Richard III found
 

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2...chard-iii?lite


a king who has been given notorious short shrift by historians, mainly because his immediate successor (henry the 7th, pretender to the throne-but he won the battle of bosworth field, so there ya go) did such a good job with his history and propaganda. but even shakespeare couldn't quite manage to write a play about the first tudor, and 'uniter' of the red and white roses.

However, in defense of Shakespeare, the remains were indeed found sans equine.

King Richard III's face revealed after 500 years.


Looks like a poster here...:D..The 3rd pic that is..


http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2...500-years?lite

Setting the record straight?
http://www.richard111.com/

i am currently reading 'winter king' about henry the 7th. what a guy. i have several books here about richard the third. he really has gotten bad press, and actually was wanted as king by most when he claimed the crown. the woodevilles weren't exactly well-liked, by anyone, and no one wanted all the upheaval that came with a youth on the throne. richard III was many things, but a bad king wasn't one of them. so many others were truly bad kings, he doesn't belong on a 'bad king' list. edward the second, richard the second, john, stephen-those are some bad ones.
the tudors, other than elizabeth, were a train wreck.

Sir Thomas More really should get most of the credit for the negative spin on Richard III (because, let's face it, in Shakespeare's play, he's a GREAT character). More did it to suck up to Henry VIII.

That worked out really well for him in the end.

yeah, it did, didn't it.
but more was a young man when henry tudor first became king-he had plenty of other help writing all that propaganda, and henry was good at it.