Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Chopped through the Head!
46 views
Skip to first unread message
robert...@gmail.com
Mar 21, 2013, 6:05:08 PM3/21/13
to
I am prepared to accept that the carpark remains are RichardIII, after long considerearation and much TV watching. A remarkable piece of luck, but they do happen sometimes, that I accept!
However, not a piece of luck for all those who consider King Richard to have been a pious, saintly fellow, kindly, well meaning and a bit small but perfectly formed... far from it. Okay, the Tudors might have added the odd inch to his shoulder on portraits, but he was twisted and deformed ( as mentioned byy contemporaries who met him).
His physical appearance is not really of any importance however (apart from putting a few die hard Ricardians on the spot). That might represent the insignificant first slice to his (and their) cranium, metaphorically speaking.
What has been done with so much care and expertise reguarding his DNA is far more of a serios wound to his reputation I suspect, comparable with the final blow to the base of the skull, and perhaps even more so to the posthumous shafting he seems to have taken up ine the arse!
It is now time to analyse the DNA of the two little skeletons contained in that urn at Westminster Abbey I say, and compare their DNA with Uncle Richard - a possibility I neer expected to see!
Anyone care to make a bet on the outcome? Anyone prepared to stake their reputation on them NOT being the sons of Edward IV? Anyone reckless enough to keep accusing Sir Thomas More of being a liar and a Tudor stooge?
Once again, the clue was in TM's mistake, based on the confession of the hoodwinked fellow who paid for their secret reburial, but didn't witness it!
The Daughter of Truth comes home to roost at long last!
However, not a piece of luck for all those who consider King Richard to have been a pious, saintly fellow, kindly, well meaning and a bit small but perfectly formed... far from it. Okay, the Tudors might have added the odd inch to his shoulder on portraits, but he was twisted and deformed ( as mentioned byy contemporaries who met him).
His physical appearance is not really of any importance however (apart from putting a few die hard Ricardians on the spot). That might represent the insignificant first slice to his (and their) cranium, metaphorically speaking.
What has been done with so much care and expertise reguarding his DNA is far more of a serios wound to his reputation I suspect, comparable with the final blow to the base of the skull, and perhaps even more so to the posthumous shafting he seems to have taken up ine the arse!
It is now time to analyse the DNA of the two little skeletons contained in that urn at Westminster Abbey I say, and compare their DNA with Uncle Richard - a possibility I neer expected to see!
Anyone care to make a bet on the outcome? Anyone prepared to stake their reputation on them NOT being the sons of Edward IV? Anyone reckless enough to keep accusing Sir Thomas More of being a liar and a Tudor stooge?
Once again, the clue was in TM's mistake, based on the confession of the hoodwinked fellow who paid for their secret reburial, but didn't witness it!
The Daughter of Truth comes home to roost at long last!
Bill
Mar 21, 2013, 7:47:18 PM3/21/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:05:08 -0700 (PDT), robert...@gmail.com
wrote:
>It is now time to analyse the DNA of the two little skeletons contained in that urn at Westminster Abbey I say, and compare their DNA with Uncle Richard - a possibility I neer expected to see!
>
And which Home Secretary do you expect to sign an exhumation order for
a royal grave?
It isn't going to happen.
That was obvious as soon as it became apparent that Richard was going
to get a nice standard anonymous slab in an obscure cathedral rather
than the tomb designed for him in the largest Gothic church in Europe.
The establishment regards certain events as important to their version
of the national legend and the defeat of a tyrannical Richard is one
of them.
wrote:
>It is now time to analyse the DNA of the two little skeletons contained in that urn at Westminster Abbey I say, and compare their DNA with Uncle Richard - a possibility I neer expected to see!
>
a royal grave?
It isn't going to happen.
That was obvious as soon as it became apparent that Richard was going
to get a nice standard anonymous slab in an obscure cathedral rather
than the tomb designed for him in the largest Gothic church in Europe.
The establishment regards certain events as important to their version
of the national legend and the defeat of a tyrannical Richard is one
of them.
Michael Kuettner
Mar 23, 2013, 12:49:29 PM3/23/13
to
Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:05:08 -0700 (PDT), robert...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>> It is now time to analyse the DNA of the two little skeletons contained in that urn at Westminster Abbey I say, and compare their DNA with Uncle Richard - a possibility I neer expected to see!
>>
>
> And which Home Secretary do you expect to sign an exhumation order for
> a royal grave?
>
> It isn't going to happen.
>
> That was obvious as soon as it became apparent that Richard was going
> to get a nice standard anonymous slab in an obscure cathedral rather
> than the tomb designed for him in the largest Gothic church in Europe.
>
Why should he have been buried in Sevilla ?
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:05:08 -0700 (PDT), robert...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>> It is now time to analyse the DNA of the two little skeletons contained in that urn at Westminster Abbey I say, and compare their DNA with Uncle Richard - a possibility I neer expected to see!
>>
>
> And which Home Secretary do you expect to sign an exhumation order for
> a royal grave?
>
> It isn't going to happen.
>
> That was obvious as soon as it became apparent that Richard was going
> to get a nice standard anonymous slab in an obscure cathedral rather
> than the tomb designed for him in the largest Gothic church in Europe.
>
<snip>
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
robert...@gmail.com
Mar 23, 2013, 9:51:28 PM3/23/13
to
I think some UltraRixardiands meant a new one should be built specially for him?
As for permission to exhume the Princes, Home Secretaries don't come into it, it is a matter for HRH Queen Elixabeth. In fact this is a golden opportunity to scotch the scurrilous rumour that she is opposed to DNA teating in any form, for fears that someone might pinch a few hairs from Price Harry's comb, and discover that Prince Charles is not his father...
As for permission to exhume the Princes, Home Secretaries don't come into it, it is a matter for HRH Queen Elixabeth. In fact this is a golden opportunity to scotch the scurrilous rumour that she is opposed to DNA teating in any form, for fears that someone might pinch a few hairs from Price Harry's comb, and discover that Prince Charles is not his father...
Renia
Mar 24, 2013, 5:41:10 AM3/24/13
to
Bill
Mar 24, 2013, 7:36:12 AM3/24/13
to
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:51:28 -0700 (PDT), robert...@gmail.com
wrote:
Exhumation orders are signed by the Home Secretary.
wrote:
>
>As for permission to exhume the Princes, Home Secretaries don't come into it, it is a matter for HRH Queen Elixabeth.
Bollocks.
>As for permission to exhume the Princes, Home Secretaries don't come into it, it is a matter for HRH Queen Elixabeth.
Exhumation orders are signed by the Home Secretary.
robert...@gmail.com
Mar 26, 2013, 8:15:12 PM3/26/13
to
Yes Bill... but who controls Westminster Abbey? They had a quick look at them back in the 1930's.... by permission of the King. Time to have another look I think?
AFAIAC this is an ongoing murder inquiry. The fact that the murderers are long dead by default doesn't really amtter.
AFAIAC this is an ongoing murder inquiry. The fact that the murderers are long dead by default doesn't really amtter.
Bill
Mar 27, 2013, 7:49:08 AM3/27/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:15:12 -0700 (PDT), robert...@gmail.com
wrote:
>Yes Bill... but who controls Westminster Abbey? They had a quick look at them back in the 1930's.... by permission of the King. Time to have another look I think?
>
I know that Westminster Abby is a 'peculiar' of the crown, but giving
permission for the digging up bodies isn't really within their gift.
It may well need their agreement, but if Liz and Phil decide to
remodel the crypt it needs more than their whim to evict the current
occupants.
wrote:
>Yes Bill... but who controls Westminster Abbey? They had a quick look at them back in the 1930's.... by permission of the King. Time to have another look I think?
>
permission for the digging up bodies isn't really within their gift.
It may well need their agreement, but if Liz and Phil decide to
remodel the crypt it needs more than their whim to evict the current
occupants.
robert...@gmail.com
Mar 27, 2013, 2:44:09 PM3/27/13
to
No digging required Bill.... only a little emptying out. The boys are in a big urn, in full view of the public. Why, you and me alone could probably lift it down and do the job!
The Horny Goat
Mar 27, 2013, 7:04:35 PM3/27/13
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:36:12 +0000, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You seriously think a royal exhumation is getting signed off on
without Betty Windsor being in agreement?
wrote:
without Betty Windsor being in agreement?
Bill
Mar 27, 2013, 7:12:48 PM3/27/13
to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:04:35 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
wrote:
Do you seriously think anyone is going to dig up a body in a grave
without permission from the Home Secretary?
wrote:
without permission from the Home Secretary?
robert...@gmail.com
Mar 27, 2013, 7:34:27 PM3/27/13
to
Er.... no digging required?
robert...@gmail.com
Mar 27, 2013, 7:37:57 PM3/27/13
to
And as it happens, I have exhumed several without any interference from the Home Office. Before you say 'so did Burke and Hare', they didn't bother digging (too much like hard work) they merely murdered... and were complimented for the freshness of their products!
Peter Jason
Mar 27, 2013, 8:14:12 PM3/27/13
to
robert...@gmail.com
Mar 28, 2013, 11:50:56 AM3/28/13
to
That's the spirit Peter!
0 new messages