Blog powered by Typepad

« Scott Walker is a winner | Main | 'On the town' »

Tuesday, 24 March 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I watched the pathetic woman from the R 111 society crying when the alleged bones were laid out. The men who died with him were left to rot. Under the car park was the best place for him. And how shameful for the RC Archbishop to do the service but what do you expect from this malicious organisation with centuries of blood on their hands. The only good result was that Enery V111 came to power and kicked the corrupt Vatican into touch.

It seems quite likely that my wife parked on top of him from time to time. In our minds he'll always be associated with a rusty Austin A40.

Now then, Jimmy, we don't want a re-run of the Saturday night 'Glasgie' wars of old!

Ah, poor little Austin A40:

"These eyes could not endure that beauty's wrack;
You should not blemish it if I stood by.

Do people still believe that Richard III killed the princes? I thought that that calumny had been laid to rest.

Will Spokeshave and the Tudors did a right job on poor Dick's reputation. Suppose they had to as Henry's claim to the throne was about as tenuous as my claim for the Papacy.

If Bill and Tom Stanley hadn't been treacherous bastards at Bosworth there would have been no Tudor dynasty and Lizzie 1 could have lived a peaceful life and got herself laid.

I'm with Michael on the Princes in the Tower.

From Sean McGlynn's article:

"Pro-Ricardians repeatedly cite the lack of hard proof for Richard killing his nephews in the Tower of London, conveniently ignoring that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and, worse still, wilfully ignoring common sense. The murder of the princes in the tower had in all likelihood been committed by October, 1483, four months after Richard had usurped the throne and the time of the Duke of Buckingham’s revolt against the new king. Richard did what any monarch did in his position: kill anyone who had a strong counter-claim to the throne and was thus a figurehead of rebellion. Thus, pace some revisionist claims to the contrary, Edward II was murdered after his deposition; Richard II was killed, probably, starved to death, by Henry IV; and Henry VI was almost certainly killed by Edward IV in the Tower."

We should all appreciate that we now have her majesty QE11 and long may she reign.

Well said, Sir Jimmy!

(Er, it is Sir Jimmy, isn't it? Not Lord Jimmy?)

David, "Lord" is the rank for SoD. Careful lest He find out.

Lord Jimmy sounds good I would not like to be confused with the christian Sir Jimmy!

the lack of hard proof for Richard killing his nephews in the Tower of London, conveniently ignoring that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,

The statement may be correct but try that argument in a court and you soon find out the meaning of "burden of proof".

I recommend The Daughter of Time, by Josephine Tey regarding Richard III's alleged crimes - below first a link to a free ebook edition, the second to the Wicki page:

Jimmy, perhaps 'Laird Jimmy of Sauchiehall Street' would be appropriate!

AussieD, he had the policeman's favourite three: means, motive and opportunity.

Juliet, welcome to D&N and thank you for your links, especially the book because the 'Memsahib' is a voracious reader of historical novels even if she has to surround herself with charts of the Plantagenet family tree in order to remind who is marrying/murdering whom!

Juliet, a double thank you because the 'Memsahib' has already bought the book and started reading it - and it's making her laugh! Needless to say, I took all the credit so I am quids in!

The comments to this entry are closed.