Blimey, what have you got against this then?

No profit in it for multinationals or something?

Now we want to know: was Edward IV a legitimate son of Richard Duke of York and so entitled to be Duke of York/King of England?

All of this history is fascinating to me now, but when I was of an age to take advantage of the free History education that was offered me at my Grammar School, I hated the subject, dull boring lists of dates of Kings and Queens with no connection to reality quoted at us by a dull boring old man who couldn't make the subject interesting if he tried, which he didn't - dropped the subject when I was 13 years old, devour every snippet now.

Well, Richard Duke of York was OK with Edward being his son.



Of course, if Edward hadn't been legitimate, then Richard Duke of Gloucester would have been able to inherit the title and claim to the throne from Richard Duke of York.

But he didn't dispute Edward's succession either.



So, Edward's father accepted him as his son, and Edward's brother accepted him as his brother despite the temptation of the title becoming his.



No-one ever produced any actual evidence otherwise.

I think it's a blind alley.

Burying someone in a multi-storey car park? That's wrong on so many levels...

You could nip up to Towton, armed with a battlefield description and soak up some history there.

The bloodiest battle ever fought on British soil was fought there.

The number of dead was comparable (perhaps greater than) the first day of the Somme ... which, when you compare the weapons of swords and axes in the mostly hand-to-hand fighting of 1461 against the machine guns of WWI, takes some doing.

Very good.

History is often written by the victors. In this case the Tudors. So William Shakespeare would have written a contemporary report to make him as disfigured, repulsive and unlikeable as that's how he should be portrayed. According to the Tudors.



I love history. Love it.



A great find.

https://twitter.com/Andr3ssaRojas/statu ... 41/photo/1

https://twitter.com/Andr3ssaRojas/statu ... 41/photo/1

Forgot to say that atleast there was a couple of good things to come out of King Richard's reign.



1. Londoners named poo after him.



2. We can remember the colours of the rainbow thanks to him, well his subsequent demise anyway.

I don't think that "crookback" is the same as "hunchback". "Crookback" is clearly a shortening of "crooked back", which is what he had, and which is how such a condition would appear, and be naturally described. But, wasn't "crookback" his nickname anyway? And did Shakespeare use that word? I thought his phrase was "bunch-back'd". I can understand why as this is only one consonant away from "hunch-back'd" people might jump to conclusions, but Shakespeare was hardly a careless writer, and so whilst the usage of the description "bunch-back'd" [imay[/i have been familiar Shakesepeare's audience, or he may have just invented it, the fact seems to be that he didn't use "hunch" and that is I think certainly no accident.



Thomas More described Richard thus:

"'He was little of stature, ill fetured of limmes, croke backed, his left shoulder much higher than his right,"

... which is interesting, as it uses both the "crooked back" description, as well as expanding on it by pointing out one shoulder was higher than the other.

Richard III was Richard of Gloucester.

His father was Richard of York, he died at the battle of Wakefield in 1460, surely 'twould be he who is noted in the colours of the rainbow thing?