This Is What Killed Richard III

Original Quill wrote:Consistent with what we know.  Richard had already won the battle of Bosworth.  But he was chasing down Richmond (who was getting his hat) to put an end to the Lancastrian claim.

Chance...means more than all the preparation in the world.

Charles Ross wrote:"His intention in making the charge, therefore, is clear enough, his reasons for deciding to make it far less so. In this most historiographically inchoate of battles, many reasons may be suggested, but none can be proved. It may have been that he saw Norfolk's troops already in trouble against the main bulk of the Tudor forces, and that he could not readily engage the remainder of his own forces. It may have been that, already angered by the equivocal replies he had received from the Stanleys, and, seeing from his vantage point that Earl Henry was 'afar off' with only a small force of soldiers about him, 'all inflamed with ire, he struck his horse with his spurs, and runneth out of the une side without [i.e., around] the vanguard against him'. It was, therefore, so Polydore Vergil would have us believe, an impulsive and ill-considered act. Equally, he may have discerned that Sir William Stanley was preparing to engage, or had already engaged, on Henry's behalf, and that it was essential to attack Henry personally before the full weight of the substantial Stanley contingent came in from the north and was committed against him (although that is not what Polydore would have us believe)."

Charles Ross wrote:"On balance, it seems probably that Richard's action was a combination of impulse and calculation. To dispose rapidly of his rival, especially if he had become separated from the main body of his troops, was to be certain ov victory. Whether he wold have done better to wait until he was able to bring his superior force fully into action is again a matter of speculation. Whether desperate, ill-advised or merely premature, Richard's charge came remarkable close to success. It seems likely that he took with him only his own household men and the immediate personal friends who were beside him at the time, rather than the main 'battle' of '1,000 or more knights', as some have supposed. Most of these committed supporters were to share his own fate in the subsequent hand-to-hand fighting. Nevertheless, this small but determined squadron swept through the enemy ranks to close with Henry's immediate bodyguard. Richard himself, cut down Sir William Brandon, Henry's standard-bearer--the only casualty of note in Richmond's side--who could not have been more than a few feet from Henry himself. He then engaged and finally overbore Sir John Cheyne, described as a man of outstanding strength and foritude. At this stage his horse seems to have been killed under him. Two contemporary sources state that he had the chance of a fresh horse and of escape, but refused."

Didge wrote:Which is all fine accept to your earlier point where you claimed he was winning, which he never was.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Which is all fine accept to your earlier point where you claimed he was winning, which he never was.

Well, Ross' point was that Richard was winning, until Stanly entered the battle.  So you've gotta be specific: at which point are you speaking?

Cass wrote:personally I have found this whole process fascinating.

my next question is will they, with the queens permission, do DNA testing on the bones found in the Tower that are supposedly the remains of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York?

Cass wrote:personally I have found this whole process fascinating.

my next question is will they, with the queens permission, do DNA testing on the bones found in the Tower that are supposedly the remains of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York?

Cass wrote:hi guys - quill I just think it would give a definitive answer rather like when they found the bones of Nicholas II and his family and proved conclusively that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia and tracked down her real family. I love a good historical mystery.

Didge - interesting. well I have always thought it is them.

I personally think that Richard III looked the other way and whatisname.....ugh I hate getting old....did the actual deed on behalf of Richard III. Now as to why Henry VII didn't parade that fact loud and proud? Because I think he thought it would remind the people that there were others with a closer claim than him....hence why he married Elizabeth York (no I don't believe she loved or moped for Richard) to strengthen his claim although it grew into a loving and loyal union.

now I do believe that he caused the neglect by his rulings that led to the death of Clarence's son.

Cass wrote:oh heck yeah - Shakespeare was the ultimate Tudor propagandist but I think Richard was a power hungry spoiler little brat who after being given lots of lands and wealth in the north decided he wanted it all after Edward died. he hated Elizabeth Wydeville with a passion cause he was also a snob but he even thrashed his own mother, casting her as a slut basically, in order to show he had the rightful claim to the throne because Edward was an alleged bastard.

he got what he deserved in my opionion, just like the three previous Henry's.

oh what a tangled web they weaved.
ok got to go and get ready for work

byeeeeeeesssss x