No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by Tadagee on Jun 26, 2019 10:29:34 PM
British Civil Wars: which side are you? Any why?

The Anarchy: Stephen or Matilda?

The Wars of the Roses: York or Lancaster?

The Civil War: Royalist or Parliamentarian?

TheExcession - 27 Jun 2019 21:00:53 (#63 of 153)

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.

barkis - 27 Jun 2019 21:01:02 (#64 of 153)

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.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:01:54 (#65 of 153)

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

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 21:02:09 (#66 of 153)

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

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 21:03:10 (#67 of 153)

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

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 21:03:34 (#68 of 153)

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

Tadagee - 27 Jun 2019 21:04:29 (#69 of 153)

And nothing else?

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 21:05:27 (#70 of 153)

Note the word 'complete'

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:14:48 (#71 of 153)

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.

YorenInTheNorth - 27 Jun 2019 21:17:10 (#72 of 153)

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.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:17:24 (#73 of 153)

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

YorenInTheNorth - 27 Jun 2019 21:18:16 (#74 of 153)

Interesting. Thanks.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:19:00 (#75 of 153)

It does explain why many in Parliament wanted to crown King Oliver.

YorenInTheNorth - 27 Jun 2019 21:22:30 (#76 of 153)

Good point.

barkis - 27 Jun 2019 21:26:02 (#77 of 153)


And in fact as protector he was king in all but name. He had all the ceremonial stuff. Also he appointed his eldest son to succeed him (though he may not have been compos mentis at the time).

Napoleon, the other strange idol of republicans, certainly hoped to establish a dynasty.

popstar7 - 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 (#78 of 153)

How was Napoleon on Christmas? And dancing on Sunday?

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 21:31:39 (#79 of 153)

He decimalised it to the 10 days of Christmas

barkis - 27 Jun 2019 21:31:52 (#80 of 153)


I think it was mostly "not tonight Josephine".

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:32:51 (#81 of 153)

Napoleon brought back the Catholic Church and invited Pope Pius to his coronation just so he could watch Napoleon crown himself.

whatever you say about him, the dude had style.

YorenInTheNorth - 27 Jun 2019 21:32:54 (#82 of 153)


He took hall a million on a tour of the Moscow Christmas markets in 1812.

Check Subscriptions
Home » History