John Knox, a leader in the Protestant Reformation and the man who reformed church to Scotland, is buried beneath parking spot #23, behind St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh. I am going to assume that the crypts extend that far, underground, but perhaps I'm just putting a kind spin on the location. There is a plaque in the parking spot.

your thread before I started mine. I'll delete.

And both Shakespeare and More maligned Richard to please the Tudors.

Ever see their take on this?

check out the behavior of the Tudors who ousted him sometime.

I think the thing that puts Richard in such a notorious category is the death of the two young princes. Although I have no doubt he didn't kill them, himself, I also have no doubt he order the killings. These people were ruthless, and had to be, to gain and hold on to power.

A place to start might be "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey, a whodunit / modern look at the alleged crimes of Richard III.

Was he as enlightened as the book portrays him? Maybe not, but I bet--on the basis of his actual policies and actions--that he was not the monster that history claims, whereas the Tudors' ruthlessness was well-documented. Smearing and murdering a rival to the throne was right up their alley.

I'm reading "Winter King" by Thomas Penn, about the beginning of the Tudor Dynasty. Very interesting. Henry VII was quite a character. I've read, pretty obsessively, about Henry VIII and his children, and am well aware of their bright and dark sides but this is the first book I've read on Henry VII.

Absolutely fascinating people but I think the only thing that's changed, over the centuries, is that, for the MOST part, the powerful leaders now destroy each other with words instead of swords. But they are just as dangerous, devious and power hungry.

regarding Richard and the murder of the princes. Haven't been able to locate a link to that, but I did find this, from 1997:

http://www.r3.org/trial/trial2.html

it would have made more sense that they were killed by Henry VII, as the princes were the ones standing in his way of the throne, not Richard III's.

Their uncle, Richard, was made their 'protector' and had separated them from their mother and put them into the Tower. They stood in the path of him, not in the path of Henry.

Henry was descended from an entirely tree. His grandfather married the widow of Henry V and his grandmother was descended from the family of Edward III. His claim to the throne was tenuous, at best, and he's more a king by conquest, rather than inheritance.

I believe that Henry was, quite literally, hiding in France under the protection of the Duke of Brittany, when the princes were murdered.

Why Laurence Olivier of course. Best performance by an actor I've ever seen, bar none.

Of course, I also believe that Shakespeare's Richard III has very little to do with the real one, and the same with Macbeth and Duncan. But they do make for great drama.

Kingdom for a Rolls" doesn't have quite the same ring -- a bit too 1%er-ish

See what I did there?

Interesting historical find.

something eerie in it all ... maybe in eons people will look back on these times and find them eerie too.

They didn't bother to dig one long enough to lay him flat, just took the "eh, good enough" approach when he mostly fit.

maybe they will do it right this time.

n/t

and put up a paaaaarking lot (with apologies to Ms Mitchell!)