A Horse, a horse, my Kingdom for a Horse

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussion' started by Phil A, Jan 15, 2013.

  1. shiney

    shiney President, Grumpy Old Men's Club Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    67,260
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired - Last Century!!!
    Location:
    Herts/Essex border. Zone 8b
    Ratings:
    +134,081
  2. clueless1

    clueless1 member... yep, that's what I am:)

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    17,778
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Here
    Ratings:
    +19,601
    I doubt very much if King Richard or any of his relatives will be bothered where his bones end up, on account of all being too preoccupied with the important job of being slightly deceased by now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • "M"

      "M" Total Gardener

      Joined:
      Aug 11, 2012
      Messages:
      18,607
      Location:
      The Garden of England
      Ratings:
      +31,888
      Yes, but, all that "unknown filth" was at least passed as fit for human consumption. Can't remember the name of the drug off the top of my head but there is a drug that horses may be injected with which would contaminate their flesh as unfit. So, a potential knock-on affect on people's health?

      If unscrupulous means were employed to add horse flesh in the first instance, then it might be fair to assume that who ever is behind it wasn't double checking the horses medical history.
       
      • Like Like x 1
      • Agree Agree x 1
      • "M"

        "M" Total Gardener

        Joined:
        Aug 11, 2012
        Messages:
        18,607
        Location:
        The Garden of England
        Ratings:
        +31,888
        But, it is proven he had more right to the throne than his brother Edward (who was illegitimate) and it is from Edward's bloodline that the subsequent royals came from. However, Richard only had illegitimate sons to succeed him anyway. But, doesn't detract from the fact he had more right to the monarchy.
         
      • ARMANDII

        ARMANDII Low Flying Administrator Staff Member

        Joined:
        Jan 12, 2019
        Messages:
        48,096
        Gender:
        Male
        Ratings:
        +100,851
        It depends on what you define as a right, Mum.:snork: There was more political and family intrigue going on then than now, and a lot of "rights" were established by the sword, a knife in the back, and the spilling of blood rather than the mixing up of it. So in those days it came down to how many nobles you could get, or pay in some manner, to support you in a claim for the throne. The Royals have never, as history has shown, been a family of recognising rights been have molded them to such their purposes at that time. I leave out the present Royal Family in that assessment.:paladin:
         
      • "M"

        "M" Total Gardener

        Joined:
        Aug 11, 2012
        Messages:
        18,607
        Location:
        The Garden of England
        Ratings:
        +31,888
        True, it is all a question of perspective.

        As for "rights" being established via the sword, knife in the back and spilling of blood, as a metaphor, that still holds true today in a number of areas of life.

        I say: let the guy finally rest and let him have a bit of dignity; if not for his royalty, then for simply human compassion.
         
        • Agree Agree x 3
        Loading...

        Share This Page

        1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
          By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
          Dismiss Notice