UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 30, 2018 19:42:32 GMT
More about the efforts of modern-day Yorkists
The people of York tried everything to get hold of Richard III’s remains, even approaching the Queen for help: “The leader of a Yorkshire council has claimed the city of Leicester is not to be trusted to look after the recently discovered remains of King Richard III. Scarborough Borough Council's Conservative leader Tom Fox said Leicester had "misplaced" the monarch for more than 500 years. The accusation is part of a bid to get the skeleton buried at York Minster…Various organisations in Yorkshire have joined forces to campaign to overturn the decision to rebury the king in Leicester. Kersten England, chief executive of York City Council, said she had written a letter to the Queen to put forward the city's case. An online e-petition to the government, pushing for the king to be buried in York, has received more than 10,000 signatures.” www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-21369559No luck despite all their efforts. The York faction had to settle for an alternative service at York Minster, and the Dean of York even blessed the main ceremony in Leicester. One man could not contain his feelings and caused a disturbance: “A disgruntled Richard III fan …Retired accountant David John Smith, 66, admitted having a drink before going to York Minster and confronting the Very Rev Vivienne Faull - now Dean of York - and telling her, ‘ God will not forgive you for what you have done to Richard. You will burn in the hell fires forever.’ The tirade was a reference to the Very Rev Faull's blessing that Richard III be reburied in Leicester. Smith challenged her during a packed service at the Minster, which marked the reinterment of Richard III, and which was attended by leading civic figures, on March 26, this year. The agitated Ricardian then shoved a police officer as he was escorted out of the cathedral, and was arrested.” www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11679014/Richard-III-fan-prosecuted-for-York-Minster-rant.htmlHis anger is understandable, but his reaction seems very over the top even though he had been drinking. It shows how strongly he and others felt about the loss of the remains of someone who was a good friend to the city of York.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 31, 2018 7:43:01 GMT
Judi Dench, York and Richard III
“After playing two Queens — Victoria and Elizabeth I — Dame Judi Dench understandably feels a certain affinity with the Royal family. Now, the 78-year-old Oscar-winning actress has decreed that Richard III, whose remains were discovered beneath a council car park in Leicester last year, should be interred in York, where she was born. The Shakespeare in Love star is to add her name to an e-petition, already signed by nearly 30,000 people, which calls on the Government to ensure that the last Yorkist king is laid to rest at York Minster.” www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10294384/Judi-Dench-wants-to-see-Richard-III-buried-in-York.htmlShe would have been very disappointed when Leicester won the battle then. As mentioned above, Benedict Cumberbatch is linked to Richard III via Richard’s mother Cecily Neville. Judi Dench played alongside Benedict Cumberbatch in the BBC’s film of Richard III. She played the part of Richard III’s mother Cecily, Duchess of York:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 31, 2018 7:44:23 GMT
“Richard III: The King Laid To Rest”
I may have missed everything at the time, but I was able to catch up by reading and watching the online records, including a YouTube video that includes much of the service.
Benedict Cumberbatch says in this video that he too found the experience surreal.
Some of the comments are very recent, but people are still saying that Richard III should have been buried in York - and in a Catholic ceremony.
Others are still saying that Richard III should have gone to Westminster or St. George’s Chapel in Windsor, because he was king of England.
Some ask why the Queen wasn’t there. One says that Benedict Cumberbatch gets in everywhere.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 31, 2018 19:39:14 GMT
Richard III and the miscellaneous material
Richard III, rather like Benedict Cumberbatch and Ed Sheeran, is getting into everything. He has made an appearance in the Pindar and Pigs threads in addition to some Monarchy threads. There is still more to come, including some unexpected links to other people and events of interest. First, an unusual depiction as a comic book villain. It shows that he still generates worldwide interest: Richard III sand sculpture from Leicester 2015:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 1, 2018 7:16:43 GMT
Queen Victoria went to see Richard III on stage
Queen Victoria loved the theatre, but was not particularly fond of Shakespeare. She discussed various plays with Lord Melbourne. From Queen Victoria’s diary, January 1838: ”Spoke of the play of the play of Richard III, which I said I was going to see. Lord Melbourne said it was “a fine striking play”. He observed that that scene where Richard makes love to Anne, at the funeral of Henry VI, did not belong to the play, but was taken from Henry VI; he said “That is a very foolish scene; I always thought it a most ridiculous scene; and there is not the slightest foundation in History for it; he married her 8 years afterwards”. He added that Shakespeare constantly mixed up events, in his Historical plays, without minding when they happened, and how far assunder.” www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/social-economic-history/queen-victoria-on-william-shakespeareQueen Victoria in her box in Drury Lane in 1838:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 1, 2018 18:02:44 GMT
Richard III and some Kipling connections
A familiar name unexpectedly appeared when I was looking into various aspects of Rudyard Kipling's life. Rudyard Kipling was named after Rudyard Lake in the village of Rudyard in Staffordshire. Rudyard Lake was where his parents first met. They loved the area, so it is understandable that they should have chosen this unusual name for their son. But who or what was Rudyard Village named after? By coincidence, it was Ralph Rudyard, a local man who is reputed by family tradition to have killed Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field. This killing may be historical fact, but there are other candidates for the dubious honour of regicide. Evidence from the time suggests that Ralph Rudyard really did fight at Bosworth, and he may well have joined in the final attack on Richard. Many Tudor supporters were involved in the hacking and stabbing frenzy that killed the unhorsed monarch. Rudyard Kipling himself was no Ricardian. He thought that Richard III’s death was good for England and the arrival of the Tudors marked the dawning of the modern age. Kipling and C.R.L. Fletcher wrote A School History of England, which was published in 1911. “Fletcher and Kipling subscribed to the then traditional historical view that the Battle of Bosworth, 1485, in which Richard III died and was succeeded as King of England by Henry VII, the first of the Tudors, marked the end of the Middle Ages and the opening up of the modern era. As "The King’s Job", the next poem in A School History, makes clear, Fletcher and Kipling believed it was fortunate for England that Henry took over the throne at this time, though they also stress that he himself should not be seen as anything other than a relatively humble agent for the massive intellectual achievements that were about to transform the whole of the known world. “ www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/rg_dawnwind1.htm
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 2, 2018 17:09:58 GMT
Richard III and some Saviles
There was much discussion in the massive Jimmy Savile thread on the DIF about whether Savile could be related to the royal family in some way and whether he was connected to the aristocratic, Yorkshire based, Savile family. A lot of digging into family relationships was done and some good coincidences and connections found. I have found a few references connecting Richard III and some of the aristocratic Saviles: “To the side of the memorial, a band of Yorkist enthusiasts had pitched camp in full costume. Among them was Peter Griffiths of Barnsley, part of a group dressed as followers of Sir John Savile, a staunch Richard III ally.“ Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3006275/Ceremony-fit-king-Remains-Richard-III-begin-five-day-journey-final-resting-place-500-years-fell-battle.html#ixzz4gU5WkRW9“ Sir Henry Savile, who, in 1596, was the first to print part of the manuscript … a contemporary source covering Richard III's misdeeds.” From Shadow Pasts: 'Amateur Historians' and History's Mysteries By William D. Rubinstein “ Sir Leopold Halliday Savile, KCB...(31 August 1870–1953) was a British civil engineer. Savile was born at Bridge of Earn, Perthshire on 31 August 1870. Savile was a distant descendent of Anne Plantagenet, the sister of Richard III and Edward IV.“ From WiKi
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 2, 2018 17:13:19 GMT
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 4, 2018 7:22:56 GMT
Sir Laurence Olivier’s film Richard III
This film dates from 1955. Sir Laurence produced and directed it, and also appeared in the title role. Sir Laurence made the part of Richard III his own. After seeing him in it, I can’t enjoy the performances of any other actors. It is one of my favourite films. An old poster and a recent DVD cover:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 4, 2018 7:26:54 GMT
Laurence Olivier's film Richard III again
The Queen and Prince Phillip attended the premiere in Leicester Square in 1955. She had big white roses on her dress; white roses were the symbol of the House of York. Here she is with Sir Laurence: You can see the trailer for the film here:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 4, 2018 18:31:22 GMT
Wolves, pigs and Laurence Olivier's Richard III
The name Lupton appears in the list of Richard III’s descendants who wanted him buried in York. It also appears in the Middleton family tree: Olive Lupton was Kate Middleton’s great grandmother, and Luptons were invited to the royal wedding in 2011. Incidentally, the Luptons were based in Leeds, which has many connections with Jimmy Savile. A Leeds-based company called Lupton Fawcett provided legal advice for the selling off part of the Leeds-based company Pindar…Middletons, Saviles, Luptons, Pindars, Martineaus...all are families connected to Leeds - and to each other. To get back to Richard III: We know that the name Lupton is connected to wolves; there are three wolves' heads on their coat of arms. We know that Richard III had a white boar on his standard. Laurence Olivier made his film of Richard III because his on-stage portrayal of Richard had been widely praised. Here is a coincidence: “For the stage production, Olivier had modelled some of the crookback king's look on a well-known theatrical producer at the time, Jed Harris, whom Olivier called "the most loathsome man I'd ever met". Years later Olivier discovered that Walt Disney had also used Harris as his basis for the Big Bad Wolf in the film The Three Little Pigs." Three wolves, one pig; one wolf, three pigs … The Big Bad Wolf and Sir Laurence playing Richard III on stage in 1944:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 5, 2018 7:49:05 GMT
Richard III, Michael Morpurgo and football
Children’s author Michael Morpurgo appears in the Pigs thread. He runs the city farm where Kate Middleton was pictured rounding up some pigs, and has written about the flying pigs of Mudpuddle Farm. Another of his books mentions Richard III. In The Fox and the Ghost King, a fox finds the ghost of a king who had been buried underneath a car park, a king who wishes only to be free. “Release me,” says the Ghost King, “and I can do anything. Just tell me your greatest wish.” Inspired by Leicester City’s historic premiership win, The Fox and the Ghost King was first created for BBC Radio 4’s Today programme and tells of how a fox’s discovery of the body of Richard III changes the fate of his favourite team. I wonder whether the boost to the morale and economy of the city of Leicester given by the finding and retention or Richard III’s remains had anything to do with the winning of the cup. Maybe the spirit of Richard really did help them to achieve their victory; perhaps he was not only a wicked uncle but a fairy godfather!
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 5, 2018 7:50:36 GMT
Richard III: evil murderer or innocent victim of Tudor slander?
Thanks to William Shakespeare and Sir Laurence Olivier, Richard III’s name is forever associated with the murder of the Princes in the Tower. They have given us the image of a thorough villain, a monster and an evil scheming mass-murderer. We don’t know for sure exactly when the young princes died; we don’t know whether or not they were murdered – after all, Richard III’s son and heir died young of natural causes – and, if they really were murdered, who was responsible.
We don’t know for sure whether the bones found near the White Tower in 1674 really belong to the two little princes. The Church of England is reported to have refused to permit DNA tests. I wonder why.
People have been arguing about all this for centuries. Richard III is a likely candidate for the murders, but on the other hand he tried to get the two little princes removed from the lines of succession on the grounds of their father’s and thus their own illegitimacy. He would be the prime suspect if they were known to have died, so it makes sense that he would discredit rather than murder them.
His wife Anne died suddenly, and there were rumours at the time that he was responsible as he wanted to marry someone else. Public support weakened and some of his former allies went over to the camp of Henry Tudor. Tuberculosis is given as a possible cause though.
We will probably never know what really happened.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 7, 2018 6:25:02 GMT
Lewis Carroll the paparazzo
Lewis Carroll was one of the eminent Victorians whose works were very popular with the royal family. In those days, it was possible to get to meet them by creating something that they liked very much Lewis Carroll’s main interest was photography. Alfred, Lord Tennyson said that Carroll’s picture of Alice Liddell, who inspired the Alice in Wonderland books, was the most beautiful photograph he had ever seen. Lewis Carroll never managed to capture the most senior members of the royal family on film, but it wasn’t for want of trying: “His attempts to photograph the royals were even more persistent. He had been trying through third parties to obtain permission to take a picture of Queen Victoria for many years, and as soon as he was introduced to the Prince of Wales, he tried to convince him to pose for a portrait. The Prince, who was rather tired of photographers, managed to escape.” birdinflight.com/inspiration/experience/20170417-carroll-photos.htmlI would expect the royals to be happy to be photographed by such a famous man, but maybe even in those days they hated being pursued and stalked.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Feb 7, 2018 9:24:33 GMT
Richard III: evil murderer or innocent victim of Tudor slander?
Thanks to William Shakespeare and Sir Laurence Olivier, Richard III’s name is forever associated with the murder of the Princes in the Tower. They have given us the image of a thorough villain, a monster and an evil scheming mass-murderer. We don’t know for sure exactly when the young princes died; we don’t know whether or not they were murdered – after all, Richard III’s son and heir died young of natural causes – and, if they really were murdered, who was responsible. We don’t know for sure whether the bones found near the White Tower in 1674 really belong to the two little princes. The Church of England is reported to have refused to permit DNA tests. I wonder why. People have been arguing about all this for centuries. Richard III is a likely candidate for the murders, but on the other hand he tried to get the two little princes removed from the lines of succession on the grounds of their father’s and thus their own illegitimacy. He would be the prime suspect if they were known to have died, so it makes sense that he would discredit rather than murder them. His wife Anne died suddenly, and there were rumours at the time that he was responsible as he wanted to marry someone else. Public support weakened and some of his former allies went over to the camp of Henry Tudor. Tuberculosis is given as a possible cause though. We will probably never know what really happened. I hardly know anything about the history of the British Kings (since I am not britisch) but as I was reading the post I felt like something was trying to convince me that the bones which have been found in 1674 were of the heirs of Richard III. Then you look at it from a distance and imagine that this was a book or movie it would make sense, or at least to me: I don't know why the Plantagenets were replaced by the Tudors but since I am at this point to lacy to look it up, I just assume that the Tudors gained power because the Plantagenet line died out and the official story of events, that Richard's heir died of a natural cause seams to undramatic for my taste. It would be much more dramatic if the bones near the white tower were the last remains of Plantagenet offspring. And it seams to me like the official version doesn't quite seam to fit: He was the one whose heir died, he was the one who (unwillingly) gave (postmortam) the monarchy to another lineage, yet he was the princes' murderer? Wouldn't it be much more fitting if the Tudors were princes' murderers? Edit: I have just looked it up and found out that the two princes are indeed believed to have been Plantagenets and it has been assumed that Richard III killed his own nephews. The thing is since I don't know anything about Richard III I can look at it from a distance and still assume what would be the most simple situation and that is: Plantagenets were replaced by Tudors because the Plantagenets died out and the Plantagenets died out because their heirs were killed by the Tudors. And someone buried those offspring near a white tower for either ritualistic reasons or because the universe likes this sort of stuff (universe is a drama queen).
My gut feelings is also trying to convince me that the bones belong NOT to the nephews of Richard III but to his own children. But I can't tell for sure because sometimes my gut feeling is on point and other times it has let me down and failed.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 7, 2018 18:40:35 GMT
“I don't know why the Plantagenets were replaced by the Tudors …” Not knowing much about English history isn’t laziness truthseeker! There is just too much information for one person with one brain and one lifetime to take in. I know very little about the German royal family. In summary, Henry Tudor and his army defeated Richard III and his army at the Battle of Bosworth Field, where Richard was killed by a group of men. Henry took the crown for himself and his heirs. Many possible other Plantagenet candidates had already died - or been murdered - so there was little opposition. He also married Elizabeth of York, Richard III’s niece and sister of the two little princes, to consolidate his position. If you get the chance, I really recommend watching Sir Laurence’s film of Shakespeare’s play.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 7, 2018 18:44:46 GMT
“Wouldn't it be much more fitting if the Tudors were princes' murderers?” truthseeker many people believe that it was Henry Tudor who ordered the murder of the little princes. We know that they were sent to the Tower of London by Richard III, but after that no one knows what happened to them. Some people have devoted their lives to clearing Richard’s name - they are fixated and irrational! It is similar to the people who are obsessed with proving that William Shakespeare was not the author of the plays! They know they are right and go crazy when contradicted! The case of the two little princes is in the same class as the assassination of President Kennedy and the death of Princess Diana, at least in the UK. People have not forgotten their death and still want to know who caused it.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 8, 2018 7:28:03 GMT
The two princes in the tower: what is known about their final years
I have no strong convictions about who was responsible for their deaths, and no gut feelings either. What little is known has been summarised in WiKi; I am assuming that this information is authentic and correct: “Dominic Mancini, an Italian friar who visited England in the 1480s and who was in London in the spring and summer of 1483, recorded that after Richard III seized the throne, Edward and his younger brother Richard were taken into the 'inner apartments of the Tower' and then were seen less and less until they disappeared altogether. Mancini records that during this period Edward was regularly visited by a doctor, who reported that Edward, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him… There are reports of the two princes being seen playing in the Tower grounds shortly after Richard joined his brother, but there are no recorded sightings of either of them after the summer of 1483. An attempt to rescue them in late July failed. Their fate remains an enduring mystery. In 1674, workmen at the Tower dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. The bones were found in the ground near the White Tower, which is close to one reported site of their burial. The bones were widely accepted at the time as those of the princes, but this has not been proven and is far from certain. King Charles II had the bones buried in Westminster Abbey.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 8, 2018 17:46:16 GMT
One thing I am sure of is that if I had a time machine and an invisibility cloak like Harry Potter's, one of the first things I would do is investigate this case. I would get some pictures too!
Is the case of the mysterious death of King Ludwig of Bavaria still being discussed? Perhaps this is the nearest German equivalent?
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Feb 8, 2018 20:58:55 GMT
Is the case of the mysterious death of King Ludwig of Bavaria still being discussed? Perhaps this is the nearest German equivalent? Interesting that you are mentioning Kind Ludwig of Bavaria. Only a few days ago I was watching a mardi gras schow on tv and as every year in the show there were a lot of bavarian politicians sitting in the audiences in costumes. This year one politician dressed up as King Ludwig II of Bavaria and another politician from another political party (seamingly) coincidently dressed up as Ludwig's uncle Luitpold who became prince regent when his nephew was deemed too mentally ill to keep on reigning. (Ludwig Hartmann as King Ludwig of Bavaria) (Markus Söder as prince regent Luitpold) They both can also been seen in the following video (particularly from 9:24 till 11:10) I find it likely that it is just a coincidence but I had to point it out.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Feb 9, 2018 1:01:22 GMT
Strange similarity between the story of Richard III and the prince regent Luitpold of Bavaria: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_regentIn both cases there were two brothers who would be the legitimate heirs to the throne but instead their uncle reigned. In one case the two brothers are locked away in a (white?) tower and in the other case the two brothers are locked away in (alleged) insanity.Earlier UnseenI has quoted wikipedia: If I remember it correctly Ludwig died an early death by drowning. It is assumed it was suicide.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Feb 9, 2018 1:12:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Feb 9, 2018 1:29:35 GMT
Is it just me or do these two buildings look alike:
This is getting almost ridiculous. Or have I lost my mind?
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Feb 9, 2018 1:41:10 GMT
What explains these similarities between King Ludwig and Edward V?
Was King Ludwig the reincarnation of Edward and he for some reason experienced the same situation twice? Did he recreate his old past life home in a subconscious nostalgia? Or were these two people two different souls who tapped (or have been dragged) into the same energy field?
And what has Markus Söder got to do with this all? (The last part wasn't serious. Just me fooling around.)
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 9, 2018 7:30:43 GMT
The King Ludwig coincidences
I am amazed by what you have posted. You are not losing your mind! We should know what to expect by now, but sometimes the coincidences are so eerie that we feel overwhelmed. It feels strange too when we realise that our gut feelings were correct and our intuition seems to know more than we do. I have no explanation, just a suggestion that we follow where the clues lead and post whatever comes into our minds. I mentioned King Ludwig just because it was the only mysterious death involving a German royal that I could remember. What a coincidence that you had just seen a man called Ludwig dressed as him. I read a little about this case yesterday, but did not pick up the uncle and two nephews coincidences. I need to do some more investigating. Another coincidence is that King Ludwig II was known as the Swan King, and seven of the Queen’s swans at Windsor died of avian flu a few days ago. All the mute swans in England and Wales belong to her:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 9, 2018 17:27:28 GMT
A support group for Ludwig II
Richard III has the Ricardians, who do not believe that he was an evil murderer. Ludwig II has the Guglmänner, or hooded men, who believe that he was murdered:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 10, 2018 7:24:27 GMT
Richard III in German
I read that Shakespeare’s plays are not too popular in Germany, but one production is touring the UK. Richard III is being performed by Berlin’s Schaubühne Theatre. The little princes are puppets. It looks like a modern-dress production, and I do not like them at all. “Lars Eidinger, a cult figure in German theatre, is a mesmerising, sometimes shocking Richard, damaged and disfigured, who murders his way to the throne and exposes the mistrust and conflict within the ruling elite.” www.eif.co.uk/2016/richard3#.Wn2RQejFLIU
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 10, 2018 7:27:52 GMT
"Was King Ludwig the reincarnation of Edward and he for some reason experienced the same situation twice? Did he recreate his old past life home in a subconscious nostalgia? Or were these two people two different souls who tapped (or have been dragged) into the same energy field?"
I am still stunned by the similarities in these two cases. I didn't know about Otto the younger brother and the uncle until a few days ago. It does seem that scenarios re-enact themselves through different people over the ages.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 10, 2018 16:31:25 GMT
Markus Söder This name was completely new to me. He reminds me a little of Boris Johnson: “Bavarian finance minister Markus Söder loves to dress up – from Shrek to Homer Simpson – but his longest-running role is as Germany’s ‘prince of darkness’. www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/german-coalition-talks-may-suffer-from-csu-power-shift-1.3315437 I have posted pictures of some royals in fancy dress costume. I wonder whether he has any royal blood. ‘Prince of darkness’ often refers to Satan, but it also reminds me of Richard III. Markus Söder appears to be wearing a crown here: Dressed as Marilyn:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 10, 2018 16:39:11 GMT
Ludwig II and reincarnation again
“Later in his life, Ludwig became fascinated by the eastern concept of reincarnation. According to McIntosh, in the Wittelsbach secret archive there is an order Ludwig wrote to himself on Feb. 24, 1880. He signs his name as “Louis” and describes the date as “of our fifth reign”—placing himself as the direct descendent of Louis XIV, Louis XV, Louis XVI, and Louis XVIII.” www.thedailybeast.com/the-versailles-knock-off-that-cost-a-king-his-throneSo he thought he might be connected to the French not the English kings.
|
|