Richard Reburial On 4 ..

[Elina]

For history lovers. Live coverage of procession through Leicester today on 4 with coverage of burial on Thursday I think? Is that right?

[Elina]

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/uk_national_news/11872043.Richard_III_reburial_at_cathedral/?ref=rss

[jno]

they've got lots of programmes; there was one on the princes in the tower last ngith (as usual, it came to the conclusion that we don't know).

[Elina]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/richard-iii-the-reburial

[Elina]

jno, this is live coverage tonight of procession & his re- burial on Thursday.

[LochNessMonster]

What a pile of old bones. A week of programmes to a old dead king of England and Scotland. zzzzzzzzzz !

Yes it may help the tourist trade, but really.

Rant over, I'm awa to hide again in my loch. :-(

[Jackdaw33]

"we don't know".

Of course we do. There is no way on God's earth that those boys could have disappeared without the King' connivance or knowledge. You might as well re-bury Hitler in full ceremony.

[Elina]

You don't have to watch Nessie ... I did say for history lovers!

[Jackdaw33]

He was never King of Scotland.

[anneasquith]

they should have left him under the car park.( whats left of him )

[jno]

that's what I mean, Elina - they seem to have bought the rights to Richard III (if that's possible) and are covering his whole career in depth.

[Retrochic]

Burying King Richard in Leicester is akin to burying Churchill in Berlin -its a disgrace!

[Elina]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/king-richard-iii-reburial-time-5374281

[jno]

Jackdaw, the programme pointed out that the Tower was under the control of the Duke of Buckingham, who was however secretly transferring his allegiance from Richard to the future Henry VII.

The princes had been declared illegitimate (because their father was already married to someone else), so Richard had no particular reason to get rid of them. But it might have suited Buckngham to kill them and blame Richard, to boost Henry's case.

[LochNessMonster]

Just testing you Jackdaw33.

Well done dude.

[Jackdaw33]

As an ex-history teacher I remember this well. Richard III featured in a booklet called 'Problems of evidence'. The thesis was that because there was no proof which would stand up in a court of law, Richard should be acquitted of all charges. This was when revisionism was at its height. My reply of 'load of b****ks ' was not well received by my examiners.

[Jackdaw33]

Flaming Norah, not the Buckingham theory again.

[jno]

there was a lawyer (American) on the show too: he reckoned the prosecution wouldn't stand a chance. You do need evidence.

The best new evidence the show offered was from David Starkey: he'd discovered that when Tyrrell (the supposed killer) was tried, King Henry and his wife (the princes' sister) went along to watch. From this he deduced that something important, like a confession to the murders, must have happened. And, er, that's it.

That really isn't evidence.

[jno]

the Buckingham theory is as valid as the Richard theory. There's no proof either way.

[Jackdaw33]

Let's put it this way. Richard III was an evil little s0d, who sucked up to his elder brother, Edward IV, but happily connived in the killing of his next brother, George, Duke of Clarence. On Edward's sudden death seized the opportunity to grab the throne. Infanticide did not stand in his way.

[weecalf]

Do they have a death certificate as on is needed to bury ?