a trooper he must have been. My brother "works out" and has a better muscled right arm than left.
And the face...I wasn't expecting him to look so young nor so attractive. The countess of Desmond was right.
Now that we KNOW what was wrong or right, those middle aged men playing Richard as a spider, with a leg brace, and a hook for an arm, as an old debauched rouee with a shouty voice...will appear to be more and more ridiculous. Tudor propoganda? No such thing! As I've been told endlessly.

What concerns me is what next? Leicester will cling on to his remains when the only thing Richard knew about the city was death and derision and complete and utter sadness. I've seen the creepy pictures of "The Dig" and let's face it Leicester has nothing else to offer tourists. It will become a circus! It is well past time that Richard III was allowed a little dignity.
Richard wanted to be buried at York Minster and little of what he wanted has ever been allowed. He of course deserves to be buried at Westminster Abbey with due pomp and circumstance and that ghastly Baroque Wren urn should be turfed out, we know it holds the bones of some poor unfortunate Romano Brits. I can't be bothered to explain why now. I'm so angry with Westminster's Dean and Chapter for not following through and allowing the stupid charade to continue. The Abbey is only there to make money from gullible tourists, poor souls.
But Richard III has been found. I wonder what he would have said if told on August 22nd 1485, "528 years in the future, in 2013 your body will be discovered and people will celebrate. Eventually you will be able to rest in peace". Isn't this what it is all about? I pray for his soul, often. No one should be treated as he has been. Perhaps traditional historians will stop being so pathetically didactic.

Sorry if that sounds pompous.

It doesn't sound pompous at all and actually illustrates my earlier point well concerning how this circus will now become a York versus Leicester charade. For all the reasons you state.

Were you disappointed with the fact that the lad had a deformed spine by the way?

But then again why is it that people like me
have to spend so much time persuading people like you
to question a subject?
I've spent ages on the BBC History site and here and there being ridiculed because of my opinion that Richard III was NOT the monster everyone believed him to be.
Now he has been "discovered" everyone is interested. Hurrah!
What do you do with your brains when you aren't bullying or teasing someone who actually cares and thinks differently to you?
Put them in cold storage? Read the next cereal packet competition? Or just follow the latest trend? I would hate to be like you and why do you do it? We all have time to think.

Not in the least Nordmann. I want to learn more about it and will hopefully find out more. It did concern me that it may have been painful and caused a problem sometimes with his breathing. I hope that he wasn't in pain.
I can't remember the name of the pathologist, Jo something, but I did like her stern attitude, no room for conjecture or sentiment. As it should be.

Eye witness reports from people who knew his father the duke of York say that he looked very like him and what stained glass windows and rough drawings show that they had similar colouring and that firm jaw line. Niclaus Von Popplau the professional Silesian Jouster came to England in 1484 to meet Richard due to his miliatary prowess and gave an eye witness account of Richard's appearance which he took back with him and so was never tampered with.
I don't have it to hand but he basically says that he was shorter than he was, had slimmer legs than he did but an overall good physique and a good heart.
Words to that effect. It is easy to look up.

We have extensive records of Richard's everyday routine and life when a boy at Middleham under the tutelage of Warwick the kingmaker and excercise takes up a large part of it. As the son of a royal duke he would have been in keen competition with boys of lesser rank to do well. If the scleriosis of the spine had set in here, (I know I've spent it incorrectly) when around ten, he worked long hours training and may have been in some pain. It was during this time that he made the lifelong friendships with Robert Ratcliffe and Francis Lovell, the Rat and the Cat of the rhyme, who would later die fighting for him.

We KNOW that Richard led the vanguard at Tewksbury and Barnet, something a stern and successful soldier like Edward IV would never have allowed based only on family loyalties. Richard also led a large army north to regain Berwick which had been lost by the Lancastrians and could even have taken Edinburgh before being called home, something Edward I failed to do. And so Richard may have been in some pain due to his condition but it appears not to have impaired his ability as a soldier. I find the fact that he had this condition makes me admire him even more.

The fashions of the day would have disguised any problems too, look at a painting by Uccello, young noble men usually wore padded velvet doublets, belted at the waist and then tights to show off their legs. From the dig it appears that Richard had perfectly normal legs as reported by Von Popplau. The long trailing robes we often see pictures of Richard wearing would only have been worn by much older men.
Nordmann, I've only ever followed the clues and facts concerning Richard III. It saddened me to see his spine but it certainly didn't disappoint me. If anything it made me admire him more.

Sorry if I was rude, I'm simply ....I don't know what! Emotional. This positive and thoroughly checked information has taken so long to surface and he looks so very young. How I hate the Tudors and I'm Welsh.

I know all, Lovell the dog! Catesby was the Cat. Sorry.

One thing that has been bothering me since watching Jo's explanation of the skeleton on the doc, is R's bones.

Most skeletons excavated of warriors or archers have the bones of one arm noticeably larger than the other. From years of practice and use (from a young age) with weapons, it is usually how archaeologists tell that the person in question was a warrior if there are not grave goods for indication.

Yet Richard's bones on both arms were exactly the same size and both very fine for a male, it doesn't verify the theory that he spent the same amount of time practicing with weapons as everyone else would have done.

I can't think why it wasn't mentioned, they only seemed intent on proving that he didn't have a withered arm and not questioning any of their own pet theories.

I came upon this whilst wikiing, it seems the success in finding Richard is promting the search for other lost kings:

Norwegian archaeologist Øystein Ekroll has pointed out that since the 11th century there are 25 Norwegian Kings still in unmarked or unknown graves and he's hoping that the interest in Richard III might prompt similar searches in Norway. He's proposing to start with Harald Hardrada who is thought to be buried beneath a city road. Harald was of course killed at Stamford Bridge but a year after his death his body was moved to Norway and buried at the Mary Church in Nidaros, Trondheim. Then about a hundred years after this burial, his body was reinterred at the Helgeseter Priory in Trondheim. But the priory was demolished in the 17th century and the area is now built over. In 2006 the Municipality of Trondheim said they were examining the possibility of exhuming the king and reinterring him in Nidaros Cathedral where many Norwegian kings are buried. But the plan was blocked by the Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage. Maybe though with all the excitement about Dickon they might now be persuaded to give permission to dig.

The article is in Norwegian I'm afraid, but it's got pics and you can always cut-n-paste into goggle translate ... or ask Nordmann.

http://nrk.no/vitenskap-og-teknologi/1.10900296

If you open this article, or most other non English ones, with Chrome, the 'translate' option pops up automatically and it works pretty well in most cases, Paul's 'Passion Histoire' for instance.
There's the odd slight difficulty - the side bar topic 'How high is your child' is not actually a means of assessing his cannabis consumption.

It seems the design for the tomb was commissioned by Phillipa in 2010 -





but the Leicester cathedral authorities are not going to rubber stamp it and are meeting with architects to discuss plans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21427369

I hope they've read the Introductory Notes for Incumbents and Parochial Church Councils on Graveyard Regulations (1992) Section B. All that gold is a bit gaudy for the Church of England.

They'd never get away with it in our church.

But the white marble is nice.

It's sandstone - or so they said on Radio 4 earlier.

Looks too portable to me - they mustn't risk a bunch of Yorkies on a smash'n'grab raid high-tailing it up north with it.

One thing I don't follow with Philippa's design. Shouldn't one side be slightly lower than the other?

And should a child murderer be buried in a cathedral at all?

If Henry VIII can be buried in a cathedral then the baseline is obviously very low indeed.

What I'm really asking is: the reburial is happening now so should the actions of someone in the past affect how they are treated in the present? Is it the regal status of the corpse or the time distance that allows him to be so honoured? Jimmy Saville didn't (as far as we know) kill anyone but his grave had to be dismantled because of abhorrence of his misdeeds.
Should the RSPCC picket the reburial?

Yes, it seems being a King supercedes all the unsavoury goings on, so much so that a whole new character can be invented and polished up to fit the perceived image.

Temperance wrote:

I hope they've read the Introductory Notes for Incumbents and Parochial Church Councils on Graveyard Regulations (1992) Section B. All that gold is a bit gaudy for the Church of England.

They'd never get away with it in our church.

Nor my parents' church. On my parent's headstone the wording my sister and I had wanted was refused permission. I believe you've had the same experience Temp. As my aunt would say, "typical, one rule for royalty one for the rest of us!".

But do I take it then that York has meekly given in without even a little fight? I can't think there are many people - outside of Leicestershire and the completely indifferent - who would actually want him interred in Leicester cathedral as opposed to York. And it'll be no good waiting for Her Madge to intercede. She has no vested interest and besides, according to David Starkey, she has absolutely no interest or knowledge of history at all prior to the death of her great-grandfather. Starkey was famously reported as saying, after having had lunch with HRH: "I don't think she's at all comfortable with anybody - I would hesitate to use the word 'intellectual' - but it's useful. I think she's got elements a bit like Goebbels in her attitude to culture - you remember: 'every time I hear the word culture I reach for my revolver.' I think the queen reaches for her mask."

nordmann wrote:

If Henry VIII can be buried in a cathedral then the baseline is obviously very low indeed.

Just to be pedantic Henry VIII is buried next to Jane Seymour in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle. It was and still is a private chapel attached to one of the family's residences.

Islanddawn wrote:

Yes, it seems being a King supercedes all the unsavoury goings on, so much so that a whole new character can be invented and polished up to fit the perceived image.

But hasn't that always been a part of kingship? There have been plenty of unsavoury kings who did unsavoury things, even unsavoury by the standards of their day, yet no-one says their statues and tombs should be removed or Oxbridge Colleges renamed etc. The same arguement of course was/is used to reinforce the claims of say, the usurper Henry VII. Once made king all is forgiven...

As Gil said:

Gilgamesh of Uruk wrote:

I incline to Ambrose Bierce's view, revealed in his definition

"Anoint : To grease a king or other great functionary already sufficiently slippery."

I hate to admit it, but it is all getting a bit silly. Leicester wants to dig up Cardinal Wolsey now:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9866818/Hunt-for-Richard-III-now-Leicester-wants-to-find-Cardinal-Wolsey.html

Whatever next?

PS Yes, I got into trouble over a Thomas More (nasty Catholic person) quotation, MM. Wasn't allowed.

PPS I do actually like the proposed tomb for Richard, and a portable one could well be the answer. Six months in Leicester; six months in York. Even a touring tomb to visit all the cathedrals in the U.K. (didn't they do a tour with a Catholic saint's remains in recent times?). The ideal solution. There could be real money in a portable Richard.

If they put Henry VII on casters he can pursue him all the way round the country. Now there's a show!

Peripatetic tombs?

Now that's an idea - though it's hardly original. Many old kings (and other big nobs - saints particularly) seem to have done quite a bit of touring post mortem. Harald Hardrada for one (cf my post just a bit further up) found himself relocated from Yorkshire, to Norway and then did a little circumperambulation (is that a word?!) before coming to rest, at present under a suburban street. But I get the feeling he will shortly be on the move again to find his final (?) resting place alongside other members of his family in the cathedral.

But then mediaeval kings were always on the move perambulating around their kingdoms ... or others' kingdoms. So it's only a case of, "in death as in life", no?

Meles meles wrote:

Just to be pedantic Henry VIII is buried next to Jane Seymour in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle. It was and still is a private chapel attached to one of the family's residences.

And it was rapidly mislaid - by 1649 no-one could remember exactly where it was. When it was decided that Charles I and Henry would have to do a post-mortem 'flat share', Chapel staff had to go around tapping the floor with sticks to find the hollow spot! It's still a very plain marker; the elaborate tomb Henry had made for himself was placed in storage and eventually recycled for Nelson.

All a bit old news now, but I enjoyed this from the Independent:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/philippa-langley-hero-or-villain-8488318.html

Catigern choking on his Frosties - now there's a thought.

But why so much heavyweight pooh-poohing of what, for most viewers, had been a discovery of genuine interest? Could it be – in part, at least – because it had been the work of, shock horror, an amateur? And worse, the kind of amateur who blubs to camera and prefaces her theories with: "I know how mad this sounds, but...."?

Quote :

...there'll be a four-page spread of him (the skeleton) in 'Hello' magazine next month.

Check out this week's "Hello!"

Yes, he's there on pages 58/59! (Sandwiched between "David and Victoria on Harper, Home Life and How They Make It Work " and "Kate's Nine-Point Pregnancy Plan Revealed".)

Good to see the work is being published in a quality academic journal.

Yes, our ID will be happy now!

But I'm tempted to write an "Hello!" style interview with the skeleton - you know, along the lines of:


"It's no wonder his appeal has spread beyond the University of Leicester. His reconstructed good looks, and amazing skill with a pole-axe have won him an army of admirers, with readers of 'Vanity Fair' voting him the second most handsome man in the world, behind Robert Pattinson, but ahead of Brad Pitt. Richard has no time for such accolades though. And when I ask if we may expect to see him soon looking down on us from the nation's billboards wearing a pair of Calvin Klein underpants, he gives me one of those boyish grins that won so many hearts in 1483.

'It's unlikely to happen this year. I am a King (well, ex-King) after all,' he insists. 'I don't see myself as having a modelling career.'

How does he feel then about being dubbed 'the history lover's David Beckham'?

'He is someone who has done a lot for football and making it appeal to a broader fan base, so, for me, yes there are similarities,' he reasons. 'He does for football what I am trying to do for history.'

But what of his relationship with Philippa? They are a magnificent team. Will they continue to work together?

For a moment he hesitates. 'Philippa?' he queries in his charmingly accented English. 'But of course. I always say everything that I have achieved, we have done it together. Without her support where would I be today?' "

Well without feet and with not being wired together yet, I defenitely don't know where I'd be without dear Pippa's support. Still lying on the table in the lab probably.

Will we get a tour of his lovely home? And maybe a nice family group photo with his cute nephews?

Next Wednesday - Richard III - the unseen story http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/following-hit-doc-more4-to-screen-richard-iii-the-unseen-story

"This follow-up film will look in-depth at some of the most intensive archaeological and scientific analysis ever conducted to uncover and investigate a single individual skeleton. The project involved dozens of specialists in the fields of archaeology, osteology, history, forensic pathology, genealogy and DNA analysis. Richard III: The Unseen Story will piece together the critical steps in the archaeological excavation – revealing how the Greyfriars Church in Leicester was uncovered. It will reveal the dig’s other major finds – from the church architecture to additional human remains and reveal how the most important grave was identified - following the painstaking process of exhumation."
This one could be a bit more informative.

Ah, thanks ferval. That is more like it, and hopefully without Philippa's school girl palpitations.

Sunday Mail today extolls the excitements of going about Leicestershire for 'The Richard III Short Break." Since we no longer have an industrial base worthy of much mention, it becomes imperative that we hold on to our Royal heritage, old and new, to boost the economy. Well done those who fought so hard to keep this aspect alive - and brought to rewarding fruition just when recession begins to kick in. This valuable asset has yet to be assessed.

I do hope nobody minds, but I laughed so much at the picture that nordmann posted on the Captions thread that I've copied it here. I shall leave it to ID to decide whether or not to add her caption (which also made me laugh - who is Philippa's rival?).




Oh, it won't stick - what a shame!

Ah Temp, Philippa's rival wishes to remain unnamed. For reasons of personal safety you understand.

Thank you!

Speaking as a Philippa there are far too many of us! BUT only formally, like Rumplestilskin I'm known by all by a nickname which is too silly to be guessed. Anyway to something much, much more important and pressing.

I noticed at the time of the programe on Channel 4 that Richard's hands were at odd angles. Tomorrow on More 4 at nine pm, I think, the wonderful pathologist Jo? from the dig is filling in the bits that were left out from the original programe and it seems that Richard III's hands were tied when he was buried.

It seems to have been taken for granted that Richard was eventually, after his naked body had been totally humiliated and displayed, given a Christian service of burial before HVII eventually got around to physically burying him in a black marble tomb, destroyed during the Reformation. However IF this is so, he would have been "laid out", his arms crossed over his chest. his eyes closed etc.. Something we think important even today. BUT IF his hands were TIED when he was "buried" then how do we know that he WAS given a Christian burial according to the rites of the Church? It really concerns me that he may have been tossed into some coffin and disposed of. I've not come across anything concerning his actual burial, only his tomb.

We all know that Richard III wanted to be buried at York Minster BUT when have his wishes ever been listened to? The city of Leicester can make serious money out of him in death, having ignored him for the past 500 years. They already have "him" on display and no doubt the city council are rubbing their hands with glee about the tourist pounds they can make out of the man whose only connection with Leicester was death, humiliation and total oblivion. Of course he should NOT be buried there. How dare they!

But the MOST important point to ask again is again, did Richard III have a Christian burial? And IF we are in any doubt, he must have one now, just to make sure. The very thought of this poor soul who paid to have masses said and sung for his staff and even meniel servants (very unusual) and not even to have a Christian burial himself is too awful to contemplate. It is as though he has been denied every small wish he would not have denied anyone else during his lifetime. When will he at last find peace? Sod what the tomb looks like, although I believe like Dan Crukshank it should be that worthy of a crowned king, BUT wherever his bones are buried, ye Gods, let this man have something we all take for granted, being laid to rest according to our beliefs and Richard III was a Roman Catholic Christian.

No one should be treated as Richard III has been treated where Eng Lit/propoganda crosses over into History. Henry V should be treated as a war criminal and this has even been discussed in sacred academia, but Shakespeare and the Tudors declared him to be a HERO and thus he has been treated. Words, words, words and yet for Richard III it seems to go on and on and on...World without end. Egocentric actors will still play Hamlet when young, Richard III when middleged/aging and King Lear when, or on, on their last legs. How ridiculous will members of the RSC and aging Hollywood Greats look, when playing Richard III to modern audiences? IF a film is ever made of Philippa Langley's thoughts about Richard III, the problem will be finding someone YOUNG enough to play him. Over 35s need not apply. Be a scuttling spider on your own time Shere! Weird man.

God knows what tomorrow's "discoveries" will tell the world, all I believe is that this man has been treated so savagely in body and in mind, it is time to allow him some peace and a Christian burial. As a child even my pets had them (and yes dad was a clergyman) and before someone says, "what about the Princes"? All I have to say is, "the evidence against Richard III is not damning because there is no evidence".
Please God may Richard III, finally, Rest In Peace. God knows that he has waited long enough.
Cheers, Minette.

Amen.

What ridiculous nonsense, Minette ! The Hunchback hardly deserves a Christian burial! Jesus did NOT say 'Suffer little children to come unto me, so that I can dash their brains out against a dungeon wall and usurp their patrimony'!

...and their is plenty of evidence of Richard's responsibility for their deaths - they posed a threat to his usurpation and they disappeared on his watch, for heaven's sake!

On a more general note, I do believe the discovery of the Hunchback's twisted remains may have some positive side-effects within the world of serious History . OK, so convinced Ricardians are probably too pig-headed and wilfully blind to evolve into Historians, but the rest of us may get a good laugh at whatever bizarre hoops of non-logic they jump through now that forensic science has totally exploded their ridiculous, circular argument of 'Dickon had no hump >>> Shakespeare lied >>> any negative comments about Richard can be dismissed if they were made by witnesses with Tudor connections >>> we can ignore any evidence we don't like >>> Dickon had no hump'.

On a more positive note, the fact that Ricardian portraits don't show the HUMP that we now KNOW the kiddie-killer had should serve as a reminder that the pro-Richard propaganda machine is something of which we should be aware and wary when considering surviving historical evidence .

Also, the fact that the skeleton has been discovered recently, rather than fifty years ago, may bode well. Contemporary historiography is more 'pan-British' in character than used to be the case, and it would help to have Scottish and Welsh input into debates surrounding Dickon Kiddiethrottle. For a start, any competent Historian of the reign of James III of Scotland will easily be able to demolish all those ridiculous claims the idiot Ricardians make about their hero's supposed martial prowess in a few paragraphs. Richard's Scottish campaigns reveal him to have been an ineffective, vacillating disaster as a general, and one who only enjoyed high command because he was Edward IV's brother. Just look at the Berwick campaign - Dickon left insufficient forces besieging Berwick while he marched the bulk of his army all the way to Edinburgh, but failed to do anything worthwhile once he got there (contemporaries criticised him especially for his failure to sack that city, which would have been profitable). The whole exercise was hugely wasteful of both time and material resources , and the only positive result for the English (the taking of Berwick) could have been achieved without sending troops more than a few hundred yards into Scotland .

On the Welsh front, nobody who is truly Welsh in their heart can fail to be thrilled by the Welsh-patriotic aspect of Henry the Liberator's campaign of 1485 and subsequent rule. The reign of Good King Henry VII represents the highest degree of Welsh political and cultural achievement in the whole of recorded history (goodness knows, no Welsh person has achieved much of significance *since* 1509... . Even if 'King' Arthur himself had been Welsh (rather than a Romano-Brit from what's now England), Henry VII would still outshine him as the greatest Welshman ever...

Catigern,,,
You test my mind and patience. Obviously. And yet I've been on the back leg for so long now with little bcak up, I find it sad,odd and even inrigueing that you make such comments due to all the recent devolpments.
You stand for verything I loathe.
Traditional historians may change their minds when facing evidence. You will cling to preconceived ideas come what may. Ergo you are not an historian. Cling to Aesop's Fables. It seems to me you can't cope with the unexpected which is what History is all about.
In another life you may have been Von Ribontrop. But I am not impressed and never have been. I like FACTS. You offer insults and half-baked lies. Time to grow up.
LOOK at Richard III's face. Learn more about the man. You suffer from the major problem of almighty ignorance. I don't deal with idiots and handed my Lib Dem card in two years ago. Stupid and power-hungry is NOT something I can deal with. I NEED intelligince and honesty and you opt for stupid, time-serving, Tudor sychophants. Each to his own, can't think why.

Catigern wrote:

On a more positive note, the fact that Ricardian portraits don't show the HUMP that we now KNOW the kiddie-killer had should serve as a reminder that the pro-Richard propaganda machine is something of which we should be aware and wary when considering surviving historical evidence .

Weclome back Catigern. Excellent point and one that is rarely addressed, or even recognised by Ricardians.

Catigern, my little Oxford comma, so you didn't choke on your Frosties then...

How visible was Richard's spinal deformity? Doesn't that depend on the severity of the scoliosis? Perhaps we'll get more information on that tonight.

Aren't there other interpretations of Richard's actions in Edinburgh? Was not sacking a town and killing everyone in sight always seen as "incompetence"? Didn't Henry VIII's "rough wooing" in Scotland prove to be pretty stupid policy in the long run?

"By the last day of July (1482) Richard had captured Edinburgh without the loss of a man, and so firm was his authority over the army that neither goods nor inhabitants were molested. The moment he had brought the city under full control, he set out to attack the army at Haddington; but on August 2nd the Scots lords sent a message saying that so far as they were concerned the war was over and asking his terms for a truce and a renewal of the marriage treaty, in which Edward's daughter Cecily had been pledged to the heir of James III."

This is Paul Murray Kendall - is it nonsense? I suppose everyone knew nothing would come of the marriage proposals, of course, but didn't the Scots offer - if Richard withdrew peaceably - that, if King Edward no longer wished his daughter to marry James's heir, every penny of the dowry money would be refunded?

And what are we to make of Richard's dealings with the Duke of Albany? Albany seems to have been a bit of a Clarence in a kilt, but Richard managed to get him to swear allegiance to James - sort of. Was that a sensible thing to do?

It was quite a complicated situation, wasn't it - with France threatening in the background, as ever?

Minette, my dear, you seem to be somewhat confused about the meanings of
words such as 'evidence' and 'historian'. You spent years and years
pronouncing (without any sound basis for the assertion) that the
Kiddiekiller *didn't* have a hump, and that we ought therefore to doubt
the word of anyone who said he did. The only EVIDENCE that has come to
light recently has PROVED that the Hunchback was in fact... erm... a
hunchback! It now falls to YOU to re-evaluate YOUR 'thinking' (if that's
the correct word, LOL) on the matter of pro-anti-Richard propaganda. As
for your suggestion that I am 'not an Historian', I can only suggest
that you take that up with the Vice-Chancelor here at Oxford (not to
mention the assorted academics and editors who appointed me to previous
posts, have published my work etc... ). Of course, for all that anyone
would take any notice of you, you might as well ask Warwick to award you
a half-decent degree result to replace the shabby one you actually
earned, on the grounds that...erm... erm... Hmmm - maybe you'd be better
off getting on with your career as a glorified babysitter... Incidentally, am I correct in assuming that it was William Shakespeare you dismiss as 'stupid' and 'time-serving'...?

Thank
you ID! Yes - if even a small fraction of the ink Ricardians have
spilled wittering on about 'Tudor propaganda' had been devoted to
analysing Yorkist propaganda, they wouldn't look quite so stupid at the
moment.

Temp, thank you for querying my points in a more mature
manner than a certain other person . I'm afraid I haven't time to go into
my thoughts on Albany etc at the mo', but I can recommend Sandy Grant's
piece on 'Richrad III and Scotland' in ed. A.J. Pollard, 'The North in
the Age of Richard III' (Stroud, 1996 ) - though I think Grant is far too
generous in suggesting the possibility that the march to Edinburgh
might have been intended to divert Scottish attention from Berwick (and
therefore successful). I'm not sure I'd describe PMK's account of the
Berwick/Edinburgh campaign as 'nonsense' in a factual sense, but he
certainly puts a remarkably pro-Ricardian spin on things. Sacking
Edinburgh would have been most profitable, and the campaign that
actually took place was disastrously expensive - IMHO Edward IV would
have preferred hard cash to any number of Scotch promises...

Having mentioned circular arguments, here is a circle of coincidence that's actually supported by EVIDENCE :

Richard III was physically warped in an asymetric manner...

...just like Adolf Hitler...
...who was an evil, bloodthirsty tyrant...

...just like Charles II...
...who committed the greatest treason possible for one in his position...

...just like Judas Iscariot...
...whose name began with a 'J'...

...just like Jimmy Savile...
...who was a Yorkshire-born abuser of children...

...just like Richard III!

Richard III wasn't born in Yorkshire. He was born in Northamptonshire.

Yorkshire-raised, then - it's still valid!

And you spelt there wrong.

Now stop it, Catigern, you've made me spill my coffee all over the keyboard.
No don't, it's good to see you back.

Can anyone postulate a reason why this particular character seems to arouse such violent emotions, apparently particularly among women - obviously I might be wrong there, I've only you lot and Philippa to go on and that's hardly representative? Interest I could understand but why this dogged devotion from so many is beyond me. Is the reputation of a dead geezer, even if it had been traduced, worth the expenditure of so much nervous energy and the death of so many trees?

Quote :

Can anyone postulate a reason why this particular character seems to arouse such violent emotions, apparently particularly among women

Have to admit that I had Catigern, not Dickulus, in mind when I read that, right up until you mentioned he was dead ...

There goes the coffee again.