murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Westminster Abbey is biased because of those Tudors….!

Ten facts about Westminster Abbey? Well yes, this article does indeed provide such a list, but I do have to find fault with some of its statements. For instance, the Boys in the Urn were probably murdered by Richard’s henchmen.

With luck that urn will one day fall off its plinth and break – then the contents can be examined properly. What’s the betting that the evidence will reveal (a) Roman remains, or (b) a cow’s shin bone, a pig’s jaw and various other animal bits, courtesy of the Stuarts? Whatever, it WON’T show the remains of the boys in question.

As for their deaths at the hands of anyone to do with Richard III…well, prove it. If the remains are Roman, then he couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with it. If most of the bones are indeed animal and from any handy human remains found in the Stuart period, then Richard can’t have had anything to do with that either. We don’t even know if the boys were killed at all. There’s no evidence. It’s just convenient to follow the Tudor clarions and blame Richard for everything. The original wicked uncle!

If he was guilty of anything, I hope it was something like a particularly painful ulcer on Henry VII’s scrawny backside. He was indeed to blame for many unpleasant things. As was the whole of his House. Compared with them, Richard III was a pussycat.

Then I must also object to the following: “…The most influential kings and queens in English history have elaborate tombs at the heart of Westminster Abbey….” Does this mean that anyone who isn’t buried there isn’t of sufficient conseqence or influence? Really?

So, the first Lancastrian king (and usurper) Henry IV, had to go to Canterbury because he wasn’t worthy of Westminster? Um, methinks Henry IV chose to go to Canterbury because he was sucking up to Becket. King John may not have been an all round good egg, but he lies at Worcester. Edward II is at Gloucester. Henry II is in France. Richard I is also somewhere in France…anywhere, so long as it’s not England! Let’s face it, he hardly knew what the place looked like. He stayed away but bled the country dry in order to finance his endless thirst for crusades, and yet eyes still go all dewy when he’s mentioned. Ah, our great and noble warrior king. Yuk.

No doubt there are others who escape my memory at the moment – obviously this blank in my grey cells is due to their absence from Westminster’s sacred portals. Anyway, we’re to think that these monarchs were too insignificant enough for Westminster?

Aha, is the anti-Richard III stance due to the abbey being in a miff about him being laid to rest in Leicester? Does Westminster resent all the interest and income he’s brought to that abbey? If Henry VII’s spirit still rattles around the place, it will have been wailing and shaking its chains in anguish to think that Leicester is benefiting. Henry always clawed all the money he could, whether it was his to claw or not. Scrooge personified.

It was all very well to say at the time that there wasn’t any room for him at Westminster, but maybe the fact is that too many darned Tudors are cluttering up the place. If you want to make the most of the all-too-prevalent fashion for grovelling around anything to do with that House, then a much finer king like Richard is obviously incompatible. He just wouldn’t fit – a little like Gulliver in Lilliputania. Well, he may not have reigned for long before being treasonously murdered, but in that brief time he did a great deal of good for the people of England.

His reward throughout history has been to have Tudor lies about him believed. Past historians have fallen for the propaganda hook, line and sinker. Thank you More. Thank you, Shakespeare. Above all, thank you Henry VII – I cordially hope you did indeed have an abscess on your posterior and that it hurt like Hell every time you sat down!

Well, I’ve huffed and puffed my outrage for long enough, but think I’ve nailed why Westminster Abbey can’t help but suggest that Richard had his nephews murdered! The place is too darned Tudor!

 

Single Post Navigation

8 thoughts on “Westminster Abbey is biased because of those Tudors….!

  1. amma19542019 on said:

    Viscountessw, aim that huffing and puffing towards the plinth! and one and two and three …

    Now, somewhere I read that Prince Charles is more inclined to peer into that Urn than QE2 has been, but I am of two minds here – there could well be other Yorkists’ remains jumbled into that Urn, no? DNA is not going to be able to differentiate between a Henry Pole and his cousins, am I wrong here?

    Not to mix up our discussion streams but Viscountessw, but has anyone considered the possibility that young Edward, while in the Tower, with heaven knows what was passing for ‘medical’ attention,’ was simply bled (for his health of course, being ‘melancholic, according to Mancini’s ‘sources’) to the point where his physical condition could scarcely recover?

    Hard to imagine but George Washington died from such ‘medical’ attention. One could counter that Edward’s physician, or one of them anyway, was Dr Argentine, doctor to his mother, was attending to him, (he was also MB’s doctor), ok, got it, but any barber surgeon could administer ‘bloodletting’ and quite a few people had access to them in the Tower, not to mention that we know they were alive in July – if Mancini was recalled by Cato late June, certainly before the Coronation, we also ‘know’ from Mancini that Argentine was long gone from the boys’ care and there are a few I can think of who might have taken an interest in their health before he left with Morton in tow, for the Progress. Just wondering…

    Liked by 1 person

  2. viscountessw on said:

    An interesting thought amma19542019. I have always been suspicious about Argentine and his cronies, so I don’t know whether any “over-bleeding” would be accidental at all! My nasty cynical mind almost always detects ulterior political or financial motives at every corner!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. halfwit36 on said:

    My cynical mind asks this question: If Edward died of illness and/or treatment, why would King Richard not just say so? He no doubt expected to reign for many years, and could not stall all of that time. Still wouldn’t explain the death/ disappearance of the younger brother, though.
    My opinion, FWIW, is that they simply disappeared, and nobody knew where – except maybe Buckingham?

    Liked by 1 person

    • amma19542019 on said:

      Apologies to Viscountessw and Halfwit, having computer issues here, my school is changing our ‘intranet module’ (I don’t even ask) and for over a week now my mail has been behaving oddly – I don’t even know IF my email goes out – we have to report missing materials, huh? well, anyway…

      be that as it may, just looking at earlier precedent I’m not sure Richard was going to come out ahead in regard to young Edward and his brother no matter what he did or didn’t do – I may be mistaken, but didn’t H4 make a public presentation of R2’s body, burial, the whole 9 yards, and for years later, anyway, H4 had to deal with incipient challenges to his rule in the name of a secretly living, in hiding, somehow surviving R2? I know that continued after Edward II’s death, to the point where I have even entertained that maybe he did survive that ‘murder’!

      If Richard splashes out the body, full burial, everything, when does he do this? There were at least 3 overlapping plots to “rescue” the young boys and the daughters (imagine to what true purposes there) by mid (??) June, if not earlier, and not necessarily led by E4’s household men, as most of them were retained by the Protector and then by R3 himself. Wait till everything calms down? Nip the various plots in the bud by having the body exposed and funeral in the midst of such opportunism? I guess I’m saying was there a win anywhere? If he moves them out of London just for their own safety might it have been smarter to simply take them on the Royal Progress with him as he did with Lincoln, Edward of Warwick, and I believe Edward Stafford (Wiltshire) as well (another ostensible yorkist heir)?

      Someone here on M&B once wrote, to something I said about the deaths of the boys, that on M,W, and F she thought X, on T and TH she thought Y and she took off for the weekends! I can understand that frustration – but even worse, I have begun to think, and don’t burn me at the stake here, that maybe young E5 knew rather more about the plans that his mother, Dorset and Earl Rivers had in mind for Uncle Gloucester than sounds kind to suggest about a 12 year old boy.

      Part of me keeps thinking about Argentyne’s report of the woeful child overcome that his death was imminent, preparing himself for death, yet, the other one, about 3 years younger, is joyful and pleasant and unconcerned? That is not how brothers, even ones not often in each other’s company behave. If one is distraught to the point of near mental and emotional collapse that would affect the other, yet Argentyne saw nothing? So, my cynical mind sees a 12 yr old who knew more than a little of the plot his mother and family intended for Gloucester, maybe not why, or even what they might wish to do with Gloucester after he was contained, but surely once the plan failed? and, worse, having no idea what his uncle thinks of him now? well, that would certainly leave me anxious; maybe explain his jittery to frantic ‘signature’ in the famous trio of signatures. Richard’s as usual, is composed, Buckingham appears to have written with his foot.

      ok burn me at the stake I’m babbling at this point

      Like

  4. Elizabeth Bradley on said:

    Was it Argentine that was doctor to Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort? I thought it was Caerleon? Or am I confusing the two?

    Liked by 1 person

    • amma19542019 on said:

      Beth, absolutely correct, it was Dr Lewis Caerleon who was physician for both MB and QEW, Argentyne for the young Edward, and I think later prince Arthur

      Like

  5. Elizabeth Bradley on said:

    Hmm, that’s an interesting thought about young Edward….so let me throw another log on the fire, so to speak lol…Richard of Shrewsbury was only 9, yes, but he had been in sanctuary with his mother and surely would have noticed her distress I think, even if she tried to shield him from it….so, the story we’ve been told is that this young boy who leaves a distressed mother and travels to the Tower to find a distressed brother was completely unconcerned? Until amma (Beth) made the comment about Edward, I never really gave the Argentine story about one boy being deeply depressed and the other cheerful a second thought but it does seem a little odd to me now. I mean, even at age 9, if someone you’re basically alone with for a period time (except for attendants) appears depressed, surely you would ask them what’s wrong…and if I remember the Argentine account correctly, Edward was convinced that he was going to die soon…so young Richard wasn’t frightened by this? Not sure what I make of it, but the devil is in the details, right?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. amma19542019 on said:

    Hi EB, I have an evil/skeptical mind I fear… ‘we’ know very little about E5 in terms of manner, personality, etc (even less than ‘we’ know about R, whew, that’s a frightening thought) … but human nature is not so changeable that IF QEW had indeed set into play the means by which her faction would bypass Gloucester (and that can mean a range of options once he was detained) it makes little sense not to have E5 at least aware of what was underway on his behalf – if nothing else to prevent complications – such as a confused nephew demanding to know under what charges his uncle was being forcibly(?) removed? Whatever Rivers, QEW, and likely Dorset had to tell the boy had to be serious enough that he wouldn’t question anything that happened at Northampton, or Stony Stratford, or somewhere before R even arrived at either location but not too much information.

    I hadn’t considered what to make of Richard of S, but you’re right, at almost 9 he would have been at the least confused by the sudden dash (with everything a Queen apparently needed to live comfortably in sanctuary!) with his sisters – he is still young enough, and 2nd in line, that I doubt he was told anything. Let me think on this one, bonfires are a good thing EB!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: