Anarchon Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 So can anyone claim the right to be royal then, or is it some gift that bestows certain blood lines? Technically - yes - by right of conquest. You would only need to remove the present Queen in battle - declare yourself King / Queen, disinherit the remaining Royal family and the full line of succession - have yourself crowned (by a willing Archbishop of Canterbury) - annul the Act of Settlement 1701 and any other laws that stand in your way and then hold on to your crown while the people rise up in revolution. Sounds easy , but I doubt very much the UK government or the people would let you get away with it. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 There is some evidence to suggest that he was innocent of their murder, and that Buckingham was the real culprit. However, we'll never know, will we? . No we will never know,which is a shame because if ever i watch the film with Lawrence Olivier playing the part of Richard again,it will never be with same,and will be now viewed more as fiction then fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 No we will never know,which is a shame because if ever i watch the film with Lawrence Olivier playing the part of Richard again,it will never be with same,and will be now viewed more as fiction then fact. Errr.. well it was Shakespeare's play so it was fiction... written about 100 years after the fact.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien52 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Errr.. well it was Shakespeare's play so it was fiction... written about 100 years after the fact.. Spoilsport.Now people will start thinking that Richard III wasn't a sequel to Richard II and Richard I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) Errr.. well it was Shakespeare's play so it was fiction... written about 100 years after the fact.. Point taken about it being a play,but presumably Shakespeare thought the murder of the two princes by Richard (percieved to be evil) was what happened,and even if speculated that presumption must have been widely accepted as fact. Even if the event was only about 100 years before, details of what was widely believed at the time would have been passed on from only two or three generations. ---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 15:17 ---------- Spoilsport.Now people will start thinking that Richard III wasn't a sequel to Richard II and Richard I. :hihi:: Edited February 7, 2013 by janie48 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) Point taken about it being a play,but presumably Shakespeare thought the murder of the princess by Richard (percieved to be evil) was what happened,and even if speculated that presumption must have been widely accepted as fact. Even if the event was only about 100 years before, details of what was widely believed at the time would have been passed on from only two or three generations. They say the winners write history...the Tudors won (Henry 7th) so it's their version of Richard that gets into the public's mind... Edited February 7, 2013 by truman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien52 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Point taken about it being a play,but presumably Shakespeare thought the murder of the princess by Richard (percieved to be evil) was what happened,and even if speculated that presumption must have been widely accepted as fact. Even if the event was only about 100 years before, details of what was widely believed at the time would have been passed on from only two or three generations. ---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 15:17 ---------- :hihi:: 35 years a teacher of History and I didn't know about a princess being murdered by RIII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) 35 years a teacher of History and I didn't know about a princess being murdered by RIII. A minor error since corrected. ---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 16:24 ---------- So Shakespeare apparently got it wrong,Richard wasn't evil after all. So who murdered the two princes? It appears that the mystery is never going to be solved. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274247/Richard-III-unearthed-princes-tower-stay-buried.html#axzz2Jwem6UWJ Just adding an earlier post to show i'm not as thick as assumed. Edited February 7, 2013 by janie48 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Scientists want to make DNA tests on the bones of the princes but the Queen and others have forbidden it I read in 'Daughter of Time' that there was a possibility they had been sent to Richard's sister's court - she was married to the Duke of Burgundy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Scientists want to make DNA tests on the bones of the princes but the Queen and others have forbidden it I read in 'Daughter of Time' that there was a possibility they had been sent to Richard's sister's court - she was married to the Duke of Burgundy I'm surprised the Queen has forbidden it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now