Page 4 of 6

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:04 am
by dudleytaylor
Northern Lass wrote:It was a very good programme watched it last night she got on my nerves a bit
how lucky was it they put the trench where they did! and found it more or less straightaway!
I wondered if it was a wind up at first especially when Richards skeleton had a curved spine like the stories said!
No withered arm
did anyone else think the descendant looked like him!

I think that the skeleton should be put on display at the british Museum
Tutenkamen was! :roll:

Wot about on the carpark that letter R spooky! :shock:


You lift my spirits!, don't know what i would do without you, still don't know what i said or did not say yesterday to MikLeed :(

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:29 am
by mikleed
Mallosa / Margaret and Dudleytaylor.
Well ! after all these posts I think I feel a prat.... please do not take it serious I realise I can be a bit dogmatic in my views.
sorry Mallosa for using my sciatica as an excuse did not mean to be rude to you at all.
thank you Margaret for your sympathy. this forum as I said is a very friendly one. I think finding Richards body has become very sensative to some people
Catholic and Church of England.

Only one thing I think is Richard was buried at Greyfriars for some reason? that's why I say leave him in Leicestershire where he fought the Battle with Henry.
my spelling gives away my age!!!
Mike

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:42 am
by peterd
Think the term catholic means universal ? But richard was a catholic of tbe church of rome ie a RC so there is a difference will have to see how the establisment deals with it

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:45 am
by Margarett
Mikleed,
I hope your sciatica is improving. I'm glad to say, mine is. Dogmatic? I like dogmatic! It wouldn't do for all of us to have the same views, now would it! Differences make life interesting! :-)

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:49 am
by mikleed
Just another thought that maybe answered....Why is King John buried in Worcester ?????? and most Kings are buried at different places ?????

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:50 am
by mikleed
Thank you Margaret you are so right.
Mike

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:10 pm
by Margarett
Interesting question, Mike. King John died at Newark, maybe it was more convenient to bury him at Worcester than take him all the way to London. Bearing in mind there was no refrigeration then.... if you see what I mean!!

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:16 pm
by dudleytaylor

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:18 pm
by mikleed
Margaret........I'm giving you the cold shoulder !!!!!! LOL.
Mike

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:22 pm
by Jimmy
Margarett wrote:Mike, you have my sympathy! I'm suffering with sciatica too at the moment!

I have had sciatica for over 40 years.

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:38 pm
by dudleytaylor
Jimmy wrote:
Margarett wrote:Mike, you have my sympathy! I'm suffering with sciatica too at the moment!

I have had sciatica for over 40 years.


Know what you mean ,Jimmy. I have a hot pad on my lower back at the moment. I have had it for two weeks now. My husband keeps telling me to go to the docs ,but they do not do much . :roll: Last time i went they put me on the rack as i call it . It did work for a bit. All my family suffer from back problems . They have all had their hips replaced. I think it must be the cold weather . Still you can go to church , that will help i'm sure :wink:

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:02 pm
by Margarett
Thanks for the link, DT. That answers that question then, King John had willed for his body to be buried at Worcester. Nothing to do with decay!!!

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:04 pm
by dianel
mikleed wrote:Mallosa / Margaret and Dudleytaylor.
Well ! after all these posts I think I feel a prat.... please do not take it serious I realise I can be a bit dogmatic in my views.
sorry Mallosa for using my sciatica as an excuse did not mean to be rude to you at all.
thank you Margaret for your sympathy. this forum as I said is a very friendly one. I think finding Richards body has become very sensative to some people
Catholic and Church of England.

Only one thing I think is Richard was buried at Greyfriars for some reason? that's why I say leave him in Leicestershire where he fought the Battle with Henry.
my spelling gives away my age!!!
Mike


I heard a theory that Henry VII didn't want Richard buried at York in case he became a focus for future rebellion. And he was buried inconspicuously in a monastery in Leicester for that very reason. Although Henry did order a marble tomb for him, there was never any evidence of it actually being built.

I think Richard should be buried with full honours in either Westminster Abbey or at York Minster. It seems that in his short time as king, he was a very good king, instituting a number of reforms for the benefit of the common people. And 'sides, it would be good for him to be able to stick a posthumous thumb up at Henry VII who appears to have been a thoroughly nasty piece of work and who had a very tenuous claim to the throne anyway.

All this from a colonial, descended from English convicts and Irish & Scots who probably wouldn't have cared a brass farthing. But I've always had a soft spot for Richard, who contemporaneous reports say was a brave, loyal, just man.

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:07 pm
by mikleed
Thats a great post Dianel.....well done wench!!!
Mike

Re: Richard III

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:29 pm
by dudleytaylor
dianel wrote:
mikleed wrote:Mallosa / Margaret and Dudleytaylor.
Well ! after all these posts I think I feel a prat.... please do not take it serious I realise I can be a bit dogmatic in my views.
sorry Mallosa for using my sciatica as an excuse did not mean to be rude to you at all.
thank you Margaret for your sympathy. this forum as I said is a very friendly one. I think finding Richards body has become very sensative to some people
Catholic and Church of England.

Only one thing I think is Richard was buried at Greyfriars for some reason? that's why I say leave him in Leicestershire where he fought the Battle with Henry.
my spelling gives away my age!!!
Mike


I heard a theory that Henry VII didn't want Richard buried at York in case he became a focus for future rebellion. And he was buried inconspicuously in a monastery in Leicester for that very reason. Although Henry did order a marble tomb for him, there was never any evidence of it actually being built.

I think Richard should be buried with full honours in either Westminster Abbey or at York Minster. It seems that in his short time as king, he was a very good king, instituting a number of reforms for the benefit of the common people. And 'sides, it would be good for him to be able to stick a posthumous thumb up at Henry VII who appears to have been a thoroughly nasty piece of work and who had a very tenuous claim to the throne anyway.

All this from a colonial, descended from English convicts and Irish & Scots who probably wouldn't have cared a brass farthing. But I've always had a soft spot for Richard, who contemporaneous reports say was a brave, loyal, just man.

I agree with you totally,and our history is yours too .