History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedHistorical myths

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
02bburco View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-Mar-2008
Location: Southamtpon
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 02bburco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Historical myths
    Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 15:52
im not sure if this is in the right place but here goes.
 
after two serious thread i have decided to lighten things up below are 10 histrical mysteries / myths, which through the internet i have dug up (not wiki) I am looking for your opinions on these i.e. ture or false as well as adding your own.
 
1.   King Edward V, aged 12, and Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York, aged 9 Killed by richard III
2. King Edward V, aged 12, and Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York, aged 9 Killed by Henry VII
3. Henry Fitzroy killed by Henry VII to safegaurd edwards sucession
4. Henry VII had earl of Northbumberland killed
5. Henry VII could not consumate his final marrige
6. Edward VI not in fact sickly child, as widley regarded
7. Elizabeth I rapped by thomas seymor thus putting her of marrige
8. Henry VII in fact a gigolo during his time in exile
9. Queen victoria married John brown
10. Catheirne Howards adultury was a plan by the Duke of Nolforlk to get her pregant and secure the families position.
 
now these are just meant to be a bit of fun and will probably never be solved but as i came across them i just became wondering about them, and decided to post.
 
enjoy! LOL
 
Back to Top
Windemere View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 65
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Windemere Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 19:58
These are an interesting set of historical mysteries/legends. They are certainly never going to be definitively resolved but it's interesting to speculate about them.
I think myth #3 is highly unlikely. All contemporary evidence points to the fact that King Henry VIII was very fond of his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy. He took a great deal of pride in him, creating him Duke of Richmond and proclaiming him Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. He arranged a marriage for him with the daughter of the Duke of Norfolk. He was rumoured to have considered making him an heir to the throne, though this would have been illegal due to his illegitimate birth. (Though governments, then as now, do tend to do whatever they want to, and change the law to suit their needs). Henry's political, religious, and personal inclinations were all concentrated upon producing a legal, legitimate male heir to the throne. Whatever plans he had for his natural son came to naught when the young Duke of Richmond died of tuberculosis at the age of 17. Henry's legitimate heir, from his third marriage (Prince Edward) wasn't born until the year following Henry Fitzroy's death. Henry VIII had experienced the disappointment of numerous miscarriages from his first 2 wives as well as 2 surviving daughters but no sons. It seems very unlikely that he'd plan the elimination of his illegitimate son in order to secure the succession for a hypothetical legitimate son who, at that time, didn't yet exist. There was no need to do such a thing as the succession would anyway have automatically gone to the legitimate son.
Windemere
Back to Top
02bburco View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-Mar-2008
Location: Southamtpon
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 02bburco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 20:03
with the evidence arrayed like that you are probably right and I agree, the only doubt cast on it was by something random hat I read tht said to body was removed and burried in the dead of night, in secreet not at all what you would expect for a duke, hence the suspision of foul play, linked to the measures his father had gone to to secure he succession, that said the weight of evidence suggets it is untrue  
Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 08-May-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2009 at 22:24
Questions 1 & 2.  The two 'Princes in the tower' were probably killed either on Richard III's orders or to please him.  They were definately dead before Henry Tudor invaded.  While they were alive Richards claim to the throne would always be in doubt.  The problem is that there is no direct evidence that Richard ordered their deaths.  But their jailors would have known of his wish to remove their threat.  So most probably they were killed to aid or please Richard in the hope of some sort of reward.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.