Archaeologists are DNA testing some bones they've found to see if they might be the remains of Richard III. Are there any other members of the Royal Family....

[seeker]

where DNA testing might produce interesting results?

What a joy to find this discussion today, so sorry to have missed it yesterday.
Eleanor of Aquitaine is my absolute heroine, talking of powerful medieval women. Queen of France to one king and Queen of England with another. Went on crusade, Duchess in her own right and crossed the Pyrenees in winter to fetch a bride for her son, Richard the Lionheart, at the age of 68 (or possibly 67)
What a woman.

The boiled in oil thing always makes me feel squirmy, and gives me the shivers.

Someone explained further up the thread - Shakespeare was writing propaganda for Elizabeth I.

Boiled in oil is horrible.

happy - ooh, yes!

And if you want a strong medieval women - Isabella of France gets my vote.

But how did one play by Shakespeare manage to cloud the view of so many people?

He was the Spielberg of his day Vaga. Just look at how many people believe Braveheart is historically accurate. (Not that Spielberg directed Braveheart but you know what I mean.)

I think partly because it is such a brilliant play. King John is a lot more shite, for example.

I think as well, it fits well with that very nineteenth-century, Empire and Queen view of history where you study kings as distinctive heroes or villains, never anything much in between. He's a 'baddie' partly because he's seen as the end of the medieval era, the end of the 'dark ages', whereas Henry VII's dynasty saw the founding of the Church of England and all sorts of Good Things.

But in reality, John was a better king for England than the Lionheart ever was, don't you think LRD?

Oh, yes.

At least John was here I suppose.

Can I recommend the most fabulous book, which I have just read:
'Winter King' by Thomas Penn. It's biographical but absolutely gripping and paints a vivid picture of Henry VII. I studied his reign at university and thought I knew my stuff but this really did bring him to life, beyond pastiche and folklore. At times it felt like I was walking through his head.

I'm of the view that short reigns are usually unfairly viewed as 'bad reigns' (RIII, Mary Tudor, etc.) by dint of the fact that they are so transient and fleeting. It's very hard to get an overall view of policy and ability, not least when it's 500 or so years down the line and with limited primary sources at one's disposal. It's interesting how, even now, we pit Richard III and Henry Tudor against one another and slug it out over who had the strongest claim to the throne. Essentially it came down to the fact that, at Bosworth that day, Henry Tudor won the battle. And that came down to tactics and luck as battles always do (Wellington spoke of Waterloo as "a damn close run thing". Both Richard and Henry were brave and tactical soldiers and leaders. They were also hungry for the crown. You could argue (and I do) that this isn't the first example of a lesser claimant winning the throne on the toss of a battle. Harald and William 'The Conquerer' spring to mind.

This is the power of history - when you can still hear the battle and the blood thudding, centuries on.

On an aside, Mary Tudor! Fascinating woman. Kathy Burke's portrayal of her in the Elizabeth (that film was so factually incorrect it made my brain boil) was the stuff of pantomime.

How do you feel about portrayal of Mary, Kitstwins?

He did win at Stoke Field too, though.

I like the idea of short=bad, I need to sit down and think about that. What about George VI, though? Less than 20 years, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything bad about him. Or maybe it is too close to the present.

I'll look out that book.

Granted he was a cruel, lying bastard who managed to lose vast swathes of the Angevin empire, but he was an excellent administrator, involving the royal court in local justice up and down the country and introducing the first professionial borough coroners.

Surely saying women weren't oppressed/secondary to men in the middle ages because a handful did great things, is like saying apartheid never happened and blacks weren't oppressed because a few stood up to authority, became famous politicians/singers/sports stars.

Oops, sorry, the conversation has moved on. That reply was to Vaga regarding King John.

But I never said anything like that, scheherezade. Nor did anyone else so far as I can see. I just objected to someone summing up what a woman 'is' as property. That might have been her legal status but it doesn't make it what she was.

I think the opposite view, if we're using an apartheid analogy, would be someone saying 'oh, well, that poor man Nelson Mandela, sadly he was just a pawn in the white people's world'. It would be an awful thing to say and disrespectful to his immense achievements.

Another side note, re Robin Hood Prince of Thieves.. I thought he turned the baby so it could be born - he mentioned the baby was turned the wrong way, then said he had seen a procedure done to horses - so it sounded to me like the baby was breech and he turned it.

anyway... as you were... I'm enjoying reading all this information

Turnip it's marvellous! But a bit sensationalist. Jane Grey was initially incarcerated in the tower and, even when convicted of high treason, was not executed until Wyatt's failed rebellion a few months later when it became clear that she was going to be a continuing danger to the safety of Mary's reign as the focal point for Protestant plots. I think Mary reluctantly signed her death warrant. There is evidence that she stalled on signing it. Interestingly, Mary also chucked Elizabeth in the tower during her reign and I think she came within a whisper of having her death warrant signed. Certainly, members of Mary's privy council were pushing her towards it, but again she resisted. History is so nearly something else, but for a waver, a chance, a change of mind and moment, a disease.

LRD I think George VI's reign, whilst shorter than expected (he died relatively young, in his fifties?) could not be classed as brief. Plus, Kingship was different then; more figurehead than actual ruler so maybe it has less of an impact;

Yes, fair point, that makes sense.

This is my most favourite thread in the history of forever :)

History rules

LRD Your post "He's a 'baddie' partly because he's seen as the end of the medieval era, the end of the 'dark ages', whereas Henry VII's dynasty saw the founding of the Church of England and all sorts of Good Things" reminded me of 1066 and All That .

See Henry V only reigned for 9 years, and is regarded as a good king, but I do agree there seems to be a general idea that long = good.

Edward III is regarded by many to be the greatest king of England (if you discount the 'Good Parliament; right at the very end) and he reigned for 50 years.

Ooh, I am flattered sorrel! I like your name, too.