Print Page | Close Window

Edward IV, Better King of England than Henry V.

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Rate Kings and Emperors
Forum Discription: Talk about the kings and emperors and rate them!
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28555
Printed Date: 21-Nov-2017 at 08:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Edward IV, Better King of England than Henry V.
Posted By: warwolf1969
Subject: Edward IV, Better King of England than Henry V.
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2010 at 05:09
I would like to put forwards Edward IV of England.  He is I believe a better King that Henry V, who is often classed as the greatest of the medival Kings of England.  Militarily Edward was highly sucessful, having sucessfully brought about the defeat of the Lancastrian forces in the Wars of the Roses.  Afterwards he proved that he was also a good politician by placating the Lancastrian supporters left in England, while not alienating the Yorkist followers.  If he had not got soaked out hunting, and caught pnumonia it is probable that there would have never been a Tudor dynasty, instead it would have been the House of York. 



Replies:
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2010 at 13:11
It seems lots if royalty had problems with "water!", and the number of them who died either by it, or by some product of water!

We are oft told that these very same kings, seemed to avoid water at all costs, only bathing in it, a few times a year! Perhaps that is because of the frightful things that water did to some of their predecessors, I.e. gave the pneumonia, drowned them, or their favorite horse, or son, etc.?

Give it a look! Watered down battle fields, water filled jars, river drownings, pneumonia, eating fish, lack of fresh water, etc., history is littered with water related problems that faced kings and queens, etc.!

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Night Crawler
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 03:23
I guess Royals don't float
 
Henry V was much better Just ask Shakespeare.


Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 10:38
What criteria are being used to determine the excellence or the unsuitability of these two kings, and thus kings in general?

No Tudor's but a continuation of the Plantagenets, what of the Kingmaker, Warwick?

Also I always thought Edward III was the greatest medieval english monarch.


Water you say? Problem with water is that its a natural force, an element of nature that all the temporal power and might of kings can do nothing about, something out of their control. Let us not forget Cnut, or the White Ship.


-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 13:15
Water is also a symbol of purification and cleansing! Perhaps that is why the writers of many chronologies / histories used it so often?

Water is also a symbol of life and birth, and salvation! Witness the great kings, etc., who were found floating in the water, remember at childbirth, a great flow of water preceeds the actual birth!

Actually the old Biblical saying "Dust, to dust, etc.", is but the anathema of "water to water!", because technically upon death, and usually before, the water of the body, of which by weight is 80% or so, goes away and reinters the waters of the Earth! Dust, is dead, water is life, and the release of the water, is "re-birth!"

Lots of other symbolism if one cares to persue it!

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: warwolf1969
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2010 at 06:16
Sorry Nightcrawler but Shakespear is not a good source of truthful history. Henry V's only good act was defeating the French.  Apart from that he was a bad king.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2010 at 14:29
I would propose that Shakespeare was nothing more than a political animal, who was more like a mercenary than any thing that we today would consider to be "neutral!"
Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 02:49
Actually dont discount Shakespeare too quickly. As far as his history plays are concerned alot of the stuff he actually has in them are surprisingly spot on and quite accurate in many respects. more so then many are initially willing to believe. The whole Richard III thing does give a very bad impression.
What he does change around can usually be put down to the practicalities of attempting to make a historical event into a play (time constranits, cast sizes etc as any modern historical novelist might do) or the simple kowtowing to Tudor political sensibilities.


Henry V, the man who re-established the English Kingdom of France in the 1420's


-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2010 at 14:24
I am sorry, I just cannot concure with DW, now! Shakespeare was "political", there is little doubt in my mind, as there exists about just whom was Shakespeare!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2010 at 04:21
Ah the opld doubting whom shakespear was, always a bit of a crap argument, being a Warwickshire lad as I am on does tend to get tired of it all.
 
He has to be politcal, he is confined by the framework of the time in which he writes (doesnt that sound wonderfuly Marxist) and so must kow tow to politcial norms and niceties. But his actual history isnt too far off, glossed as it may be, and what is, as I have said, can alosb e attributed to the sheer practical implications of making it into a play and fitting it onto a stage.


-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2010 at 05:58
Originally posted by DreamWeaver

Ah the opld doubting whom shakespear was, always a bit of a crap argument, being a Warwickshire lad as I am on does tend to get tired of it all.
 

He has to be politcal, he is confined by the framework of the time in which he writes (doesnt that sound wonderfuly Marxist) and so must kow tow to politcial norms and niceties. But his actual history isnt too far off, glossed as it may be, and what is, as I have said, can alosb e attributed to the sheer practical implications of making it into a play and fitting it onto a stage.


"As You Like It!", "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts,...."

So you believe that a Wm. Shakespeare really lived and actually wrote all or most of what is attributed to him, eh?

It seems to a lot of "experts" that the evidence is less than overwhelming! Just the arguments pro and con makes good theatre!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2010 at 08:09

Yes I do. Though I accept the possibility of copyright theft on his part to come up with a play, not like he was the first or last.  

I am not convinced by arguments to the contrary. He wasnt a woman, or Welsh, or Kit Marlow or John Webster in disguise, a member of the Illuminati etc. Thsoe who continuously propogate these notions get thrown in the bag along with the Pyramidiots.

 



-------------


Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2010 at 08:13

Yet the question remain Warwolf,  what criteria is being used to measure the quality of Kings?

 

Your own, or standards of the period in question?



-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2010 at 17:30
Dismissing the works of Shakespeare for a moment, I would suggest to you that I might well fall into the company of "Pyramidiots!", which I feel is a great word and one I have not seen in print before now!

But, perhaps my Pyramid theories are much different than those about which you think?

I rather think that these are not very ancient, IE, 4000 or more years distant from the present, but possibly a lot closer to the present, even up to or a few hundred years after what we today refer to as 1,000 CE! IE, they are a product of the Middle Ages!

But, as a famous movie once said; "that is a horse of a different colour!"

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2010 at 07:47
Bit off topic there, but back to Edward IV

-------------


Posted By: DeborahMMoss
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2011 at 11:59
oK all royal bloods are not desame a normal person because they have power and money......
Clap........................



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com