As long as I hold the naval offices along with the Constable of the Tower, I will rule!

LAST EDITED ON 02-06-13 AT 07:22 PM (EST)

One of the interesting questions raised by this debate is this: how much could the Tudors possibly blacken the name of a usurper who committed regicide and nepoticide (twice), while claiming that his nieces and nephews were bastards (which, to be sure, may not have stopped him from marrying one of his nieces had he survived)? And that doesn't even count the disruption renewed by his usurption, which destroyed a 12-year peace that his brother had put in place after finally triumphing over Warwick and Margaret of Anjou (and committing his own regicide by murdering their puppet king Henry VI).

All because Warwick wanted one of his daughters (Isabel or Anne Neville) to be queen; Anne got there by the usurption but within two years (1) her son died at 10, then (2) she died of TB. Would that have looked to superstitious Englishmen of the time as if Richard III's actions had caused him to fall from grace with God? Heck, it even looks like that to me, and I don't believe in God.

Until the skeleton was found, it was believed in some circles that the Tudors had slandered Richard III by portraying him as a hunchback. However, although he wasn't a hunchback, the skeleton clearly shows that Richard III had scoliosis (an abnormal curvature of the spine), which would have made him look like a hunchback.

In short, the most important finding of this discovery is that the Tudors probably DIDN'T slander this guy, nor did they throw his bones in the river. He was right where the Tudors put him.

When I was about 14 and staying in an hotel on our way to a holiday cottage I apparently sat up in bed and said "God save King Richard" and then went back to normal sleep.

Richard 1 was also king if a lot of France and didn't rate England that highly and Richard 2 wasn't ideal either, no wonder we haven't had one for a while