At long last justice for Richard III?

Ignorant Yanks...

Well I didn't think I'd have to spell it out.

To be quite honest Contrex I think MM's just playing silly buggers. I don't think he's so daft that he honestly believes Liz's grandfather ascended to the throne over 500 years ago. This is England not Middle Earth.

This line from the OP: " . . . it was unthinkable that Shakespeare should portray the man deposed by the current monarch's grandfather . . . " was somewhat ambiguous. Sloppy writing.

Maybe ambiguous to you Malvolio, but it was pretty ******* obvious I was talking from Shakespeare's perspective. If you thought I was talking about Liz Windsor then you're either a ******* idiot, a ridiculous nitpicking pedant, or, in your case, both.

Funny how you accuse me of stalking you, when I do my best to avoid your threads, yet you can't resist the urge to pontificate on one of mine.

You obviously can't resist my allure.

No, it was not obvious, as witness MM's response. He may have been taking the piss, but he was doing so based on your sloppy writing. You don't handle literary criticism well.

As for your monumental conceit, i responded to MM, not you. I've been blithely ignoring you for weeks, and will do so again. As always, you're a legend in your own mind.

You've made an important point. I should always bear in mind that you may well be reading one of my posts, so it's best to assume I'm addressing a complete idiot, and dumb it down accordingly.

I rarely read your posts, although i may read the posts of others in one of your silly threads, like this one. But, you know, whatever you say Bubba, i'm sure you know best.

"You don't handle literary criticism well."

said the pot to the kettle...

I have seen "then-current" used in such situations, but why pander to people so stupid and ignorant as to be unable to resolve the alleged ambiguity by asking whether Shakespeare (1564 approx - 1616) could have written very much about any contemporaries of either George V (1865-1936) or Claude Bowes-Lyon (1855 – 1944)?

I wasn't suggesting that anyone pander, i was just pointing out that it was sloppy writing. The entire thread is more than a bit silly--how will the reburial of bones, which at best can be tentatively identified as an adult male member of the House of York, and nothing more, render justice to Richard III?

There is already evidence from 15th century portraits of Richard that he was neither ugly nor a hunchback. The skeletal remains demonstrate that he was not a hunchback. As for his character, although the lurid portrait of a monster offered by Shakespeare can be dismissed as mere propaganda for the House of Tudor, there is also little direct evidence for Richard's character. There is no reason to assume that he was complicit in the death of the Duke of Clarence. There is good inferential evidence that he was complicit in the disappearance and probable murder of Edward V and the Duke of York. Richard stood to gain the most from the event. Such tragedies, however, were all too common in 15th century Europe. If Richard was complicit in the deaths of Edward V and York, then he was no angel. By the standards of his day, he was no demon, either.

How re-interring these remains, if they even are those of Richard III, would render him justice is, to put it kindly, problematic.

At long last you've actually responded to the point of the thread. Although you too suffer from some ambiguity. At first you say the skeleton is proof he wasn't a hunchback, then later on you accept it might not be Richard's.

If you'd bothered to click on the link you'd have found the following, which would suggest his back wasn't normal.



You may see little point in reinterring the skeleton in Leicester Cathedral, but it is more of a fitting place for the body of a king than a car park. I do think it's a good thing, the study of history is complicated by the fact that it is mostly written by the victors, and having his bones laid to rest in a cathedral would help to counter the popular image manufactured by the Tudor propaganda machine.

If nothing else it brings attention to a period of history prior to the reign of Henry VIII, which can only be a good thing, as that period has been rather neglected of late.

The ambiguity is not mine--i'm not responsible for the remains and the impossibility of determining whether or not they are those of Richard III. I said nothing at all about the point of interring these remains in a cathedral, which is the kind of straw man you typically employ. I'm am specifically pointing out that there is no good reason to suggest that doing so would render any justice to him. I'm not surprised, though, that you can't see such a distinction. I've never known you to display a subtle intellect.

I'm also not surprised to see you peddling that old chestnut about history being written by the victors. Were that true, there would be no basis for questioning the Shakespearean hack job. History consists of a good deal more that what is written. Long, long before these remains were found, the remains of two boys were found under a flight of stairs in the Tower, in the reign of Charles II, and it was assumed then (on about as reliable a basis as is the case here) to be the remains of Edward V and the Duke of York.

Napoleon is responsible for that idiocy about the victors writing history. He was obsessed with history. History and math were his two best subjects at Brienne, before he went on to the École militaire in Paris. But his own life shows the silliness of the contention. Napoleon used to issue bulletins after battles, to declare his victory and fix his version of events. The French weren't fooled--"lies like a bulletin" quickly became a commonplace description of anyone whose veracity was doubtful. Napoleon's whole career gives the lie to the claim. To many in Europe, he was a monster. The English viewed him with as much horror and hate as a later generation would attach to Hitler. He was defeated, the Allies were the victors. Yet many of those who lead armies against his empire are now unknown. Few people have even heard of Suvarov, Kutuzov or John Moore, much less their parts in those wars. But despite the claim that the victors write the history, Napoleon enjoys a good popular reputation in today's world. He is considered a military genius--and undeserved assessment, as he was at best an indifferent battlefield commander and he simply exploited the vastly superior French military system which was already in place by the time he reached the École militaire. His genius was organizational, which in the end meant a lot more to French civil society than it did to the army.

You should keep your nose out of history, you know f*ck-all about it.

Which is substantially more than you know. Well at least now you know who Richard III was, so this thread hasn't been in vain.

Sure, Bubba, whatever you say.

I wouldn't have pegged you as a monarchist izzy.

And you'd be right. I just think that we should acknowledge our long and rich History. I don't think Richard III's remains should be treated any differently from those of Henry VII say.

Well you should izzy.

You've got an underlying Rule Britannia attitude that belies the Post-Modern Euro Lefty image you project here, and which actually makes you worth reading.

Peel back the Pro-Palestinian, anti-American, punk anarchistic projections of today's British Lefty and you will almost always find a bloke who is stirred by "Jerusalem" whether the Blake version or ELP's

It's always Blake's version, that and Sir Hubert Parry. Everything else is a variation on that.

Btw I do think it should be played at England matches, God Save The Queen is the British national anthem.

You're confusing anti-Americanism with anti-Imperialism.

C'mon now izzy; admit Kipling is your favorite poet.