I am a Yorkist until Warwick switched sides, then back to York after Barnet.

Parliament all the way

we should have had a real King Arthur

Or a Geoffrey or a Frederick, or possibly even an Edmund, if various brothers had died in different orders. Not all of them, of course, as any one of them would have changed the course of history in ways we can't predict.

We could still have a King Arthur if Charles opts for the correct forename. But he'll choose George. Like we haven't had enough of them already.

In the meantime, King Alexander Boris of the world.

Cromwell’s cancellation of Christmas has a lot to recommend it.

Pity we couldn't restrict it to every four years, like our own World Cup. Having said that, a lot more retail shops would go out of business without the December mayhem.

Many years later, I discovered that it's actually a Lancashire name--and all at once I had a reason to take a side in the Wars of the Roses.

Such a shame it was the wrong side.

Actually, the real reason I prefer Henry VII is I found all the whole rehabilition of Richard III thing a bit tedious, especially those twats who dug him up. I might have been more partial to him if he had stayed under the carpark.

Bloody hell, we (archaeologists) have enough trouble financing our work anyway and, you object to that?

But he'll choose George.

I think he'll choose Charles. He might have thought of being George when he was younger, but he's been known as Prince Charles for 70 years now, and I think he's media-savvy enough to realise that it's going to be hard for a lot of people to stop thinking of him as Charles now.

The whole Richard III being dug up thing was fascinating, but there are some very very weird people who were involved. I'm particularly thinking of the woman on the TV programme about it who burst into tears at the sight of his bones and starting crying about 'how she couldn't bear to see him just lying there' At the time it got me wondering quite how she would have reacted if a bloke who'd been killed over five hundred years ago had sat up and tried to engage her in conversation.

A good reason for supporting the Tudors is that it means we English can't be held responible for anything that happened since, there not having been an English dynasty.

Bloody hell, we (archaeologists) have enough trouble financing our work anyway and, you object to that?

just think that dead bodies are best left alone, not sure what good it has done digging him and burying him again

The Scots, Dutch and Germans also bail you out of course

I don't want to sound stalky AlanII but are you really an archaeologist? I thought you lived in Lux. Is it big there?

I'm picturing you like Indiana Jones now, complete with hat and whip

And nothing else?

Note the word 'complete'

One thing I did notice about the Richard III circus was the complete absence of current royals. Henry VII dated his reign to the day before Bosworth so he could frame Richard as an usurper. Thus, it seems he is still regarded as de facto rather than a de jure King.

I think Henry VII recognised Richard as legally king (to avoid legal chaos by erasing two years of Government). By declaring his reign from the day before the battle it meant everyone who fought for Richard (really aimed at the Lords/Barons) were technically guilty of high treason.

A legal axe over their heads.

Although Parliament passed a law in 1495 to prevent treason laws from being abused in this way again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1495

Interesting. Thanks.