Was Richard III real?

On this very forum, I've seen that we can't rely upon the portraits of
R3 as genuine, the source material is biased and any ideas are without
basis. If we take this seriously it raises the question: did Richard
exist? Was he invented by Thomas More? Did Edward V survive, but was
a worse cretin than Henry VI who also died in 1485 of pure displeasure
& melancholy? Henry VII stepped to marry their sister to hush up the
situation & Richard III invented to explain what happened 1483-5.

You may say this is twaddle. Does that include all of it? (g.)

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> On this very forum, I've seen that we can't rely upon the portraits
of
> R3 as genuine, the source material is biased and any ideas are
without
> basis. If we take this seriously it raises the question: did
Richard
> exist? Was he invented by Thomas More? Did Edward V survive, but
was
> a worse cretin than Henry VI who also died in 1485 of pure
displeasure
> & melancholy? Henry VII stepped to marry their sister to hush up
the
> situation & Richard III invented to explain what happened 1483-5.
>
> You may say this is twaddle. Does that include all of it? (g.)

Not twaddle at all, David. In fact I believe this is the most
important contribution to 15th century studies that has ever been
made. Once it is realised Richard was an imaginary character it all
falls into place. That is why nobody can locate the site of Bosworth
Field. Why there are no surviving Council records for the reign. Most
importantly of all, as an imaginary character Richard III will
obviously not have died. In fact, I'm pretty usre that he is one of
the three imaginary characters who in the 1950s was identified by my
own brother living quietly in some secret location at the bottom of
our garden and answered to the names of Goodny, Badny and Miss Tattle.

I leave it to you, David, to decide which of the three he was.....

Marie

Strange! I thought it was twaddle!

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "David"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > On this very forum, I've seen that we can't rely upon the
portraits
> of
> > R3 as genuine, the source material is biased and any ideas are
> without
> > basis. If we take this seriously it raises the question: did
> Richard
> > exist? Was he invented by Thomas More? Did Edward V survive, but
> was
> > a worse cretin than Henry VI who also died in 1485 of pure
> displeasure
> > & melancholy? Henry VII stepped to marry their sister to hush up
> the
> > situation & Richard III invented to explain what happened 1483-5.
> >
> > You may say this is twaddle. Does that include all of it? (g.)
>
> Not twaddle at all, David. In fact I believe this is the most
> important contribution to 15th century studies that has ever been
> made. Once it is realised Richard was an imaginary character it all
> falls into place. That is why nobody can locate the site of Bosworth
> Field. Why there are no surviving Council records for the reign.
Most
> importantly of all, as an imaginary character Richard III will
> obviously not have died. In fact, I'm pretty usre that he is one of
> the three imaginary characters who in the 1950s was identified by my
> own brother living quietly in some secret location at the bottom of
> our garden and answered to the names of Goodny, Badny and Miss
Tattle.
>
> I leave it to you, David, to decide which of the three he was.....
>
> Marie

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Strange! I thought it was twaddle!

So did Miss Tattle. I told her to think again - why does she think
there's no tomb and no body?
Marie

PS I'm trying to start World War III? Incidentally the folk of
Tirconnell hadn't caused any English folks any trouble until the
English started interfering with them. And by the by the Irish didn't
regard the English as altogether civilised. . .
Marie
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "David"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > On this very forum, I've seen that we can't rely upon the
> portraits
> > of
> > > R3 as genuine, the source material is biased and any ideas are
> > without
> > > basis. If we take this seriously it raises the question: did
> > Richard
> > > exist? Was he invented by Thomas More? Did Edward V survive,
but
> > was
> > > a worse cretin than Henry VI who also died in 1485 of pure
> > displeasure
> > > & melancholy? Henry VII stepped to marry their sister to hush
up
> > the
> > > situation & Richard III invented to explain what happened 1483-
5.
> > >
> > > You may say this is twaddle. Does that include all of it? (g.)
> >
> > Not twaddle at all, David. In fact I believe this is the most
> > important contribution to 15th century studies that has ever been
> > made. Once it is realised Richard was an imaginary character it
all
> > falls into place. That is why nobody can locate the site of
Bosworth
> > Field. Why there are no surviving Council records for the reign.
> Most
> > importantly of all, as an imaginary character Richard III will
> > obviously not have died. In fact, I'm pretty usre that he is one
of
> > the three imaginary characters who in the 1950s was identified by
my
> > own brother living quietly in some secret location at the bottom
of
> > our garden and answered to the names of Goodny, Badny and Miss
> Tattle.
> >
> > I leave it to you, David, to decide which of the three he was.....
> >
> > Marie

The serious point I was making was that our perception of Richard
may have more to do with the dynamic acting of Olivier and the
malevolently splendid character created by Shakespeare than any
reality! I was of course satirising the attitude of some Ricardians
who seem to be in a state of denial if anything bad is said about
Richard.

The Irish question is a tragedy with uncivilised atrocities on both
sides then & now. The predatory nature of people can't leave it
alone, as with the present bustup over Iraq.

It reminds me of a joke. A woman was shopping for cards. 20% were
'get well' cards. 80% 'get stuffed' cards!



--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "David"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Strange! I thought it was twaddle!
>
> So did Miss Tattle. I told her to think again - why does she think
> there's no tomb and no body?
> Marie
>
> PS I'm trying to start World War III? Incidentally the folk of
> Tirconnell hadn't caused any English folks any trouble until the
> English started interfering with them. And by the by the Irish
didn't
> regard the English as altogether civilised. . .
> Marie
> >
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > --- In , "David"
> > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > On this very forum, I've seen that we can't rely upon the
> > portraits
> > > of
> > > > R3 as genuine, the source material is biased and any ideas are
> > > without
> > > > basis. If we take this seriously it raises the question: did
> > > Richard
> > > > exist? Was he invented by Thomas More? Did Edward V survive,
> but
> > > was
> > > > a worse cretin than Henry VI who also died in 1485 of pure
> > > displeasure
> > > > & melancholy? Henry VII stepped to marry their sister to hush
> up
> > > the
> > > > situation & Richard III invented to explain what happened
1483-
> 5.
> > > >
> > > > You may say this is twaddle. Does that include all of it?
(g.)
> > >
> > > Not twaddle at all, David. In fact I believe this is the most
> > > important contribution to 15th century studies that has ever
been
> > > made. Once it is realised Richard was an imaginary character it
> all
> > > falls into place. That is why nobody can locate the site of
> Bosworth
> > > Field. Why there are no surviving Council records for the reign.
> > Most
> > > importantly of all, as an imaginary character Richard III will
> > > obviously not have died. In fact, I'm pretty usre that he is one
> of
> > > the three imaginary characters who in the 1950s was identified
by
> my
> > > own brother living quietly in some secret location at the bottom
> of
> > > our garden and answered to the names of Goodny, Badny and Miss
> > Tattle.
> > >
> > > I leave it to you, David, to decide which of the three he
was.....
> > >
> > > Marie

Is he real?!!!

That's a new take on the situation.

Dora

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Hey, I thought it was good!

Dora

--- mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
> --- In ,
> "David"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Strange! I thought it was twaddle!
>
> So did Miss Tattle. I told her to think again - why
> does she think
> there's no tomb and no body?
> Marie
>
> PS I'm trying to start World War III? Incidentally
> the folk of
> Tirconnell hadn't caused any English folks any
> trouble until the
> English started interfering with them. And by the by
> the Irish didn't
> regard the English as altogether civilised. . .
> Marie
> >
> > --- In ,
> "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > --- In ,
> "David"
> > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > On this very forum, I've seen that we can't
> rely upon the
> > portraits
> > > of
> > > > R3 as genuine, the source material is biased
> and any ideas are
> > > without
> > > > basis. If we take this seriously it raises
> the question: did
> > > Richard
> > > > exist? Was he invented by Thomas More? Did
> Edward V survive,
> but
> > > was
> > > > a worse cretin than Henry VI who also died in
> 1485 of pure
> > > displeasure
> > > > & melancholy? Henry VII stepped to marry
> their sister to hush
> up
> > > the
> > > > situation & Richard III invented to explain
> what happened 1483-
> 5.
> > > >
> > > > You may say this is twaddle. Does that
> include all of it? (g.)
> > >
> > > Not twaddle at all, David. In fact I believe
> this is the most
> > > important contribution to 15th century studies
> that has ever been
> > > made. Once it is realised Richard was an
> imaginary character it
> all
> > > falls into place. That is why nobody can locate
> the site of
> Bosworth
> > > Field. Why there are no surviving Council
> records for the reign.
> > Most
> > > importantly of all, as an imaginary character
> Richard III will
> > > obviously not have died. In fact, I'm pretty
> usre that he is one
> of
> > > the three imaginary characters who in the 1950s
> was identified by
> my
> > > own brother living quietly in some secret
> location at the bottom
> of
> > > our garden and answered to the names of Goodny,
> Badny and Miss
> > Tattle.
> > >
> > > I leave it to you, David, to decide which of the
> three he was.....
> > >
> > > Marie
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

In a message dated 3/22/03 5:05:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
marie@... writes:


> . Once it is realised Richard was an imaginary character it all
> falls into place. That is why nobody can locate the site of Bosworth
> Field. Why there are no surviving Council records for the reign.

I want to say this is foolish, but it could be true. My only argument is that
Richard was so hated by the Tudors that all the Council records were possibly
destroyed during Henry VII's reign
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/22/03 5:05:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> marie@r... writes:
>
>
> > . Once it is realised Richard was an imaginary character it all
> > falls into place. That is why nobody can locate the site of
Bosworth
> > Field. Why there are no surviving Council records for the reign.
>
> I want to say this is foolish, but it could be true. My only
argument is that
> Richard was so hated by the Tudors that all the Council records
were possibly
> destroyed during Henry VII's reign
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{

Perhaps I should just go on record here, for anyone at all confused.
It was all a joke!. I do not believe that Richard III was imaginary.
Nor that fairies are real (barring Tolkien's Elves, of course!).
It was a useful little exercise, I thought, as well as fun, in
showing how easy it is to argue anything if one picks only the
evidence that happens to support one's case, and ignores the rest.

It is an odd thing, though. I used to visit the Guildhall Library at
one time, when I lived near London. There seemed to be council
records for every reign except those of Edward IV and Richard III. It
could make you wonder if they weren't deliberately destroyed.
Marie
>
>
>

Hi Marie & Victoria

<That is why nobody can locate the site of Bosworth Field. Why there
are no surviving Council records for the reign. >

Perhaps the York City Councillors had a mass hallucination? Maybe
there was summat in bread up there? Maybe we should just ignore that
reference to the 'crochebak' who Tudor 'buried like a dog' because if
there was no bloke then there was no hunchback and the Tudors made
him all up...

Wasn't this were we Ricardians came in? :)

< It is an odd thing, though. I used to visit the Guildhall Library
at one time, when I lived near London. There seemed to be council
records for every reign except those of Edward IV and Richard III. It
could make you wonder if they weren't deliberately destroyed.>

Imagine how I felt when I was told that the Durham Cathedral Rolls
for R3's reign had also 'been lost', yet all from H6 to 1482 are
there, as is the Tudor record from 1486 right up to lods in H8's
reign, when I gave up looking at the documents and walked away
muttering 'And they tell me there was no deliberate attempt to
falsify the records...'.

Bah!

Lorraine

In a message dated 3/25/03 4:37:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
marie@... writes:


> It is an odd thing, though. I used to visit the Guildhall Library at
> one time, when I lived near London. There seemed to be council
> records for every reign except those of Edward IV and Richard III. It
> could make you wonder if they weren't deliberately destroyed.
> Marie

I think they were. History repeats itself right? Well when Horemheb became
pharaoh after Tutankhamun was murdered, he made sure every likeness, every
record, every mentioning of King Tut's name was erased or destroyed. That's
why when the tomb was discovered in 1922, precious little information was
known about him. Could Henry VII have ordered all records of Edward IV and
Richard III to be destroyed?
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

In case you hadn't guessed I was only joking about Richard's role
in History.

You're quite right about things going up in smoke. This may be
deliberate or accidental. I've had quite a few clear outs in my
life.

Do people care about the dead? Richard I would say didn't respect
his dead brother & King: Edward IV, which was all too evident!!! No
more than than Henry VII respected Richard, who, after all, would've
cleaved him in two at Bosworth.



--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/25/03 4:37:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> marie@r... writes:
>
>
> > It is an odd thing, though. I used to visit the Guildhall Library
at
> > one time, when I lived near London. There seemed to be council
> > records for every reign except those of Edward IV and Richard III.
It
> > could make you wonder if they weren't deliberately destroyed.
> > Marie
>
> I think they were. History repeats itself right? Well when Horemheb
became
> pharaoh after Tutankhamun was murdered, he made sure every likeness,
every
> record, every mentioning of King Tut's name was erased or destroyed.
That's
> why when the tomb was discovered in 1922, precious little
information was
> known about him. Could Henry VII have ordered all records of Edward
IV and
> Richard III to be destroyed?
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>

In a message dated 3/25/03 6:56:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:


> In case you hadn't guessed I was only joking about Richard's role
> in History.
>
> You're quite right about things going up in smoke. This may be
> deliberate or accidental. I've had quite a few clear outs in my
> life.
>

I guessed it was a joke at first, I'm just trying to shed light now on what
could have happened to those records.
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

Richard has also given quite a few people a good laugh as well.

Records get destroyed. Vergil said many were burned. It may be
that people were ashamed of what Richard did & wanted to blot out
his memory. He did trample over the legal and moral norms of the
time, after all. Croyland makes clear his dismay...& this may've
been widespread!

I would also point out that in England many items are kept in
private collections. The Leicester Museum claim to have found a
piece of flag & a spur on the battle site at Bosworth & in 1945 a
large pit full of horse bones was found, which was probably from
the battle.

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/25/03 6:56:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@y... writes:
>
>
> > In case you hadn't guessed I was only joking about Richard's role
> > in History.
> >
> > You're quite right about things going up in smoke. This may be
> > deliberate or accidental. I've had quite a few clear outs in my
> > life.
> >
>
> I guessed it was a joke at first, I'm just trying to shed light now
on what
> could have happened to those records.
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Richard has also given quite a few people a good laugh as well.
>
> Records get destroyed. Vergil said many were burned. It may be
> that people were ashamed of what Richard did & wanted to blot out
> his memory. He did trample over the legal and moral norms of the
> time, after all. Croyland makes clear his dismay...& this may've
> been widespread!
>
> I would also point out that in England many items are kept in
> private collections. The Leicester Museum claim to have found a
> piece of flag & a spur on the battle site at Bosworth & in 1945 a
> large pit full of horse bones was found, which was probably from
> the battle.

Or the remains of a medieval glue factory?
Marie
>
> --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote:
> > In a message dated 3/25/03 6:56:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > willison2001@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > In case you hadn't guessed I was only joking about Richard's
role
> > > in History.
> > >
> > > You're quite right about things going up in smoke. This may be
> > > deliberate or accidental. I've had quite a few clear outs in
my
> > > life.
> > >
> >
> > I guessed it was a joke at first, I'm just trying to shed light
now
> on what
> > could have happened to those records.
> > Victoria
> >
> > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> >
> >
> >