Post by pim on Feb 5, 2013 11:38:29 GMT 10
It's official, the 500-year-old skeleton unearthed in a carpark in the English Midlands is that of Richard III. Who cares? Well, I agree you shouldn't care too much. Some people do go over the top on these things. Apparently there's an outfit called the Richard III Society or some such that labours inceasingly to clear Richard's name. I'd hardly imagine an outfit like the Richard III Society leading a popular uprising to sweep the Windsors out of Buckingham Palace in a Plantagenet Restoration.
But finding his skeleton will end up shedding new light on English history and that does kinda matter.
Please, can I ask a favour? Can we not make this into a "no-brainer republic" thing? It's boring.
The history of the British monarchy - and therefore our own monarchy - is bookended by two very long-lasting dynasties, both of which were/are of 300 years duration. I'm talking about the Plantagenets in the Middle Ages and the Windsors in the here and now. In fact the Windsors are set to mark their 300th anniversary as the Royal Dynasty in 2014. It'll be overshadowed, of course, by the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of WW1 but 2014 marks 300 years since George 1 ascended the Throne and became the first of what we now call the Royal Family to sit on the Throne of the United Kingdom. That was in 1714. The Plantagenets were a bit longer. I think it was from Henry II in the mid 1100s until the Wars of the Roses ended with Richard IIIs death in the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485.
Those two royal Houses are the bookends of English history. Sandwiched in between are the Houses of Tudor and Stuart who were on the Throne in the 1500s and 1600s and during which time England experienced upheaval after upheaval which resulted firstly in the English breaking with Rome in matters of religion, and secondly of Parliament calling the shots and setting the rules.
When Richard died it was the Tudors who took over and, like Julia Gillard today, they had a bad image problem and they always struggled to establish themselves as "legitimate" until the last Tudor, Elizabeth. They were accused of killing off "Merrie" England. In order to establish their legitimacy and safeguard their legacy they had to do a propaganda job on the Plantagenets - particularly the last one. And for that they used Shakespeare. His play, Richard III is the one that sets the template for every fascist totalitarian dictator that has ever lived since then. Richard III has had a job done on him by the Tudors and I suspect that in the coming years the record is going to be put straight. What really did happen to the little "Princes in the Tower"? Was Richard framed by the Tudors?
In the meantime if you like historical novels I'd recommend Sharon Penman's excellent historical novel of Richard III called The Sunne in Splendour. She writes very well about English history - for an American!!
But finding his skeleton will end up shedding new light on English history and that does kinda matter.
Please, can I ask a favour? Can we not make this into a "no-brainer republic" thing? It's boring.
The history of the British monarchy - and therefore our own monarchy - is bookended by two very long-lasting dynasties, both of which were/are of 300 years duration. I'm talking about the Plantagenets in the Middle Ages and the Windsors in the here and now. In fact the Windsors are set to mark their 300th anniversary as the Royal Dynasty in 2014. It'll be overshadowed, of course, by the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of WW1 but 2014 marks 300 years since George 1 ascended the Throne and became the first of what we now call the Royal Family to sit on the Throne of the United Kingdom. That was in 1714. The Plantagenets were a bit longer. I think it was from Henry II in the mid 1100s until the Wars of the Roses ended with Richard IIIs death in the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485.
Those two royal Houses are the bookends of English history. Sandwiched in between are the Houses of Tudor and Stuart who were on the Throne in the 1500s and 1600s and during which time England experienced upheaval after upheaval which resulted firstly in the English breaking with Rome in matters of religion, and secondly of Parliament calling the shots and setting the rules.
When Richard died it was the Tudors who took over and, like Julia Gillard today, they had a bad image problem and they always struggled to establish themselves as "legitimate" until the last Tudor, Elizabeth. They were accused of killing off "Merrie" England. In order to establish their legitimacy and safeguard their legacy they had to do a propaganda job on the Plantagenets - particularly the last one. And for that they used Shakespeare. His play, Richard III is the one that sets the template for every fascist totalitarian dictator that has ever lived since then. Richard III has had a job done on him by the Tudors and I suspect that in the coming years the record is going to be put straight. What really did happen to the little "Princes in the Tower"? Was Richard framed by the Tudors?
In the meantime if you like historical novels I'd recommend Sharon Penman's excellent historical novel of Richard III called The Sunne in Splendour. She writes very well about English history - for an American!!
