As anyone who is reading this blog knows, last week, following an archaeological dig at Leicester, a skeleton was unearthed that may well prove to be that of Richard III. Needless to say, this has led to a flurry of online discussion about Richard and, of course, the age-old question of whether he was responsible for the deaths of his nephews.
This has generated some thoughtful commentary, but it has also generated some magnificently peculiar (or just stupid) statements, ten of which I have thoughtfully preserved below. Read ‘em and cringe.
Richard III was a martyr.
Henry VII had only a rudimentary command of English.
The bones found in the Tower and identified as those of the princes were actually those of chimps.
One of the sets of bones found in the Tower was that of a commoner with rickets. (How could they tell that the unclothed bones belonged to a commoner, you might ask? Presumably, he had a “C” carved into his skull.)
The skeleton found at Leicester shows signs of scoliosis; therefore, it cannot be Richard because the Tudors said that Richard had deformities, and anything the Tudors said about Richard was wrong.
Richard did not execute women or bishops; therefore, he could not have killed the princes. (Henry VII did not execute women or bishops either, but he of course is fingered as a prime suspect.)
Edward IV’s sons were not kept prisoners in the Tower because the Tower of London was not a “true prison” until Tudor times. (Among others, this would surprise Gruffudd ap Llywelyn, Roger Mortimer and his uncle, Eleanor de Clare, Charles, Duke of Orleans, Edmund Beaufort, first Duke of Somerset, Edmund Beaufort, third Duke of Somerset, Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, and Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, all of whom were imprisoned there well before anyone started humming “Greensleeves.”)
Titulus Regius was Henry VII’s document overturning the Act of Succession.
The Leicester’s skeleton’s feet may have been chopped off because the grave was not the right length.
Richard III was the last English king.