Langley Posted 5 June 2012 Posted 5 June 2012 But it's a white rose. Woops. Meant York rose. As Richard III was last head of the House of York.
Leicester_Numan Posted 5 June 2012 Posted 5 June 2012 As has been said quite a few times. Henry Tudor of the house of Lancaster, red rose. Richard of the house of York, white rose. We have a cinquefoil on our badge which is nothing to do with the wars of the roses and is not a rose but is a member of the rose family in the same way that an onion is a member of the lily family but you wouldn't put a lily on your hot dog. It's different in botanical and heraldic terms
Daggers Posted 5 June 2012 Posted 5 June 2012 This thread keeps reminding me of when Gervais tried to prove his great general knowledge in The Office.
Webbo Posted 5 June 2012 Posted 5 June 2012 A Lily a Day The familiar day lily (one decidedly unendangered species) will make a delicious contribution to any meal of wild foods. Chances are there's a bumper crop of the flowers within a short walk from your home ... so why not use the surplus plants to enliven your family's dinner menu? Such thinning won't hurt the flower stand at all, since the hardy plants reseed and spread quite readily. Read more: http://www.motherear...x#ixzz1wx6VlQfJ
Finnegan Posted 5 June 2012 Posted 5 June 2012 I think people are being bit pedantic about certain things here. The War of the Roses is called the War of the Roses, regardless of whether the symbols are cinquefoils or roses. County boundaries are also probably a little more defined now than they were in the 15th Century. Leicester was a far more important place than was Northampton at the time. Just having a quick look for corroborating evidence and it is difficult to find definite answers to what the white rose means. I suspect the link with Richard of York is the best answer. It is also what I teach in school and it is good enough for Ofsted so what are you lot moaning about! For the last time, it has nothing to do with the War of the Roses or the Tudor dynasty and it has nothing to do with Yorkshire. If you're teaching your children that you're teaching them wrong (which sadly wouldn't surprise me, I was correcting my history teacher on Welsh history when I was 13!) It is a cinquefoil, it is the arms of the Beaumont Earls of Leicseter and as both myself and Smudge have said, it long pre-dates the 15th century. Why is everyone so desperate to clutch to this being some sort of famous Roses significance instead of just taking a bit of pride in the city's own traditions? We don't need to pretend we're anything we aren't. Here's yet ANOTHER link to back this all up, taking the tally up to three or four (I'm yet to see any source claiming it's a white Yorkshire rose.) Oh, here you go, another one. Oh and, ANOTHER one from which I quote: The ermine cinquefoil is that of the Beaumont family, in 1103 Robert de Beaumont was made the first Earl of Leicester. Edit: Oh, and just because I'll never get bored of pointing out that they don't even look the bloody same, here's another Yorkshire rose: And the arms of the Beaumonts:
Webbo Posted 5 June 2012 Posted 5 June 2012 I'm quite prepared to concede that I was wrong calling it a tudor rose and saying it was to do with the War of the Roses. My comments were based on something I'd heard on Radio Leicester many years ago. It's possible I mis-remembered or the man talking was a bigger idiot than me. In all fairness post 5 , which I posted, did correct everything I'd said.
Finnegan Posted 5 June 2012 Posted 5 June 2012 I'm quite prepared to concede that I was wrong calling it a tudor rose and saying it was to do with the War of the Roses. My comments were based on something I'd heard on Radio Leicester many years ago. It's possible I mis-remembered or the man talking was a bigger idiot than me. In all fairness post 5 , which I posted, did correct everything I'd said. It's a really common misconception and it's an easy mistake to make, I can understand why people would think that. That isn't what annoys me. What annoys me is people persistently repeating the same mis-truth after several pages of having it spelt out to them by numerous people. Especially given one of the first people to perpetuate the myth was, as you said, yourself and you actually corrected yourself with a quick bit of wikipedia investigation! Yet people still went on! And the chap that's teaching it to a class of children? That's just concerning.
Zingari Posted 5 June 2012 Posted 5 June 2012 No-one has explained yet why the Leicester Wyvern is legless though ! That's more interesting than roses and cinquefoils The crest on top of the arms is a white or silver legless wyvern with red and white wounds showing, on a wreath of red and white. The legless wyvern distinguishes it as a Leicester wyvern as opposed to other wyverns. The supporting lions are wearing coronets in the form of collars, with the white cinquefoil hanging from them.
Leicester_Numan Posted 5 June 2012 Posted 5 June 2012 No-one has explained yet why the Leicester Wyvern is legless though ! That's more interesting than roses and cinquefoils The crest on top of the arms is a white or silver legless wyvern with red and white wounds showing, on a wreath of red and white. The legless wyvern distinguishes it as a Leicester wyvern as opposed to other wyverns. The supporting lions are wearing coronets in the form of collars, with the white cinquefoil hanging from them. It's been down the pub boom boom. I'll get my coat
Leicester_Numan Posted 5 June 2012 Posted 5 June 2012 Read more: http://www.motherear...x#ixzz1wx6VlQfJ Rather have an onion or leek thank you
flowwolf Posted 6 June 2012 Posted 6 June 2012 Nerd power. \o/ God how I hate Americanisms . I mean like it's sooooooooo Nerdy.
flowwolf Posted 6 June 2012 Posted 6 June 2012 No-one has explained yet why the Leicester Wyvern is legless though ! That's more interesting than roses and cinquefoils The crest on top of the arms is a white or silver legless wyvern with red and white wounds showing, on a wreath of red and white. The legless wyvern distinguishes it as a Leicester wyvern as opposed to other wyverns. The supporting lions are wearing coronets in the form of collars, with the white cinquefoil hanging from them. The wyvern did have legs until Wellens cut then off. He's a right bastard off the pitch as well.
ozleicester Posted 6 June 2012 Author Posted 6 June 2012 and heres me thinking i was plastic for not knowing
Leicester_Numan Posted 6 June 2012 Posted 6 June 2012 The wyvern did have legs until Wellens cut then off. He's a right bastard off the pitch as well.
stourbridgefox Posted 6 June 2012 Posted 6 June 2012 And the chap that's teaching it to a class of children? That's just concerning. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keep your concern to yourself you self-important, sanctimonious, arrogant arsewipe. There are far more important people than you that my teaching doesn't concern. Go back to watching the History Channel and being a know it all online. Regardless of what the truth of the rose actually is, I can categorically state that nothing I have contributed has been designed to make other people on here look small, regardless of whether I have agreed with them. For the record you haven't made anyone else look small, just shown yourself up for what you really are.
stourbridgefox Posted 6 June 2012 Posted 6 June 2012 Those websites, fine though they may be, do not provide any evidence to the 'why' of Leicester having a white cinquefoil as an emblem. The 'why' could conceivably be because many of the Earls of Leicester were allied to the House of York. This allegiance could date back to 1066 or even before, so dating the Leicester cinquefoil to before the War of the Roses is not evidence they are not linked to the House of York, or to any previous similar alliance. Record keeping during the War of the Roses was understandably not good. Therefore, there is no written record as to why the white cinquefoil was used. Anyone or any organisation that claims to know the answer cannot without this evidence. It is just conjecture. Most history sources accept that support for Richard III was strong in Yorkshire and the East Midlands. To me, although I cannot conclusively prove it, the idea that this support would manifest itself in symbolism before and after the War of the Roses seems to make a lot of sense. On the subject of teaching history, some things are more important than strict historical accuracy. The first task of the teacher is to engage students with history. A good story and good characters are vital to this. The next step is to encourage students to ask 'why.' The why is more important that the what. Even at A level and degree, even though it is vital to use historical evidence to back up arguments, it is the arguments which score the marks in exams. Many history pedants are very good at the 'whats.' Unfortunately for them, many seem to have totally missed the point that studying history is about the 'whys'.
Daggers Posted 6 June 2012 Posted 6 June 2012 And the chap that's teaching it to a class of children? That's just concerning. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keep your concern to yourself you self-important, sanctimonious, arrogant arsewipe. There are far more important people than you that my teaching doesn't concern. Go back to watching the History Channel and being a know it all online. Regardless of what the truth of the rose actually is, I can categorically state that nothing I have contributed has been designed to make other people on here look small, regardless of whether I have agreed with them. For the record you haven't made anyone else look small, just shown yourself up for what you really are. Really? Seriously? I don't think this post does you any credit at all.
Zingari Posted 6 June 2012 Posted 6 June 2012 The Tudor era was a myth says historian http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18240901
stourbridgefox Posted 6 June 2012 Posted 6 June 2012 Really? Seriously? I don't think this post does you any credit at all. Really? Seriously? I don't think this post does you any credit at all. I work very hard at a difficult job. How dare anyone on this forum criticise my work. I retract the word 'arsewipe.' That is all.
Guest Posted 6 June 2012 Posted 6 June 2012 All Teachers (of any worth) have a GOD syndrome. Welcome to the club stourbridge.
stourbridgefox Posted 6 June 2012 Posted 6 June 2012 All Teachers (of any worth) have a GOD syndrome. Welcome to the club stourbridge. Errr thanks!
Daggers Posted 6 June 2012 Posted 6 June 2012 People on this forum can criticise my work all they want, I'll just carry on not giving a fvck.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.