-
Posts
-
@panda12 wrote:
I’ve got to go with the evidence and say Richard III is guilty and he murdered his nephews in order to consolidate his postion as King.
And mims is a pleb. :wink:
It was Jimmy Saville
there is a great biography of Richard III by Paul Murray Kendall which looks at all the evidence. Kendall is very pro-Richard, and is flummoxed – there are so many pro- and anti- arguents, and Kendall argued that if Richard did kill them he may well have been haunted by it for the rest of his reign. Other historians have argued that on balance Richard killed them.The jury really is out, and there’s no sign of them being called back in.
Who knows? It was a very bloody age, and people took drastic steps to consolidate their power. Under the Tudors, it got even nastier, with judicial murders, more refined ways of torturing pandas and chopping wives’ heads off.
We’re civilised now, of course.
@sceptical guy wrote:
there is a great biography of Richard III by Paul Murray Kendall which looks at all the evidence. Kendall is very pro-Richard, and is flummoxed – there are so many pro- and anti- arguents, and Kendall argued that if Richard did kill them he may well have been haunted by it for the rest of his reign. Other historians have argued that on balance Richard killed them.The jury really is out, and there’s no sign of them being called back in.
Who knows? It was a very bloody age, and people took drastic steps to consolidate their power. Under the Tudors, it got even nastier, with judicial murders, more refined ways of torturing pandas and chopping wives’ heads off.
We’re civilised now, of course.
I’m not sure if us pandas had been invented in Tudor times.
:shock:
And we’re far too cute to be tortured.
Nobody is too cute to be tortured….
and I would like to assure all my well-wishers here that it was not me who killed the Princes.
Their skeletons were discovered, by the way, during an excavation of the Tower in 1674, so by 1674 they were dead. Of that, there can be no doubt..I don’t think so anyway.
and here’s the proof of nobody being too cute to be tortured…
I now have got worryingly confused – I have googled whisky – yes, that was around in those days, but a high-street chain wasn’t, and I don’t think panda’s were part of the scenery then either! :lol:
Back to topic – personally I think it was bad ol’ ‘arry who killed ’em boys, and I think Dickie-boy should be buried where he died, as in the olden days.
Oh, nearly forgot, no display thank you!
@terry wrote:
@minim wrote:
Richard, who was not war like, but really a bit bookish, was framed.
Don’t get Richard III mixed up with Richard Madeley. :roll:
You obviously don’t read around subjects much or you would know that there are many really well thought of historical experts who believe that Richard III was innocent of the murder and that it was actually Henry Tudor who had the boys as hostages and had them both killed, then married their older sister to ensure his very shaky claim on the throne was secure.
Thicky :lol:
ooer ain’t you all a clever lot….. well I think the sister did it… in the ballroom with the lead pipe :D
I’m clever! Not sure about the rest of them :)
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!