Well I went to Newark on Trent today which is a town 14 miles up the river from Nottingham and was in the 1640's the home to the Royalist garrison while Nottingham was the Parliamentarian garrison home during the English Civil war. Also it is the home of King John's Castle so like Nottingham it has a lot of history but still has quite a few ELizabethan buildings still in use today and in beautiful condition.
Anyway I went on a river cruise and this was one of those photographs I took.
Is that who I think it is in the user pic? Bruce Greenwood?
Yep. I fell in love with Greenwood in STXI and hope to god he's in the new one - March 17, 2013. They just annouced the title too: Star Trek: Into Darkness. I'm intregued and it has Cummerbach as the badie (my guess, based on the name and rumours, as Gary Mitchell) and I WANT IT SO BADLY.
::takes deep breath::
I've been a Trekie since before I could talk. If you can't tell.
I always found English history fasinating, partiuclarly the way the nation was able to convert to a constinutional monarchy with such relative ease. I took a class in college about just such a thing - the rise of democracy and basic politcal history of the UK, France, and Germany - and I've long forgotten most the salient points, only that, again, it was fasinating.
I have actually been and spent vacation time in his home town. My friend Patricia in Toronto comes from his hometown, Rouyn Nornada in Quebec.
I wrote a review of the Star Trek movie way back in 2009 for Ciao consumer and review site but recently posted it in here This is a link to My 2009 Star Trek Review (http://melodysparks.livejournal.com/24988.html/)
I've only been as far as Niagra Falls into Canada, and that was for a breif school trip (fun fact: we got abandoned at the Hersey store on the other side of the Rainbow Bridge by our driver because he couldn't leagally enter the country, so we had to wait until our chaperones could get a rental car and shuttle us in groups of 4 to our hotel, 10 miles away.)
Ah, ST. When my mom was still living down here, I think we watched that movie 1x a week for a whole year. Good times.
War of the Roses? Oh lovely. Tell me what you know.
I went to Leicester today. In Grey Friars Street, there is a parking lot that is planned to be dug up and developed however the University of Leicester stepped in because it was thought to be the site of Grey Friars Church and the possible buriel site of King RIchard III
Yesterday University of Leicester archaeological team revealed their historical findings of skeleton with apparent battle wounds and curvature of the spine.
I quote "it was announced there is strong circumstantial evidence that the human remains discovered at the Grey Friars site could be Richard III.
The remains had suffered injuries consistent with battle wounds. The man also had severe scoliosis (a form of curvature of the spine). But he did not have kyphosis and therefore did not have a 'hunch-back' as described by some Tudor sources.
The official press statement outlines five significant aspects of the remains, which have been carefully exhumed and are now in a secret location:
1. The remains – a fully articulated skeleton – appear to be of an adult male.
2. The skeleton was found in what is believed to be the choir of the church, the area reported in the historical record as the burial place of King Richard III.
3. The back of the skull appears to have suffered a significant injury consistent with a blow from a bladed implement.
4. A barbed iron arrowhead was found between vertebrae of the upper back.
5. The skeleton has spinal abnormalities - probably severe scoliosis, which would have made the right shoulder appear higher than the left. The skeleton does not have kyphosis – ie. was not a hunchback."
The remains have been carefully excavated and transported for DNA analysis with a decendant of the King.
It could rewrite a little bit of history with the findings if indeed the body is of Richard III
i've heard about that. It's all very curious, the whole situation. not that he was burried obscurely, but that Henry Tudor ever managed to become king at all. just think how history would be different if, say, Elizabeth of York had been made queen in her own right? or if she and Henry VII had been crowned corulers.
He became King because he defeated Richard in battle. He was the last king of England to win his throne on the field of battle.
Henry VII was a usurper, paranoid and very much a mummys boy. HIs mother Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby was formiddable, ambitious, rutheless and she conspired with Edward IVs dowager queen, Elizabeth Woodville against Richard to marry Henry to Elizabeth and have influence herself in the country. She refused to be called DOweger Queen Mother and even stylized herself as Margaret R. which usually meant regina and took the role of regent when Henry VII died before his son was crowned instead of Elizabeth of York.
In my opinion she may have been responsible for the deaths of the two princes because Richard adored and doted on his nephews.
Margret Beaufort, from everything I've heard about her, is just a nasty person. kinda gotta admire her for getting her son on the throne like that, and shudder to think what giving birth at 13 must have been like, but.... she was a terrible, terrible person.
It is thought that his body was taken away so as not to be desecrated by Henry and his followers. The Grey Friars Franciscan Friary where he was buried was raized to the ground during the desolution of the monestaries by Henry VIII and the ground covered. SOme believe his remains were exhumed and thrown in the River Soar
ANd of course Shakespeare was a favourtie of the Tudors so his play helped change history and perceptions of Richard. In his city, York he was well regarded, loved and thought of as a generous well respected man and the total oppersite to that of the character the Tudors painted him which was more like of Richard II who was a despot
the version I heard had the lancasters hiding it to keep it from being a york shrine, or something of the sort.
yeah. still, of all the yorks, I'm most of a fan of Edward IV. regardless of his reasons, richard taking the throne from his nephew was very pourly done.
I think he was trying to protect them because they were far too young to rule and the Tudors were proving to be nasty pieces of work. I think he took the role of Regent but after their deaths as the remaining male heir to the throne he took it then for his own. Even if Prince Edward had been crowned he still wasnt old enough to rule without a regent until his majority.
Historically Edward III was denied his throne by his mother Isabella who was regent because he was only 15 when he was crowned. But she and her "consort" Roger Mortimer conspired to keep the throne from him. At the age of 19 he seized control from his mother and executed Mortimer (That actual historical event took place at Nottingham.)
Richard had already set in motion plans for Edward V coronation but an assembly of lords and commoners declared that Edward IVs marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid and all their children illegitimate and ineligible for the crown. Those lords consisted of a lot of Tudor followers. Elizabeth Woodvilles eldest two sons Thomas Grey, 1st Marquess of Dorset and Richard Grey were supporters of the Lancastrians. Richard Grey, Elizabeths brother and one of thier friends were eventually arrested and executed couple of months prior to the Princes disappearing. Elizabeths father was a Lancastrian.
A fait acompli I think. All plotting against the Plantagentets to sieze the throne.
I thought Elizabeth Woodville's Grey sons were yorkist?
*shakes head* so many different versions of things floating around out there. all I know is, every time a king has a wife someone else doesn't like, she's called a witch, and that at one time or another it seems most major figures in Engish history seem to have been declared illegitamite.
Richard Grey had lands in Wales and was constable of Chester. Chester borders Lancaster and the traditional and historical Welsh border is the River Dee which flows through Chester.
The Tudors originally were Welsh. Henry Tudor was born in Wales. His father and grandfather were Welsh his mother was Lancastrian.
Thomas Grey was part of a rebellion against Richard III. When the rebellion failed he fled to Brittany to join Henry Tudor
like i said, it's been years since i've read a proper history book on the matter. though, admittedly, I suppose everyone was "yorkist" when the fight for the crown was amongst Edward IV, Richard III, and George Duke of Clarence and their descendants.
As they say history was written by the victors. How much truth was buried by the Tudors?
Also the cut throat world of the court, its not surprising that changes of allegience were made for enough power lands and wealth. How many titles and lands were promised by the Tudors to usurp the Plantagenets?
ALl the scheming stopped when WIlliam and Mary came to the throne and certain laws were changed. but sonsidering the previous 150 years had been filled with religious turmoil things were becoming more civilised.
WOW I am really testing my historical knowledge tonight. Some of the facts I have had to double check in one of my books. I have this rather large book about all the Kings and Queens of England & Great BRitain from William I
one of my ambitions in life is to read the biography of every US president and the definitive history of each war the US has been involved in, and then to move on to British royalty and assorted history.
another one of my ambitions is to read the encylopedia, but they stopped making print versions, so I guess that will never happen now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterfish
no subject
Date: 2012-09-12 06:15 pm (UTC)::facepalm::
lovely pic, bb
no subject
Date: 2012-09-12 07:41 pm (UTC)Anyway I went on a river cruise and this was one of those photographs I took.
Is that who I think it is in the user pic? Bruce Greenwood?
no subject
Date: 2012-09-12 07:46 pm (UTC)::takes deep breath::
I've been a Trekie since before I could talk. If you can't tell.
I always found English history fasinating, partiuclarly the way the nation was able to convert to a constinutional monarchy with such relative ease. I took a class in college about just such a thing - the rise of democracy and basic politcal history of the UK, France, and Germany - and I've long forgotten most the salient points, only that, again, it was fasinating.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-12 07:59 pm (UTC)I wrote a review of the Star Trek movie way back in 2009 for Ciao consumer and review site but recently posted it in here This is a link to My 2009 Star Trek Review (http://melodysparks.livejournal.com/24988.html/)
no subject
Date: 2012-09-12 08:08 pm (UTC)Ah, ST. When my mom was still living down here, I think we watched that movie 1x a week for a whole year. Good times.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-12 08:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-12 08:14 pm (UTC)we, of course, did not get to go. but it was a pretty place when I went.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-12 09:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-12 09:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-13 09:39 pm (UTC)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9540207/Richard-III-skeleton-reveals-hunchback-king.html
Incidentially Richard III rode out to Bosworth Field from Nottingham Castle
no subject
Date: 2012-09-13 09:35 pm (UTC)I went to Leicester today. In Grey Friars Street, there is a parking lot that is planned to be dug up and developed however the University of Leicester stepped in because it was thought to be the site of Grey Friars Church and the possible buriel site of King RIchard III
Yesterday University of Leicester archaeological team revealed their historical findings of skeleton with apparent battle wounds and curvature of the spine.
I quote "it was announced there is strong circumstantial evidence that the human remains discovered at the Grey Friars site could be Richard III.
The remains had suffered injuries consistent with battle wounds. The man also had severe scoliosis (a form of curvature of the spine). But he did not have kyphosis and therefore did not have a 'hunch-back' as described by some Tudor sources.
The official press statement outlines five significant aspects of the remains, which have been carefully exhumed and are now in a secret location:
1. The remains – a fully articulated skeleton – appear to be of an adult male.
2. The skeleton was found in what is believed to be the choir of the church, the area reported in the historical record as the burial place of King Richard III.
3. The back of the skull appears to have suffered a significant injury consistent with a blow from a bladed implement.
4. A barbed iron arrowhead was found between vertebrae of the upper back.
5. The skeleton has spinal abnormalities - probably severe scoliosis, which would have made the right shoulder appear higher than the left. The skeleton does not have kyphosis – ie. was not a hunchback."
The remains have been carefully excavated and transported for DNA analysis with a decendant of the King.
It could rewrite a little bit of history with the findings if indeed the body is of Richard III
I took a couple of photos of the site.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-13 10:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-13 11:12 pm (UTC)Henry VII was a usurper, paranoid and very much a mummys boy. HIs mother Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby was formiddable, ambitious, rutheless and she conspired with Edward IVs dowager queen, Elizabeth Woodville against Richard to marry Henry to Elizabeth and have influence herself in the country. She refused to be called DOweger Queen Mother and even stylized herself as Margaret R. which usually meant regina and took the role of regent when Henry VII died before his son was crowned instead of Elizabeth of York.
In my opinion she may have been responsible for the deaths of the two princes because Richard adored and doted on his nephews.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-13 11:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-13 11:24 pm (UTC)ANd of course Shakespeare was a favourtie of the Tudors so his play helped change history and perceptions of Richard. In his city, York he was well regarded, loved and thought of as a generous well respected man and the total oppersite to that of the character the Tudors painted him which was more like of Richard II who was a despot
no subject
Date: 2012-09-13 11:28 pm (UTC)yeah. still, of all the yorks, I'm most of a fan of Edward IV. regardless of his reasons, richard taking the throne from his nephew was very pourly done.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-13 11:37 pm (UTC)Historically Edward III was denied his throne by his mother Isabella who was regent because he was only 15 when he was crowned. But she and her "consort" Roger Mortimer conspired to keep the throne from him. At the age of 19 he seized control from his mother and executed Mortimer (That actual historical event took place at Nottingham.)
no subject
Date: 2012-09-14 12:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-14 12:34 am (UTC)A fait acompli I think. All plotting against the Plantagentets to sieze the throne.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-14 12:45 am (UTC)*shakes head* so many different versions of things floating around out there. all I know is, every time a king has a wife someone else doesn't like, she's called a witch, and that at one time or another it seems most major figures in Engish history seem to have been declared illegitamite.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-14 01:11 am (UTC)The Tudors originally were Welsh. Henry Tudor was born in Wales. His father and grandfather were Welsh his mother was Lancastrian.
Thomas Grey was part of a rebellion against Richard III. When the rebellion failed he fled to Brittany to join Henry Tudor
no subject
Date: 2012-09-14 02:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-14 12:38 am (UTC)Also the cut throat world of the court, its not surprising that changes of allegience were made for enough power lands and wealth. How many titles and lands were promised by the Tudors to usurp the Plantagenets?
no subject
Date: 2012-09-14 12:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-14 01:15 am (UTC)ALl the scheming stopped when WIlliam and Mary came to the throne and certain laws were changed. but sonsidering the previous 150 years had been filled with religious turmoil things were becoming more civilised.
WOW I am really testing my historical knowledge tonight. Some of the facts I have had to double check in one of my books. I have this rather large book about all the Kings and Queens of England & Great BRitain from William I
no subject
Date: 2012-09-14 02:03 am (UTC)another one of my ambitions is to read the encylopedia, but they stopped making print versions, so I guess that will never happen now.