King Richard III and the Princes in the Tower

[twik]

Of course, if those bodies are *not* the princes, who would they be?

The bit about them being mixed with bits of detritus is interesting - had the bodies been moved some considerable time after death?

[Tedward]

I think you mean martial (as in, of Mars the god of war).

Indeed I did, spell check and quick reply not reading what I wrote. That is spell chack saw it as a valid word. My fault either way.

[Tedward]

Well, this thread got me reading on Wars of the Roses in depth. Part way in and this episode in history would make a far better mini series than Game of Thrones (though I have read the first book of game of thrones not watched the TV show).

[Peter B]

Well, this thread got me reading on Wars of the Roses in depth. Part way in and this episode in history would make a far better mini series than Game of Thrones (though I have read the first book of game of thrones not watched the TV show).

Good thought. My first introduction to the period was a combination of the boardgame "Kingmaker" and Churchill's "History of the English Speaking People". The boardgame is colourful and has a strong sense of narrative ("Visit of French ambassador, move King to Dover") but it's unrealistic in both its time scale and who the powerbrokers and pawns were. Churchill's prose, however, makes for easy reading.

In the meantime, I've been watching the TV series "The Tudors", about King Henry VIII. The current episodes are set in the 1530s, and thus only two generations after the end of the Wars of the Roses. It's also worth noting that, through his mother, Henry VIII was a nephew of the Princes in the Tower.

[Tedward]

Tried to watch the Tudors, if it is the same one, but a lot of emphasis seemed to be in the bedroom, too much for my taste.

Just got as far as Edward IV beating Margrets army near Tewksbury. That crown is well worn and poor old Henry does not know what day of thw week it is, he must feel like pass the parcel.


Edit. Certainly csetting the mood for what may have nor not, happened to the princes and the factions involved.

[twik]

Well, this thread got me reading on Wars of the Roses in depth. Part way in and this episode in history would make a far better mini series than Game of Thrones (though I have read the first book of game of thrones not watched the TV show).

Technically, Shakespeare already did it, with his series on Henry IV, V, VI and Richard III.

[gillianren]

And there's a miniseries of them all called The Hollow Crown that I very much want to see.

[Peter B]

And there's a miniseries of them all called The Hollow Crown that I very much want to see.

You had me excited there, but it seems the series is a recreation of Shakespeare's plays Richard II, Henry IV parts 1 and 2, and Henry V. That's a generation or two before the Wars of the Roses (King Henry V was the martial father of poor, saintly King Henry VI).

[Peter B]

Tried to watch the Tudors, if it is the same one, but a lot of emphasis seemed to be in the bedroom, too much for my taste.

Well, yes, there are quite a few bedroom scenes, but to my pleasure there's also a lot of discussion of religion and politics. I think, for example, that they portrayed Sir Thomas More extremely well - a learned man who insisted that his daughters be well educated, yet who also oversaw the burning of Protestant heretics (and who wrote a history of Richard III!).

Just got as far as Edward IV beating Margrets army near Tewksbury. That crown is well worn and poor old Henry does not know what day of thw week it is, he must feel like pass the parcel.

Edit. Certainly csetting the mood for what may have nor not, happened to the princes and the factions involved.

Oh yes, and it only gets better from here...!

[gillianren]

You had me excited there, but it seems the series is a recreation of Shakespeare's plays Richard II, Henry IV parts 1 and 2, and Henry V. That's a generation or two before the Wars of the Roses (King Henry V was the martial father of poor, saintly King Henry VI).

I couldn't remember which plays it was, I admit, just that it was some of the histories.  Heck of a cast, though.

[Tedward]

Well, this thread got me reading on Wars of the Roses in depth. Part way in and this episode in history would make a far better mini series than Game of Thrones (though I have read the first book of game of thrones not watched the TV show).

Technically, Shakespeare already did it, with his series on Henry IV, V, VI and Richard III.

Yeah but he did not want to upset many people with crowns.

[Tedward]

Tried to watch the Tudors, if it is the same one, but a lot of emphasis seemed to be in the bedroom, too much for my taste.

Well, yes, there are quite a few bedroom scenes, but to my pleasure there's also a lot of discussion of religion and politics. I think, for example, that they portrayed Sir Thomas More extremely well - a learned man who insisted that his daughters be well educated, yet who also oversaw the burning of Protestant heretics (and who wrote a history of Richard III!).

Just got as far as Edward IV beating Margrets army near Tewksbury. That crown is well worn and poor old Henry does not know what day of thw week it is, he must feel like pass the parcel.

Edit. Certainly csetting the mood for what may have nor not, happened to the princes and the factions involved.

Oh yes, and it only gets better from here...!

Picking up on Margret of Anjou, her son Edward, what a nasty piece of work he might have become. And the Stanleys seeping into the tale here and there. Warick lost the plot.

And a loverly Tiptoft, certainly the one to book if it were a panto, who needs day time soap oopera's.

Edit. spilling, new spill chack all over the plice.

[Peter B]

...Edit. spilling, new spill chack all over the plice.

Now you're sounding like a script for Crabtree from "'Allo 'Allo"! :-)

(he appears around the 25 second mark)

[gillianren]

I really need to sit down and watch that whole series.  (Graham bought it for me for my birthday a couple of years ago, largely because I wanted the special features.)  But one thing bothers me about most recent adaptations of that particular era in history--how hard is it to get a redhead as Henry?

[Peter B]

Does it really matter what Henry looks like? The actors playing the other characters also bear little resemblance to the real people they represent.

For me the problem is more about how little he appears to age over the four series, which represent the passage of roughly 15 years. Many actors are also nowhere near the actual ages of the people they represent - Anne Boleyn was 32 when she married King Henry, while Natalie Dormer portrays her as someone in her early twenties.