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

page: 5
62
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I would have preferred a Norman over the lizard king any day.
All kidding aside.........I saw a program about a

an aussie who should be the rightful king. I can't remember the details but I'm sure it was BBC and within the last

year. This is very interesting. Thanks.




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
The last true English king of GB was King George IV (1936-1952), whose father before him was also English born and raised.

All this German and Greek nonsense is just that, nonsense.

How many people in Great Britain can honestly say they are true English/British?

You have mixtures of all races right throughout the centuries mixed in with the herd, and if you go right back to the start we all supposedly came from Africa..........

Christ, Richard III had Italian and French roots, so based on your criteria of what is "English", either the current monarchy ARE true English/British or Richard the III is not.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


The Anglican Church is very much catholic these days, particularly at York Minster, which would be the natural choice for his re-burial. The English Church never was Protestant, though some monarchs may have been, it merely seperated itself from Rome, but has always claimed Apostolic Succession. The objection to catholicism in governance, by the Act of Settlement, is only exclusionary of Roman Catholicism not catholicism in ecumenical terms.

York Minster though have adopted the official position that Richard should be interred at Leicester Cathedral, not at York. And it seems fair since Leicester University did fund the dig that they should reap the rewards of any tourist revenues...after all neither York nor London need anymore attractions, they have them aplenty, but ya know, Leicester could really do with a little help in that department.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I've been very excited since I first heard about his find.

Richard III was the last English king to lead his troops into battle. After Richard, no English king ever fought or visited the front lines of a war.

Richard's death marks the end of the middle ages, and the beginning of the early modern period. After his death, the Parliament increased in power, and the kings of England became beholden to the barons and to the plutocratic merchant class. He was the last truly popular English king, who ruled directly over his people.

Whether or not he truly murdered his nephews, we may never know. Certainly he was capable of it. But it's worth pointing out that the same people who first accused him of the murder also accused him of being born with tusks, and covered with hair. His reign was very much skewed and derided after his death.

With the ascension of the Tudors, England would change forever.

Richard is truly one of the most fascinating figures in late medieval English history, and I am very excited to learn more about him.

Seriously, English history buffs are bouncing with excitement.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
Christ, Richard III had Italian and French roots, so based on your criteria of what is "English", either the current monarchy ARE true English/British or Richard the III is not.



Indeed, something conveniently ignored by quite a few it seems. The same for the wider population. Helen has repeatedly dodged my questions over who she considers English and who isn't, because it would either expose some racism, or a logical fallacy.

It is also worth noting that the current Queen has direct lineage to Alfred the Great, Harold Godwin and several other Anglo-Saxon Kings who themselves were deposed by the Normans, who led to the "English" Plantagenets, so the argument that the current Royals don't deserve to be on the throne based on that reasoning is highly flawed.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBird
Richard III was the last English king to lead his troops into battle. After Richard, no English king ever fought or visited the front lines of a war.


Sorry, that isn't true. The last Monarch to lead troops in battle was George II in 1743. After that, Parliament started to put a stop to it as it began to exert more control over the Monarchy.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


Very, very well said.


Before Richard, most of the Kings of his lineage didn't do much more than pop over for the occasional visit, and Richard only did so because of the intermarriage of his paternal line with the Nevilles and the Percys, who were consistently the real powers behind the English throne. Richard's participation in English affairs, prior to him being given the Kingship, only came about because he was placed in charge of Neville's Northern estates. He was a feudal lord, and coming from a long line of serfs, one conqueror is much the same as any other, no matter their country of origin. Any benefits that Richard wrought, were for the benefit of the Lords and nobility, not the people.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Richard III was a brute.

He murdered his nephews in the Tower, even though they were no longer a threat, as parliament had decreed they were bastards (due to their father - King Edward IV - allegedly having been married to someone else when he married their mother).

He is also probably responsible for murdering King Henry VI in the Tower, as he is the only person mentioned to have been in the Tower at that time.

Quite partial to murdering people in the Tower of London, was old Ritchie.

As to his being handsome - he stood 4' 8" in his stockinged feet, with a raised shoulder and probably a hunchback.

Not exactly what you might call a great catch.

As to the handsomeness of his reconstructed face....possibly owes more to artistic license than physical accuracy.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Izak4K
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.


Can almost everyone - take a skull, make a cast, add false muscles. tendons. ligaments. skin and make a reconstruction of someones head / face ?

The link below explains the process and is from the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJCrawley
Richard III was a brute.

He murdered his nephews in the Tower, even though they were no longer a threat, as parliament had decreed they were bastards (due to their father - King Edward IV - allegedly having been married to someone else when he married their mother).

He is also probably responsible for murdering King Henry VI in the Tower, as he is the only person mentioned to have been in the Tower at that time.

Quite partial to murdering people in the Tower of London, was old Ritchi
.


Well this is a subject where there seems to be few grey areas, you either like him or hate him ?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
The last true English king of GB was King George IV (1936-1952), whose father before him was also English born and raised.

All this German and Greek nonsense is just that, nonsense.


Well that is your opinion - many think otherwise. Why did they place someone who was 52nd in line to the throne - on the throne ???? Can you explain that to me ?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by CJCrawley
Richard III was a brute.

He murdered his nephews in the Tower, even though they were no longer a threat, as parliament had decreed they were bastards (due to their father - King Edward IV - allegedly having been married to someone else when he married their mother).

He is also probably responsible for murdering King Henry VI in the Tower, as he is the only person mentioned to have been in the Tower at that time.

Quite partial to murdering people in the Tower of London, was old Ritchi
.


Well this is a subject where there seems to be few grey areas, you either like him or hate him ?







posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Do you know if Kate middleton has ANY royal blood? I mean its unusual for them to marry a commoner. I dont think the fact that she has ancestors who kinda ruled their little towns as counting for royal blood. Its a brave move for them


Kate has no noble lineage, as far as I can tell. It is also not unusual for a monarch to marry a commoner, it has been done before and it was quite common back in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries for royals to have commoner mistresses.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
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.
edit on 7-2-2013 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)


That is an interesting story, can you share more ?
I agree I think he was horrid, from what I have read. A nasty King, He did have a severe head injury as a young man, which somesay, changed his personality. Plus he might have had tertiary syphilis, which can change the brain. So maybe he was not fully in control of his nastiness ?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


Helen, it isn't just opinion, its a fact. Otherwise what you're saying is, no matter how many generations have passed if you have any foreign blood then you're not English, in which case none of us are English.

Just because you say many people might believe otherwise, that also does not mean it to be true. You have repeatedly shown in these Royal threads to have a very selective view on what constitutes English and what doesn't.

Ironically, assuming your name is Helen Conway, that is an Irish surname.... Just saying



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Thanks for posting this has been a very interesting read.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by HelenConway
 


Helen, it isn't just opinion, its a fact. Otherwise what you're saying is, no matter how many generations have passed if you have any foreign blood then you're not English, in which case none of us are English.

Just because you say many people might believe otherwise, that also does not mean it to be true. You have repeatedly shown in these Royal threads to have a very selective view on what constitutes English and what doesn't.

Ironically, assuming your name is Helen Conway, that is an Irish surname.... Just saying


It is Irish - it is my real name, but not the name I was christened with. I am proud to say I am 1/4 Irish, at least.
I am also 3/4 English.

Stu I really appreciate your knowledge but can you please stop banging on with your accusation agenda, it becomes disruptive.

However - thank you for your knowledgable comments they are appreciated..



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


So you are in effect the epitome of what an English person is, a mongrel. Over the 1,200 years of English history we've seen many invaders who have come here and settled, affecting the gene pool. Even prior to the foundation of the nation, we had Norsemen coming over and settling, before that it was the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, before that it was the Romans and other nationalities from the Empire and before that it was the Celts from Central Europe.

You might think you are 3/4 English, but what does that even mean? I am willing to bet, if you're ancestry is anything like mine, you'll have all sorts of flavours, especially if you go back into the 18th and 19th century. What matters more than ancestry though and what generally defines your culture/nationality, is where you were born and how you were raised

Doesn't it also kind of raise eyebrows though that you throw accusations around yourself about the Queen being German, based on the fact an ancestor several generations removed was German, despite not being a "full bodied English person" yourself?

You may also think I may be "accusing" but all I am doing is calling you out and you don't like it.
edit on 7/2/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by CplAwesome
I would have preferred a Norman over the lizard king any day.
All kidding aside.........I saw a program about a

an aussie who should be the rightful king. I can't remember the details but I'm sure it was BBC and within the last

year. This is very interesting. Thanks.


This link from The Age,com.au: explains about the 'Aussie King of England': Mr Hastings is also the 14th Earl of Loudoun. Unfortunately i think I read that he has passed away recently, what a loss he seems like such a nice man.



Dr Jones told him he believed Edward IV was the illegitimate son of an archer. "His parents were 200 miles apart at the time he was supposed to have been conceived," says Mr Hastings. "The crown should have gone to Edward's brother George, Duke of Clarence, which is our line of the family."

The lie was perpetuated for more than 500 years and Mr Hastings, descended from a Catholic Plantagenet on the losing side of the civil wars of the 15th century, has been denied his throne


quote from below link'

www.theage.com.au...

This is from his obituary from the Telegraph


'Rightful king of England' dies in Australia
An Australian purported to be the rightful king of England – the 14th Earl of Loudoun, has died in his hometown where he worked as a forklift truck driver
:

Link to obituary in the Telegraph, written by Jonathan Pearlman: www.telegraph.co.uk...
edit on 7-2-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Holy shyza, I knew someone who looks just like that. I considered going into forensic facial reconstruction, then I realized I was far too lazy to inquire into the technicalities.

When I was little I loved to sculpt faces based off of fake human skulls; weird kid I know




new topics
top topics
 
62
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join