# What is in a name?



## svalbard (Jul 11, 2015)

Interesting article about The Black Prince.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28161434


----------



## Dan Jones (Jul 13, 2015)

Great article, really interesting


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 13, 2015)

So that name "Black Prince" comes from his tabard? Now that makes sense. 

I've also read that the death toll at Limorges was exaggerated - but there's always the danger of English historians trying to excuse English monarchs.


----------



## Dan Jones (Jul 13, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> but there's always the danger of English historians trying to excuse English monarchs



That's not always the case! And of course there were plenty of propagandists around in medieval times, too. And articles like this show that sometimes the mud sticks


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 13, 2015)

Henry VII
Henry VIII
Elizabeth I
All re-wrote history, often to put non-Tudors in a worse light.
The French too.
I read that article at the time it was published last year, but I'd heard too that the Black Prince was originally so named due to his "uniform" etc and about Limorges being exaggerated. Both sides tended to exaggerate (as today) and disagree about the proportion of soldiers and civilians in the dead  (as today!).


----------



## svalbard (Jul 14, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Henry VII
> Henry VIII
> Elizabeth I
> All re-wrote history, often to put non-Tudors in a worse light.
> ...



Too true. The Tudors were particularly good at it and had one of the greatest writers in history to help them in a certain William Shakespeare. Richard III, although quite possibly guilty of his nephews' murders, was not the monster he is made out to be. 

Macbeth is another great example of history being rewritten. In this case for the Stuarts benefit I believe. What little that is known about real Macbeth shows him to be a capable ruler. He felt secure in his own rule to make  a pilgrimage to Rome. He also reigned for 17 or so years which says something about his ability  and popularity.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 14, 2015)

svalbard said:


> Richard III, although quite possibly guilty of his nephews' murders


Henry or an accomplice had more motive and DID kill off every other possible claimant.  Apart from the alleged nephews' murders (who were no threat to Richard, but were a threat to Henry) did Richard kill any rivals?


----------



## svalbard (Jul 14, 2015)

If you want to count Earl Rivers a rival then yes he did. He had William Hastings executed without a trial, although we cannot consider Hastings a rival.

I do agree that Henry had more to gain by the deaths of Edward's sons. I also think that Buckingham is another suspect who had much to gain by their deaths.


----------

