Marie Antoinette Online
  • FORUM
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:33 pm



Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
 ENGLAND 
Author Message
Royalty
Royalty
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:10 pm
Posts: 710
Post ENGLAND
A thousand years of history between England and France. William the Conqueror of Normandy, France became King Of England in 1066 and there has been a rivalry between the two ever since. So much of France's history is intertwined with England and the English. Start any new topics you'd like to discuss England or English royalty.


Here is a story coming out of the UK today regarding English royalty -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... found.html


Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:16 pm
Profile
Peasant
Peasant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:15 am
Posts: 8
Post Re: ENGLAND
I find it truly amazing that they have discovered remains of Richard III. I don't know much about him, but from what I have learned, he might have been blackened after death by his enemies and this skelet could help solve some of the myths surrounding him.

Maybe odd, but I couldn't help, but notice how good his teeth actually look in those photos of the skull. I paid attention to this as it is often said in 18th century people had very bad teeth, but Richard lived 300 years earlier. Interesting...


Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:49 am
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:42 am
Posts: 653
Location: Paris
Post Re: ENGLAND
What an interestign topic.

I am just dabbling in English history right now, but I am reading the complete Oxford History of England, which is a nice start. I think it’s good to start with a comprehensive approach to the country’s history before delving into a particular time period. Even so, right now the period I am fascinated with is John Lackland’s reign.

Well this was a stunning find anyway, and that’s good to receive such great news!

I don’t know much about Richard III. What were the main events of his reign?

[With respect to hygiene, my understanding is that it was not that bad back then. People did wash their teeth, using coal or other ingredients and those that could afford it would bath once a week at least. Hygiene started to decline by the Renaissance, when great thinkers such as Da Vinci came to the conclusion that soap was dangerous… already by the XVIII, hygiene was starting to improve again, although only prostitutes would wash on a daily basis. Marie-Antoinette would have a daily bath though –and was criticized by her aunts in law, who found such a habit inappropriate. People did wash their teeth, so much that Marie-Antoinette was chided because, at some point, she was a bit careless with that.]

_________________
" Perfection is not achieved when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.


Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:38 am
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:42 am
Posts: 653
Location: Paris
Post Re: ENGLAND
The only thing I remember right now is the slaying of the two princes in the Tower of London -this visit was most definitely the highlight of my trip there, besides the guides are awesome as they actually are British soldiers and nontheless manage to be entertaining.

_________________
" Perfection is not achieved when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.


Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:56 am
Profile
Royalty
Royalty
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:10 pm
Posts: 710
Post Re: ENGLAND
This really is an amazing story - it has now been confirmed that it is in fact Richard III. The UK Daily has pictures of what he would have looked like and the skeletal remains do indeed show a significant curvature of the spine which no doubt would have been noticable on Richard. So, the myth of the hunchback King seems to be intact. Richard is thought of as good to some and as a monster to others. Many bad deeds are laid on his doorstep. His behavior toward his brother's family suggests he was out for the throne himself and was willing to remove anyone in the way.

Edward IV was Richard's brother the King (Another brother, The Duke of Clarence, was drowned in a vat of wine before Edward IV died.) Edward IV was married to Elizabeth Woodville, who was apparently a very beautiful woman and if I remember correctly she was the first non-Royal to marry an English King. Their eldest daughter was Elizabeth of York (Henry VIII's Mother) and the little Princes were their sons.

Henry VII has been accused of re-writing history when he became King.....so it could be argued that it was he who cast a shadow over Richard's reputation. In any event - the Princes did disappear on Richard's watch - After the death of Edward IV, his son Edward, was at the Tower of London awaiting his coronation. At this time, Richard talked Elizabeth Woodville into handing over her younger son on the pretext of keeping his brother company. With both heirs to the throne in his possession, they disappeared. Most sources say he had them smothered in their sleep.

It was the sister of these boys, Elizabeth of York, that Henry VII took as his bride, thus uniting the Houses of York and Lancaster and putting an end to the Wars of the Roses. Richard III was the last of the Plantagenet Kings.


Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:02 pm
Profile
Marquis/Marquise
Marquis/Marquise
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 132
Post Re: ENGLAND
Lilly wrote:
This really is an amazing story - it has now been confirmed that it is in fact Richard III. The UK Daily has pictures of what he would have looked like and the skeletal remains do indeed show a significant curvature of the spine which no doubt would have been noticable on Richard. So, the myth of the hunchback King seems to be intact. Richard is thought of as good to some and as a monster to others. Many bad deeds are laid on his doorstep.


And most of them can be dismissed. George of Clarence was executed by Edward IV's order; there would be no reason for Richard to "do him in" and even if he did, this would not be considered murder as understood in Medieval England - again, the king so ordered. Same with Edward, the Lancastrian Prince of Wales - it is far more likely that George killed him. But again, even if Richard was "guilty" of this crime, being that the rival prince was struck down in the heat of battle, I don't think this is tantamount to "murder" or even a bad deed.

When you go into battle, sometimes the soldiers on the other side will kill you. Sorry Edward of Lancaster, but them's the breaks.

Quote:
Henry VII has been accused of re-writing history when he became King.....so it could be argued that it was he who cast a shadow over Richard's reputation. In any event - the Princes did disappear on Richard's watch - After the death of Edward IV, his son Edward, was at the Tower of London awaiting his coronation. At this time, Richard talked Elizabeth Woodville into handing over her younger son on the pretext of keeping his brother company. With both heirs to the throne in his possession, they disappeared. Most sources say he had them smothered in their sleep.


Even this is contested. It has been argued that the princes were alive and well as Henry VII took the throne and were subsequently disposed of. I personally do think that the children were killed in Richard's reign, although I do have my doubts as to who was the culprit. Still we would be mistaken to believe that even the date of the boys' disappearance is a concrete fact.

_________________
History is written by the victors - Winston Churchill


Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:40 am
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:42 am
Posts: 653
Location: Paris
Post Re: ENGLAND
You guys are so knowledgeable!

_________________
" Perfection is not achieved when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.


Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:17 am
Profile
Royalty
Royalty
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:10 pm
Posts: 710
Post Re: ENGLAND
Vive wrote:
George of Clarence was executed by Edward IV's order; there would be no reason for Richard to "do him in"


I was not suggesting that Richard killed Clarence - he was undoubtly killed by order of Edward IV for Treason. He bought it on himself.
George of Clarence left a son who had a claim to the English throne. Henry VII would eventually "remove" him.

Vive wrote:
Even this is contested. It has been argued that the princes were alive and well as Henry VII took the throne and were subsequently disposed of. I personally do think that the children were killed in Richard's reign, although I do have my doubts as to who was the culprit. Still we would be mistaken to believe that even the date of the boys' disappearance is a concrete fact.



Yes, it is also argued that Buckingham had a hand in the Prince's murder .....there is a good case to be made against all three of them! My personal opinion is that because most contemporary sources site the Fall of 1483 as when the Princes disappeared from sight...it is likely correct. Rumors were circulating as to the murders of the boys. You're right, it isn't a concrete fact.
It is true that it was much more a Tudor thing to kill off anyone with a claim to the throne and it wouldn't have been beneath Henry VII to do so, as he did in many other cases.

Ironically, ten years after Richard III's burial in the choir of the church at Leicester, Henry VII paid for a tomb for him. Part of the inscription on the tomb asked for prayers for Richard's soul to atone for his crimes. Kind of funny coming from Henry VII!


Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:57 pm
Profile
Marquis/Marquise
Marquis/Marquise
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 132
Post Re: ENGLAND
Lilly wrote:
I was not suggesting that Richard killed Clarence - he was undoubtly killed by order of Edward IV for Treason. He bought it on himself.
George of Clarence left a son who had a claim to the English throne. Henry VII would eventually "remove" him.


Not explicitly. But I thought your statement that he was rumored to have done a lot of bad things included the "murder" of George of Clarence, as that is generally used as an example of how Richard's depravity was foreshadowed.


Vive wrote:

Yes, it is also argued that Buckingham had a hand in the Prince's murder .....there is a good case to be made against all three of them!
My personal opinion is that because most contemporary sources site the Fall of 1483 as when the Princes disappeared from sight...it is likely correct. Rumors were circulating as to the murders of the boys. You're right, it isn't a concrete fact.


Oh, I agree. I also suspect that the boys were killed during Richard's reign, although I am one of those who believe the Duke of Buckingham to have been culpable.

Quote:
It is true that it was much more a Tudor thing to kill off anyone with a claim to the throne and it wouldn't have been beneath Henry VII to do so, as he did in many other cases.


This is a sign of my moral depravity more than anything, but I've never held it against the Tudors (or any dynasty) to dispose of rival claimants. Monarchy places value not so much on deeds or merit but rather on bloodline. While this does mean that many were exalted solely on their birth, the reverse is also true: sometimes, an accident of birth was tantamount to a death sentence. That is the seedy underbelly of monarchy. Considering that too many heirs could, as the War of the Roses proved, spiral the country into Civil War, I would count the Tudors poor leaders if they overlooked threats to their claim.

I pity (for example) the death of the Earl of Warwick. But I would rather he lose his head than hundreds of peasants go into battle to fight and die because their noble lord wants to make a grab at power.

Quote:
Ironically, ten years after Richard III's burial in the choir of the church at Leicester, Henry VII paid for a tomb for him. Part of the inscription on the tomb asked for prayers for Richard's soul to atone for his crimes. Kind of funny coming from Henry VII!


You read a different source than I did! The one I saw - which was admittedly from the very biased Richard III Society - quoted it as mentioning something about how Richard was burning in hell and his memory should serve as a warning to others who would wish to emulate him. D:

_________________
History is written by the victors - Winston Churchill


Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:04 pm
Profile
Royalty
Royalty
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:10 pm
Posts: 710
Post Re: ENGLAND
Vive wrote:
Oh, I agree. I also suspect that the boys were killed during Richard's reign, although I am one of those who believe the Duke of Buckingham to have been culpable.


Quite possible.....motive and opportunity existed. In order for this to have been possible, the Princes had to be dead in the Fall of 1483 as Buckingham was executed in November.


Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:03 am
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse

Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:07 pm
Posts: 328
Location: Maryland, USA
Post Re: ENGLAND
Has anyone read The Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir? It was released here in the US in 1995. It's one of her earlier non-fiction books.


Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:17 pm
Profile
Royalty
Royalty
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:10 pm
Posts: 710
Post Re: ENGLAND
Yes, I have this book - I read it quite some time ago when I was studying English history.


Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:26 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 12 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.