 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As above. A King is being buried without any Pomp & Circumstance. Would this be normal protocol?
I would expect such a service to be attended by at least one member of the Royal Family.
Did he upset them?
Presumably he had a good send off first time round.
OK, someone then decided to build a car park on his ass, which is unfortunate, but does it warrant another state funeral ?
Na.
😉
Cause he was a kiddy killer.
Presumably he had a good send off first time round.
As he died in battle I'm guessing the victor didn't allow him much of a funeral.
Why would the current royal family attend? He's not even a relative (allegedly)
Because no one of importance cares.
The final insult being left in Leicester!
A king who dies in battle doesn't die a king 😉
Coz he's just a man and no more deserving of a state funeral than any one else
yosemitepaul
I would expect such a service to be attended by at least one member of the Royal Family.
Did he upset them?
Perhaps their presence / proximity would just highlight the fact that they are where they are because of who their ancestor ****ed or murdered as opposed to some divine right.
Because the nation wouldn't make enough of a fuss about it?
As above. A King is being buried without any Pomp & Circumstance. Would this be normal protocol?
I would expect such a service to be attended by at least one member of the Royal Family.
Did he upset them?
It's a re-internment, not a burial, he's already been buried once.
mt - Member
Cause he was a kiddy killer.
Go on then, prove it.
I'll give you a bit of help, there's absolutely no historical evidence to back up your statement. It's just as likely King Henry had them killed, as they were as much a threat to his position, and there's some evidence that Richard sent them abroad to protect them.
Don't believe anything Shakespeare wrote about Richard, he was born 100 years after Richard's death, and just continued the winning side's propaganda. Richard wasn't a hunchback, for starters.
He also died in the thick of battle, while Henry sat safely outside the battlefield, after several of his barons, along with 3000 of their men, turned traitor and fought for the other, ultimately winning side.
Richard was a very popular king among his subjects, not a monster.
I think it's right and proper he should be laid to rest finally in a proper tomb, and given the respect he deserves as an important figure in our nation's history.
As to our current Royal Family taking part? Well, they follow on from the winning side, and the royal website still perpetuates many of the myths started by Shakespeare, so who can say.
The final insult being left in Leicester!
OY! What's wrong with Leicester then?
It's a bit cheesy?
OY! What's wrong with Leicester then?
It's a shithole!
HTH
As for who actually did for the Princes, there is a school of thought that says Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham did it.
He was Constable of the Tower at the time & responsible for their security. He had the means, his motive was to do for Richard 'The unpalatable' as he thought himself to be Richards 'Kingmaker'.
Shortly after the Princes disappeared he fell from favour even though he was the first peer of the realm, and eventually died during an abortive uprising against Richard.
Now, either Richard had it done & Stafford was so appalled he broke ranks, or Stafford did it & Richard was appalled himself.
Maybe if we off a few more monarchs we'll get into the swing of it, got to be worth a try
It's not a shithole, it's not bad at all.
Two fantastic sports stadiums, a pretty decent shopping centre, lots of independent shops, an Evans cycles and best of all lots and lots of great curry restaurants!
I like it.
because he didn't cop it in a Paris underpass
Dominic Selwood argues in an article in yesterday's Telegraph that the only evidence that points to the body being Richard is the mitochondrial DNA which just shows that the body is from the same female line. The male DNA doesn't match the expected line and suggest the person had blond hair and blue eyes. 2 lots of carbon dating also gave rather inconvenient results until they were adjusted to allow for a diet high in fish. It quite frankly all looks like people wanting to believe something so much that they are willing to overlook all the evidence that contradicts what they want to be true.
They did "find" him a bit too easily didn't they?
Its normally bloody hard to link any sort of archaeology back to the historical record.
Thanks for that avdave2, very interesting.
Here's the article for anyone else who's interested:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/11484859/Richard-III-Were-burying-the-wrong-body.html
The comments following the article pretty much debunk to the article. Facial resemblance, back disease, died of battle wounds, mother's DNA, body found in the spot in the Church where Richard III is known to be buried. Seems as conclusive as you're gonna get.
For the male line DNA to match you'd be relying on zero infedelities between now and the 1400s so that's hardly conclusive.
On the facial reconstruction I seem to recall from the documentary I saw on the search that the reconstructed knew who they were supposedly working on. It doesn't matter how honest you are, you cannot help but be influenced by what you believe you know. It might well be Richard but the claims of certainty seem unreasonable and unprofessional. A case of a good story for the media and the people usurping intellectual integrity.
Yeah, very hard to avoid confirmation bias.
@queenuk tweeted that she couldn't afford a state funeral having only just finished paying his parking charges. 🙂
He was the last plantaginate (I think I spelt that right)
the royal family that came after him was house of Tudor. I think something like that anyway, the Tudors were the next house until the first George they are German like our current queen,
I think the queen would be quite stand offish bearing in mind he had an ancestor present who according to law has a legal claim to the English throne.
Plantagenet
Tudor
Stuart
Hanover
Saxe-Coburg und Gotha
Windsor
I think they should fight it out.
I mean, I'm a republican, through and through, but I'd be happy to keep the [s]unelected parasites[/s] buggers on if it was all a bit more like a live-action GoT.
We could film the battles with drones.
Harry with a Apache-mounted GoPro.....cool.
I think the queen would be quite stand offish bearing in mind he had an ancestor present who according to law has a legal claim to the English throne.
Do you think Liz will publically renounce the throne and hand it over to Mr. Plantagenet just to see the look on Charles' face? 😀
Why should he have a state funeral?
He was a king of England, not the United Kingdom. Nothing to do with us British.
Maybe it's a case for a whip round the Royal family. 🙂
"because he didn't cop it in a Paris underpass"
Diana wasn't given a state funeral.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_funerals_in_the_United_Kingdom
far too much news time being given over to a bunch of fantasists IMO.
Side issue. I'm hugely ignorant of the timeline and basic outline of the Monarchy of the UK. I only did history until the age of 13 at school before settling on science (mental note - ****) and we hadn't get past the romans at that stage.
What's a good resource to read. Like a short paperback sized outline of 1066 through to the current day with key features and timelines.
I'd recommend the Simon Schama ones. Very readable, although it does gloss over some facts in favour of their impact - I suspect he assumes you know the facts of stuff like the Wars of the Roses, or that you don't need to know the minutiae.
I haven't finished mine yet, cos they are made of this weird papery material and I cannot read them on my kindle.
What's a good resource to read. Like a short paperback sized outline of 1066 through to the current day with key features and timelines.
This is the definitive historical reference for that period:
[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/1066-All-That-W-Sellar/dp/0413772705 ]1066 and all that[/url]
IMO you should only get a state funeral if you have served alongtime or been a worthy recipient etc.
The Queen yes- another of the royal family? It should be more of a quieter affair IMO.
Plantagenet
Tudor
Stuart
Hanover
Saxe-Coburg und Gotha
Windsor
Saxe-Coburg und Gotha = Windsor, they changed it during the 1st world war for PR purposes
The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I.[1] The most prominent member of the House of Windsor is its head, Queen Elizabeth II, who is the reigning monarch of 16 Commonwealth realms and has lots of armies.
Thomas Moore says that Richard had the kiddies killed, even gave a time. If Moore says he did who can question his credentials.
Richard wasn't a hunchback, for starters.
Oh yes he was! http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/spine.html
What a miserable and joyless bunch some of you are. If there was ever a fantastic opportunity to get the public interested in and engaged with history, this was it. Fascinating story, Richard's story, and the archaeologists who found his remains.
All good fun if you ask me, why ruin it with pomp and ceremony. And the Royals were right to stay away, their presence would have moved the focus to them and whichever one is currently too thin and might have shagged the England rugby captain. (not Harry I am thinking)