King Richard III dug up and displayed in Leicester, England

reply to post by HelenConway

Plus that avatar of yours is racist

I'm sure stu will be along in due course, but in the mean time could you please explain exactly how you think that is true becasue I for one really don't see it - and where is the relevance to this thread?

- it should not be allowed on ATS,

Could you please show what part of T&C it contravenes?

And if that was true I'm sure, considering how well ATS is moderated etc, that someone would have mentioned it given that stu has used it for years.

are you affiliated with the EDL ?

Some easy research should provide you with the answer to that question - but I would be very interested how you came to that assumption.

He should definately be burried respectfully in York and not as tourist attraction in Leicester. Who the hell signed that agreement?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
He should definately be burried respectfully in York and not as tourist attraction in Leicester. Who the hell signed that agreement?

Yes, before anybody signed an agreement there must have been quite a pointed and in-depth discussion that "If we do find him, you know York is going to want the body". These people are not stupid, and they've all contributed a great thing to English and world history, as well as to historical archeologicial success stories. But someone in the group, as well as Leicester officials, had to know that Richard was catholic, had already made arrangements for his burial services in York, and that his rightful place was of course in the North. Their only hope was that nobody was going to make a fuss, and that whatever agreement they came to would be binding (I can't see how, given Richard's own wishes), but even there they had to know that York would not just accept this.

So, in reality, they were prepared for a fight, or for the very low chance that everyone would just say "Sure, he belongs in Leicester, no argument, mate."

Now is the winter of their, something something. The question will probably be resolved quickly, before it escalates, and I'm guessing some back room deal will be made, Leicester and the University will give up the bones, and in return that parking lot will become a very well visited place for the curious and the historically minded among us.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by bluemirage5

 

And the only King of England to die in battle aside from Harold of Godwin

Although not the last British King - that honour falls to James IV of Scotland who died fighting the English when Scotland decided to invade us in support of the French...

Wouldn't the last British King be George VI?

Just curious.

Huh?

I meant the last British King to die in Battle, that much is clear from the context of the discussion. I have no idea why you have brought up George IV, as he died in 1830 from a combination of dementia and poor health. What's more baffling is someone actually starred your nonsensical post.

What's with the hostility? I asked a simple question you don't have to be rude.

Maybe I should have contextually understood that you meant the last British King to die in battle, and maybe you should have been observant enough to notice that I didn't even mention George IV but George VI, we all make mistakes, sadly I didn't take context into the equation, what a horrible and nonsensical person I must be.

I wasn't nonsensical at all, I had a genuine question to a brit from the perspective of an outsider and you chose to answer like an ass.

[

I just discovered that Helen has created another thread on the same subject, at first focusing on the facial reconstruction and then going into the general topics of this thread. Her first post on that thread is very good, at least the top of it before she goes into the topics she was talking about here, and I'd suggest a read of it and the rest of that thread. Nice work Helen, even though, well, you know. Here's the link:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm borrowing this from Helen's first post on her thread (her thread has good discussion and data, link in post just above this one). It's an important graphic for any thread on Richard's death, burial, and recent discovery. It looks like he was killed with two wounds to the head, one a major skull cutting and shaking head trauma (think John Kennedy and the shot from the back - or the front), and a sword wound which went all the way thru his brain before hitting his skull on the other side. A pretty bad day for the old boy:



Source, Daily Mail online: www.dailymail.co.uk...

I wasn't going to bother, but I'm at work and bored....

Originally posted by HelenConway
Stu this jusy shows your ignorance in this matter - do your research and stop being such a holier then thou ****
let me explain this again .. slowly this time, there is no genetic connection between the Queen and Rixhard the third.

No, the show actually said that they weren't descended. However, HM The Queen can trace her ancestry back to several Anglo-Saxon kings, including Harold of Godwin and Alfred the Great. I am pinching the below from another site where someone has kindly done the leg work for me:

Queen's Elizabeth's ancestry through the Cerdic and the West Saxon royal line (including Alfred the Great):
Cerdic, 1st King of Wessex ---> Creoda ---> Cynric of Wessex ---> Ceawlin of Wessex ---> Cuthwine ---> Cutha Cathwulf ---> Ceolwald of Wessex ---> Coenred of Wessex ---> Ingild of Wessex ---> Eoppa ---> Eafa ---> Ealhmund of Kent ---> Egbert I (first King of England) ---> Aethelwulf of Wessex ---> Alfred the Great ---> Edward the Elder ---> Edmund I ---> Edgar ---> Ethelred II ---> Edmund II ---> Edward the Exile ---> Margaret of Scotland ---> Edith of Scotland ---> Empress Matilda ---> Henry II ---> King John ---> Henry III ---> Edward I ---> Edward II ---> Edward III ---> Lionel, 1st Duke of Clarence ---> Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster ---> Roger, 4th Earl of March ---> Anne de Mortimer ---> Richard, 3rd Duke of York ---> Edward IV ---> Elizabeth of York ---> Margaret Tudor ---> James V of Scotland ---> Mary, Queen of Scots ---> James I and VI of England and Scotland ---> Elizabeth of Bohemia ---> Sophia of Hanover ---> George I ---> George II ---> Frederick, Prince of Wales ---> George III ---> Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn ---> Queen Victoria ---> Edward VII ---> George V ---> George VI ---> Queen Elizabeth II


Another line from Alfred the Great:
Alfred the Great ---> Aelfthryth, Countess of Flanders ---> Arnulf I, Count of Flanders ---> Baldwin III of Flanders ---> Arnulf II, Count of Flanders ---> Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders---> Baldwin V, Count of Flanders---> Matilda of Flanders ---> Henry I of England ---> Empress Matilda ---> Henry II ---> King John ---> Henry III ---> Edward I ---> Edward II ---> Edward III ---> Lionel, 1st Duke of Clarence ---> Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster ---> Roger, 4th Earl of March ---> Anne de Mortimer ---> Richard, 3rd Duke of York ---> Edward IV ---> Elizabeth of York ---> Margaret Tudor ---> James V of Scotland ---> Mary, Queen of Scots ---> James I and VI of England and Scotland ---> Elizabeth of Bohemia ---> Sophia of Hanover ---> George I ---> George II ---> Frederick, Prince of Wales ---> George III ---> Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn ---> Queen Victoria ---> Edward VII ---> George V ---> George VI ---> Queen Elizabeth II


Queen Elizabeth's ancestry through Harold Godwinson (Harold II of England):
Harold Godwinson ---> Gytha of Wessex ---> Mstislav I of Kiev ---> Euphrosyne of Kiev ---> Bela III of Hungary ---> Andrew II of Hungary ---> Violant of Hungary ---> Isabella of Aragon ---> Philip IV of France ---> Isabella of France, Queen of England ---> Edward III ---> Lionel, 1st Duke of Clarence ---> Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster ---> Roger, 4th Earl of March ---> Anne de Mortimer ---> Richard, 3rd Duke of York ---> Edward IV ---> Elizabeth of York ---> Margaret Tudor ---> James V of Scotland ---> Mary, Queen of Scots ---> James I and VI of England and Scotland ---> Elizabeth of Bohemia ---> Sophia of Hanover ---> George I ---> George II ---> Frederick, Prince of Wales ---> George III ---> Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn ---> Queen Victoria ---> Edward VII ---> George V ---> George VI ---> Queen Elizabeth II

Link to source

Of course, don't take my word or even this chaps word for it - go look up the lineage yourself.

Originally posted by HelenConway
Denying ignorance means - stop talking out your bum, just because it is your opinion does not mean it is the truth.

No, it does not. However, that doesn't change the fact that I am actually telling the truth and attempting deny ignorance, specifically yours.

Originally posted by HelenConway
Plus that avatar of yours is racist - it should not be allowed on ATS, are you affiliated with the EDL ?

Now you're just grasping, Helen. What exactly is racist about my avatar? It's a coat of arms, for crying out loud. And no, I am not affiliated in any way, shape or form with the EDL.

Originally posted by HelenConway
IT EVEN SAYS SO IN THE CHANNEL 4 DOCUMENTARY - watch it , learn something

I did watch it and it is clear you have misheard or misunderstood what they said and have done little to no research of your own.

Looks like York has been dealt a major blow, with the Minster (in York) saying he should stay in Leicester - fu*~!ng religious tosspots!

On the other hand, the fight goes on........

York campaigners vow to continue fight for Richard III