Bushwalk Australia

A question to those who has knowledge of British monarchs.

Just watching on SBS a documentary on Richard III's funeral. I could not understand why didn't the present day monarch and members of the immediate royal family attend? Is there still a grudge of the grab for power all those centuries ago? Very odd even if it's just a simple respect from one monarch of the country to another.

Any better explanations for this 'protocol' issue?

It's Richard 111 not Henry.

Sorry, correction to Richard III. This is what happens when my head is congested with a bad flu.

GPSGuided wrote:Sorry, correction to Richard III. This is what happens when my head is congested with a bad flu.

Hope it is just a Cold and not the really bad Flu that is going around ,did you get a Flu Shot?

Thanks Corvus. Unfortunately it's the bad flu as all the symptoms are consistent with it than a cold. My son brought it back from the school, then wife and now me. Been a laboured household for the last 2 weeks.

What grab for power? Richard was a legitimate ruler. It was Henry Tudor who was the usurper.

Just because something's been written by Shakespeare doesn't make it true.

So why did the queen not attend?

different lineage?
maybe they dont want to draw attention to the fact, the Tudors took the throne from the Plantagenets by force and were responsible for his death.
There may be some protocol on what the current royal family acknowledge and don't acknowledge in the way of previous monarchs and historical people.
if any of richards descendants are at the ceremony, having the windsors around may not be the most tactful thing to do.
i doubt the monarchy have issued an apology for what happened to richard.

That may be the case. But in the 21st century? I doubt any of the descendants would care as it's all just history by now. It's paying respect to an old king of the country.

GPSGuided wrote:That may be the case. But in the 21st century? I doubt any of the descendants would care as it's all just history by now. It's paying respect to an old king of the country.

i'm not sure, but hte palace would have made a decision on whether to go or not. It was big news when Richards body was found and officially idenified...

Yes, so they hold a grudge or feel threatened of their position. Can the descendants of Richard III still make a claim of the monarchy?

GPSGuided wrote:Yes, so they hold a grudge or feel threatened of their position. Can the descendants of Richard III still make a claim of the monarchy?

I doubt it, its such a traditional country, they arent likely to change, even though the monarchy doesnt wield any real power, the current family are pretty embedded into the culture, and they've been left as royalty, theres a lot of history there.

So making the queen's absence even more curious.

these days she often nominates someone from the clan to go and show the flag on her behalf, she'll do the more important gigs in person...

But he was the king of England. Not someone lower down the echelon.

GPSGuided wrote:But he was the king of England. Not someone lower down the echelon.

given how many other kings have been deposed in history, where do you start?

Not every monarch get rediscovered and re-buried. Anyway, she clearly has her reasons and is keeping it quiet. So is the media in keeping it low key.

Perhaps she wasn't invited?

according to this she did send a representative, but theres some history with the queen...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/565 ... il-monarch

Apparently the organisers involved the Palace throughout the process and was disappointed the Queen would not attend.

wayno wrote:different lineage?
maybe they dont want to draw attention to the fact, the Tudors took the throne from the Plantagenets by force and were responsible for his death.

The current line aren't Tudors either. You've had a number of "realignments" of the monarchy since the Tudors finished. Lizzie I was the last Tudor, the throne then went to Mary Stuart's son Charles. Then you have the interruption by Cromwell and the subsequent restoration, plus two or three German side branches being brought in to keep the Catholics as far away from the succession as possible. The current mob were originally Battenbergs, but the name's been changed twice to de-Teutonicise it.
And, technically, once Charles (or William) gets up, it's a different dynasty again.

Personally, I agree - it's one hell of a snub and this mob should really have had the decency to participate, and to assist with the rehabilitation of Richard's reputation. But then, I've always been a Yorkist.

Some say Richard should have been buried where he originally wanted to be buried.......York...

north-north-west wrote:What grab for power? Richard was a legitimate ruler. It was Henry Tudor who was the usurper.

Just because something's been written by Shakespeare doesn't make it true.

Some would also say Richard was an illegitimate ruler & had no legitimate claim to the throne......The Bard did not do to bad with his stories,as far as historical fact,considering he did not have access to Wikithingo as we do......Henry just did what every despot before & since has done,satisfied his lust for power at any cost....it is still happening

vicrev wrote:Some say Richard should have been buried where he originally wanted to be buried.......York...

Now, there's tourism and financial interests in these, for Leicester Cathedral. Didn't they put up $500k on the ceremony?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

north-north-west wrote:What grab for power? Richard was a legitimate ruler. It was Henry Tudor who was the usurper.

Just because something's been written by Shakespeare doesn't make it true.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. The House of York themselves usurped the throne from the House of Lancaster, deposing and executing the equally unpopular Henry VI.
The Tudors were descended from the House of Lancaster and had a legitimate claim to the throne.
Apparently Shakespeare did have a greater regard for the Lancastrians given his heroic depiction of Henry V, perhaps rightfully since he defeated the French at Agincourt.

vicrev wrote:... Henry just did what every despot before & since has done,satisfied his lust for power at any cost....it is still happening

This is so true through history.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Henry's wife had quite a good claim to the throne herself, so even if you consider Henry VII to not have a legal claim, by the time Richard III was dead along with everyone that Richard and/or Henry got rid off, any descendants of Henry's wife would have the next best claim. So it would not make any difference to the following generations.

the letters of the weapons have been rearranged from swords to words... the Kings Speech was a great movie, it pointed out how the monarchy are now their own PR machine, necessary to keep themselves in their current position.
they are taxpayer funded.
when they visit our countries its thanks to your taxes... dont know about aus, but the NZ air force flew our largest jet over to aus to pick up harry, amazed me the police presence, i saw it at a hotel he was staying at. not sure how many police where there , dozens.
royalty is a tradition that has managed to survive even though their role is nothing like it once was.

vicrev wrote:

north-north-west wrote:What grab for power? Richard was a legitimate ruler. It was Henry Tudor who was the usurper.
Just because something's been written by Shakespeare doesn't make it true.

Some would also say Richard was an illegitimate ruler & had no legitimate claim to the throne......

No. He was co-guardian and regent for the two young princes. Legally. When he found out they were illegitimate he had no choice but to take the crown as he was next in line. If you know the facts behind it rather than the popular mythology, there is no question about the validity of his claim.

The Bard did not do to bad with his stories,as far as historical fact,considering he did not have access to Wikithingo as we do.....

The Bard had no real choice because in the political climate of the day, to even hint at not following the official line on such things was to give yourself an invititation to the chopping block. But his 'histories' are, for the most part, anything but.

RonK wrote:

north-north-west wrote:What grab for power? Richard was a legitimate ruler. It was Henry Tudor who was the usurper.

Just because something's been written by Shakespeare doesn't make it true.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. The House of York themselves usurped the throne from the House of Lancaster, deposing and executing the equally unpopular Henry VI. .

Plantagenet line started with Henry II, after the dispute between Stephen and Maud (or Matilda, depending on her mood) was resolved. House of York was a more direct line according the the laws of succession. The whole *&%$#! thing was John of Gaunt's fault.

And if you are claiming that Richard was generally unliked in his time, you might want to do a bit more in depth research. It was not a popular uprising, despite the image promulgated by Henry Tudor and his successors.