An English King - shows his face for the first time in 500 years.

and the tudors gave us this. in a manner of speaking.



covers up a multitude of sins if you ask me

www.disclose.tv...

reply to post by Amadeo


The doc was called The Princes in the Tower and is doing the rounds of the Channel 4 sister channels now.

Perkin Warbeck was the name of the man who said he was one of the lost princes ( Richard ) and his case is very convincing.
Ann Wroe has written an extensively researched book about him www.guardian.co.uk...


I would say that it's a shame that Helen did not contribute this content to the other thread started by Aleister as some of it is a rehash of that.
Just saying...

reply to post by HelenConway


Thanks for this fascinating look into English history,Helen.Sounds like Richard was demonized by his successors,the Tudors.Incredibly lucky finding his remains though,what a find for history.

So the royals dont want him buried with them. How did they find his remains?

reply to post by HelenConway


Magna Carte. Seemed so good, still revered, but made it so easy for the one world government to institute it's plan!!!

reply to post by HelenConway


Dunno about your history, but my history says Henry the 8th was a madman, and he killed alot more than just the commonfolk. He tried to wipe out my entire bloodline and failed because my ancestor had been sent away to a monastery as many in nobility were frequent to do in that time when there was a younger son born who might contend for the elder's inheritance. The ancestor of mine who did escape through the church, made sure to chronicle that, and this is how we ended up in the U.S., we were originally Welsh.

Is this assassins creed 15? I don't know, or even care. Almost everyone can do it in photoshop. They recreated his face - wow. This must be huge. Sorry, I give up.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Are you a royal on the run?
Stop being a wimp and return to the UK and face them.

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by Violater1
This makes total sense that a humble man once ruled the U.K.
Now, there is this falsearchy, that perversely allows it's family members to fornicate, adulterate, obfuscate and usurp it's authority on the Great people of England..
Why this hadn't attracted more attention is beyond me.
May G_D rest his soul.
SnF

edit on 7-2-2013 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)

Thank you - but he only ruled England and maybe Northern Ireland [ I think ] not Scotland they had their own Kings. So no UK in those days

Of course he potentially also had his nephews killed who were the rightful owners of the throne, but let's not let the facts get in the way of the story eh?

For the current Royal family, to call them German now is just getting silly, that is based on lineage in the 19th century when there will be blood from most of the European houses involved, but again, facts eh?

Originally posted by Amadeo
Regarding the current Royal Family -- as much as they can be shown not to be the legitimate British Royal Family, I don't believe they will ever give up their position or even be asked to. As Royals, they are untouchable whether we like it or not.

Can anyone point me in the direction of the best starting point for reading about the Plantagenets? I think I've exhausted the Tudors.

Please - in this particular example - define legitimate? It was always either through battle or marriage. Saxe Coburg was via marriage, it was as legitimate as any other but of course the tin foil hats will always manufacture an arguement.

Sorry, but the same arguement could go back to the first person who was the second who wore the crown in any monarchy.

Thank you.

This is one of the best threads I've seen in a long, long time.

I was actually pretty intrigued when I heard that they had, indeed, confirmed his remains. Being an American, I don't take the lineage of the monarchy to heart like you might, but I do find the thread of history to be interesting in all its knots.
Thanks again for such a well written thread.

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by HelenConway

 

through the fug of my sunday morning hangover (quite the doozy!) i almost heard a radio report about a plan to bury him at some out of the way church near his birthplace i think, and it was suggested that this would be a bad idea due to the intense short term interest and huge visitor numbers requiring infrastructure investment that had no long term future (as interest would die off in a couple of years).

i think york minster sounds like the most reasonable place to bury the remains.

It is so political isn't it - leicester want him for the tourist dollars and funding, nothing to do with the man.

He should be given a state funeral at York Minster or Westminster abbey and as a Catholic.

This whole episode is rubbing important people up the wrong way. The Royals note are keeping out of it.

The pretenders I SHOULD say

Helen, are you talking crap for the sake of it? Why do you think Richard III was any less of a pretender? No disrespect for him but you can make the same argument. And you don't think York are desparate for the tourist dollars? He has laid in Leicester for 500 years and now they want him back.

Are you trying to be a new online Daily Mail?

reply to post by something wicked


I object to your insinuation that I'm one of the tin-foil hat brigade. I was actually going with OP's assertions that a man 52nd in line to the throne could be made king. Since you seem to be looking for an argument I'll bow out here. You can find your argument elsewhere.

reply to post by ironorchid


Thanks, I've just finished watching after many interruptions! I really enjoyed it.

Originally posted by Amadeo
reply to post by something wicked

 

I object to your insinuation that I'm one of the tin-foil hat brigade. I was actually going with OP's assertions that a man 52nd in line to the throne could be made king. Since you seem to be looking for an argument I'll bow out here. You can find your argument elsewhere.

So you may or may not read this, your choice, but that goes back to how you see Richard III was more legitimate. Oh, and then the comments that this would mean the current monarchy are less legitimate.

Originally posted by HelenConway
The car park was once a monastry called 'Grey Friars' which was run by impoverished Franciscan Friars, who had originally, buried him in a simple grave.

Indeed a great day for archaeology

Not sure if anyone else has posted this, but.......wasn't he in Shrek?


ETA: Yup...Thats him:

The issue of where to bury him is a somewhat vexed one. He was Duke of Gloucester but if I recall correctly he spent a lot of time in the North, where he was quite popular. Don't forget that he was his brother's right arm, the guy who did quite a lot of the nasty work. Let's not also forget that he was a Catholic, so Westmister Abbey (or any other Anglican building) might not be the best place to bury him.
Oh and her may have been a king, but I'm convinced that there's enough circumstantial evidence to accuse him or murdering his own nephews. So no state funeral.

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by skalla

 

Richard the Lionheart, was a plantagenet who fought and died in the crusades against Saladin at Acre and in what is now Palestine / Israel - he must have been involved or had dealings with the Knights Templar, who fascinate me.

Richard the Lionheart did not die in the Crusades. He died as the result of a wound from a crossbow bolt received during the siege of the castle of Chalus-Chabrol, during the suppression of a revolt in County of Limousin in what is now France.

Also King John a plantagenet gave us the freedom of 'habeus corpus' this means that prisoners cannot be unlawfully detained. when he signed the Magna Carter.

It's Magna Carta, not Magna Carter.

By the way, are you ever going to explain your accusation that stumason's avatar, the coat of arms of the St. George Society of Toronto, is racist and somehow links him to the EDL?