Thought about you today, Minette, as I read this in Susan Brigden's 2012 biography of Thomas Wyatt. A casual use of a word, but one which speaks volumes about attitudes and prejudices. Brigden (I actually admire her tremendously, so I'm surprised at her careless [?] use of language) is writing about the tight-knit community of Kent. Speaking of Sir Richard Haute of Bishopsbourne she says:

"Surviving his capture during Richard of Gloucester's coup d'etat, he lived under the tyrant in quiet obscurity."

How's that for emotive choice of diction? Not "he lived under the new king", or even " he lived under the usurper", but " he lived under the tyrant".

Happens all the time - casual throwaway word, but it's still a kind of indoctrination.

The Hautes were major losers under Richard. Maybe that's just Brigden calling it exactly as any of that family would have called it at the time. Gravesend, Rochester, Maidstone and Guildford in Surrey comprised the south-eastern epicentre of the 1483 revolts and I don't recall anyone from the area suggesting that Richard might actually be an alright kind of bloke at the time. The Hautes were in with all that mob, right up to their codpieces in it.

Kent as a county in fact seems to have been rather impatient to get rid of the tyrant. In 1483 John, Duke of Norfolk wrote to his mate John Paston from London;

'To my right well beloved Friend John Paston, be this delivered in haste and written in London, the l0th day of
October ... with all diligence, ye make you ready and come hither, and bring with you six tall
fellows in harness. ..(as) the Kentishmen be up in the Weald, and say that they will come and rob the city.'

This means that Haute's buddies were already on the rampage even before Buckingham had blown the whistle for the game to begin, as far as the Londoners could tell, in any case. Norfolk was scared enough to seize the Thames crossing at Gravesend so they couldn't come into the city by that route - a good eight days before the rebellion became official.

Wasn't Brigden using 'tyrant' in the old way as meaning usurper though and not in the modern sense so not necessarily suggesting he was a harsh or cruel ruler? From your quote she has already designated his accession as a coup d'etat so that would follow.

ferval wrote:

Wasn't Brigden using 'tyrant' in the old way as meaning usurper though and not in the modern sense so not necessarily suggesting he was a harsh or cruel ruler? From your quote she has already designated his accession as a coup d'etat so that would follow.

You are probably right, ferval: tyrannus originally meant an illegitimate or - er - unconventional ruler.

4. (Historical Terms) (esp in ancient Greece) a ruler whose authority lacked the sanction of law or custom; usurper

But it was still sneaky of her. How many people know the "Historical terms (esp in ancient Greece)" use of the word? Most surely would read it - as I did - as despot or dictator?

ferval wrote:

Wasn't Brigden using 'tyrant' in the old way as meaning usurper though and not in the modern sense so not necessarily suggesting he was a harsh or cruel ruler? From your quote she has already designated his accession as a coup d'etat so that would follow.

Or was she actually using it as George Wyatt (the poet's grandson) had done? George Wyatt collated a "mythic history of the Wyatts". In this he relates how his great-grandfather's faithful service to the fugitive Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond - heroic service which involved starvation, imprisonment and gruesome torture at the hands of Richard of Gloucester - was revered in family memory. Once, according to George, "the tyrant himself", Richard III, interrogated the imprisoned and tortured Henry Wyatt and, like the envious devil (my interpretation, not Brigden's) tried to tempt Wyatt to betray his Master (Henry Tudor as master is given a capital letter - makes him into a Christ-like figure in George Wyatt's narrative):

" 'Wyat (sic), why are thou such a fool? Thou servest for moonshine in the water a beggarly fugitive. Forsake him and become mine, who can reward thee...' "


To which Wyatt replied, " '...the Earl, poor and unhappy though he be, is my Master and no discouragement or allurement shall ever dissever or draw me from him...' "

At this reply, George Wyatt records "the tyrant stood amazed".

Wyatt was then saved from Richard III by divine intervention working through a cat - see Moggy Thread.

Also, I suppose, she could have been reflecting Sir Richard Haute's view of the king but even in the quote above, tyrant might still mean simply usurper.

I really shouldn't comment on things I haven't read or know much about but hey ho, wouldn't this board be awfully dull if we all stuck to that in which we have real expertise. In that case I don't think I could post at all.

No shouting "Good" at the back there.

So many usurpers to choose from! William the Conqueror stealing the throne from the anointed Harold, or Edward III from his murdered father Edward II? Or Henry IV from his forlorn first cousin Richard II. Or Edward IV from the grandson, Henry VI, of the afore-mentioned usurper, Henry IV? Of course Henry Tudor could not "usurp" the throne because he had no "right" to it. He won it by a propaganda coup. AND before anyone says what about Bosworth...?

It's estimated that about 1,000 were killed and injured during this Major Battle and yet 7,000 were killed and injured at the Battle of Stoke, a"minor up-rising" in 1487 when the "obvious imposter" Lambert Simnell (who was 17 when crowned in Ireland and only 12 when he was pulled out of the mists of war) attempted to oust Henry Tudor and his queen Liz of York with the backing of the "obvious imposter's" "mother" Elizabeth Woodville from the English Throne.
History is a strange subject. IF you don't think, only believe what you are told to think.
Dominc Mancini's scripts say in the original that both Richard III and Henry VII, "occupied" the English throne. It was only Armstrong's translations from Latin into English that altered matters, whereby Armstrong said that Mancini "meant" to say that Richard had "usurped" the throne. Der! How the Hell does he know what a c15th monk thought? And how dare he tamper with the evidence! Yet it is accepted today as a fact! A ridiculous state of affairs! Armstrong is to History what Donald Trump is to Communism. Very good reasons to redress the balance of simple common sense and the truth.
I don't ever underestimate the intelligence of the people who write here, which is possibly why I endlessly bore you by banging on about Richard III. The boy and man, we can now access due to the internet, the Paston and Cotton letters, the Harlean manuscripts et al, are here to be found and so much more. There are TWO Richard IIIs, that of Eng. Lit., and Shakespeare and that of History. And they have very little in common.

Today people go weak at the knees if a Royal visit is pending and it is 2012. The royal family is so secure that heirs to the throne can marry anyone for love. DNA and social position doesn't matter anymore. Alpha males and females who can keep the tribe together is not an issue. Yet we seem to want to bow and scrape to strange people, living in palatial grander for no apparent reason. YES they do deprive the Prime Minister of Power, due to the power they can never use, checks and balances, but why this reverential treatment? We are shocked when the Queen pays taxes. We fawn all over the place when a member of her family marries. We are shocked when they behave normally. WHY? Do we enjoy being servile in 2012?

Five hundred years ago a look, a word, a subtle action could mean death if a king wished it. Henry VIII ruled. He killed on a whim, 72,000 at the last count. And yet some wonder why the Tudor propagandists were indeed servile. BUT we all like Henry VIII, or so we are told to. We know he murdered two wives and love him for it. And yet Richard III is forever on trial for killing two boys for which there is absolutely no evidence. To the contrary.Any self respecting murderer needs motive, means and evidence. There is no motive or evidence against Richard III.
BUT Shakespeare wrote a very, very long play about "Henry VIII" the only "History" play he ever says, "and all this is true". No pressure and it's an awful play, inaccurate, dull and reminds me of my dear "uncle" Derek having been made to watch Wagner's Ring Cycle. "The two mountains of flesh approached each other and the brawl began; six hours of mysery unrelieved even by boredom". And yet...To even begin to understand Richard III we have to circumnavigate Shakespeare, myths, propaganda, and the Historical Establishment. Why?

Richard III was the last really royal Plantagenet and the Tudors were scared, not only of his high birth but his reputation as a good and sound ruler. The Beauforts were not only legitimized bastards but had a well earned reputation for being nasty legitimaized bastards. They always lived up to their name. From 1485 ALL Royal Houses have been descended from the Tudors and Beauforts up to our present House of Windsor. So let us all fawn at their feet and not upset the status quo.
I was always led to believe that as one grew older one became more conformist but then we are led to believe many lies. I can only feel happy that as more people have access to knowledge they will actually enjoy it, people power, so much more interesting than being told what to think. And, oh joy, a sceptical flibrarian chum of mine tells me that things are changing on the Richard III front. The romantic Philippa Gregory in April and the ongoing DNAing of bones! How long will it take to get the Wren Urn opened and give those poor Romano-Brits a descent burial?
Have you ever thought that if the Romans in ancient Britain wanted to communicate with the natives, they would have to have spoken Welsh...As Michael Woods said fleetingly when doing England, "ah yes! The natives"!

Ferval, Preciilla and SST please say anything you may wish too, always really interesting! And good for you too Nordmann!

Ferval, Preciilla and SST please say anything you may wish too, always really interesting! And good for you too Nordmann!

Oh dear! sorry.

I'm still thinking about the word "tyrant". Found this - something I knew nothing about:

Technically, there are two classes of tyrants: a tyrant by usurpation (tyrannus in titulo), a ruler who has illegitimately seized power; and a tyrant by oppression (tyrannus in regimine), a ruler who wields power unjustly, oppressively, and arbitrarily.

So did Wyatt - and other supporters of the Tudor regime - see Richard of Gloucester simply as tyrannus in titulo (usurper), or was he also tyrannus in regimine (despot)? Both, I suppose.

Henry VII qualifies for the double title too - for some folk at least.

Back to Dickies last roll as council car park attendant

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9745893/Carpark-skeleton-will-be-confirmed-as-Richard-III.html

Cant wait to see what Richard looked like!!! Nice to hear from you again Minette.

So who’s DNA are they comparing it to… maybe opening up a can of worms here, but just look at the back pay he’s entitled to… now what’s the going rate for car park attendants …

... and with his disability pension too.



But I do find it odd that after originally saying how important DNA testing was in identifying the remains, they are now saying it's definitely Richard from circumstantial evidence and it doesn't matter what the DNA comes up with. But then no-one will say what all this circumstantial proof is. Do I detect a degree of "spinning out the story" for the January Channel 4 program? .... which as we speak is probably now being hastily re-written because the DNA hasn't as they were originally all so confident, come up trumps. Or am I just getting cynical?

That's my line of thought too MM, the whole episode has been manipulated from the start. So much so that whatever findings come out are in danger of losing creditibility, very unprofessional of the archaeologists involved.

Further on the tests

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/15/richard-iii-grave-leicester-remains_n_2306646.html

They're unlikely ever going to be able to say anything more than the bones might well be Dickie; the DNA results are largely meaningless whether or not they prove that the skeleton is of the same matrilinear line as the extant relative without the DNA of Cecily Neville so she'd need to be dug up as well. If that were possible and if both corpses had intact, uncontaminated DNA then that would be a different ball game. As far as I can see, they are going by the genealogical records of the supposed descendant to prove his descent and haven't got that verified completely either.
I assume there's stable isotope analysis being done on R's teeth so that might help to suggest where he was born and then spent time somewhere different but again it's not definitive.
If it all comes together with the other circumstantial evidence though, people have been hanged on much less.

Found this site - have no idea how "academically reliable" it is.

http://plantagenetdna.webs.com/richardiiisdna.htm

Meles Meles, everything we seem to "accept" about Richard III is largely based upon circumstantial evidence! So to DNA and it having to be female, we seem
to have lost Margaret of Burgundy's last resting place and have seen programes where they have messed around with underground cameras to find odd relations. Yet mother Cecily is buried at Fortheringhay Church...Can't get more maternal than that! Why is everything made so ridiculously convoluted?
We found a Roman villa when I lived in Stoke Bruerne and Leicester Univ descended upon us all and took slides from an expensive helicopter and then went home. I later worked at Leicester Univ Archaeology Dept and it was fun but a shambles. Personally I wouldn't trust them/it with something really important!

Reverting back to Richard III's "usurption", a constitiutional legal lawyer Prof. Charles Wood wrote in "Traditio" , "Ironic though it may be, Richard III, legendry usurper and tyrant had claim to having been the one possessor of a genuinely parliamentary title during the entire middle ages". James Gairdener wrote, "In point of form one might almost look upon it as a constitiutional election. Indeed, it was rather a declaration of inherent right to the Crown, first by the council of the realm, then by the City, and afterwards by Parliament - proceedings much more regular and punctilious than had been observed in the case of Edward IV."
32 Lords Temporal, 66 knights, 30 elected commons and 44 Lords Spiritual, all met at Westminster on June 25th 1483 and with the Mayor of London, dignitaries from the City, Aldermen and chief Commoners, went to Baynard's Castle to offer Richard of Gloucester the Throne.

And yet how could this grossly unpopular, hunchbacked little toad, with no army to back, him have managed this? Is someone at the back accusing him of the use of the Black Arts? Probably...How can one usurp a throne one is asked to take by so many from so many different walks of life? Historians, Reason and Richard III are not good bedfellows.

Flooding in the West Country 1483 - nice bit of writing here from dear old Holinshed. Sounds even grimmer than the present Cameron's Great Water.

But see the chance. Before he could atteine to Seuerne side, by force of continuall raine and moisture, the riuer rose so high that it ouerflowed all the countrie adioining, insomuch that men were drowned in their beds, and houses with the extreame violence were ouerturned, children were caried about the fields swimming in cradels, beasts were drowned on hilles. Which rage of water lasted continuallie ten daies, insomuch that in the countrie adioining they call it to this daie, The great water; or the duke of Buckinghams great water. By this floud the passages were so closed, that neither the duke could come ouer Seuern to his adherents, nor they to him. During the which time, the Welshmen lingring idelie, and without monie, vittels, or wages, suddenlie scattered and departed: and for all the dukes faire promises, threatnings, and inforcement, would in no wise either go further nor abide. A sore floud or high water dooing much harme... Tewkesbury Abbey, 1483 and 2012 (and it got worse). The monks knew what they were doing - the Abbey is just about the one place that doesn't flood.

But we Welsh SST! so bad in an emergency! I think you are as noisy as I am, I should say curious about all of this! The gift () which keeps on giving! Not in a good way!
Do you think that that 2013 might alter things? Soon Philippa Gregoty will have her thingy about Eliz Woodville on TV in all its strange glory and people will flock to Grafton Regis demanding tours. All the people I knew who lived there have either died or moved, can't afford it. The Linda Snells will take them on "tours" of the area. The new Rector is a nice lady juggling five to six parishes and isn't "into" History.
But , with the re-newed interest, after R.III's bones might have been found (told you Leicester Archaeological Dept were odd) the two together just might make people think, you never know. And thinking is far better than, "the obvious" school of thought of the old wizzened white male sages surely?
Let Hall and Hollinshed disappear in a flood of their own making!
A bit late now but hope you and everyone here had a good Christmas!

Minette Minor wrote:

But we Welsh SST! so bad in an emergency! I think you are as noisy as I am, I should say curious about all of this! The gift () which keeps on giving! Not in a good way!
Do you think that that 2013 might alter things? Soon Philippa Gregoty will have her thingy about Eliz Woodville on TV in all its strange glory and people will flock to Grafton Regis demanding tours. All the people I knew who lived there have either died or moved, can't afford it. The Linda Snells will take them on "tours" of the area. The new Rector is a nice lady juggling five to six parishes and isn't "into" History.
But , with the re-newed interest, after R.III's bones might have been found (told you Leicester Archaeological Dept were odd) the two together just might make people think, you never know. And thinking is far better than, "the obvious" school of thought of the old wizzened white male sages surely?
Let Hall and Hollinshed disappear in a flood of their own making!
A bit late now but hope you and everyone here had a good Christmas!

And a Happy New Year to you too, Minette

Kind regards, Paul.

Minette Minor wrote:

I think you are as noisy as I am...

I'm much quieter these days.

Wish you'd post here a bit more, Minette. We do miss you, you know!

Thank you Paul and SST you are kind, really but you really say so many interesting and well re-searched things in your own right! I remember I made a decision not to visit so often when I had a slight hissy fit when Catigern and Andrew Spencer asked me what did I actually KNOW of the Church in Wales, oh dear...It's played such a HUGE part in my life (and given me a guilt complex never to be overcome!) I felt slightly embarrassed. I believe I told Andrew Spencer that I had outgrown him! Oh dear! what has become of him I wonder? He was nice . I don't want to put people off...
I love history so much and have discovered so much more about Richard III and the late medieval period than I knew then, although I can always stand corrected unlike Gregoty, Weiry, Strongarm and Loppardy can bear to be, I was actually shocked to discover that Mancini spoke no English or ever met Richard III , I'm shocked that I could be shocked! But Richard III IS, "the perfect storm" of how bad historical bias and misinformation can become! This is why he is so important!

I expect you've watched the three programmes aired until last night on BBC4 about queen Victoria, upon whom the sun never set, but never mind her girth, God knows we're probably all dieting now but that ego! How she wallowed in self-pity and attempted to kill all that was joyful in those she came in contact with, especially her children BUT she is loved by so many still...Like the monstrous Henry VIII and the "glorious" Elizabeth I. SHE did not make windows into men's souls, she paid Walsingham and the Cecils to do it for her! It's propoganda pure and simple. We are told who to admire and who to hate from
school days and then, when we've climbed out of the primeval swamp what we've been told and our own logical minds are at war! The teaching of History has failed so many people especially recently. Capsules and chunks don't work for this subject, because it is all about cause and effect!
At the moment we are going through a double dip recession, the divide between poor and rich has not been wider since the slump of the 1930s, due to the same reasons, de-regulation of the Banks, the Koch brothers have almost bought the USA and what does the UK do? Agree that the de-regulation of the Banks is good - we don't want to worry bankers - and we have Bread and Circuses! A Royal Wedding! The Queen's Diamond Jubilee! AND the Olympic Games! Hurrah!!! We are all PROUD to British! Hurrah! But I thought there was no money left after "Labour" left office?!
So if we want to be seen as "open for business" by the world who can we blame, punish and claw back this money from? The Sturdy Beggars, the Great Unwashed, the Willfully Homeless, Sick and Disabled! Hurrah! It's ridiculous to look to History and learn that Keynes and the New Deal sorted out greed led recessions of the past, this would mean we were learning from History! It can't be done. Or can it?
Surely one of the most important "things" we can access by sitting at a computer is INFORMATION! St/Sir Thomas More and all those who wanted to destroy the Reformation was to get rid of the printing press, it gave too many people too much information! More put a price on Tyndale's head for making the Bible free to read in English and he won, More was cleanly be-headed and became a saint for attempting to prevent the free flow in Information and Tyndale was burned at the stake for so doing. But we all believe Thomas More was a lovely man due to A play, "A Man for All Seasons", where Robert Bolt tells us how loyal and clever he was, believed in the education of his daughters and climbed the greasy pole to Sainthood. The Sainted More. What of Tyndale the Brave? No Block Buster plays about him yet and his struggles with More.
I'm thinking of deleting this SST, BUT surely this is what History is about and why I've become so angered by how it's used! Sorry. Oh well. I'm proud that I've had Jehovah Witnesses telling ME they must go when I asked them what they knew of Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin when they took the WORDS of the Bible literally! A Coup!
But moving on...
I believe that the largest question mark hanging over the Royal Line of Succession is simply Legitimacy.
Richard III has been lambasted for taking the throne due to the illegitimacy of the children of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville.
Lines of inquiry about Edward IV's previous marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler before that to Elizabeth Woodville have been blocked.
A ridiculous concept to believe that one secret "marriage" could have been proceeded by another "secret marriage".
Rumours about Edward IV's birth abounded in the c15th. Who was the daddy? Richard of York or the Archer of Rouen? Could Cecily of York have been pregnant for ten months?
We all know that the Beauforts were the illegitimate children of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford, legitimized by Richard II and later by Henry IV on condition they did not use this to claim the English Throne.
Henry VII, first of the House of the Tudor, DID use this to claim the English Throne but made Parliament alter Henry IV's ruling.
We all KNOW that Owain ap Twdwr MARRIED Katherine de Valois, widow of Henry V, even though as a Welshman he did NOT have the rights of an Englishman to marry whom he pleased and could not marry a Queen Dowager without the Royal Council's consent, which he did not.and they had Edmund and Jasper Tudor, legitimized by Henry VI.
BUT the killer question is...
Was Margaret Beaufort the illegitimate great grandaughter of John of Gaunt OR the great grandaughter of the Saxon knight, Hugh Swynford? John was born in 1372 and was conceived when both Hugh and John were living, the other three Beauforts were conceived long after Hugh's death. John of Gaunt accepted his other three Beaufort children shortly after their births, but not John.
John earl of Somerset is referred to as John Swynford as well as John Beaufort. Henry Tudor's only claim to royal English blood even if legitimized is through Margaret Beaufort. If Margaret Beaufort was NOT descended from the legitimized line of John of Gaunt, fourth son of Edward III, then he had only illegitimate French and slightly Welsh Royal blood from which to claim descent. Henry VII may have married Elizabeth of York soon after he was crowned king but was reluctant to use her "Plantagenet" name to shore up his claim due to the fact that an Act of Parliament and many people believed her to be illegitimate. So what royal right did the Tudors have to reign over all of us? 1485 did not mark the end of the late medieval period and the dawn of the modern, rather the end of the "Royal" Right to govern, force of arms and fear took its place.
So much for illegitimacy!
It's like reading a Royal Line of Succession, some will say, "died", others" killed", or "executed" and "murdered", value judgements. Did Anne Boylen feel that she was murdered or executed? The compositor was told what to put. You will very rarely see one such list where Katherine de Valois is NOT "married" to Owain ap Twdwr or Owen Tudor, even though it was impossible and known to be so at the time.
So SST a New Year Challenge! What about using your powers of deduction to look at this? I am Welsh and so biased but your powers of deduction would be great. Just a thought...Sorry to have gone on for so long...How much do you know about Owain Glyndwr? Now that makes William Wallace appear boring! You are great you know! Would say Happy New Year in Welsh but am afraid I'd loose this, love Minette.

I know very little about Owain ap Twdwr, Minette.

Legitimacy did not matter - we have discussed this before. Parliament could decide dynastic succession - even Thomas More acknowledged that when he said he would agree to Anne Boleyn's children being named heirs to the throne: "But as for myself, in good faith, my conscience so moved me in the matter that, although I would not deny to swear to the succession, yet unto the oath that there was offered me, I could not swear without the jeopardizing of my soul."*

Parliament could not rule on the validity of a marriage - but it *could* name bastards - or anyone else for that matter - as heirs to the throne.

Do you deny Parliament's "competence" in such matters? That would be a serious thing to deny, surely?



*Letter to his daughter, Margaret More.

Balderdash and Piffle SST!

Really. I feel very, very old at times like this! Being a Bastard doesn't matter to Crown or Parliament. Let us consider. Yes. It does matter. I have been made to watch Jeremy Kyle for the past weeks and it's given me pause for thought. People in pyjamas or heading for the beach or at least in vests will argue they were,"on a break" when a human was conceived and can't say who the daddy was and it gets worse on American TV. Does legitimacy matter? YES!

I had a cousin, who was a very intelligent and wealthy barrister. My mother told me that this cousin had been adopted and it was a secret, in case anything happened to her, I should know that she was my aunt's daughter, father unknown. We MUST keep in touch and only I knew!
And so ...She had been adopted by an English Professor and his wife "related" to us who could not have children, and she was much loved and as I've mentioned extremely intelligent. I had known her all my life. But I must keep in contact yet never tell.

Her adopted father even dedicated a Dictionary to her he loved her so much! Then he died and her mother grew old and due to her father's lecture circuit somehow the passport problem had been cirmnavigated. She had dual American/British citzenship. BUT muggins here had been entrusted with the "seceret" and yes, out of the blue I had a phone call from MY COUSIN saying she, the wealthy barrister with three homes and children and a happy marriage, HAD to tell her what I knew! I could not play possum. How hard I tried! I had no right to know.
It was aweful. She had been told for 40 odd years that she had the brains of her "father", the colouring of her "father" and I could say nothing but help give her addreses of the people my aunt knew at the time. I wanted to kill. SECRETS are useless. Her world was almost destroyed and she died not long after this "disclosure". It still makes me feel angry and emotional.

This all took place in the 1990s. I was at University in the 1970s when a Woman's right to choose was still being debated. Endlessly. In the 1960s my mother refused to be Enrolling Member of the W.I or Mothers' Union, her best friend in a Valley Parish in the Rhondda was a wonderful woman who had three children illegitimately for very good reasons. BUT when it comes to MONARCHY, different rules apply.

Yes I do take issue with Parliament over such issues! The Church decides. Always has done and might always do. Marriage is supposed to be a Sacrament!
We have been brain-washed with clebrity weddings, where the bride has the baby, looses baby weight and marries an other! It's a farce! The "marriage" means nothing and being "legitimate" means even less. Absent "baby daddies" or whatever the half-witted crucibles call them are responsible for most of the lost generation of thugs we have today. Nature IS a vacuum.

BUT as far as ROTALTY is concerned Baby Daddies and mommoies should get it right! WHY didn't Henry VIII make the Earl of Richmond his heir IF legitimacy did not matter? Why didn't Charles II make the duke of Monmouth his heir IF Legitimacy didn't matter? LEGITIMACY does matter.

Parliament may make stabs at certain matters but not the Royal Line of Succession. And yes I'm afraid that you do indeed know little about Owain ap Twdwr, and Edward I, Henry IV and Owain Glyndwr SST. In fact their entire rules concerning the Welsh. To be Welsh was to be without laws or rights.How could you have misssed that large part of governance? Are you being deliberately naive? Glyndwr's story makes that of Wallace ridiculous and feeble, before the make up has been applied. If Glyndwr had won, England, as you know it, would not exist.
Sent with reluctance.

Minette Minor wrote:

Balderdash and Piffle SST!

Minette - one despairs!

Parliament could make a chimpanzee king or queen if it so wished - even Thomas More acknowledged that. (In the event of there being two simian candidates, it may be assumed that the one with the bigger or more efficient army would get the necessary parliamentary approval.)

Remember how Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, defended his allegiance to Richard III by citing parliamentary authority? To Henry Tudor's face he declared:"He was my crowned king and if the parliamentary authority set the crown upon a stock, I will fight for that stock. And as I fought for him, I will fight for you, when you are established by that same authority."

Minette Minor wrote:

WHY didn't Henry VIII make the Earl of Richmond his heir IF legitimacy did not matter?

As for Henry Fitzroy, the Duke of Richmond and Somerset, I have tried to explain several times, here and at the BBC site, that it seems clear from the 1536 Act of Succession that Henry VIII was seriously considering his illegitimate son as a possible heir. (In the event, Richmond died just after the Act became law.)

At the time of Fitzroy's death an Act was going through Parliament which disinherited Henry's daughter Elizabeth as his heir and permitted the King to designate his successor, whether legitimate or not. There is no evidence that Henry intended to proclaim Richmond his heir, but in theory the Act would have permitted him to do so if he wished. The Imperial ambassador Eustace Chapuys wrote to Charles V on 8 July 1536 that Henry VIII had made a statute allowing him to nominate a successor, but thought the Duke of Richmond would not succeed to throne by it, as he was consumptive and now diagnosed incurable.

Both Mary and Elizabeth Tudor were, according to English law, bastards when they ascended the throne. Contrary to popular belief, although it restored the two sisters to the line of succession after their brother Edward (and did you know that some have argued that *he* too was illegitimate? See note below*), the third Act of Succession (1544) did *not* legitimize them. They remained officially royal bastards. Mary's first Act of Parliament confirmed the validity of her mother's marriage to Henry VIII: in other words Mary legitimized herself! When Elizabeth became queen she simply didn't bother to reverse this; she therefore reigned not only as a Virgin Queen but as a bastard one too.

* As you say, Catholics (not Anglicans) regard marriage as a sacrament and excommunicated persons cannot partake of any sacrament. Henry had been excommunicated. Therefore, although he was a widower at the end of May 1536, no marriage contracted by him was valid, at least according to Vatican ruling. But as Henry was now Supreme Head of Everything, he didn't give a toss what the Pope or any other "Pope-Catholic" thought. According to the new C of E rules (Henry's Rules), the latest marriage - to Jane Seymour - was quite legal, thank you.

Sent with reluctance.

The TV programme on the Leicester excavation is on 4th Feb and there will be a press conference the same day.

Monday at 9pm Channel 4 - can't wait.

Recorder is set; champagne is chilling in the fridge; excitement mounts.

But am I being taken in by what has been described in the bar as "a load of tripe" and "obviously a commercial enterprise"?

Such cynicism shocks and distresses me, but is cynicism (or scepticism rather) the mark of the true historian?

The University of Leicester has published the following step by step account of all the scientific stuff. In my innocence I find it all very impressive.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii/features/step-by-step-the-science-of-the-search-for-richard-iii

But, alas, could it be that I am no more than a naive, gullilble Ricardian?

If they announce that the findings are inconclusive and prove only that the subject was killed in battle in and around the date of Bosworth I'll be gobsmacked. If they categorically rule out that it could be Richard I'll eat my granny's suspenders!

In a way I'm both excited by the find and disheartened by the way this has all been gone about up to now. Strictly speaking the team involved have prejudiced the objectivity of their own findings almost every time they pronounced on their activity, right up to the point where a press silence was imposed on them (and that for suspiciously commercial reasons). In fact even the make-up of the team and the way it has been presented in press releases is prejudicial to the objectivity of their findings.

But then Richard was a late medieval monarch and such broo-haha and blatant disregard for "best practice" would no doubt have been just how he'd have wanted it. In a strictly scientific sense however the find, however newsworthy, brings us no great distance closer to a fuller analysis of the events around Bosworth. A committment to resources dedicated to identifying and analysing the actual battle site - if at all possible at this remove - would be a welcome outcome from all the public interest generated by this case.

Oh dear, I've just had a rant in the bar. Feel free to move it if appropriate.

Well I was going to put my oar in, but Nordmann and Ferval have summed it up very well indeed. And far more eloquently than I ever could so you'll be spared a repeat from me.

One other thing I may add. Not being in the UK, I'm removed from all the hype surrounding this dig so I look at it all with a different perspective. Absolutely no need to distress yourself over it though Temp.

Well I must say I was impressed by the Step By Step description, it seems they are working hard on the remains, lets hope the results prove something conclusive. I wonder if there are any more descendents who could provide some DNA.

Added later, I was just thinking how strange, Richard the Third having a CT Scan, hard to believe!

All will be definitively revealed on More 4 tomorrow night - Tony Robinson's on the case at 8.00 and after that a docudrama, 'The Princes in the Tower'. Hmmmm, we'll see.

http://www.channel4.com/tv-listings/daily/2013/02/02

"Embarrassing Fat Bodies", "Princes in the Tower" or "Top Gun". Now there's a dilemma for the nation's viewers.

Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know approximately how much all this research is actually costing? And who does stand to benefit in the long run? University of Leicester? Channel 4? City of Leicester? The Richard III Society?

What sort of money are we talking about? How does the sum (if known) compare with funding of other historical research projects? Genuine question - I have no idea about such matters.

Is it money wasted? People - ordinary people, not just academics - seem geuninely interested. Surely this is a Good Thing?

I suppose they could have gone to the royal family for DNA, but then, the Windsors are not descendents of RIII are they?

I don't think the Windsors give DNA anyway Gran, not prepared to take the risk as to what a test may reveal possibly?

Except for Phil, it was his DNA that was used to verify the remains of Tsar Nicholas and family in Russia. At least we know for sure that he is the genuine article!

I rather like the comment from my eldery aunt:

"Well obviously it's the King ... he was only dug up a few months ago and he's got a CT scan already. I've been waiting over a year on the NHS for mine. Typical royalty going private and jumping the queue!"

Hello! What to say? I'm not sure what to think about it all. Philippa Gregoty's, "White Queen" loosely based on Elizabeth Woodville coming to our screens in April and the great unveiling of Leicester Univ's "Discoveries" on Monday! But what's more we have the bandwagons circling with More Four tonight, three programs on Richard III back to back!
David Starkey will begin no doubt telling us what a devil he was, to be followed by Tony Robinson, running around excitedly with news from the front we already know and to round it off nicely with that old favourite, "The Princes in the Tower" possibly the best of the bunch from previous outings, where Margaret Beaufort plays a major part in the imagined denoument...But it is nice to see how unsure even Henry VII was about the "fate" of the princes and the tittle tattle, at home and abroad, which accompanies it all.

But what I don't understand is why, especially today, with that awful term, and practice of "extraordinary rendition", we often openly accept what has been said under torture and "Perkin Warbeck" was certainly tortured. As was Sir James Tyrell, who thrived under the Tudors until he allowed Yorkists to escape through Calais and yet so many believe he was executed for his role in murdering the princes on Richard's command. We can re-write History. But then I also don't understand why Leicester County Council is allowing its social services department's car park to be dug up now?
We've known for the past 500 years that IF Richard's bones had not been thrown into the River Soar at the time of the Dissolution, then they must have been in this vicinity. The trailer telling us all about Leicester University's wonderful achievements talks of Richard III as our "most notorious king". So why bother with him? And again, why now?
From the snippets I've seen, the archaeologists were searching in the Chancel for someone with "curvature of the spine". So it isn't as though they had any "pre-conceived ideas" about what they were searching for, sifting though the many bones buried there! Carbon dating is not the same as getting a DNA match and no doubt other high born people from this period were buried in the Chancel who had "curviture of the spine". Possibly people who died at Bosworth too.
Of course any signs of illness will be an added bonus due to the misconception that Richard was ill during his youth but this comes from the endlessly misquoted, "A Dialogue between a Secular and a Friar", which is simply a list of the children Richard duke of York and Cecily had and who lived and who died.

"Sir, after the tyme of long bareynesse, God first sent Anne, which signyfieth grace; (then came Harry (died), Edward, Edmonde, Elizabeth, Margaret, William and John, "which both be passed to God's grace. George was nexte; and after Thomas borne was, which sone after did pace by the path of death to the heavenly place; Richard liveth yet. But after alle was Ursula, to hym whom God list calle". No mention of Richard "ailing" or of having Polio! All those who are said to have lived did and died from natural causes, murder or illness in middle age.

I think this is a publicity stunt for Leicester University's standing. The press conferences and ridiculous secrecy about and surrounding this dig has made this university "news" around the world. Money could not buy a dastardly, dead king on your patch! Whatever happens on February 4th it will have put Leicester University's Archaeology Department on the map. Personally I'd like nothing more than to actually see a reconstructed face of the real Richard III and to know his wishes to be buried at York Minster were finally carried out. However, I'm slowly coming to believe, from the drip, drip effect of the information we have so far, that some poor soul, has been pieced together and will end his days in Leicester Cathedral under an assumed name. Oddly familiar! Whose bones are really in the Wren Urn at Westminster under assumed names?

Of course I could be joyfully wrong! Why am I so cynical? It's not as though we don't ever learn from History and it's doomed to repeat itself...And I suppose at least people will be discussing Richard III again. Perhaps the Richard III of Eng Lit and History will eventually part company. Or am I being too optimistic? There really are so many reasons why Richard III has always caused such controversy, and we've had many controversial kings and queens...
Happy Days and happy viewing! Minette.

Dear SST,
Just spent ages answering your post on illegitimacy which David Starkey appears to have issues with but all was lost! I did try, wish he would. At the moment I can see him leaning against a linen fold oak panelled room singing the praises of Margaret ....Beaufort.
And award for best performance goes to ....Starkey's tailor!

How can such an Anglo Centric twit adore a family, whose place of birth, (Pembroke Castle, pronounced Pembrook!!! He manages Henry Bolingbroke) he cannot pronounce and love a dynasty, derived from, " Wales, a small, insignificant little country" with such strangeness.... ! Yes I know he's getting on a bit now but when the great Tudor historian Elton nurtured him at Cambridge he ended up spurning him.
I can't take the man seriously any more. He is a wonderful example of a white Anglo Saxon male made good who knows nothing of women or life and yet tells us all how things work and always have done. This must end one day...Won't it?

Just watching the last bit of last night's marathon. Good Lord, what an orgy of Richard III/Princes it's all been. And more to come tomorrow.

David Starkey is a teeny-weeny bit biased isn't he?

I noticed Robinson managed to dig up some of the players from "The Trial of Richard III' - that nice art-historian lady (Craig-Tudor?); also the smirky lecturer from Lancaster(?) who's now a professor. They've all (except Starkey) aged well.

Will wait until after tomorrow's excitement before saying any more.

EDIT: Will just add for now that I can quite understand Minette's anger at Starkey's biased portrait of Richard - all those shots of the villainous Richard leering at the camera. Dreadful. Made Lawrence Olivier's Richard seem like quite a decent chap. Very unfair - and surely a respected academic like Starkey should know better. At least Robinson - although he concluded that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the Princes - did try to present a balanced and fair picture of the man. The drama-documentary was quite reasonable up to the bit where they had the tongueless adult Princes grunting and grimacing in their cell. And Perkin Warbeck's son, if I remember correctly, died in Cornwall. He didn't end up living happily ever after at the court of Henry VII, although his mother, Katherine Gordon did.

Only half-an-hour to go.

I can't believe it's only me who's excited.

I'm depending on you to keep us informed Temp! We outside the UK won't be able to access the announcement live.

But you're not interested in the "silly man", ID!

Found this article in the Mail. Funny feelings in the car park - crikey. It's another Philippa getting a bit carried away.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272848/Richard-III-Woman-feels-chill-Leicester-car-park-human-remains-found.html#axzz2JfEU1wis

You should get this OK ID http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/LIVE-UPDATES-Richard-III-DNA-results-announced/story-18041484-detail/story.html

Temperance wrote:

But you're not interested in the "silly man", ID!

No but I want to know if I am correct, and the results will be inconclusive!

Thanks for the sites Temp and Ferval, I'll have a gander.

My contact in Windsor will keep me up to date if anything earth shattering pops up.

"Woman feels a chill in Leicester car park"!

Lol, she should take a coat with her in this weather.

BBC News has just left the Press Conference and has gone to Southwark Crown Court to report on some stupid MP!!!