Witaj GOŚCIU ( Zaloguj się | Rejestracja )
 
3 Strony < 1 2 3 
Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Ryszard III: ocena,
     
lancelot
 

Żelazna pięść
**********
Grupa: Użytkownik
Postów: 12.480
Nr użytkownika: 36.860

bogumil chruszczewski
Stopień akademicki: rebajlo
Zawód: Podstarza³y wilk
 
 
post 15/10/2013, 19:33 Quote Post

Trochę dziwna sprawa z tymi szkieletami, które odnaleziono, datuje się je na XVII w.
 
User is offline  PMMini ProfileEmail Poster Post #31

     
Ramond
 

Úlvur av Føroyar
**********
Grupa: Moderatorzy
Postów: 16.517
Nr użytkownika: 9.304

Stopień akademicki: dr inz.
Zawód: inzynier
 
 
post 15/10/2013, 20:07 Quote Post

QUOTE
Trochę dziwna sprawa z tymi szkieletami, które odnaleziono, datuje się je na XVII w.

Problem w tym, że znaleziono łącznie trzy komplety po dwa szkielety każdy...
 
User is offline  PMMini Profile Post #32

     
Realchief
 

X ranga
**********
Grupa: Użytkownik
Postów: 14.269
Nr użytkownika: 63.111

 
 
post 16/10/2013, 15:37 Quote Post

Kilka miesięcy temu na National Geographic był program w którym toczono śledztwo w tej sprawie. Wyszło im tam, że książąt nikt nie zamordował i sobie spokojnie zmarli ze starości w połowie XVI wieku.
 
User is offline  PMMini ProfileEmail Poster Post #33

     
lancelot
 

Żelazna pięść
**********
Grupa: Użytkownik
Postów: 12.480
Nr użytkownika: 36.860

bogumil chruszczewski
Stopień akademicki: rebajlo
Zawód: Podstarza³y wilk
 
 
post 16/10/2013, 15:54 Quote Post

QUOTE
Problem w tym, że znaleziono łącznie trzy komplety po dwa szkielety każdy..
Jak datowane?
QUOTE
Wyszło im tam, że książąt nikt nie zamordował i sobie spokojnie zmarli ze starości w połowie XVI wieku.
Sugerujesz, że do morderstwa nie doszło?
 
User is offline  PMMini ProfileEmail Poster Post #34

     
Realchief
 

X ranga
**********
Grupa: Użytkownik
Postów: 14.269
Nr użytkownika: 63.111

 
 
post 16/10/2013, 18:29 Quote Post

Nie ja sugeruję tylko National Geographic.
 
User is offline  PMMini ProfileEmail Poster Post #35

     
Ramond
 

Úlvur av Føroyar
**********
Grupa: Moderatorzy
Postów: 16.517
Nr użytkownika: 9.304

Stopień akademicki: dr inz.
Zawód: inzynier
 
 
post 17/10/2013, 12:41 Quote Post

National Geographic to nie jest wiarygodne źródło.
 
User is offline  PMMini Profile Post #36

     
Realchief
 

X ranga
**********
Grupa: Użytkownik
Postów: 14.269
Nr użytkownika: 63.111

 
 
post 17/10/2013, 19:13 Quote Post

Trudno by to było źródło do późnego średniowiecza skoro to program telewizyjny, za to mogli się tam powoływać na źródła i to robili.
Podałem to zresztą jako ciekawostkę, spekulacja na temat losu książąt dobra jak każda inna.
 
User is offline  PMMini ProfileEmail Poster Post #37

     
lancelot
 

Żelazna pięść
**********
Grupa: Użytkownik
Postów: 12.480
Nr użytkownika: 36.860

bogumil chruszczewski
Stopień akademicki: rebajlo
Zawód: Podstarza³y wilk
 
 
post 17/10/2013, 20:16 Quote Post

A książęta zniknęli jakoś?
 
User is offline  PMMini ProfileEmail Poster Post #38

     
Ramond
 

Úlvur av Føroyar
**********
Grupa: Moderatorzy
Postów: 16.517
Nr użytkownika: 9.304

Stopień akademicki: dr inz.
Zawód: inzynier
 
 
post 19/10/2013, 21:28 Quote Post

QUOTE
Trudno by to było źródło do późnego średniowiecza skoro to program telewizyjny, za to mogli się tam powoływać na źródła i to robili.

Däniken też się "powołuje na źródła". Różnica w podejściu do tego powoływania się. I różnica w recenzjach, jakim to podlega.

Zacytuję Alison Weir, która dogłębnie przebadała sprawę "książąt w Tower":

Apart from the lack of evidence, there are insurmountable obstacles to the theory that Buckingham murdered the Princes. They disappeared while they were being securely held in the Tower as the King’s chief prisoners of state. If someone – Buckingham, for example - who, even as Constable of England, would have needed the King’s permission to breach security at the Tower - had murdered them, Richard would quickly have got to hear about it, and it would have been in his interests to make political capital against his enemies to his own advantage, thus giving the lie to the rumours about his own involvement; he was adept at using the tool of character assassination most effectively.

If Buckingham had murdered the Princes with Richard’s approval and therefore on his behalf, when Buckingham was executed for treason Richard had the perfect opportunity to lay the blame at his door and so give the lie to rumour. He did not seize it.

Even though the rumours about his having murdered the Princes went on damning Richard’s reputation and undermining his security as king, he took no measures at all to counteract them, when it was crucially in his interests to do so. Had someone else murdered his nephews, especially one of his enemies, it would have served him well, and retrieved his reputation, to be able to accuse them. It would also have been in his interests to make it known if they had died natural deaths. Claims that one or both the Princes survived are fascinating but unconvincing, and cannot be substantiated by good evidence.

Elizabeth Wydeville's emergence with her daughters from sanctuary in 1484 does not necessarily mean that she did not believe the King had murdered the Princes. He had already judicially murdered another of her sons, on the flimsiest of pretexts, yet still she came to terms with him, doubtless hoping she had done the best she could for her remaining children.

There are obvious problems with the theory that the Princes were sent secretly to Gipping, not least of them the discovery in 1674 in the Tower of London of the bones of two children of approximately the age of the Princes at the time of their disappearance in 1483. But if the Princes had survived, and were taken to Gipping Hall, someone would surely have got to know about it. Late medieval royal and noble households were teeming places peopled with servants and officials, and privacy would not become a priority until the reign of Henry VIII. It is likely that several of those who served the Queen could have recognised her sons. Thus it would have been virtually impossible to keep the existence of the Princes a secret, especially in the face of rumours of their deaths.

Richard very publicly guaranteed the future safety and welfare of Edward IV’s daughters. His promises – and his oath made on the Gospels - reflect widespread concerns that he had done away with their brothers, for whose safety, as opposed to that of the girls, he gave no reassurances. This strongly suggests that they were dead, while the specific mention in the guarantee of the Tower, and Richard’s willingness to give such a public guarantee, amounts to a tacit admittance that their mother had good cause for concern.

Richard’s proposed marriage to Elizabeth amounted effectively to a tacit admission that the Princes were not only legitimate but also dead. But declaring her and her sisters legitimate would have been tantamount to proclaiming that her brothers were no more, and that would have raised yet more contentious questions

http://alisonweir.org.uk/books/bookpages/m...es-in-tower.asp
 
User is offline  PMMini Profile Post #39

3 Strony < 1 2 3 
1 Użytkowników czyta ten temat (1 Gości i 0 Anonimowych użytkowników)
0 Zarejestrowanych:


Topic Options
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

 
Copyright © 2003 - 2017 Historycy.org
historycy@historycy.org, tel: 12 346-54-06

Kolokacja serwera, łącza internetowe:
Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej