My knowledge of British history, especially in regards to their kings is truly lacking. But then again, thanks to Shakespeare I have had the pleasure to have some knowledge of this Richard III dude.
Of course, the Bard's version may be flawed, as some real historians on the subject seem only to eager to point out.
Unverified remains dig up the twisted legacy of England’s Richard III
LONDON — Tyrant or hero? Rightful monarch or child-killer? Despotic hunchback or brave scoliosis sufferer? Now is the winter of our debate over one of England’s most notorious villains: Richard III.
 |
Underneath a drab parking lot 90 miles northwest of London, archaeologists have unearthed what may become one of this nation’s finds of the century — half-a-millennium-old bones thought to be the remains of the long-lost monarch. But if the discovery has touched off a feverish round of DNA tests against his closest living descendants, it has also lurched to the surface a series of burning questions in a country where even arcane points of history are disputed with the gusto of modern-day politics.
Whether the bones prove to be Richard’s or not, the discovery in September has already set academic journals, Web sites, university lecture circuits and the mainstream media abuzz across Britain, sparking intense and occasionally impolite exchanges. On the floor of the House of Commons, members of Parliament are eloquently clashing, with representatives from York — for whom Richard was the last hope against rival Lancastrians in the War of the Roses — demanding the restoration of his tarnished image. One organization of die-hard Richard III supporters (there are at least two) is running a national ad campaign to clear the king’s name.
FULL STORY-Washington Post
I only posted three paragraphs to this story, follow the title link or the one just above for a very interesting read.
No comments:
Post a Comment