Site of the Battle of Bosworth Field found

reply to post by d60944


The Wars of the Roses, were in my opinion, a conspiracy theorist's dream. The in-fighting between the major players on the Lancastrian and Yorkist sides is fascinating.

You have Henry VI being murdered, Edward IV making a supposedly bigamous marriage to Elizabeth Woodville whose relatives were in the thick of the plotting, the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower and Richard accused of murdering his wife, Anne, to name a few instances.

Plus the appearance of at least one young boy claiming to be one of the murdered princes.

This all happened over 500 years ago which may not be, strictly speaking, ancient, but at what point would you call a civilization 'ancient' ?

I do think something of our civilization was lost the day Richard lost his life - or at least changed forever.

English history might have been very different if Henry Tudor hadn't taken the throne.
His descendant, Elizabeth, died childless causing James I (James VI of Scotland) to take the throne. His descendant, Charles I, was beheaded during the English Civil War and great changes were made to Parliament and the way the country was governed.

Now, we have got to a point where my interest in history wanes, but I know that at some point we had to look abroad to find a monarch. Starting with William of Orange, I think, and going on to the German Hanovers - from whom our present Royal Family is descended.

I think that I will have lost you by now, so I will close.

I do hope you can find another thread more worthy of your attentions - I am sure the author will welcome any insights you have to offer.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by berenike]

Originally posted by berenike
Now, we have got to a point where my interest in history wanes, but I know that at some point we had to look abroad to find a monarch. Starting with William of Orange, I think, and going on to the German Hanovers - from whom our present Royal Family is descended.

Just want to clarify that the Queen, whilst being orignally from the House of Hannover, it has to be remembered that nearly all the Royal and Nobel House of europe were related, so just because they were from hannover, this doesn't mean they were "German".

In fact, all monarchs of England and later of Great Britain, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms from Henry IV onwards are descended from John of Gaunt, who (in keeping with this thread) is the founder of the House of Lancaster, one of the houses involved at the Battle of Bosworth Field.

(EDIT: In fact, Her Maj can directly trace her ancestry back to King Harold, the chap who got the arrow in his eye at Hastings. Honestly, how many of us can trace our family history back to the 11th century? She has a better claim at being English than I do, I can only get as far back as the 17th!)

So, before we get the republicans and others start jumping in saying we're ruled by Germans, it's worth taking some time to learn about the history of England and the monarchy.

[edit on 21/2/10 by stumason]

reply to post by stumason


No, we don't want to let this thread descend into a Republican rant against the present monarchy. The Hanovers were a 'Germanic royal dynasty' (see below) but I would hope no-one would take my words as an invitation to 'bash' the Royal Family.

Here is an article about the House of Hanover:

en.wikipedia.org...

The House of Hanover (the Hanoverians) is a Germanic royal dynasty which has ruled the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg (German: Braunschweig-Lüneburg), the Kingdom of Hanover and the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. It succeeded the House of Stuart as monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland in 1714 and held that office until the death of Victoria in 1901. They are sometimes referred to as the House of Brunswick and Lüneburg, Hanover line. The House of Hanover is a younger branch of the House of Welf, which in turn is the senior branch of the House of Este.
Queen Victoria was the granddaughter of George III, and was a descendant of most major European royal houses. She arranged marriages for her children and grandchildren across the continent, tying Europe together; this earned her the nickname "the grandmother of Europe". She was the last British monarch of the House of Hanover; her son King Edward VII belonged to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the line of his father, Prince Albert. Since Victoria could not inherit the German kingdom and duchies under Salic law, those possessions passed to the next eligible male heir, her uncle Ernest Augustus I of Hanover, the Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale—the fifth son of George III. In the United Kingdom, after World War I, King George V changed the house's name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the currently serving House of Windsor in 1917.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by berenike]

reply to post by berenike


Yes, but you have cherry picked the info to prove a very narrow point.

As I said, ALL the Royal Houses of Europe were related, very closely in fact. So claiming one house as "German" isn't any more accurate than claiming they are anything else. They're virtually all one big , extended family. Even the Houses of York and Lancaster who fought this battle were each others bloody cousins.

However, all monarchs from Henry IV claim a DIRECT descendancy, including those from the House of Hannover. If you dig around in their history and family tree, you'll see plenty of marriages from the "English" royal houses, as well as to the many others around Europe.


[edit on 22/2/10 by stumason]

reply to post by stumason


I haven't cherry-picked at all - the Hanoverians were a Germany dynasty, as in born, bred and based in Germany. My reply simply said that. Your post gave enough details that I didn't feel the need to add to it. You seem to be implying that I have some hidden agenda.

If I now refer to Elizabeth II as an English queen would you have an objection to that?

This thread is supposed to be about the Battle of Bosworth not the lineage of all the European Royal Families.

If I wanted to make a thread on the the ancestry of the current monarch, I could do that. As it is, I chose not to.

I am perfectly well aware of at least one site which gives details of the Queen and Prince Philip's descent from Harold's sons but I'd rather keep this thread on topic than go into that. If you would like to make your own thread on this subject I will happily direct you to the site, should you not know about it already.

As for the Houses of York and Lancaster being 'bloody cousins' I will assume you mean 'blood-related' rather than take it that you have sworn at me, which would be uncalled for.

I am aware that, at the time, the Wars of the Roses were more commonly referred to as the Wars of the Cousins.


[edit on 22-2-2010 by berenike]

reply to post by berenike


Sorry, it would appear I took that post the wrong way. Often, when dicussing the Royals, I find myself embroiled in a debate about whether they are German or not.. I thought you were taking the same stance. Please, accept my apologies!

And no, wasn't swearing at you, just saying "bloody cousins were fighting" like you'd say "those bloody dogs are fighting again". Turn of phrase, nothing sinister there.

reply to post by stumason


Thank you - I'm glad not to find myself in a fight. Leave all that to John of Gaunt's descendants

This is a hugely interesting subject and I've no axe to grind.

Originally posted by berenike
Thank you - I'm glad not to find myself in a fight. Leave all that to John of Gaunt's descendants

This is a hugely interesting subject and I've no axe to grind.

Indeed it is.. I spend many a night shift perusing the annals of knowledge about our fair Isle.

John of Gaunt got about a bit and as a result, seems to be the progenitor of a great deal of the Royals all over the shop. He was the 14th century version of Charlie Sheen....