Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Lizzie_Zoom on 04 February 2013, 14:36:04
-
So the bones found in a Leicester car park, during an archaeological dig to locate them, have now been proved to be that of King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
Killed at the Battle Of Bosworth in 1485, at the end of the War of the Roses, by the army led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, his true resting place was unknown, until now.
Richard III was a controversial figure, the humped backed character of Shakespeare's play Richard III, who was believed to be murderous and a horder of money. Although nothing has been proved, it is strongly evidenced that Richard killed the two princes in the Tower at the time of his coronation in 1483, the children of King Edward IV, and one being the true King, Edward V, but Richard is believed to have had him murdered whilst under his protection. Then Richard was crowned.
No current day soap script could equal what went on in those days to manipulate and eradicate even family opposition to gain power! ;)
-
Pretty interesting stuff. Possibly in many years time someone will crop up and cast doubt on it, but right now DNA testing indicates that it is him "Beyond reasonable doubt", and that's good enough for me.
Also amusing how before the announcement there was jossling for position about whether he should be reburied in Leicester or moved to York or Westminster. Seems like he's staying in Leicester. Thats where they found him and he was killed at Bosworth not so far away. Right choice. Wouldn't want his remains to be subjected to too many winters of discontent.
-
So the bones found in a Leicester car park, during an archaeological dig to locate them, have now been proved to be that of King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882)
Killed at the Battle Of Bosworth in 1485, at the end of the War of the Roses, by the army led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, his true resting place was unknown, until now.
Richard III was a controversial figure, the humped backed character of Shakespeare's play Richard III, who was believed to be murderous and a horder of money. Although nothing has been proved, it is strongly evidenced that Richard killed the two princes in the Tower at the time of his coronation in 1483, the children of King Edward IV, and one being the true King, Edward V, but Richard is believed to have had him murdered whilst under his protection. Then Richard was crowned.
No current day soap script could equal what went on in those days to manipulate and eradicate even family opposition to gain power! ;)
Very similiar things happened in Ottoman Empire at similiar times Lizzie.. it was the endless fights between brothers and fathers that soon prepared the end.. And of course a big budget deficit which was tried to be closed with wars..Add to that no technologic development and masses left in ignorance..
-
There is a prog on CH4 at 9 tonight.
Yorkist, great king, won't hear anything bad said about him. ;D ;D
-
There is a prog on CH4 at 9 tonight.
Yorkist, great king, won't hear anything bad said about him. ;D ;D
Thanks Varche! :y :y :y
Will watch that 8) 8)
I favour the Yorkist's myself, and love the following Tudor period. What great times for England! :y :y
-
So the bones found in a Leicester car park, during an archaeological dig to locate them, have now been proved to be that of King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882)
Killed at the Battle Of Bosworth in 1485, at the end of the War of the Roses, by the army led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, his true resting place was unknown, until now.
Richard III was a controversial figure, the humped backed character of Shakespeare's play Richard III, who was believed to be murderous and a horder of money. Although nothing has been proved, it is strongly evidenced that Richard killed the two princes in the Tower at the time of his coronation in 1483, the children of King Edward IV, and one being the true King, Edward V, but Richard is believed to have had him murdered whilst under his protection. Then Richard was crowned.
No current day soap script could equal what went on in those days to manipulate and eradicate even family opposition to gain power! ;)
Very similiar things happened in Ottoman Empire at similiar times Lizzie.. it was the endless fights between brothers and fathers that soon prepared the end.. And of course a big budget deficit which was tried to be closed with wars..Add to that no technologic development and masses left in ignorance..
So I understand Cem. Sultans regularly killed brothers en mass to ensure there was no competition! Was it Mehmet who went one step further and had the women of the Harem tied to stones and dropped alive into the sea because they had been his predecessors Harem?
-
There is a prog on CH4 at 9 tonight.
Yorkist, great king, won't hear anything bad said about him. ;D ;D
Thanks Varche! :y :y :y
Will watch that 8) 8)
I favour the Yorkist's myself, and love the following Tudor period. What great times for England! :y :y
Yorkists? Pah! Come on you reds.
-
. . . . . . Mehmet who went one step further and had the women of the Harem tied to stones and dropped alive into the sea because they had been his predecessors Harem?
Sound reasonable to me ;)
Sorry Lizzie, just kidding. really I am.
-
I wonder if LD, TB & me are BB relatives of the Late Dick? ;D
-
So the bones found in a Leicester car park, during an archaeological dig to locate them, have now been proved to be that of King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882)
Killed at the Battle Of Bosworth in 1485, at the end of the War of the Roses, by the army led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, his true resting place was unknown, until now.
Richard III was a controversial figure, the humped backed character of Shakespeare's play Richard III, who was believed to be murderous and a horder of money. Although nothing has been proved, it is strongly evidenced that Richard killed the two princes in the Tower at the time of his coronation in 1483, the children of King Edward IV, and one being the true King, Edward V, but Richard is believed to have had him murdered whilst under his protection. Then Richard was crowned.
No current day soap script could equal what went on in those days to manipulate and eradicate even family opposition to gain power! ;)
Very similiar things happened in Ottoman Empire at similiar times Lizzie.. it was the endless fights between brothers and fathers that soon prepared the end.. And of course a big budget deficit which was tried to be closed with wars..Add to that no technologic development and masses left in ignorance..
So I understand Cem. Sultans regularly killed brothers en mass to ensure there was no competition! Was it Mehmet who went one step further and had the women of the Harem tied to stones and dropped alive into the sea because they had been his predecessors Harem?
Sultans kill brothers many times although there are exceptions .. It was Deli (Mad,Lunatic) İbrahim who slaughtered harem.. A little after the event , he was also executed for that reason..
ps: reason is jealousy.. Sultan Deli İbrahim was informed that one of the girls slept with a man.. He couldnt find who she was and later he decided to punish all.. ???
-
. . . . . . Mehmet who went one step further and had the women of the Harem tied to stones and dropped alive into the sea because they had been his predecessors Harem?
Sound reasonable to me ;)
Sorry Lizzie, just kidding. really I am.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
It obviously seemed reasonable to the Sultan as well! ;D ;D :y
-
So the bones found in a Leicester car park, during an archaeological dig to locate them, have now been proved to be that of King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882)
Killed at the Battle Of Bosworth in 1485, at the end of the War of the Roses, by the army led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, his true resting place was unknown, until now.
Richard III was a controversial figure, the humped backed character of Shakespeare's play Richard III, who was believed to be murderous and a horder of money. Although nothing has been proved, it is strongly evidenced that Richard killed the two princes in the Tower at the time of his coronation in 1483, the children of King Edward IV, and one being the true King, Edward V, but Richard is believed to have had him murdered whilst under his protection. Then Richard was crowned.
No current day soap script could equal what went on in those days to manipulate and eradicate even family opposition to gain power! ;)
Very similiar things happened in Ottoman Empire at similiar times Lizzie.. it was the endless fights between brothers and fathers that soon prepared the end.. And of course a big budget deficit which was tried to be closed with wars..Add to that no technologic development and masses left in ignorance..
So I understand Cem. Sultans regularly killed brothers en mass to ensure there was no competition! Was it Mehmet who went one step further and had the women of the Harem tied to stones and dropped alive into the sea because they had been his predecessors Harem?
Sultans kill brothers many times although there are exceptions .. It was Deli (Mad,Lunatic) İbrahim who slaughtered harem.. A little after the event , he was also executed for that reason..
Was he Cem also the one who had been kept in a locked compartment for years before he become Sultan, then he slaughtered his numerous brothers and the Harem, and was then imprisoned as someone who had lost their mind and had gone too far, even for a Sultan? ???
-
So the bones found in a Leicester car park, during an archaeological dig to locate them, have now been proved to be that of King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882)
Killed at the Battle Of Bosworth in 1485, at the end of the War of the Roses, by the army led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, his true resting place was unknown, until now.
Richard III was a controversial figure, the humped backed character of Shakespeare's play Richard III, who was believed to be murderous and a horder of money. Although nothing has been proved, it is strongly evidenced that Richard killed the two princes in the Tower at the time of his coronation in 1483, the children of King Edward IV, and one being the true King, Edward V, but Richard is believed to have had him murdered whilst under his protection. Then Richard was crowned.
No current day soap script could equal what went on in those days to manipulate and eradicate even family opposition to gain power! ;)
Very similiar things happened in Ottoman Empire at similiar times Lizzie.. it was the endless fights between brothers and fathers that soon prepared the end.. And of course a big budget deficit which was tried to be closed with wars..Add to that no technologic development and masses left in ignorance..
So I understand Cem. Sultans regularly killed brothers en mass to ensure there was no competition! Was it Mehmet who went one step further and had the women of the Harem tied to stones and dropped alive into the sea because they had been his predecessors Harem?
Sultans kill brothers many times although there are exceptions .. It was Deli (Mad,Lunatic) İbrahim who slaughtered harem.. A little after the event , he was also executed for that reason..
Was he Cem also the one who had been kept in a locked compartment for years before he become Sultan, then he slaughtered his numerous brothers and the Harem, and was then imprisoned as someone who had lost their mind and had gone too far, even for a Sultan? ???
yep.. but keeping them in locked compartments was a general procedure to stop Sultans killing borthers..
-
So the bones found in a Leicester car park, during an archaeological dig to locate them, have now been proved to be that of King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882)
Killed at the Battle Of Bosworth in 1485, at the end of the War of the Roses, by the army led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, his true resting place was unknown, until now.
Richard III was a controversial figure, the humped backed character of Shakespeare's play Richard III, who was believed to be murderous and a horder of money. Although nothing has been proved, it is strongly evidenced that Richard killed the two princes in the Tower at the time of his coronation in 1483, the children of King Edward IV, and one being the true King, Edward V, but Richard is believed to have had him murdered whilst under his protection. Then Richard was crowned.
No current day soap script could equal what went on in those days to manipulate and eradicate even family opposition to gain power! ;)
Very similiar things happened in Ottoman Empire at similiar times Lizzie.. it was the endless fights between brothers and fathers that soon prepared the end.. And of course a big budget deficit which was tried to be closed with wars..Add to that no technologic development and masses left in ignorance..
So I understand Cem. Sultans regularly killed brothers en mass to ensure there was no competition! Was it Mehmet who went one step further and had the women of the Harem tied to stones and dropped alive into the sea because they had been his predecessors Harem?
Sultans kill brothers many times although there are exceptions .. It was Deli (Mad,Lunatic) İbrahim who slaughtered harem.. A little after the event , he was also executed for that reason..
Was he Cem also the one who had been kept in a locked compartment for years before he become Sultan, then he slaughtered his numerous brothers and the Harem, and was then imprisoned as someone who had lost their mind and had gone too far, even for a Sultan? ???
yep.. but keeping them in locked compartments was a general procedure to stop Sultans killing borthers..
Ah, right Cem! Thanks! :y :y :y
-
There is a prog on CH4 at 9 tonight.
Yorkist, great king, won't hear anything bad said about him. ;D ;D
Thanks Varche! :y :y :y
Will watch that 8) 8)
I favour the Yorkist's myself, and love the following Tudor period. What great times for England! :y :y
.......if you had a bob or two, and didn't have the pox. ;)
-
There is a prog on CH4 at 9 tonight.
Yorkist, great king, won't hear anything bad said about him. ;D ;D
Thanks Varche! :y :y :y
Will watch that 8) 8)
I favour the Yorkist's myself, and love the following Tudor period. What great times for England! :y :y
.......if you had a bob or two, and didn't have the pox. ;)
+1 :y
-
I saw a Richard the third this morning, they are really common around here ::) ::)
-
So the bones found in a Leicester car park, during an archaeological dig to locate them, have now been proved to be that of King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
Killed at the Battle Of Bosworth in 1485, at the end of the War of the Roses, by the army led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, his true resting place was unknown, until now.
Richard III was a controversial figure, the humped backed character of Shakespeare's play Richard III, who was believed to be murderous and a horder of money. Although nothing has been proved, it is strongly evidenced that Richard killed the two princes in the Tower at the time of his coronation in 1483, the children of King Edward IV, and one being the true King, Edward V, but Richard is believed to have had him murdered whilst under his protection. Then Richard was crowned.
No current day soap script could equal what went on in those days to manipulate and eradicate even family opposition to gain power! ;)
Agreed, Lizzie. But Richard was no better or worse than many others during that violent period. Subsequently, the Tudors delighted in portraying Richard as a grotesque parody of himself.
-
I saw a Richard the third this morning, they are really common around here ::) ::)
A little bird?
-
I saw a Richard the third this morning, they are really common around here ::) ::)
A little bird?
But of course, what else could it be ::)
-
So the bones found in a Leicester car park, during an archaeological dig to locate them, have now been proved to be that of King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
Killed at the Battle Of Bosworth in 1485, at the end of the War of the Roses, by the army led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, his true resting place was unknown, until now.
Richard III was a controversial figure, the humped backed character of Shakespeare's play Richard III, who was believed to be murderous and a horder of money. Although nothing has been proved, it is strongly evidenced that Richard killed the two princes in the Tower at the time of his coronation in 1483, the children of King Edward IV, and one being the true King, Edward V, but Richard is believed to have had him murdered whilst under his protection. Then Richard was crowned.
No current day soap script could equal what went on in those days to manipulate and eradicate even family opposition to gain power! ;)
Agreed, Lizzie. But Richard was no better or worse than many others during that violent period. Subsequently, the Tudors delighted in portraying Richard as a grotesque parody of himself.
Indeed Opti! :y :y
Not only that period either. You could write a book on it, but you have examples like Henry II who arranged the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket in 1170; Richard I who massacred 2,600 captured Saracens at Acre in 1191; King John I who killed many, and was generally a pretty appalling character - hence he is rightly called Bad King John; Henry VIII who really murdered two wives - albeit "executed" - and also rid himself of Cromwell by the same means; Queen "Bloody" Mary I who had hundreds of Protestants executed, along with Thomas Crammer following her coronation in 1553; Elizabeth I who had her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots executed in 1567, although Elizabeth was forced into this action and was actually a very fair monarch; the absolute Monarchy system was by then breaking down, and pure lustful killings on the orders of the king or queen petered out, and from then on it was the state doing the killing - King Charles I executed by the Parliamentarians in 1649! ;)
-
So the bones found in a Leicester car park, during an archaeological dig to locate them, have now been proved to be that of King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
Killed at the Battle Of Bosworth in 1485, at the end of the War of the Roses, by the army led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, his true resting place was unknown, until now.
Richard III was a controversial figure, the humped backed character of Shakespeare's play Richard III, who was believed to be murderous and a horder of money. Although nothing has been proved, it is strongly evidenced that Richard killed the two princes in the Tower at the time of his coronation in 1483, the children of King Edward IV, and one being the true King, Edward V, but Richard is believed to have had him murdered whilst under his protection. Then Richard was crowned.
No current day soap script could equal what went on in those days to manipulate and eradicate even family opposition to gain power! ;)
Agreed, Lizzie. But Richard was no better or worse than many others during that violent period. Subsequently, the Tudors delighted in portraying Richard as a grotesque parody of himself.
Indeed Opti! :y :y
Not only that period either. You could write a book on it, but you have examples like Henry II who arranged the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket in 1170; Richard I who massacred 2,600 captured Saracens at Acre in 1191; King John I who killed many, and was generally a pretty appalling character - hence he is rightly called Bad King John; Henry VIII who really murdered two wives - albeit "executed" - and also rid himself of Cromwell by the same means; Queen "Bloody" Mary I who had hundreds of Protestants executed, along with Thomas Crammer following her coronation in 1553; Elizabeth I who had her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots executed in 1567, although Elizabeth was forced into this action and was actually a very fair monarch; the absolute Monarchy system was by then breaking down, and pure lustful killings on the orders of the king or queen petered out, and from then on it was the state doing the killing - King Charles I executed by the Parliamentarians in 1649! ;)
All pretty tame then, compared to the French revolution and their generous use of the guillotine. :o :o :o :o
-
So the bones found in a Leicester car park, during an archaeological dig to locate them, have now been proved to be that of King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
Killed at the Battle Of Bosworth in 1485, at the end of the War of the Roses, by the army led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, his true resting place was unknown, until now.
Richard III was a controversial figure, the humped backed character of Shakespeare's play Richard III, who was believed to be murderous and a horder of money. Although nothing has been proved, it is strongly evidenced that Richard killed the two princes in the Tower at the time of his coronation in 1483, the children of King Edward IV, and one being the true King, Edward V, but Richard is believed to have had him murdered whilst under his protection. Then Richard was crowned.
No current day soap script could equal what went on in those days to manipulate and eradicate even family opposition to gain power! ;)
Agreed, Lizzie. But Richard was no better or worse than many others during that violent period. Subsequently, the Tudors delighted in portraying Richard as a grotesque parody of himself.
Indeed Opti! :y :y
Not only that period either. You could write a book on it, but you have examples like Henry II who arranged the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket in 1170; Richard I who massacred 2,600 captured Saracens at Acre in 1191; King John I who killed many, and was generally a pretty appalling character - hence he is rightly called Bad King John; Henry VIII who really murdered two wives - albeit "executed" - and also rid himself of Cromwell by the same means; Queen "Bloody" Mary I who had hundreds of Protestants executed, along with Thomas Crammer following her coronation in 1553; Elizabeth I who had her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots executed in 1567, although Elizabeth was forced into this action and was actually a very fair monarch; the absolute Monarchy system was by then breaking down, and pure lustful killings on the orders of the king or queen petered out, and from then on it was the state doing the killing - King Charles I executed by the Parliamentarians in 1649! ;)
All pretty tame then, compared to the French revolution and their generous use of the guillotine. :o :o :o :o
Oh yes Rods2, how true. The Revolution should have ended in the year it started, 1789, but internal factions and fractions where not happy, and it went on until the final end in 1802, with the rise of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, though the year of "The Terror" and counter terror in 1793 , with thirty thousand going to their deaths in just that year, and murder with mayhem everywhere. Lamp posts made excellent gallows, and no one was safe including all but one of the original revolutionists, the Tennis Court National Assembly, outside of the Estates-General, of 20th June 1789, who went to their deaths at the hand of other revolutionary factions. One million had died by 1802 during the Revolution, with another one million going on to die fighting for Napoleon.
A ruinous Revolution indeed, and one Great Britain narrowly avoided!
THE book to read is by the renowned expert on the French Revolution, William Doyle. Every time I re-read his very comprehensive account I learn something new. If you are not already aware of it,
Doyle, W. French Revolution 2nd Edition Oxford University Press (2002) is the book to read on this subject! 8) ;)
-
Thanks for the book reference, I have added it to my future reading list. It has very positive reviews on Amazon. :y
I remember covering this in history at school many years ago and have read several summaries as part of reading about Napoleon. I have always found it strange how the French revere Napoleon, where he is one of history's megalomaniacs. Although it might be because they have not had much in their history that was much of a success! ::) ::) ::)
Like all French Hegmony, Napoleon ultimately was a failure as well. :)
Indeed, from what I can remember, there was quite a lot of unrest in England and draconian laws were passed to stop the gathering of groups of people where the English nobility were so worried.
-
:y :y :y good program last night the leader of the aprecation group was a nit over the top her acting up to the cameras was bad
but a brilliant progran nonethe less the question now is do they rave a state funeral for him
i say no but give him a decent send off
-
Thanks for the book reference, I have added it to my future reading list. It has very positive reviews on Amazon. :y
I remember covering this in history at school many years ago and have read several summaries as part of reading about Napoleon. I have always found it strange how the French revere Napoleon, where he is one of history's megalomaniacs. Although it might be because they have not had much in their history that was much of a success! ::) ::) ::)
Like all French Hegmony, Napoleon ultimately was a failure as well. :)
Indeed, from what I can remember, there was quite a lot of unrest in England and draconian laws were passed to stop the gathering of groups of people where the English nobility were so worried.
The book by Doyle you will find absolutely absorbing Rods2! As I said William Doyle is the historian for the French Revolution as in academic historian circles he is known to eat, breath and sleep the Revolution! Other historians have told me that what he does not know about the Revolution is not worth knowing. :D :D
Oh yes, the events of 1789, so soon after the French involvement in the American War of Independence and the preachings by Thomas Paine in support of People's Revolution, made the British government very nervous indeed. Edmund Burke, a Whig member of the House of Commons, in his book 'Reflections on the Revolution in France' (1790) was counteracted by the words of Paine in his piece "The Rights of Man" (1791/2). But Burke won some influence on especially the British middle classes, professional people, that had been the driving force behind the French Revolution, with his emphasis on the importance of British virtues of continuity, rank, property, and tradition, the founding principals of the Conservative party. Burke, along with very clever manoeuvring by the British government with giving the people just enough change to stop outright revolution. The situation actually lasted until around 1848, the year of further European revolution, with the British Government just again giving enough changes of law and political process, this time in answer to the Chartist movement, to keep the revolutionists at bay. An early British secret service, now we would call MI5, was at work also to keep the British Government one step ahead.
An absolutely fascinating time for British politics. However, there were still fears of revolution in Victoria reign, with 1888 coming very close to a British revolution again.
-
:y :y :y good program last night the leader of the aprecation group was a nit over the top her acting up to the cameras was bad
but a brilliant progran nonethe less the question now is do they rave a state funeral for him
i say no but give him a decent send off
Indeed, keep him in Leicester. :y :y
Most historians, even allowing for Tudor politics that blackened his name further, like the earlier King John I, was a bad egg. He may have been as bad as many other monarchs, but he was a pretty disreputable character, and one, as I have stated before, who appears with all the evidence available from the time, to have murdered the two princes in the tower, one of whom was due to be crowned Edward V on the 22nd June 1483.
Importantly he also ruled just two years, so is hardly a great monarch in anycase. Let Leicester Cathedral be his home. ;)
-
That programme was rubbish. More dumbed down rubbish. On the BBC world news live yesterday morning they had the same experts (how do you get a job"keeper of rare finds", xxx University?) who explained the technicalities very well.
The country would have been a much different place today if Richard 3rd had won the Battle of Bosworth. We would still have been Catholics. No Gay marriage, the magnificent monasteries and nunneries would still have been in existence.
I don't subscribe to this murdeing of the two princes. I am sure they just went for a midnight swim. Boys will be boys and all that.
Funny that they never mentioned his head wound was caused by it hitting King Richard the Third bridge (near Kirby and Wests) as he entered Leicester across that white horse. You can still see the chipped paint ;D ;D
-
Thanks for the book reference, I have added it to my future reading list. It has very positive reviews on Amazon. :y
I remember covering this in history at school many years ago and have read several summaries as part of reading about Napoleon. I have always found it strange how the French revere Napoleon, where he is one of history's megalomaniacs. Although it might be because they have not had much in their history that was much of a success! ::) ::) ::)
Like all French Hegmony, Napoleon ultimately was a failure as well. :)
Indeed, from what I can remember, there was quite a lot of unrest in England and draconian laws were passed to stop the gathering of groups of people where the English nobility were so worried.
The book by Doyle you will find absolutely absorbing Rods2! As I said William Doyle is the historian for the French Revolution as in academic historian circles he is known to eat, breath and sleep the Revolution! Other historians have told me that what he does not know about the Revolution is not worth knowing. :D :D
Oh yes, the events of 1789, so soon after the French involvement in the American War of Independence and the preachings by Thomas Paine in support of People's Revolution, made the British government very nervous indeed. Edmund Burke, a Whig member of the House of Commons, in his book 'Reflections on the Revolution in France' (1790) was counteracted by the words of Paine in his piece "The Rights of Man" But Burke won some influence on especially the British middle classes, professional people, that had been the driving force behind the French Revolution, with his emphasis on the importance of British virtues of continuity, rank, property, and tradition, the founding principals of the Conservative party. Burke, along with very clever manoeuvring by the British government with giving the people just enough change to stop outright revolution. The situation actually lasted until around 1848, the year of further European revolution, with the British Government just again giving enough changes of law and political process, this time in answer to the Chartist movement, to keep the revolutionists at bay. An early British secret service, now we would call MI5, was at work also to keep the British Government one step ahead.
An absolutely fascinating time for British politics. However, there were still fears of revolution in Victoria reign, with 1888 coming very close to a British revolution again.
From what I can remember the Corn Laws from 1815 were also very unpopular and caused much discontent.
Presumably the 1888 difficulty was in the middle of the 1880 to 1896 depression, which badly affected the UK textile industry?
-
Thanks for the book reference, I have added it to my future reading list. It has very positive reviews on Amazon. :y
I remember covering this in history at school many years ago and have read several summaries as part of reading about Napoleon. I have always found it strange how the French revere Napoleon, where he is one of history's megalomaniacs. Although it might be because they have not had much in their history that was much of a success! ::) ::) ::)
Like all French Hegmony, Napoleon ultimately was a failure as well. :)
Indeed, from what I can remember, there was quite a lot of unrest in England and draconian laws were passed to stop the gathering of groups of people where the English nobility were so worried.
The book by Doyle you will find absolutely absorbing Rods2! As I said William Doyle is the historian for the French Revolution as in academic historian circles he is known to eat, breath and sleep the Revolution! Other historians have told me that what he does not know about the Revolution is not worth knowing. :D :D
Oh yes, the events of 1789, so soon after the French involvement in the American War of Independence and the preachings by Thomas Paine in support of People's Revolution, made the British government very nervous indeed. Edmund Burke, a Whig member of the House of Commons, in his book 'Reflections on the Revolution in France' (1790) was counteracted by the words of Paine in his piece "The Rights of Man" But Burke won some influence on especially the British middle classes, professional people, that had been the driving force behind the French Revolution, with his emphasis on the importance of British virtues of continuity, rank, property, and tradition, the founding principals of the Conservative party. Burke, along with very clever manoeuvring by the British government with giving the people just enough change to stop outright revolution. The situation actually lasted until around 1848, the year of further European revolution, with the British Government just again giving enough changes of law and political process, this time in answer to the Chartist movement, to keep the revolutionists at bay. An early British secret service, now we would call MI5, was at work also to keep the British Government one step ahead.
An absolutely fascinating time for British politics. However, there were still fears of revolution in Victoria reign, with 1888 coming very close to a British revolution again.
From what I can remember the Corn Laws from 1815 were also very unpopular and caused much discontent.
Presumably the 1888 difficulty was in the middle of the 1880 to 1896 depression, which badly affected the UK textile industry?
The Corn Laws commenced in 1670 in an attempt to control the price of grain, and it was revised a number of times, with 1815 being a crucial time as there was hundred of thousands of soldiers discharged from the army after 1815 which swelled the ranks of those seeking employment and the need for them to find food to survive. The price of corn, and thus bread, was not helpful at all.
Certainly the price of wheat was a regular concern around the end of the 18th century, with it leaping to 113s.10d per quarter in 1800 from 54s.9d ten years before. A further peak of 119s.6d in 1801, was followed by a significant price reduction, but then hit highs in 1810 (106s.5d); 1812 (126s.6d);1813 (109s.9d), with a dip again until 1817 (96s.11d). Coal prices also increased by a third over these years.
Then there was the Factories Act 1833 that restricted the working age, to over 9, and hours to 48 per week, of children thus reducing the amount families could earn. Amendments to that Act up to 1847 certainly improved the conditions for workers and their children, but still left them short of money as far as they were concerned. A way of life was being changed. The Poor Law Amendments Act of 1834 was not welcomed, and formed a part of the growing discontent. However the Reform Act of 1832 had started a process of political change that would satisfy many of those inclined to revolt over then unfair voting practices, and the unbalanced structure of the government.
It was by 1870 that the unrest created by Queen Victoria's virtual disappearance from society whilst mourning for years the death of Prince Albert, produced an uprising of republican feeling. Questions were apparently abounding as to whether the money spent on the Royal family could be justified with a growing population who were being reduced to poverty and appalling housing conditions. The reappearance of Victoria in the public domain in 1872 quelled the republican feelings, although they would remain in the background with 1888 a particularly difficult time, with Victoria's son 'Bertie', later Edward VIII, a rather irresponsible type who was seen to be acting the playboy, even becoming a witness in a divorce trial!
Oh yes, Britain and her government did well to avoid revolution from 1789 to the late 1880's. In the twentieth century that threat though would still be there.