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

page: 7
62
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Now children, put your handbags away.


We can disagree with each other without provoking ill-tempered slanging matches, can we not?

As I have done.




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway

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 ?


These are not my opinions, these are FACTS.

Please do some history homework as you clearly have no understanding on the subject, and for some reason can't seem to accept logic or reasoning on the matter.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by HelenConway
Mods this thread is becoming an off topic troll thread with stuart chasing me around - brain beating me.
Can you please close this thread or remove these posts. I am sorry I am reacting but stuart has been provoking me for days,


No I haven't been "provoking you for days". In fact, today is the first time I have been on ATS in 2 days and prior to that it had been around 6 days away. YOU joined the other thread, where we seem to have had the falling out after I was already in it and contributing.

I like that term though, brain beating. Fits the bill.


Originally posted by HelenConway

.


What I do seem to have managed to do is stop the nonsense posting based on erroneous reasoning. How about you counter my arguments with debate instead of throwing a hissy fit and casting aspersions against me? We would get on much better if you did.



Yes stu is going to brain beat me until I answer his questions?

Interrogation ? Yes bullying I call it,

i am glad you admit you have been targeting me and that you have managed to 'STOP' my 'erroneous' posting and flawed thinking.

i must think like stu or else I am wrong, according to him. Bullying.
Stu has successfully managed to disrupt this thread, as intended



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk

Originally posted by HelenConway

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 ?


These are not my opinions, these are FACTS.

Please do some history homework as you clearly have no understanding on the subject, and for some reason can't seem to accept logic or reasoning on the matter.


I repeat why do you think you are correct ?
I have provided you with facts.
52ND inline to the throne is correct. A fact.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Well said, some facts rather than sentimental whimsy.

There are a few too many whimsies in this thread, like the fact Richard III was Catholic. He was Catholic as it was the ONLY form of Christianity in Western Europe at the time. He was PRE REFORMATION, therefore didn't know any other form of Christianity. Protestantism hadn't been invented yet.

He was also of the era of FEUDALISM hence being in battles etc, feudalism wasn't invented by Tudors, it had been around a very long time. Had Henry Tudor been captured in battle he would probably have had a similar fate.

I think it is important to keep it real and see things in context.

That said, he did do some good.

en.wikipedia.org...


Richard's Council of the North, derived from his ducal council, greatly improved conditions for Northern England, as commoners of that region were formerly without any substantial economic activity independent of London. Its descendant position was Secretary of State for the Northern Department. In December 1483, Richard instituted what later became known as the Court of Requests, a court to which poor people who could not afford legal representation could apply for their grievances to be heard.[55] He also introduced bail in January 1484, to protect suspected felons from imprisonment before trial and to protect their property from seizure during that time.[56] He founded the College of Arms in 1484,[57] he banned restrictions on the printing and sale of books,[58] and he ordered the translation of the written Laws and Statutes from the traditional French into English.[59]



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


Obviously the act of settlement disagreed with that assessment, take it up with the people responsible for that.

It was all legal and above board.

(yes, I am aware he was 52nd in line, but you know these religious types
)

Anyway, you obviously can't see past your own historical agenda (accusing a long time and respected member of this community of being a troll, just because he has proven you wrong time and time again, has lost any and all respect from me), so I will let you wallow in your own fantasies.

Take care, and peace.
edit on 7/2/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


I don't believe I did admit to "targeting" you, what I did say was that I responded to your posts and I am awaiting a reply that doesn't contain a personal attack.

Now, the point of these threads is people post something, other people post responses and a debate ensues. Shall we give that a go?



A few of you questioned why I call him the last English King - the above is why, he echoes my thoughts exactly.

In Britain today - so many people are brainwashed, they have been ruled by the Hanover's and Saxe - Coburgs, Germans for 200 odd years and they still insist that, they, are their rightful 'rulers'. It is a joke actually and sad.


He wasn't the last "English" King, Helen. He was from the House Plantagent, which was primarily a French Royal house based in Aquitane until they lost most of their land during the rule of King John. In fact, the House of Lancaster (the house that Henry IV was part of - the one who deposed Richard) was a cadet branch of the House of Plantagent. They were the same damned family!

Our current Monarch descends directly from the Anglo-Saxon Kings and is related to Richard, just not descended. In fact every monarch that has ever sat on the throne can trace their lineage back to to before the Norman conquest. Even William himself was the cousin of Alfred the Great.



The 'elite' in the UK want him buried in a second rate church / cathedral in a horrid little city in the Midlands,


Now, that's not very nice, but then in the other thread you did claim that it was no longer an English city and predominantly Asian, this is not the case as it is still 69% "white English". While I personally think he should be buried in York, it is not uncommon for people who died in battle to be buried near the battlefield. Such a thing is common in Wartime, look at Northern France and Belgium.



What a betrayal, the present Royals do not want this little bit of history to come to the attention of the people.


Nothing is being hidden from anybody. All this history is quite neatly laid out for anyone to go and look at, as it has been for hundreds of years in fact. Don't forget that Richard himself seized the throne despite not being in line for succession by conveniently "losing" his nephews



Guess what he has living direct descendants and they are NOT the present Royal Family who are NOT directly related to King Richard,


Yes, they are related.




Oh no, because of some bent act which means that th eonly people who can ascend to the throne NOW are protestant descendants of the German, Sophia of Hanover, mother of George I of Great Britain.

This is according to the Act of Settlement 1701. The Act also disqualifies persons who are Roman Catholic, either by birth or conversion, or those who marry Catholics

the first of the Kings following this act was a man called George he was 52nd IN LINE TO THE THRONE AND THEY MADE HIM KING - THAT IS RIGHT 52 nd in line

Why the British people put up with this rubbish I will never know - 'they' the elite did this to keep the catholics out


It wasn't a "bent" Act, but something that came about after some 200+ years of religious strife between Catholics and Protestants. We had Catholic monarchs who murdered protestants as well and in fact colluded with foreign powers to have the country invaded (see Spanish Armada). You seem to quite ignorant as to the history behind the Act and the troubles between the two faiths. Just look at Queen Mary - known as bloody Mary. She not only killed many protestants, but regressed religious freedom by bringing back blasphemy and heresy laws which her father had got rid of.
edit on 7/2/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)
edit on 7/2/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:18 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 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.


He was 5'8'' and the scoliosis may not have affected his appearance much, a slight stoop in his shoulder invisible whilst clothed.

Also the reconstruction team weren't given any information or visual reference as to the possibility of it being Richard lll whilst reconstructing the face, It is a proven method with accuracy to 2mm. They were given visual reference after the face was modelled and allowed to use it is painting the details and dressing with the hat etc.

www.guardian.co.uk...


Jo Appleby, the bones expert who excavated the skeleton and has worked on it for months, said it was contorted by scoliosis, which set in some time after he was 10, from an unknown cause. She said it would have made Richard's breathing increasingly more difficult, and taken inches off what would have been his full height of 5' 8" (172cm), a reasonably tall man for medieval times.


www.bbc.co.uk...


"The facial reconstruction was produced on the assumption that the remains were unknown and portraits of Richard III were not used as reference. "When the 3D digital bust was complete it was replicated in plastic using a rapid prototyping system and this was painted, prosthetic eyes added and dressed with a wig, hat and clothing." Prof Wilkinson said the Dundee team artist, Janice Aitken, only used the portraits of Richard III at this stage as reference for hair style and colour, eye colour, skin colour and clothing. The team estimated the end result was as accurate as possible. "Our facial reconstruction methods have been blind tested many times using living subjects and we know that we can expect that approximately 70% of the facial surface should have less than 2mm of error," said Prof Wilkinson.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Food for Thought....



Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

You are responsible for your own posts.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Please post about the topic...and not about each other.
Failure to post civilly can and will result in post removals....



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by HelenConway
 


). You seem to quite ignorant as to the history behind the Act and the troubles between the two faiths. Just look at Queen Mary - known as bloody Mary. She not only killed many protestants, but regressed religious freedom by bringing back blasphemy and heresy laws which her father had got rid of.
edit on 7/2/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)
edit on 7/2/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)




I am aware of bloody Mary which is why in the OP I described in some detail how I dislike the Tudors and why.
The one exception I will make is Elizabeth the 1st.



So I will agree to disagree.

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



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
So, out of all that were I took the time to deal with the main points of your OP, all you do is pick out a single line and even then, don't really address anything.


Originally posted by HelenConway
I am aware of bloody Mary which is why in the OP I described in some detail how I dislike the Tudors and why.
The one exception I will make is Elizabeth the 1st.


Elizabeth had quite a lot of people executed as well, you know, either for being Catholic or on jumped up charges of treason. My "ignorant" comment was actually about the whole 200 year history of the troubles between the two faiths and how we got to the point where Parliament selected someone for the throne who was quite low on the list. You asked the question, Helen.


Originally posted by HelenConway
I am entitled to a different opinion to you. You cannot force me to think the way you do.


Indeed, but if you put those opinions on a public forum, then expect to get called on them, especially if they are based on erroneous information and/or reasoning.


Originally posted by HelenConway
So I will agree to disagree.


That is disappointing - after all the fuss you made..............



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I agree to disagree.
I respect my right to hold a differing opinion. I am a great believer in free speech.
History is open to interpretation - which means you do not have the key to absolute truth in this area and nor do i.
edit on 7-2-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


Found this interesting article:
How Did Richard the Third Sound: Heritage Daily 2013.
www.heritagedaily.com...


University of Leicester academic gleans clues as to how Richard III may have sounded from historical letters.
In a University of Leicester exclusive podcast interview, Dr Philip Shaw from the School of English discusses how Richard III may have sounded in his own lifetime.

With the use of two letters with notes from Richard III himself, Dr Shaw delves deeper into what the man was really like. Both letters provide a sneak peek into the world of Richard III’s language, spelling and grammar.

As both letters begin with formulaic and neat words from a secretary, Dr Shaw has used this as a point of comparison with Richards’ less polished notes.................

You can listen to an exclusive podcast interview with Dr Philip Shaw here:

soundcloud.com...



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



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway
I agree to disagree.
I respect my right to hold a differing opinion. I am a great believer in free speech.
History is open to interpretation - which means you do not have the key to absolute truth in this area and nor do i.


Helen, I am not trying to stifle freedom of speech. For example, you are free to claim 2 + 2 is 98, however, that does not mean it is true and it also does not mean that you shouldn't be called on it. Just like you want to have your rights of freedom of speech being respect, how about you respect everyone else's same right?

However, on your point of historical interpretation - that does not apply to anything I have said as they are not facts that are ambiguous, they are the facts of the matter.We're not talking here about something that is nebulous or open to interpretation.

The Queen is descended from the first King of England, Aethelstan.

Richard is descended from the first King of England, Aethelstan.

Richard was a Plantagenet, from the cadet House of York.

Henry VII was also a Plantagenet, from the cadet House of Lancaster.

The Plantagenets were French to begin with, hailing from Aquitaine and only started to look on England as their primary title after losing their French holdings under King John. By the time of Richard and Henry, however, both the House of York and Lancaster were as English as you could get.

You claimed Richard was the last English King, however Henry was English also. He was related to Richard. Now, as you claimed that Richard was the last English King, how can Henry not be English?

You claim our current Queen is German, but don't back that up with any kind of reasoning.

Our current Queen is related to Richard III via Edward IV, just not descended. You claimed otherwise.

You asked about the Act of Settlement, but seem to view it in isolation and not by viewing the previous 200 years of strife and civil wars in context.

If you believe them not to be so, then why not challenge me with contrary information?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 





He was 5'8'' and the scoliosis may not have affected his appearance much, a slight stoop in his shoulder invisible whilst clothed.


I read somewhere that he would have been 5' 8" tall, but might have lost up to a foot in height due to the spinal curvature.

I still have my doubts about the accuracy of the reconstructed face.

I mean, even I know what he looks like from portraits......and the face does seem a bit too handsome/pretty for comfort.

There seems to have been a recent trend to lionise certain dodgy historical characters (Richard II's another one), while poo-pooing contemporary accounts that say otherwise.

Many a time I have witnessed some boffin pointing out the 'doctored' shoulder-raising on a Richard III portrait, as evidence of craven propaganda by the Tudors.

It seems now that it was added after Richard died, to more accurately convey his appearance (they couldn't really do it while he was alive).



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


Just for arguments sake, on the documentary they showed someone with a very similiar curvature of the spine who outwardly appeared quite normal, at a normal (iish) height. The article I read today about the possibility of him losing up to a foot is just taking the worst case scenario.

I would find it hard to believe that anyone with a severe deformity, such as one which would cause a whole foot to be lost in height and to carry a hump, could have possibly got into heavy armour, much less have been the rather formidable soldier and horseman that all contemporary accounts (even those of his enemies) said he was.

After all, by all accounts it took a whole gaggle of Welsh spear men to unhorse, then overpower him, after he had personally killed Henry's standard bearer, then unhorsed and knocked out a huge bruiser of a knight who stood at 6'8", John Cheyne.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by HelenConway
I agree to disagree.
I respect my right to hold a differing opinion. I am a great believer in free speech.
History is open to interpretation - which means you do not have the key to absolute truth in this area and nor do i.


Helen, I am not trying to stifle freedom of speech. For example, you are free to claim 2 + 2 is 98, however, that does not mean it is true


I am glad we agree on this - and just because as you say, it equally applies to you.. so, .. well claim away.

Now please be kind enough to stop personally directing your posts at me, but on topic, I am not the topic, as much as you want to make me so, and we will get on just fine,
edit on 7-2-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 





I would find it hard to believe that anyone with a severe deformity, such as one which would cause a whole foot to be lost in height and to carry a hump, could have possibly got into heavy armour, much less have been the rather formidable soldier and horseman that all contemporary accounts (even those of his enemies) said he was.


Fair enough, I concede it is unlikely he was that short.

But even for a slightly-built man of 5' 8" who apparently had unusually slender, 'feminine' arms - it's a pretty staggering feat (especially the bit about unhorsing the 6' 8" knight).

I wonder if he had help?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


Well, according to contemporary sources, his final charge was with a small retinue of knights into Henry's bodyguard. It was only when the Stanleys and their 6,000 men intervened in the battle did he become unstuck. Prior to that, he had managed to fight his way to "within a swords length" of Henry. It apparently took the combined might of Henry';s bodyguard to keep Richard away. No doubt though that Richards own bodyguard had their work cut out as well and gave him a good deal of assistance...



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


Thanks for the link! Looks like there are lots of great programs on the site.





new topics
top topics
 
62
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join