Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Richard III Society Forum

2000-03-15 22:12:27
ukaflyer
Welcome, This is the Yahoo! Message Board for Richard III Society Forum community.

Chat this Sunday - 19th March

2000-03-18 10:19:31
ukaflyer
Reminder - there will be a chat this Sunday starting at 21:00 GMT for anyone interested.

Francis Lovel

2000-03-22 13:24:14
jane\_trump
How likely is it that Francis Lovel was holed up in Minster Lovell? Not a lot is known about Francis and I am interested in learning what there is to know about him. Can any one help me?

Re: Francis Lovel

2000-03-25 18:43:33
dickon1
Dear Jane - I read somewhere that after the
battle of Stoke Francis escaped home to Minster Lovell
just ahead of Henry VII's troops and was hidden in a
sort of priest's hole, where because the troops hung
around for several weeks no one could either feed him,
get him water or release him. How real this is I
don't know, but legend has it that he haunts the place
to this day and terrified drunken Victorian
revellers on bonfire nights!

Re: Francis Lovel

2000-03-25 20:52:44
jane\_trump
Thanks for that! I have always thought it rather
stupid that priest holes and the like were only
accessible from the outside. I cannot see why there could
not have been a method of escape for the unfortunate
occupant! Poor Francis!<br><br>Jane

Weekly Sunday meet

2000-04-01 21:29:49
ukaflyer
Don't forget our regular Sunday meet.<br><br>It
starts 21:00 BST which should be 16:00 in the US if the
clocks change as I have been told! For our friends down
under this is may be 07:00 in the morning?<br><br>It is
best to meet in the 'chat' room where you can either
talk or type. The chat room can be found by scrolling
down the page and looking for the paragraph that
invites you to enter. You will have to download the
'chat' software in advance. To enable the messenger
system you will again have to download the software to
take full advantage of the Yahoo
facilities.<br><br>Hope to see you all Sunday!

Weekly Sunday Meet

2000-04-07 18:21:18
ukaflyer
Don't forget our regular Sunday meet.<br><br>It
starts 21:00 BST which should be 16:00 in the US. For
our friends down under this is may be 07:00 in the
morning?<br><br>It is best to meet in the 'chat' room where you can
either type or talk. The chat room can be found by
scrolling down the page and looking for the paragraph that
invites you to 'enter'. You will have to download the
'chat' software in advance. It is also a good idea to
download the messenger system as well. This allows you to
see when other members are logged on.<br><br>Hope to
see you all Sunday!

Open invitation to join

2000-04-08 13:22:07
ukaflyer
This 'Forum' area is not exclusivley for Richard III Society members. It is open to any one who wishes to discuss Richard and his times.

Weekly Sunday meet

2000-04-14 12:43:16
ukaflyer
Don't forget our regular Sunday meet.<br><br>It
starts 21:00 BST which should be 16:00 in the US. For
our friends down under this is may<br>be 07:00 in the
morning?<br><br>It is best to meet in the 'chat' room where you can
either type or talk. The chat room can be<br>found by
scrolling down the page and looking for the paragraph that
invites you to 'enter'. You<br>will have to download the
'chat' software in advance. It is also a good idea to
download the<br>messenger system as well. This allows you
to see when other members are logged on.<br><br>Hope
to see you all Sunday!

Re: Francis Lovel

2000-04-15 04:09:36
PATSDINER
I'm not familiar with the story of Francis Lovel,
but the reference to "priest hole" piqued my memory.
Referencing a book on Medieval churches called "Guided by a
Stone-Mason" by Thomas Maude (a very good book that I would
highly recommand)that I've read, he mentions an
"Anchorite Cell" (or anchoress, depending on the gender of
the occupant). Quoting from the book (pg.
150-1)...<br>"...found attached outside the cold north wall of a
church...(the anchorites)were people who were determined to
devote themselves to a life of prayer away from their
normal home, but did not wish to enter a monastery or
nunnery. ...They entered this stone cell and the doorway
was walled-up after them. They remained in this Domus
inclusi (enclosed home) for the rest of their lives,
their only contact with the outside world being through
a small window through which passed their food etc.
Another small window linking them with the interior of
the church enabled them to join in the services.
...these cells first appeared in Britain about the year
650. ...In 14th century records at Exeter Cathedral is
included a special service for the walling-up...Reclusio
Ancoritarum, the Extreme Unction was administered as in the
ceremony for Burial of the Dead. ...It was not always as
simple a life as it might appear. For example, an aged
anchoress at St Judian's, Norwich,...had her two maids
interred with her. One useful service to the local
community performed by these anchorites ...was of running a
school...by speaking to them through the external
window...(the money) paid for their food and other needs."
Might this be the same as what you speak of?

As founder of a previous attempt...

2000-04-15 09:54:34
Aquaeus
at a RRIII club at Yahoo, I am delighted that somebody else has picked up the banner of the White Boar.<br><br>Loyulte me lie!

Re: Francis Lovel

2000-04-17 18:25:19
ukaflyer
Dear Pat<br><br>Thanks for the reply. It is not
quite what I meant but I learned something new as I
knew very little about Anchorites. The Carthusian
monks were very similar in their living style except
they all lived in the same community. Mount Grace
Priory in North Yorkshire is an excellent example of
this. Each monk had their own 'house' built into the
wall - some were bigger than others but that did not
indicate status within the community. Each monk had
running water, an outside privy and a garden for growing
herbs, flowers, etc. English Heritage have reconstructed
one of the cells and I could have moved in! Like the
Anchorites, they get fed through a hole in the
wall.<br><br>Back to Francis Lovel. Here I was referring to a
priest hole type place where people hid to avoid being
arrested. I still think he was brave to put his whole life
in the hands of a few servants!<br><br>Perhaps we
can chat about such things some time?

Re: Francis Lovel

2000-04-20 01:50:37
PATSDINER
Though I must admit being of Protestant stock, I
have to say that I truly regret the havoc<br>they
wrought upon the monasteries. I've seen ruins in both
Germany and England and I<br>can't help but think "Why?".
I know the wealth and decadence of the church was a
major<br>factor in the Reformation, but did they have to tear
down the buildings? Thankfully, they<br>saw further
use for the churches and left them standing, but one
can't help regretting the<br>loss due to fanaticism.
Combine Henry's destruction with Cromwell's, and we're
lucky to<br>have anything left. As I plan my trip to
England this year, in the travel guide, every so<br>often
I come across a town where its noted "...the
monastery was purchased by the<br>townsfolk from Henry
VIII". Hopefully I'll get to see some of these. Though
not as<br>exciting as the doings of the warrior class
of the middle-ages, you certainly can't
ignore<br>the role of the church in those days. Don't know if
this has anything to do with Richard III<br>(in fact,
it doesn't lol sorry), but I find I don't go beyond
him where my study of England<br>is concerned. Mostly
because of the damage that Henry VIII did (and, of
course, men in<br>tights fighting with gunpowder just
isn't the same...).

New member

2000-04-20 06:44:31
hiraeth2
Hi there. I'm a member of the West Australian
branch of the Richard III society and I love English
medieval history. My fascination with Richard III began
about 8 years ago when I was given a copy of Sharon
Penman's The Sunne in Splendour for Christmas. Ever since
then I've been reading everything I could get my hands
on that was about Richard and/or the Wars of the
Roses.<br><br>I'm glad there's finally a discussion board for the
Society now. The one on the webpage never let you post
messages.

Happy to find other Ricardians

2000-04-20 14:24:37
fntsywrtr
Hello! I am a member of the Richard III Society,
American Branch. I'm currently writing a fantasy novel
loosely based on Richard's life, and doing research for a
mystery novel set during Richard's time as lord of the
north.<br><br>I'm thrilled to find other Ricardians in Yahoo.
Thanks to the founder of this club!

Re: Francis Lovel

2000-04-21 05:41:06
Aquaeus
Henry VIII's "Reformation." had little to do with
Protestantism. He had England's leading Lutheran theologian,
Robert Barnes, burned at the stake for teaching
salvation by grace through faith, and anybody who publicly
differed from strict transubstantiation got a free one way
trip to Smithfield. What Henry did was about money and
power. He was, after all, a Tudor.

Richard III - what the clairvoyant heard

2000-04-21 10:09:28
hiraeth2
I thought I'd share this with everyone. <br>A
member of my R3 society recently did a talk on this book
called The Secret History: The Truth About Richard III
and the Princes. It's <br>written by a claivoyant who
claims to have had 3 meetings over 3 years where he
contacted Richard who told him the following things. The
comments in brackets are my own:1. Richard never had the
real power to rule. He was manipulated by those around
him who had the power. (I suppose this is possible
when you consider the amount of lords and nobles
around him but I don't know about that)<br><br>2. Edward
IV was also a figurehead at the mercy of those
around him. (Maybe in the early years of his reign when
Warwick had a powerful influence over him but even more
unlikely than the above. Unless it was the
Woodvilles.)<br><br>3. Richard signed a warrant for the Princes to be
put away but didn't realise it would mean their
deaths. (Quite possible I suppose but surely he'd realise
that some people would take it as an execution
warrant)<br><br>4. Edward IV doesn't blame him. (hmmm don't know
about this one. I mean even if R3 didn't kill the
princes they were in his care and he WAS responsible for
them)<br><br>5. The Princes were suffocated after being drugged
but were buried in a forest. A pit was dug and lime
added. (I find this one hard to believe - how could the
killers have got the bodies out of the Tower without
being noticed?)<br><br>6. Henry VI may have procured
his own death by falling. (This may be possible if
murder is ruled out as he would not have committed
suicide given his religious beliefs.)<br><br>7. Edward of
Middleham (Richard's son) is not buried at Sheriff Hutton
but in a forest, near Middleham. He was a sickly
child who may have been "helped over" (ie, murdered),
maybe accidentally as he was treated by the doctors.
(The second part is entirely possible - medieval
doctors often used medicines that would be classed as
quite deadly by today's standards. The burying in a
forest I find hard to believe as he was the king's son.
Why would he be buried anonymously?)<br><br>8.
Richard did not murder Clarence (I never thought he did -
if anything Clarence may have died by the order of
Edward who didn't want to see his brother be publicly
executed.)<br><br>9. Edward IV was also "helped over." (Quite possible
as he was only 40 when he died and took ill
suddenly. But how and by who? As he took several days to
die slow-acting poison would be the obvious solution
and the culprit maybe an assassin sent by Louis XII?
Or the Woodvilles, sensing that he was tiring of
them?)<br><br>To be continued in the next post. Yahoo wouldn't let
me post such a long message.

Richard III - what the clairvoyant heard

2000-04-21 10:11:07
hiraeth2
Here's the rest of the claims:<br><br>10. There
was someone in Richard's time with great power called
John who was very influential and had connections with
the church. (Obviously John Morton springs to
mind.)<br><br>11. Perkin Warbeck was an illegitimate child from
within the royal family. (sounds plausible to
me.)<br><br>12. Henry VI said that Prince Edward of Lancaster was
his own son.<br><br>13. The Lancastrians sent Prince
Edward out to battle because he was the one they were
trying to mould as the next ruler. He was strong-willed
and would not be as easily manipulated as his father.
(These statements contradict each other. Why would the
powers behind Lancaster want Edward dead? Granted Henry
VI was still alive but other than Tudor there
weren't any other Lancaster heirs. And wouldn't Warwick
have wanted to see his grandchildren on the throne?
Although Warwick's opposition within Lancastrian ranks
wouldn't have wanted this surely a better plan would have
been to do away with Edward's wife, Anne Neville? And
what about Margaret of Anjou? There is no way she
would have sent Edward out to battle if she thought
that the nobles wanted him dead.)<br><br>14. Francis
Lovell was "disposed of" but was not the walled up body
in Minster Lovell. (could be)<br><br>15. Richard was
hit from the back and died quickly while he and his
men were regrouping. (I'm not too familiar with the
military history of the Wars of the Roses but my fellow R3
Society members think this is not right.)<br><br>16.
Edward IV blames the church for everything. (Well why
not?!)<br><br>17. Buckingham was used like a pawn. His claim to the
throne was dangled like a carrot in front of him. (Again
this is quite possible.)<br><br>18. Richard did not
actually state that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville was bigamous but said the Princes were vulnerable
because of Edward's blemished character. (Highly unlikely
as by all accounts, Richard was devoted to
Edward.)<br><br><br>What does everyone think? I must say it made for a
rather amusing meeting as we all had a good laugh! I
posted this in another forum recently but figured it'd
be good to post here too.

Archived messages

2000-04-24 14:42:19
indra\_sinha
What has happened to the old message archive? Is
it still accessible somewhere? I was particularly
interested in following up a discussion about whether Henry
Tudor was responsible for the deaths of the little
princes.

Owen Tudor

2000-04-26 23:27:03
cathryn\_66
I've been a member of the society for many years
but am interested in other characters from fifteenth
century history too. Does anyone know where Owen Tudor
was executed? I know it took place in Hereford but
can find no source which pinpoints the spot (even the
tourist information office and library could not help).
Does anyone have any books or maps that might help?

Re: Owen Tudor

2000-04-27 08:06:01
patriotUK
Dear Catherine_66, I have found a reference to
Owen Tudors execution in Paul Murray Kendall's book,
pages 157/158 which states he was executed in the
market place in Hereford. Sorry haven't found any maps
yet but will have a look and see if I've got any.
PatriotUK

Re: Owen Tudor

2000-04-27 08:06:46
ukaflyer
Hello Cathryn,<br>Owen Tudor was summarily
executed in the market-place at Hereford. (William
Worcestre, 'Short English Chronicle', pages 76-77.) While H.
T. Evans, 'Wales in the Wars of the Roses' feels
that Owen and other prisoners were executed at
Haverfordwest, in Pembrokeshire. This seems unlikley because of
the distance involved and because the Yorkists had no
control over the far west of Wales until many months
later. I have taken this from Charles Ross, 'Edward IV'.

Weekly Sunday meet

2000-04-29 08:00:21
ukaflyer
Don't forget our regular Sunday meet.<br><br>It
starts 21:00 BST which should be 16:00 in the US. For
our friends down under this is may<br>be 07:00 in the
morning?<br><br>It is best to meet in the 'chat' room where you can
either type or talk. The chat room can be<br>found by
scrolling down the page and looking for the paragraph that
invites you to 'enter'. You<br>will have to download the
'chat' software in advance. It is also a good idea to
download the<br>messenger system as well. This allows you
to see when other members are logged on.<br><br>Hope
to see you all Sunday!

A Study in Historiographical Controversy

2000-04-30 04:26:28
elbarto\_83
Shakespeare may not be as much to you as it does
to me, but Iým eager to seek and find what his
relationship is to Richard III in an indirect way. In one of
his plays entitled ýRichard IIIý, Shakespeare
converses of a sadistic duke longing for power. He seeks
power without a cause. If his work is familiar to you,
my question applies as follows: How close to reality
does Shakespeare follow in his history play, ýRichard
IIIý? How was it similar yet different? Specific
answers would be appreciated. Thank you for your
time.<br><br> Elliott S. Kim<br><br> ICQ: 18840648
(ElKim29)<br> AIM: ElKim29<br> Yahoo: elbarto_83<br> E-mail:
ElKim29@...<br> ElKim29@...<br> elbarto83@...
<br>______________________________________________

Re: A Study in Historiographical Controv

2000-04-30 09:00:43
hiraeth2
Well Shakespeare's Richard III is pretty much
totally inaccurate in all ways. Richard was not a
hunchback nor did he murder his brother or his wife's first
husband. By most accounts his marriage to Anne seems to
have been a happy and loving one.<br><br>Bear in mind
that Shakespeare was writing over 100 years after
Richard's time and Tudor propogandists had done a pretty
good hatchet job on Richard III's reputation by then

Re: A Study in Historiographical Controv

2000-05-01 04:26:22
fntsywrtr
Some detailed articles regarding the question of
Shakespeare's approach to history can be found at the website
of the American branch of the Richard III Society,
www.R3.org. Click on the "drama" button and continue from
there. To rebut Shakespeare (and, therefore, his
sources), point by point, would take up far more space that
we are allowed on a bulletin board. But I would like
to point out two quotes from Richard's
contemporaries.<br><br>If Richard was such an evil monster, would someone
who lived in those days say the following about him?
"He contents the people where he goes best that ever
did prince; for many a poor man that hath suffered
wrong many days have been relieved and helped by
him....God hath sent him to us for the weal of us all." (Dr.
Thomas Langton, Bishop of St. David's and later of
Salisbury.)<br><br>Note also what was recorded in the York city records
after the battle of Bosworth where Richard was slain:
"...King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us, was
through great treason...piteously slain and murdered, to
the great heaviness of this city."<br><br>Bear in
mind that Shakespeare was basing his play on the
writings of extremely biased propagandists (history is
rarely written without bias of some kind) and that he no
doubt had little else to go on. The play is good drama,
but very bad history.<br><br>To put it in modern
terms, it would be as if the history of the Clinton
administration were written by someone in the pay of a political
leader in the far right of the Republican party, and all
documents to the contrary were systematically sought out
and destroyed.<br><br>Good luck with your research.

Re: A Study in Historiographical Controv

2000-05-02 03:42:22
Aquaeus
No serious historian regards Richard as guilty of
any of the crimes with which Shakespeare charges him
except possibly of the murder of the princes and
judicial murder (another dubious charge) in the case of
Hastings. Remember that Shakespeare was employed by Henry
Tudor's granddaughter, Elizabeth, who to say the least
had a vested interest in justifying Tudor's regicide
and usurpation. Essentially, the misnamed "History of
King Richard III" is a partisan Tudor political tract.

Re: A Study in Historiographical Controv

2000-05-02 03:47:20
Aquaeus
>To put it in modern terms, it would be as if
the history of the Clinton administration were
written by someone in the pay of a political leader
in<br>the far right of the Republican party, and all
documents to the contrary were systematically sought out
and destroyed.<<br><br>Actually, as a Ricardian, I
think that comparing Richard to Clinton is almost as
unfair as the things Shakespeare wrote about him!
Remember Richard's motto, after all!

Re: A Study in Historiographical Controv

2000-05-02 04:32:28
fntsywrtr
I wasn't comparing Richard to Clinton (that never
crossed my mind), just drawing a modern analogy to
illustrate my point, given the viciousness with which the
two main political parties in the US view each other
at this time.<br><br>I have been a defender of
Richard for over half my life. Heavens forfend I should
cast any doubt upon Richard's loyalty or fidelity
(those pesky rumors about his niece aside).

Re: A Study in Historiographical Controv

2000-05-02 05:10:20
hiraeth2
What would Bill's motto be?<br><br>Loyalty? I lie!

Did Richard Really?

2000-05-02 06:43:57
elbarto\_83
During my research, it seemed very plausible that
Richard III of Gloucester did indeed commit murders in
attempts to raise himself to power. He destroyed that of
others for himself. Yet it also seems plausible that no
historical fact is available. The history of his life seems
very controversial, yet some believe otherwise and
seems definite he was not indeed involved in most of
conducts thought to be carried by him. How can one be for
sure? I say Richard's life may be an interest to many,
yet it can never be proven. Therefore, I cannot take
a definite side either way. He may have been
affected by propaganda in the 15 and 16th century, yet it
may also be possible some of the controversial issues
were indeed true. What are your takes on reliable
documents?

Re: A Study in Historiographical Controv

2000-05-03 07:03:40
Aquaeus
I figured. I just couldn't resist! ;)

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-03 07:10:53
Aquaeus
There aren't any. Henry VII saw that most of them
were destroyed.<br><br>One copy of Titulus Regis, the
act of Parliament that made Richard King, survived
his best efforts. It names Lady Eleanor Butler, who
entered a convent shortly before Edward IV's marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville, as the lady to whom Edward was married
at the time (rendering the marriage to Elizabeth
bigamous, the children of the union illegitimate, and
Richard the rightful king upon Edward's death). More
invented a woman who seems to be a conflation of two of
Edward's mistresses, neither of whom he would ever have
considered marrying.<br><br>As I said earlier, no reputable
historian today believes that Richard was guilty of any of
<br>the crimes with which he was charged, with the
exception (for some) of the deaths of the princes<br>and
the execution of Hastings, which in fact was
completely legal. Most of Shakespeare's charges simply lack
plausibility. There is no evidence to sustain the others. On
the other hand, contemporary evidence as to Richard's
character, behavior and popularity throw Shakespeare's
account of these into serious doubt.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-03 18:06:53
tmc\_dale
In the same way that it is virtually impossible
to prove Richard a villain it is also impossible to
prove that Henry VII actively sought to discredit his
predecessor.<br><br>Henry Tudor was committed by many of the former
Yorkists who supported him to marry Elizabeth of York to
do that Titulus Regius had to be repealed as it
proclaimed her and her sisters as bastards. It was repealed
unread because of it's scandalous nature. <br>Historians
frequently condemned as tudor propoganda experts doesn't
stand up much....Mancini was writing in France before
the end of 1483, yet the usurpation and Richard he
describes is not completely at odds with More or Vergil or
anyone else. Rous who wrote of Richard in both
flattering terms and poor terms is the worst example of the
change but the arguement that he was merely flattering
the King applies equally to both
descriptions.<br><br>Vergil was commissioned to write a history of England
and his details of recent history was fairly short at
best - nor is their any real evidence that what he
wrote was controlled by Henry VII - granted he like
Andre may have wanted to flatter Henry and all the
tudor stuff grossly overplays the parts played in 1483
and 5 by Lady Margaret Beaufort and Cardinal John
Morton.<br>Incidentally Vergil condems the Wydeville's quite harshly
little knowing that his patron's mother the Countess of
Essex was one...so obviously patronage of historians
and writers wasn't such a blatant attempt to distort
the truth.<br><br>More may have written merely for
intellectual exercise and is more concerned with the style of
his writing than the tale itself and there is little
to suggest that More was a Tudor
lackey.<br><br>Shakespeare was certainly no lackey either most of his
history plays were written to flatter the Tudors agreed
but he based nearly all his stuff on Hall and
Holinshed - and incidentally if you read his plays they are
a startlingly strong attack on the abuse of royal
authority and power as a whole.<br><br>Richard's fate at
Bosworth left him open to most of the charges - losers
rairly get a fair deal. And with the exception of Henry
VI, Richard was a party to and complicit in several
of the other charges laid against him.<br>Nor is the
evidence for Richard's own life before his usurpation or
accession whichever you prefer entirely blameless - he was
complicit in his brother's judicial murder of their brother
Clarence, a demanding partner in the division of the
Warwick Inheritance paying no lip service to conventional
rules regarding inheritance, complicit in the rough
handling of the Countess of Oxford etc...the list is
fairly endless.<br>Richard is not some tragic hero
manque - he was similar to his brother Edward -
charming, intelligent, gifted, perhaps a little less
ruthless than Edward in some cases but on the whole a
fairly typical Medieval Prince.<br><br>Tim

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-03 19:19:43
white\_surrey
For a really excellent essay on the issue of
historicity of Shakespeare's "Richard III" and just a general
comment on Richard In History, read the piece by Sharon
Michelove (currently chairman of the American Branch of the
Richard III Society) in the webpages at www.r3.org.<br>
She covers just about everything.<br> It is true that
until some more docuuments are found, the "case" for
and against Richard is<br>at a stalemate. Much of the
records we have now are "tainted" with Tudor viewpoint-
primarily because the writers were operationg under Tudor
rule. The Henries didn't take kindly to dissidents. But
somewhere in some dusty cache there exists a letter, or a
chronicle, or a diary, that may shed some light on the
issue. Maybe it is in Burgundy, or in Spain or
Portugal... maybe it is bound up with other manuscripts and
hasn't been recognized for what it is.<br> Until then,
different interpretaions will be put on the scanty records
we have. And usually, they will be misquoted and the
names spelled wrong because the researcher doesn't
really want to find an answer but just rehashes the old
findings in order to get something published. I have seen
many articles with sloppy scholarship and you can tell
the writer didn't do his/her homework.<br> So it
comes down to this: do you believe that in the space of
two months or so Richard changed the characteristics
of a lifetime for a shot at a crown he never gave
any indication of wanting?<br>Or do you belive he
successfully hid a scheming, devious corrupt nature for years
while waiting for an opportunity that might never have
come? Or perhaps the truth is that he was thrown into a
situation for which he was ill-prepared and ill-advised and
ill-served and tried to make the best of a bad situation?

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-03 20:24:40
Aquaeus
Thomas Costain argues that Vergil was actively
involved in the process of gathering and destroying public
records favorable to Richard (see "The Last
Plantagenets"), and the fact remains that More's account of
Titulus Regis was at odds with the one copy which
actually survived-- and in a singularly suspicious way.
Mancini, like Rous and all other subsequent historians,
merely made use of the available (and highly biased)
sources, none of which were contemporary and ALL of which
carried with them not only the possibility of flattering
or angering the reigning monarch, but - given the
recency of Bosworth and the weakness of the Tudor claim -
a very real possibility of a charge of high
treason. Shakespeare might or might not have survived
writting a play favorable (or even fair) to Richard, but
it is certain that he would never have enjoyed royal
favor again! <br><br>More was raised by Richard's enemy
Cardinal Morton, and - once again- had available to him
only sources hostile to Richard, dynastic
considerations aside. The text of the "History" itself is so
full of unsupported innuendo and gossip (with no
attempt to portray it as anything else) that some have
speculated that it was actually meant as a satire on his own
sources!<br>Shakespeare's sources- such as as Hall and Hollinshed- were,
once again, based on non-contemporary sources highly
colored by the Tudor "party line" and singularly lacking
in actual evidence.<br><br>While I am glad to see
that you don't buy the slander about Richard having
murdered Henry VI, the evidence for his complicity in the
death of his (traitorous) brother George of Clarence is
even weaker. Even More agrees that Richard protested
against executing Clarence, and blames him, in effect,
for not advocating Clarence's cause strenuously
enough (or to be more precise, for being inadequately
zealous "as some men deemed!"). There is even
circumstantial evidence that relations between Richard and
Edward were strained for some time after Clarence's
death. That Richard spoke out to save his brother's life
is not even controversial; the issue is his
sincerity!<br><br>Richard did not murder Prince Edward of Lancaster.<br>The
balance of his alleged "murders" during the
Woodville/Hastings coup were, by the legal system in effect at that
time, completely legal; <br>we are dealing, after all,
with a military emergency, and the King (or Protector)
had a great deal of precident to justify summary
executions under circumstances not amenable to legal
proceedings meeting contemporary standards of
fairness.<br><br>All this is not to say that Richard was a romantic
hero out of Mallory, nor that he was a saint; I am
rather inclined to agree, by the way, with your last
paragraph. It is simply to say, once again, that both
Shakespeare's account and his exclusively non-contemporary
sources are of very limited credibility, that they must
be read uncritically and with total credulity to
implicate Richard in any but the most trivial of the crimes
with which Shakespeare charges him, and that what
contemporary records are available- these having been cited-
offer convincing evidence that Richard was not the
monster which the traditional view portrays him as having
been.<br><br>I'd be interested in hearing more about that "endless
list," by the way. In any event, I certainly would not
argue for Richard's canonization. I would argue only
that gossip and twaddle and the fictionalized accounts
of a later generation be recognized as something
other than evidence!

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-03 20:29:19
Aquaeus
To say that the Tudors did not take opposition
lightly is an understatement. After Bosworth at least
eleven people had claims to the crown better than
Henry's own. If my memory serves, he had nine of them
executed.<br><br>His son, if one recalls, was not inclined toward much
greater clemency.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-03 20:31:56
Aquaeus
Ok-- I grant that historians not writing in England were unlikely to be charged with high treason for being fair to Richard! :)

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-03 22:19:37
ukaflyer
I am enjoying reading everyone's arguments here
and would like to get 'stuck in' myself but I am
going to York tomorrow on a Richard III Society
Research Weekend so only have the time for a few comments.
(By the way I am Jane, ukaflyer's wife.)<br><br>You
have read Thomas Costain. He is a very enjoyable read
but you have to treat him with caution as he is very
romantic in his approach!<br><br>Mancini was not a
subsequent historian with regard to the usurpation - he was
there! However, it could be argued that he did not get a
fully rounded picture because he was not close to those
involved at the centre of things and he probably could not
speak English so had to rely on talking to Latin
speakers only.<br><br>I must take issue with you over
Clarence's death. In no way do I think Richard engineered
his brother's death but equally he did nothing to
stop it and benefitted from the death. Richard's son
received the earldom of Salisbury on the day before
Clarence's execution. Crowland Chronicler commented that
Edward IV lamented that NO ONE tried to talk him out of
having Clarence executed.<br><br>With regard to
Shakespeare. 'Richard III' is an early play and it has been
argued that he could have been trying to please his
patrons, who could have been the Stanley Family. He
certainly credits Lord Stanley with a much greater role in
Richard's downfall than he really played. (He hardly
mentions Margaret Beaufort!) It has also been argued that
Richard's physical appearance in the play was a dig - not
at Richard - but at one of Elizabeth I's own
ministers who had a hump (was it Cecil?).<br><br>All in all
I have to agree - in part - with Tim Dale. Richard
did not have an 'endless list' of crimes but he was
very much a man of his time. My greatest argument with
historians of today is that if Richard did something suspect
they say it was because it was Richard but if the
Stanleys or others did something suspect it was because
they were Fifteenth Century people! It makes my blood
boil!<br><br>Enough said - back to packing!

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-04 12:18:32
white\_surrey
And it might have been that Shakespeare was the
nom-de-plume of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and he got
his biased accounts of the Wars of the Roses et.al.
from his family as well as from his personal annotated
copy of Halle's Chronicles!<br> William Stanley, third
Earl of Derby was Oxford's son-in-law, by the way, and
also dabbled in play-writing himself. Some people
consider him a candidate for "Shake-speare." He has the
correct initials, after all!

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-05 05:10:08
Aquaeus
Well, I'm not about to say "NEIGHHHHHH!"

Shakespeare's identity

2000-05-05 09:20:41
hiraeth2
The most common suspect for writing Shakespeare's
works is Francis Bacon but personally I don't know
enough about Shakespeare's life and writing to
speculate.<br><br>I did read an interesting theory in the paper
recently that Shakespeare was an Italian who spent his
later life in England. That would explain why so many
of his plays are set in Italy and how he had so
great a knowledge of that country.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-06 09:08:22
tmc\_dale
On the materials I mentioned Mancini is
contemporary - he was in england during the key period of 1483
and wrote his views up shortly after he left England.
Mancini is not 100% reliable and there is no evidence he
ever left London. One point I would make is that he is
listening to gossip - which may account for some of his
more obvious errors regarding events. He is also as
likely to have heard pro-Richard gossip as anti Richard
gossip as his recounting of Wydeville/Richard antagonism
and Richard's views of Clarence and seperation from
the court reveals.<br><br>Whenever More is mentioned
someone points out that he was in Morton's household and
thereby tainted with Morton's tale of "evil Richard" - I
will again make one point on this Thomas More was a
very junior member of that household and Morton
himself had a long history of diplomacy and public
service - the chance of Morton spilling his secrets
(whether false or true) to a minor member of his household
must be pretty slim and I can't see More sneeking
about grabbing bits of paper either. More may well have
been listening to gossip from older members of the
household whose reliability must be questioned. The fact
that More is obviously unaware of the details of the
pre-contract allegations is a clear indicator that he had
heard very little from Morton who certainly did know
the truth of the allegations concerning Eleanor
Butler.<br><br>On Clarence the evidence is more mixed to be
honest.<br>Richard was present in London for much of the year of
Clarence's arrest and into the next year when Clarence met
his death. Several of Clarence's key offices, and
holdings were transferred to Richard before his brother's
death including the Earldom of Salisbury to Edward of
Middleham. Richard was present at the Council meetings that
decided on the form of Clarence's trial and the charges
against him. Also there seems little evidence for any
breach - Richard was one of the principal guests at the
Queen's elaborate celebrations for the marriage of
Richard Duke of York to Anne Mowbray while Clarence was
languishing in the tower. <br>The view that Richard was
estranged in the later years doesn't bear a strong look -
although it is certain that he portrayed himself as
untainted by Edward's court in 1483 - a common trick of
great men when trying to attack the government was
withdrawing from court and it seems that Richard may have
chosen to pretend he had done just that.<br>If there was
any break it was purely on Richard's side as the
grants to him in the last few years of Edward's are
greater than any others he had received before
hand.<br><br>Continues sorry about the length see part two for more.

Re: Did Richard Really? Part 2

2000-05-06 09:09:03
tmc\_dale
Continued from earlier one.<br><br>On Richard's
relationship with the Queen and her close family - again hard
to prove any poor relationship before 1483. Richard
was steward for some of the Queen's dower lands and
received a salary, it is likely that the Queen supported
Richard against Clarence over the dispute between the
brothers over the Warwick inheritance, Edward Wydeville
served Richard in Scotland and was knighted by him,
Rivers was asking Gloucester to arbitrate in disputes in
March of 1483, it has also been suggested that Richard
co-authored Rivers famed book. That either indicates that
Richard was a master at hiding his true feelings for the
Queen's family or had little problem with them
incidentally it seems unlikely that Rivers thought he had much
to fear from Richard either as he went out of his
way to meet Richard on their way south with the young
King...changing his route in order to join up with them, going
back to meet the two Dukes etc not the behaviour of a
man aiming to beat them to the capital to ensure
Gloucester played no part in the minority.<br><br>I have
never believed that Richard plotted to gain the throne,
but I do think that his actions in May and June of
1483 point to a growing realisation that it was his
for the taking and he decided to take it for a
variety of reasons.<br><br>I think many of those who take
a more traditional view of Richard are perfectly
willing these days to admit to his good qualities (with
some exceptions) however many of those who believe in
Richard's innocence cling with a passion to outdated and
equally inaccurate sacred cows.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-06 09:29:20
tmc\_dale
Henry VII was actually rather lenient.<br>The
Earl of Lincoln was a very high profile guest at the
christening of Prince Arthur before he rebelled and was
killed in battle fighting an annointed King whose
Council Lincoln had sat on. Henry VII deprived the De La
Pole's of the Dukedom of Suffolk but permitted Lincoln's
brother to use the title Earl of Suffolk - the de la Pole
brother continually swore loyalty and then proceeded to
hang themselves but most of them survived Henry VII's
reign.<br>Edward of Warwick was executed for political reasons
relating to Arthur's betrothal to the Infante Catherine --
hardly admirable I agree.<br>But his sister Margaret was
well treated and cared for - and Henry VIII was fond
enough of her to grant her the Earldom of Salisbury
shortly after his accession. <br>Only one Plantagenet
died (if you exclude John of Gloucester whose end is
uncertain) - Edward of Warwick...the rest were as much
Plantagenet as Henry VII's children. <br>The de la Pole's had
no particular rights beyond the claim through their
mother - which in itself would have come behind Margaret
Plantagenet and Anne St Leger who in strict terms followed
the Queen Consort and her sisters.<br><br>Henry VIII
is a different matter when it comes to clearing out
the connections and that was mainly due to his own
paranoia and succession problems.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-09 17:35:54
bar1114
Henry VII was rather lenient? It seems to me he
had a rather devious and suspicious nature and
enjoyed playing cat and mouse waiting for certain persons
to become impatient and overstep themselves, such as
the case with the Earl of Lincoln and others you
mentioned.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-10 05:18:23
Aquaeus
But remember: Henry VII had no credible claim to
the throne AT ALL. It isn't necessary to have a
particularly strong one oneself to have a better claim than
Henry did- and your list only reinforces the point that
Henry VII himself was pretty paranoid! Certainly more
blood was shed to secure Tudor's usurpation than
Richard spilled even if he committed every murder of
which he can be credibly accused!

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-10 11:44:33
tmc\_dale
Quite agree with you but the point I was making was that Henry VII didn't shed pints of blood to secure his throne - one person died on the block - Edward Earl Of Warwick.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-11 06:39:29
hiraeth2
And Henry VIII finished the job off by executing several people with Plantagenet blood.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-11 18:35:48
ukaflyer
The pints of blood shed for Henry VII were shed
at Bosworth. Henry held his throne by right of
conquest. However, the Earl of Warwick was not the only one
to be 'removed' as it were. Richard's own bastard
son, John, 'disappeared' in the Tower. Admittedly he
was involved in John of Lincoln's rebellion but he
was no real threat. Did he have to die?<br><br>Henry
also had a cheek in trying to date his reign from 21
August in the attempt to accuse Richard's followers of
treason against him. Luckily Parliament refused point
blank to ratify this, pointing out that Richard was the
anointed king on 21 August and early 22 August and was
supported by loyal subjects.<br><br>The comment that Henry
VII did not shed pints of blood to get to the throne
implies that Richard did. As I remember, only a handful
of people died during the usurpation. Hastings being
the only really dubious death. Richard was quite
lenient to others - ie Morton & Stanley - to his cost!

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-11 20:31:43
tmc\_dale
I wasn't trying to defend Henry's actions at
Bosworth (the pre-dating of the reign was clever but
downright distasteful which ever way you look at it)simply
pointing out that he didn't remove everyone who may have
threatened him instead he left most well alone. There are
very few references to John of Gloucester so we can
really only guess his fate (and I agree I can hardly see
him as any great threat myself). I wasn't contrasting
Henry's usurpation with Richard's usurpation on the pints
of blood front - they are completely different
circumstances...but since you raised it can I throw a few more names
in the pot than William Lord Hastings - Anthony 2nd
Earl Rivers, Sir Thomas Vaughan, Lord Richard Grey -
what crime were they guilty of?

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-11 21:35:24
ukaflyer
Fair comment about Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.
Their executions were illegal and totally unjustified.
However, to go back to a point I made a little while ago,
although we cannot condone this sort of action, we must
remember that this was not unusual for the day. Richard
had an excellent teacher in Warwick the Kingmaker
(and even his own brother, Edward) in quick
despatching of his enemies. It is always tempting to say that
this was typical of Richard and no one
else!<br><br>Henry had no need to spill more blood after Bosworth.
He had won the crown through conquest and his
situation, as you say, was different to Richard's. He could
afford to be lenient with people as the Yorkist
'opposition' was totally split apart (largely because of
Richard, I have to confess!)and he had won over many
Yorkists through his proposed marriage to Elizabeth of
York.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-11 21:46:40
bar1114
Hastings, Rivers, Vaughn, and Grey, were guilty
of conspiring to murder Richard, because he was
named protecter of Edward V. So the young King could be
soley under Woodville control. Why Hastings turned
against Richard is a cause of much speculation, since his
dislike of the Woodvilles was much known. Most likely it
was jealousy over the favor Richard was showing
Buckingham. In any case they were all traitors and deserved
their fate, to answer yourquestion.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-11 21:48:25
ukaflyer
I find it interesting to compare the Battles of
Bosworth and Stoke in relation to the turn-out of the
nobility. At both battles many of the nobility and gentry
did not get involved. They preferred to 'sit back'
and see who won. With Bosworth it was understandable.
On a personal level there was nothing to chose
between Richard III and Henry Tudor. Neither man had a
wife or any legitimate children. Henry was an unknown
quantity, it was true, but he had promised to marry
Elizabeth of York which I suspect was approved of by many
who doubted the Pre-Contract allegation. However, at
Stoke it would seem that the same thing occurred but
this time Henry, as king, had a popular Queen and a
son and heir. You think he would have won more
positive support under the circumstances.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-12 23:19:42
tmc\_dale
I don't mind honest debate but surely you should
think about the above a bit.<br><br>Firstly there is no
evidence that Rivers was attempting anything....the
council in London decided with considerable speed to
appoint no protector (possibly within two or three days
of Edward IV's death) - a decision they were fully
entitled to make since a King's wishes had no validity in
law after his death (see decisions of the Council of
Henry V following his death with regard the accession
of Henry VI) - Edward's will in any case doesn't
survive and his will of 1475 makes no reference to any
protectorate - whether he wished a protectorate or not there
was no reason for the Council to follow his wishes.
They had two cases for precedence the accession of
Richard II and the accession of Henry VI...in Richard
II's case the council had him crowned and ruled in his
name, in Henry VI's case the Council appointed a
protector until the coronation when the protector
surrendered his office and the council ruled in the name of
the infant king.<br>Anthony Rivers was so desperate
to have his nephew crowned that he delayed departing
for London for several days (to attend a St George's
event) and then took the long way south in order to meet
Richard - indeed the actions of a man plotting the death
of Richard of Gloucester a man he so hated that two
months earlier he was asking for his advice to arbitrate
a dispute in Wales.<br>Any action against Richard
before his arrest and imprisonment would have not been
treason since Rivers was the guardian of the young King
and also couldn't be construed as treason against the
Protector as Richard was not appointed as Protector until
he arrived in London with the King already in his
control...and even then the Council while permitting the
arrests and imprisonment to stand refused to permit
Richard to proceed against them on the grounds I already
mentioned.<br>Hastings is a different question and there are a number of
reasons to question his behaviour and subsequent arrest -
firstly was he set up? secondly was he plotting with the
Queen or Dorset? or thirdly was he simply removed to
facilitate Richard's own accession...there is the
possibility of all three to be honest...but jealousy of
Buckingham wouldn't be my guess.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-12 23:25:46
tmc\_dale
Thanks<br>I am quite happy to say that Richard
was typical - no monster, no saint
<g>.<br><br>I don't necessarily accept that there was a Yorkist
Opposition in 85...cos I don't believe Henry VII won a
Lancastrian victory.<br>Richard's accession fractured to a
certain extent the Yorkist settlement and alienated just
enough people to give Henry's little band of exiles some
hope.<br>If anything Henry reunified it - bringing a number
of dissident Yorkist back into the fold...Stoke was
not the last clarion call of the house of York....but
the first Tudor rebellion.

Greetings

2000-05-15 00:19:11
summerille70
Hi. My name is Jo and I live in England. I am a
member of the Richard III society. I have been
interested in Richard since I was about 14 or 15. The first
things I learnt about him were from the winter of
discontent speech and a historical knowledge card about the
Princes in the Tower. But what really got me interested
was the Channel 4 trial in 1984. I was fascinated and
pleased they found him not guilty. After that I read
things like Kendall and The Daughter of Time and
Potter's Good King Richard?. (Later I did read the other
side of the debate, partly for my university course
but also for recreation.) I also read historical
fiction and The Sunne in Splendour was my favourite book
at that age, and I still think it is really
good.<br><br>Today I actually went to Bosworth. I've been to a
couple of the re-enactments but this was totally
different because there was hardly any people there so you
had lots of time to browse in the exhibition and, of
course, the book shop. I love reading and I ended up
buying Hutton's Battle of Bosworth, because I actually
did a project on William Hutton at
university.<br><br>The weather was warm and sunny so I walked part of
the way around the battlefield. There was a sign
saying do not go over to the standards but there was no
one around so I went and looked at and touched
Richard's flagpole with his boar flying. I also saw the
Death Stone. There was only me and a man cutting the
grass. Then he moved away so it was just me and the
memorial. <br><br>I think a yahoo club is a great idea. I
would love to discuss Richard and the Wars of the
Roses. I have lots of things I want to talk about.

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-15 22:49:10
ukaflyer
I had to give this some thought. Initially I
would have disagreed with you but, on reflection, I
agree. Richard split the Yorkists with his usurpation -
the Rebellion of 1483 and Bosworth were largely a
Yorkist backlash against Richard. Following on from this,
Stoke would be the first Tudor rebellion. I still think
it odd, however, that Henry VII did not get more
positive support, being that he was married to Elizabeth
of York and had a Prince of Wales. May be people had
had enough by this time - who knows?

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-15 23:42:23
tmc\_dale
Actually I was feeling a bit guilty that I might
have over done it a tad.<br>I sometimes think that the
nature of politics (now and then) is that whoever is in
charge they are bound to be unpopular at some point and
I think it is perfectly reasonable given the
history of England in the latter half of the 15th Century
that occassionaly people thought they could rebel and
thereby govern or control the King (with usurpation and
deposition as an emergency backup plan). Well it worked for
Edward of March in 60 so why not now kind of thing
<g><br>Lincoln at Stoke like Henry at Bosworth had foreign
backing and that was a direct result of English
instability - it was seen as a diplomatic tool by foreign
powers. "That Henry/Edward/Richard/Henry is talking tough
again we'll teach him now where did we put the last
english pretender again". Quite frankly the vast majority
didn't give two hoots who was sat on the
throne.<br><br>Tim

Edward IV's treasure

2000-05-15 23:45:39
summerille70
Richard accused the Woodvilles of stealing Edward
IV's treasure. However Horrox and Hicks dispute this,
saying that Edward did not have any treasure left to
steal because his cash left at death was only ý1200 and
his executors had to sell goods to pay the rest of
his funeral expenses and that therefore Richard was
lying.<br><br>I, however, wonder if Edward was merely going
through a cash flow crisis at the time of his death and
that there was still treasure available in the form of
moveable assets, as Crowland calls them e. g. jewels,
plate, etc, and that it was this which Elizabeth took
into sanctuary and Edward Woodville took to sea. Can
anybody confirm or deny this theory?

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-05-16 19:56:19
Aquaeus
Buckingham's rebellion was a dud, and the
percentage of Englishmen (exiles or not) fighting at
Bosworth was heavily weighted in Richard's favor. I don't
think your suggestion- common though it is in the
traditionalist literature- can be supported by the facts. There
is no doubt, however, that the Wars of the Roses DID
leave the people of England tired of the whole
business. The really interesting thing about Bosworth was
the general lack of enthusiasm generated by EITHER
side!

Witchcraft accusations

2000-05-16 23:28:06
summerille70
We all know about More and Vergil alleging
Richard accused the two Elizabeths, Woodville and Shore,
of withering his arm by witchcraft (More) or at
least weakening his body (Vergil). I assumed that this
Richard never made any such accusation. But Hicks says
that Richard did accuse the Woodvilles of witchcraft.
I think he is referring to Richard's letter to
York. I think he means that the phrase that they plan
to murder him and Buckingham and with their subtle
and damnable practices forecast the same. Is this a
viable theory by Hicks? I checked the dictionary and
damnable could mean deserving of damnation but also
something like reprehensible in Middle English, and I think
to forecast was to plot. Is Hicks reading too much
into the sentence? What do people think?

Re: Edward IV's treasure

2000-05-18 22:39:47
tmc\_dale
It is likely that it was a rumour at the time but
the facts speak for themselves Edward left so little
that his jewels were sold to meet the cost of his
funeral and that his executors refused to act for his
will because there were no funds available. The
rumours that the Queen divided it up between herself, her
son Dorset and her brother Edward are contemporary I
believe - which leads some particularly Hicks to think
that Richard encouraged or spread the rumour
himself....other writers have also taken people like Commynes at
his word with regard Edward's legendary greed and
great wealth...although it is worth pointing out that
Edward was personally extravagent and lived well, he had
spent large sums on the royal residences and especially
on the Chapel Royal at Windsor along with lavish
reburials for his father, his court was expensive and he
was supporting a large royal family - at his death
his french pension had stopped and he was at war with
Scotland...hardly surprising he died skint. <br>The letter of
Richard's actually is a letter in the name of Edward V
urging that the tower and treasure within be cared for
etc....Richard may have been acting in complete innocence
assuming his brother had left a great deal.<br><br>As to
Dorset well I would guess whatever he took was given to
him by his mother and was more likely her own than
her husbands' - Edward Wydeville was dispatched to
sea with the Council's approval and instructions and
they would have paid him so he could maintain the
fleet.<br>Elizabeth would have probably taken her own plate, jewels
and furniture with her into sanctuary and may well
have broken a door down to get it all in...but she was
entitled to it all - her jointure had included both
Greenwich and Sheen Palaces, also in his earlier will
Edward had secured a number of household goods to her as
her property after his death. I would hazard a guess
she took what money she had in her own accounts as
well - my own view is that between entering sanctuary
and leaving it - she used her plate and jewellery to
live on - and eventually when it was nearly all gone
she did her deal with Richard...she certainly had
jewels and doesn't mention them in her will which
suggests she had pawned them earlier or given them away to
her daughters before her death.

Administration problem?

2000-05-23 22:39:28
summerille70
I can get into the Richard III forum yahoo club
this way but I had an invitation sent to me and when I
tried to click on that it said the invitation has
expired? What do I have to get another invitation? What is
the difference between the two URLs?

Swing of the pendulum?

2000-05-23 22:43:50
summerille70
Why is Richard getting such a bad press again
lately? I mean, the academic historians like Horrox,
Hicks, Richmond etc are almost uniformly hostile. The
last sympathetic historian was Bennett in the Battle
of Bosworth Field. Pollard is reasonably fair,
however. As for the popular historians we get Weir and
Seward? Where are the equivalents to Kendall and Potter?

Re: Administration problem?

2000-05-23 23:23:06
ukaflyer
It could be that the sender of the invitation to
join did not realise you are already a member. There
is no need for another invitation. The two URL's are
one and the same, here! Do you know who sent the
invitation?<br><br>UKAFLYER

Researching trip and...

2000-05-24 02:24:43
PATSDINER
Market Bosworth, today:<br><a href=http://www.pipemedia.net/mbos2.htm target=new>http://www.pipemedia.net/mbos2.htm</a>

On the menu tonight...

2000-05-24 02:35:10
PATSDINER
An ad on the website for Market Bosworth (below),
for a restaurant called HENRY'S
BISTRO:<br><br>...wild boar loin filled with mushrooms, garlic and
onions and baked in lattice flaky pastry.<br><br>LOL

Weekly Sunday meet

2000-05-26 07:27:14
ukaflyer
Don't forget our regular Sunday meet.<br><br>It
starts 21:00 BST which should be 16:00 in the US. For
our friends down under this is may<br>be 07:00 in the
morning?<br><br>It is best to meet in the 'chat' room where you can
either type or talk. The chat room can be<br>found by
scrolling down the page and looking for the paragraph that
invites you to 'enter'. You<br>will have to download the
'chat' software in advance. It is also a good idea to
download the<br>messenger system as well. This allows you
to see when other members are logged on.<br><br>Hope
to see you all Sunday!

Re: Swing of the pendulum?

2000-05-26 18:56:11
ejbronte\_11210
It might make you feel better to that, a
couple<br>of nights ago, on my classical music radio
<br>station, the midnight - dawn announcer spent many<br>hours
playing music in reference to Richard, mused<br>over the
probable injustice to him several times,<br>and told the
story of "Daughter of Time". It made<br>us feel quite
good.<br><br>Maria<br>elena@...

Re: Swing of the pendulum?

2000-05-28 22:58:15
white\_surrey
Another "swing of the pendulum" can be read at
the following
address:<br><a href=http://www10.nytimes.com/library/travel/europe/000521rich.html target=new>http://www10.nytimes.com/library/travel/europe/000521rich.html</a><br> It is a "friendly" article about our favorite
Englixh Monarch entitled: "Honk If You Love Richard III."

Re: Swing of the pendulum?

2000-05-29 14:35:39
dickon1
One thing that is not always remembered is that
one of the Stanleys was married to Margaret Beaufort,
Henry's mother. This was I think her third marriage. What
influence this had on the actions of the Stanleys I don't
know. What do you think?

Re: Swing of the pendulum?

2000-05-29 18:33:35
summerille70
A lot I should think. Being the King's stepfather
had to be a good promotion for Stanley, and while he
and Richard had a working relationship, as seen in
the Scottish campaign, especially the siege of
Berwick, I doubt if there was much warmth personally
between them. I think the Stanleys probably resented
Richard supporting the Harringtons in their property
dispute with the Stanleys from back in the 1470s
too.<br><br>Much as it pains me to admit it, I think William
Stanley did have some loyalty to Edward IV and V, because
he arrested Margaret of Anjou after Tewkesbury and
he admitted that if Warbeck were Edward's son he
would not fight against him. But Thomas Stanley's only
loyalty was to himself. Look at the way he entertained
Henry VII after he'd executed his own brother, even
building him a nice bridge at Lathom so Henry wouldn't get
his little feet wet, and he wasn't concerned about
Lord Strange being in danger at Bosworth.

No protectorship?

2000-05-29 18:37:49
summerille70
I notice Hicks, Horrox and Carpenter all claim
that Edward never appointed Richard protector. I know
the reason they are saying this is because they want
to paint Richard as the aggressor from the moment
Edward died. I also know that the 2nd will or even
codicils have never been found, so we can't prove Edward's
intentions, but what actual evidence have the traditionalist
historians actually got that Edward wanted an immediate
coronation for Edward V and for him to remain under the
tutelage of the Woodvilles?

Tracking a boar...

2000-06-03 03:33:55
PATSDINER
Help. I'm trying to get to Bosworth battlefield
from London, via public transit. I see I can get to
Market Bosworth using the 153 bus out of Leicester, but
I understand that's over two miles away. Has anyone
been who could offer advise?<br>Thank you.

Re: Tracking a boar...

2000-06-03 09:18:21
brian\_yorkist
It's a pleasant walk on a warm day. The only practical alternative is to hire a taxi.

Weekly Sunday chat

2000-06-03 11:11:08
ukaflyer
Don't forget our regular Sunday meet.<br><br>It
starts 21:00 BST which should be 16:00 in the US. For
our friends down under this is may<br>be 07:00 in the
morning?<br><br>It is best to meet in the 'chat' room where you can
either type or talk. The chat room can be<br>found by
scrolling down the page and looking for the paragraph that
invites you to 'enter'. You<br>will have to download the
'chat' software in advance. It is also a good idea to
download the<br>messenger system as well. This allows you
to see when other members are logged on.<br><br>Hope
to see you all Sunday!

Re: Tracking a boar...

2000-06-03 16:29:04
PATSDINER
Hmmm...an American walking...are we allowed to do that? Will give it a try, just hope my legs don't lock up, rebelling at the idea of not having 2 tons of steel at their disposal. Thank you.

Re: Tracking a boar...

2000-06-03 17:11:39
ukaflyer
Check this link out, it's only a mile to walk to
the station from the where the bus will drop you off.
The battlefield is then just a short walk from the
other end of the
line.<br><br><a href=http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/chrissimmons/HowToFindUs.HTM target=new>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/chrissimmons/HowToFindUs.HTM</a>

Re: No protectorship?

2000-06-04 01:05:47
bar1114
And why the great haste made by the Woodvilles to
get young Edward to London with a large force and
barrells of harness, if he were to remain under the
tutelage of the Woodvilles? Why were they so afraid of
loosing their authority over the young king?

Re: No protectorship?

2000-06-04 17:58:42
summerille70
I notice Rivers sent to London on 8 March for
copies of letters patent granting him governorship of
Prince Edward and the right to raise troops. Also he
asked for his constableship of the Tower to be given to
Dorset. Do you think the Woodvilles already knew Edward
IV was ailing and were trying to entrench themselves
in power?<br><br>Also I know Edward IV officially
died on 9 April, but we know the news of his death was
in York on 6 April because there was a requiem mass.
This has raised a suscpicion in my mind. I know it's
pure speculation but do you think Edward did die
earlier than 9th and it was kept quiet by the Queen and
Dorset so that they could take over the government? I
mean, I seem to remember that at the deaths of Henry
VII and VIII there were factions at court who were
able to maintain the fiction that the King was alive
and well until they were ready to take
over.<br><br>Also if the news of his death was in York on the 6th,
how long would this have taken to reach York from
London? I know Edward had a courier system to communicate
with Richard during the Scottish campaign that was
very quick, but how long roughly would the news take
to travel from London to York.<br><br>By the way, I
notice Mancini says the arms did not belong to the
Woodvilles. He says they were for war with Scotland, but, of
course, he did not really know the geography of England.
Where do you think they did they come from?<br><br>Also
on the death of Edward IV, wouldn't his appointment
of Rivers as Edward V's governor have become null
and void legally, or would it still have been valid
in law?

Speculative history

2000-06-04 18:06:30
summerille70
If Richard had lived and married Joana of
Portugal and if they had had a child, would that putative
child have been the heir to the throne of Portugal as
well as England.<br><br>I raise this point because
Joao IV died without a son and the throne went to his
brother-in-law and cousin Manuel, Duke of Beja (who was
suggested as a husband for Elizabeth of York, so could she
have become Queen of Portugal instead of England?)But
would his sister Joana's child have been next in
line?<br><br>Would Richard have been willing or able to have
enforced Joana's child's right to Portugal? If he could
have would England have ended up with the same sort of
New World empire that Portugal had?
<br><br>Incidentally has anyone ever seen a portrait of Joana of
Portugal? I would love to know what she looked like, as she
was alledgedly beautiful, but I have never found a
picture in any history book or on the net.

Re: No protectorship?

2000-06-07 13:01:50
tmc\_dale
There was no great haste - coronations usually
took place quite quickly - therefore precedence would
suggest that Edward V be crowned with some speed. However
Rivers himself seems to have shown little urge to race
his nephew south...as I have said before he delayed
setting off for some St George celebration and then took
the long route south in order to meet Richard and
Buckingham. Any armour and weapons he brought would be purely
ceremonial and protection on the route south....it is as
likely that Richard and Buckingham picked up the rusty
armour along the route from Stoney as anywhere
else.<br><br>With regard the protectorship - Horrox and Hicks don't
say there was no wish for a protectorate just that it
is impossible to prove either way - Horrox's point
being that the best precedent for Edward IV in drawing
up his final codicils would be the accession of
Richard II as opposed to the accession of Henry VI - and
in Richard II's case the council took control
immediately.<br>The Council meeting that followed Edward IV's death
doesn't seem from Crowland's recollection to have
discussed a protectorate at all - there was some criticism
of the QUeen's family but no formal attempt to
remove any of them from their position - Sir Edward
Wydeville was sent to sea to defend the channel against
piracy and any French threat, Dorset was confirmed in
his position - despite some hostility to him. Most of
this suggests that a protectorship was a moot point
until Richard gained control of the King...the council
had decided to rule in the name of the minor king
irrespective of what Edward IV may or may not have wished.

Re: Speculative history

2000-06-09 03:51:30
bar1114
Where was it said that he intended to marry
Joanna of Portugal? (or anyone else). He had already
named the earl of Lincoln his heir. Incidently, they
always say Queens or other noble ladies were beautiful,
makes it more romantic.

Re: Speculative history

2000-06-09 12:59:15
tmc\_dale
Richard named no heir as far as the public record
that exists reveals. It may be that he toyed with the
idea of the Earl of Warwick (although that would have
threatened Richard's own title to the throne - as if Edward
IV's children were indeed illegitimate then Warwick
was the rightful hereditary monarch)- with reference
to John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln - he as
Richard's nearest adult male relative was naturally high
profile. The assumption that he was named heir tend to
come from his appointment to Ireland and that high
profile. Incidentally removing Edward IV's children leaves
this hereditary succession - Edward Earl of Warwick,
Margaret Plantagenet, Richard Duke of Gloucester, Anne St
Leger, Elizabeth Duchess of Suffolk, John Earl of
Lincoln etc...<br><br>Tim

Re: Speculative history

2000-06-09 19:14:21
bar1114
John, Earl of Lincoln was the next male heir in back of Richard, with the exception of Edward, Earl of Warwick who was said to have been retarded, and attainted for his fathers treason.

Re: Speculative history

2000-06-10 01:13:29
tmc\_dale
I am sorry to disagree - Lincoln was the nearest
male relative and only adult male heir general. And
the house of York based their claim on female descent
- practically John of Lincoln was the obvious
candidate but it is noticeable that at Stoke he didn't
claim the throne - although I would hazard a guess that
had Henry Tudor lost at Stoke we would soon have had
John II. The point was though that Richard named no
heir - understandably as he was quite young enough to
remarry and produce an heir of his own. There is no
contemporary evidence that there was anything wrong with
Warwick at all. Incidentally Warwick was never attainted
until his execution by Henry VII after being found
guilty of treason (however much of a set up job that
was), the attainder of George Duke of Clarence does not
apply to his children at all - the only reference is in
the paragraph which states that Warwick is forbidden
the title of Duke...one other point with the
exception of Henry V no other 15th Century monarch hadn't
been attainted at some point.<br><br>Tim

Re: No protectorship?

2000-06-10 14:37:27
Aquaeus
Or is it merely an accident that the authority of a Protector would effectively end the instant the Crown touched young Edward's head?

Re: No protectorship?

2000-06-10 14:41:17
Aquaeus
Actually, as I recall, Thomas Duke of Gloucester
functioned as Lord Protector during the early years of
Richard II's reign, hung onto the job much longer than he
had any justification for- and lost both his job and
his head as the result of a clever rhetorical
question about the age at which <br>a King might rule in
his own right asked in Council by Richard himself.

Re: Speculative history

2000-06-10 14:44:15
Aquaeus
Nor should it be forgotten that the last reigning Queen of England had been Mathilda. By precident, women did not rule England any more than France under the Salic Law.

Re: Speculative history

2000-06-13 19:10:23
bar1114
To suggest that Richard and Buckingham picked up
rusty armour along route, to set up the Woodvilles, is
absurd. And if it was purely ceremonial and for
protection, protection against whom? Who can defend the
actions of the Woodvilles, after the Kings death? Doesnt
it seem obvious that Anthony Woodville met Richard
at Northhampton to hinder his progress, so that the
young king could be taken to London with all speed?
Once the king was crowned and under complete Woodville
control what would happen to Richard? Doesnt it seem
obvious that Richard was never the aggressor? He was at
the Scots border when the king died, do you think the
first thing he thought about was how to sheme and
murder his way to power? I dont think so.

The protectorship

2000-06-16 18:37:56
bar1114
In response to the protectorship being hard to
prove. Hastings sent a message North after the kings
death stating, " The king has left all to your
protection, goods, heir, realm. Secure the person of our
sovereign and get to London. The Croyland chronicler
reports, Richard was invested with power to order and
forbid in every matter just like another king. So indeed
it was common knowledge at the time that the rights
that King Edwards will had given him were being
confirmed. Edward Woodville was not appointed to protect the
channel, he fled after Anthony Woodville and the others
were captured, as did Dorset, and of course the Queen
to sanctuary, with fear of reprisal. Hardly the
actions of the innocent.

Weekly Sunday meet

2000-06-17 14:08:55
ukaflyer
Don't forget our regular Sunday meet.<br><br>It
starts 21:00 BST which should be 16:00 in the US. For
our friends down under this is may<br>be 07:00 in the
morning?<br><br>It is best to meet in the 'chat' room where you can
either type or talk. The chat room can be<br>found by
scrolling down the page and looking for the paragraph that
invites you to 'enter'. You<br>will have to download the
'chat' software in advance. It is also a good idea to
download the<br>messenger system as well. This allows you
to see when other members are logged on.<br><br>Hope
to see you all Sunday!

Re: Weekly Sunday meet

2000-06-18 21:03:23
Aquaeus
Actually, I think you can participate even without software by goint to the "chat" section of Yahoo<br>(unless you mean Java).

New photos in American Gallery

2000-06-19 19:15:32
white\_surrey
You may have noticed some photos in a new
catagory "American Photo Gallery" that have been put on
this site just recently.<br> From time to time I will
send along pictures that may be of interest to
Ricardians. The ones from our American Branch AGM show how
"into" the spirit of the 15th century we get.<br> The
photo of me with the scale model of Middleham was
posted because of a converation on the Sunday chat
section of this site. I can't remember now who first
mentioned a model of Middleham but here is one that a
fellow in the Michigan area brought to our AGM in
1994.<br> Michigan Chapter is hosting the 2002 AGM and
hopefully we can contact this gentleman and get the model
back for another showing.<br>Regards,<br>White_Surrey

Re: Speculative history

2000-06-20 05:39:04
ejbronte\_11210
I have a picture of Joana of Portugal in a book
by Sanceau called "The Perfect Prince", about her
brother, Joao. Unfortunately, I lent the book out and have
to get it back one of these years, but Joana's
picture shows a woman who would have been, I think,
fairly attractive for her time; it doesn't seem to have
flattered her much. Her expression is a little "prissy" but
her features are even, a long, thin nose, small,
fullish lips and largish eyes with heavy lids, from what
I recall. She wasn't interested in marriage and
wanted to take vows.<br><br>Maria<br>elena@...

Re: Speculative history

2000-06-20 18:47:50
bar1114
I would like to know where is it mentioned that Richard considered a match with Joanna of Portugal, or anyone else.

Re: Speculative history

2000-06-20 21:05:49
brian\_yorkist
I can't quote the exact reference, but it was
certainly discussed in an article in the Ricardian some
years ago. The same article referred to a proposed
match between Elizabeth of York and the Portuguese Duke
of Beja, which would have happened simultaniously.
The point of the marriage(s) was that the Portuguese
had a good (Lancastrian) claim to the English throne
- well certainly better than Henry Tudor's. It
would have been an alternative "union of the roses".

Re: Speculative history

2000-06-20 22:45:44
ukaflyer
The document you want to look at with regard to
Richard's proposed marriage to Joanna of Portugal is
Extracts from 'O Mosteiro de Jesus de Aveiro' (The Convent
of Jesus at Aveiro) by Domingos Mauricio Gomes dos
Santos, 1963. This is an extract from a collosal work
dealing with various attempts to negotiate a marriage
with Joanna of Portugal - Richard's being one of them.
Barrie Williams gives the English translation of
Richard's negotiations - the Richard III Society Library
has a copy.<br><br>It would seem that Joanna would
prefer to be a bride of Christ and not a bride of any
worldly prince, including Richard!

Re: New photos in American Gallery

2000-06-21 08:06:02
patriotUK
I brought up the subject of a model of Middleham
Castle in chat one Sunday. The model was featured in a
magazine called "Military Modelling" in March 1984 and was
built by Ian Weekley to 20mm scale. It was exhibited at
Middleham Castle during the 500th anniversary celebrations
in 1983 and was even inspected by the present Duke
of Gloucester. If anybody wants any further details
of the article, construction or pictures I will
happily supply them just leave an offline message on
messenger or catch me online. Regards PatriotUK (Eddie)

Weekly Sunday meet

2000-06-24 11:34:53
ukaflyer
Don't forget our regular Sunday meet.<br><br>It starts 21:00 BST which should be 16:00 in the US. For our friends down under this is may<br>be 07:00 in the morning?<br><br>Hope to see you all Sunday!

Richard on White Surrey

2000-06-24 17:25:49
ukaflyer
New photo added of a sculptor of Richard on horse back.

Weekly Sunday meet

2000-07-02 12:40:23
ukaflyer
Don't forget our regular Sunday meet.<br><br>It starts 21:00 BST which should be 16:00 in the US. For our friends down under this is may<br>be 07:00 in the morning?<br><br>Hope to see you all Sunday!

Question about Richard III portrait

2000-07-03 18:40:25
gary\_conelly
Recently I visited Arundel Castle (Residence of
the Duke of Norfolk). While I was there I noticed a
portrait of Richard III hanging sort of out of the way in
the library. I had never seen this portrait before
and although it was similar to the NPG it wasn't the
same. The host in the library could only tell me it was
old and was English. Does anyone know this portrait?
If so are any dates known concerning it and the
artist etc.? I am very interested since it doesn't have
the "edge or tautness" of the NPG portrait. You might
say it is a kinder-looking Richard.

Re: Question about Richard III portrait

2000-07-05 23:59:04
bar1114
I beleive there is a picture of the portrait you
are refering to in the Eyewitness Travel Guide of
Great Britain. All it says about the painting is that
its from the 16th century. It is considerably
different from the NPG portrait. It is a kinder looking
Richard, young and handsome too. Would anyone know where
to get a larger print of this portrait, the picture
in the book is quite small?

News on the bones?

2000-07-06 06:35:14
hiraeth2
Someone in my Penman club just posted this
message. Has anyone else heard anything about
it?<br><br>"And for all the other fans of "Sunne", there's a
story out about people using the Duchess of York's DNA
(ya know, Fergie's--they say they'll use a lock of
her hair) and some other [distant] female relatives
of Elizabeth Woodville's to find out once and for
all if the bones found in the Tower of London are
really Edward V's and his brother, Richard's.<br><br>I
don't know much about this (or really much about where
the bones were interred after they were discovered
early this century)...so if you wan't more information,
I'm not the person to ask...<br><br>I believe that
using samples from Elizabeth Woodville's or Edward IV's
graves would be *much* more effective, if they really
care about it all. (then again, maybe everyone should
be left in peace...)<br><br>For some oddball reason,
some think that if the bones are indeed those of the
princes, Richard III *was* indeed guilty of the murders. I
don't see how. Neither do many of the people on the
WotR mailing lists I am a part of!"<br><br><br>Is this
really going to happen I wonder? I'd love to see the
results of it.

Re: News on the bones?

2000-07-06 16:13:12
kristymcquillen
Fergie? I wonder just how reliable this rumor is
and to what "people" they are referring. The entire
nobility is probably genetically realated. Maybe I have
missed something. Why her? Unless I am mistaken,
researchers exhumed the body of the Duke of Norfolk's heir
and it was established that these bones were indeed
proved to be genetically related. She was a cousin (once
or twice removed) of the boys. Why would Fergie's
DNA prove anything more conclusive? Heck, by now, I'm
probably genetically related to those bones.<br>As for the
positive results proving who killed the boys....hogwash.
We will not know for certain who killed those boys
until Judgement Day.

Re: News on the bones?

2000-07-06 16:58:09
hiraeth2
I agree. Why Fergie? But then again for DNA
testing to be carried out you have to be descended
through the female line all the way don't you? So using
the Queen would be out of the question. Apart from
the fact that she'd never consent!<br><br>I'm
interested in hearing what members of the UK branch think.
Have any of you heard about this?<br><br>Too bad they
just can't exhume the bones and date them. Surely with
the methods around today at least the approximate
date of their death could be proved?

Re: News on the bones?

2000-07-06 18:14:17
kristymcquillen
Unless I'm mistaken, the bones have already been
dated and the DNA tested was that of the FEMALE heir to
the Duke of Norfolk. She is young girl to which one
of the boys was either married or betrothed. She is
a much closer female relative than Fergie or the
Queen. <br>I'm not from the UK....but I'm pretty sure I
am correct!

Re: News on the bones?

2000-07-06 21:06:25
ukaflyer
I believe you are thinking of Anne Mowbray's
dental records. She was 'married' to Richard, Duke of
York at age 5 or somewhere around that age<br>but
there was no DNA test done on any of the bones. It
would require consuming some of the material in the
testing and I don't think anyone wants to do that.

Re: The protectorship

2000-07-07 12:17:09
tmc\_dale
Sorry not to have replied to your comments
earlier - firstly you seem to be confusing dates and
events.<br>Edward IV's will does not survive - we only have the one
he wrote in 1475 (which makes no mention of the
arrangements for his son's minority<br>Crowland states: <br>
"Long before his illness he had made his will, at very
considerable length.......On his death-bed he added some
codicils thereto; but what a sad and unhappy result befell
all these wise dispositions of his, the ensuing
tragedy will more fully disclose. "<br>In other words you
can't read anything into what Edward intended from
Crowland. Did they appoint Richard Protector hence
Crowland's view or did they simply appoint guardians for the
young Prince and expect his council to govern in the
new King's name again you can read Crowland either
way.<br>Crowland does discuss what was said at the first council
meeting following the death of Edward IV - there is no
discussion of a protectorate in fact it seems fairly
apparent that the Council members were more concerned with
ensuring a speedy coronation....<br>There were some
mumblings which seem to come from Hastings with support
that the Queen's family should not be left around the
young King - however it seems a compromise was
made.<br>"The advice * * * * * of the lord Hastings, the
Captain of Calais, at last prevailed; who declared that
he himself would fly thither with all speed, rather
than await the arrival of the new king, if he did not
come attended by a moderate escort. For he was afraid
lest, if the supreme power should fall into the hands
of the queen's relations, they would exact a most
signal vengeance for the injuries which had been
formerly inflicted on them by that same lord; in
consequence of which, there had long existed extreme ill-will
between the said lord Hastings and them"<br>Hastings
supposed letter to Richard can be read as simply a fact
that as the nearest paternal male relative to the
young King only Richard could prevent the Queen's
family getting their own back on a man they
resented.<br>As Crowland shows Richard was only given the
Protectorate when he arrived in London with the young King
already in his control - and any sensible reading of
Crowland shows that irrespective of Edward IV's intentions
the Council only gave away their authority and power
to Richard when they were faced with a Duke in
complete control of the King.<br><br>You said -
<br><br>"So indeed it was common knowledge at the time that
the rights that King Edwards will had given him were
being confirmed. "<br><br>No it wasn't I'm afraid -
Crowland only states that he was invested with the
authority on his arrival in the capital he doesn't say that
this was Edward IV's intention at all. As to common
knowledge well it would be hard to seperate gossip from PR
on behalf or against Richard himself. <br>The Queen
had done nothing wrong in fact according to Crowland
it was her willingness to back down over the size of
the escort for the young King that enabled a
compromise in the first place - she only fled into sanctuary
when news of the arrests of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan
reached her...and given that Crowland reports that people
were arming themselves in the streets and declaring
loyalty to various people that may have seemed a sensible
option for her to take.<br><br>Anthony Wydeville was not
captured - he met with Richard and Buckingham and was
arrested the next day - an action that was completely
without legality - he was still the boys official tutor
or guardian. He was in fact extremely slow in moving
the boy south and had gone out of his way to meet
with Richard. When Richard arrived in London the
Council refused to permit him to proceed against Anthony
or Richard Grey or Thomas Vaughan on the grounds
that they hadn't committed anything that touched upon
treason.

Re: The protectorship

2000-07-07 23:17:44
bar1114
I am afraid you are the one confusing dates and
events, these events are well documented. It is sickening
that folks that are obviously anti-Richard take the
actions of a fair and decent man and twist them into
something else.

Re: The protectorship

2000-07-08 18:15:24
tmc\_dale
I don't think I am confusing dates at all and I
am not twisting Richard's actions at all - I think
he was a fairly typical man of his ages, position
and background who may very well have been an able
and acceptable monarch given time.<br>Most of the
items I debated with you were given with supporting
contemporary evidence. <br>The facts are the Edward IV died in
April and the Council meeting in April does not record
mention of a protectorate. The first we hear of a
protectorate is on Richard and Edward V's arrival in London a
month or so later.<br><br>Incidentally where do you get
the view of Richard as fair and decent - what is your
benchmark - comparison with who - his brother or fellow
peers in late medieval england?

Re: The protectorship

2000-07-08 22:07:14
ukaflyer
It is true that there is no evidence that Edward
IV intended that Richard should be Protector in the
event of a minority after his death. Indeed he left his
son, Edward, very much in Rivers' control and did not
involve Richard in the upbringing of his son at all.
(This may well have been because he did not envisage
dying young?!) However, whether he wanted Richard as
Protector or not is immaterial because a dead king's wishes
carried no weight and the council could override them if
they so wished.<br><br>It is clear that the Woodvilles
were out to get control of the young king and secure
their position of power and the council were unhappy
about this state of affairs. All the Woodvilles'
actions point to this - at least on the Queen's side. You
are being over charitable to Elizabeth Woodville in
your comments - she was acting purely on her own
agenda (as, I accept, was everyone else!) and she made
no effort to inform Richard of his brother's death
which should have been an obvious thing to do (or get
someone else to do) given that he was one of the most
senior noblemen (if not the most senior nobleman) in the
country and the king's only surviving brother. She was
quick enough to inform her own brother, Rivers, and
urge him to get Edward to London with all haste but
Richard had to hear of events through Hastings (for his
own agenda against the Woodvilles). She backed down
over the size of the accompanying company of soldiers
only against overwhelming odds in the
council!<br><br>Rivers did not act in haste - maybe because he was not
fully in the picture but more likely because he felt
his sister had things in control in London. However,
neither did Richard. He, too, observed the correct
procedures of requiem masses and the swearing of fealty to
the new king in York before proceeding south on 20
April. It seems to me that only when Buckingham comes on
the scene that matters take a turn for the worse
(and, as you know, we are both in agreement that
Richard acted unlawfully in arresting Rivers, Vaughan and
Grey).<br><br>Richard was appointed Protector by the council to offset
the Woodville threat and it is because of this that
they also reluctantly accepted the extension of his
protectorship until the new king came of age.

Richard III Portrait

2000-07-09 23:08:02
bar1114
Does anyone have any info on the previously mentioned Richard III portrait?

Re: Richard III Portrait

2000-07-10 04:03:56
patriotUK
If you go to the website
www.bbcworldwide.com/historymag you will find what I presume is the painting you
are talking about. It features on the front cover of
the current magazine. I didn't find the article very
good (I bought the magazine) but it was worth it for
the picture. Perhaps the BBC could give you more
information on it.

Re: Richard III Portrait

2000-07-10 14:37:19
gary\_conelly
I have checked the BBC site and I don't think
this is the portrait I saw at Arundel. It has been
over a month now and my memory isn't all that great
but I don't think it is the same. Unfortunately, they
wouldn't allow me to take a photo of the portrait and they
didn't offer post cards or books with the picture. I
suppose the thing to do would be to contact Arundel
Castle and see if there is someone there with more
information. Incidentaly they have a portrait of John Howard
without the "bought and sold" rhyme. I know the castle
didn't come into the Howard family until after Richard's
death but I thought perhaps when the Howard's were
temporarily reduced to just being the earls of Arundel
perhaps they moved the Richard portrait (which may have
been saved from pro-Tudor hands.<br>If you haven't
seen the castle it is worth a visit. It is on a fairly
even footing with Warwick Castle although its armour
collection is not on par with Warwick.

Re: Richard III Portrait

2000-07-10 16:53:35
patriotUK
I have found another portait of Richard which
states it is owned by thee Society of Antiquaries.
Unfortunately it doesn't say where it is housed. I found it in
a book by Desmond Seward "The Wars of the Roses".
Eddie

Re: Richard III Portrait

2000-07-10 16:56:50
patriotUK
I have found another portrait of Richard which
states it is owned by the Society of Antiquaries.
Unfortunately it doesn't say where it is housed. I found it in
a book by Desmond Seward "The Wars of the Roses". I
have also placed a scan of the portrait in the photo
gallery. Eddie

Re: Richard III Portrait

2000-07-10 17:09:42
gary\_conelly
The Arundel portrait is a different one. It is
similar to NPG picture in that he is placing a ring on
his finger but his clothes are different and if I
remember corectly the background is green. The thing that
was most striking about it is that Richard's face
didn't seem as tense as the other portraits I have seen.
He appeared, for lack of a better way of saying,
kinder.

Re: Richard III Portrait

2000-07-10 17:15:13
gary\_conelly
I just looked at the photo you posted. The Arundel portrait, I believe, faces the other way. I am fairly certain that the portrait at Arundel is actually owned by the Duke of Norfolk.

Medieval newsletters

2000-07-10 22:13:59
gary\_conelly
Most of you probably already know of the
about.com website but I thought I would pass it along in
case some of you don't. They put out all kinds of
newsletters one of which is the medieval newsletter. It
doesn't touch on Richard much but if you are interested
in the general era here is the website to subscribe
(free) to the medieval newsletter --
<a href=http://HISTORYMEDREN.about.com/gi/pages/mmail.htm target=new>http://HISTORYMEDREN.about.com/gi/pages/mmail.htm</a>

Re: Richard III Portrait

2000-07-10 23:41:48
bar1114
The portrait on the cover of the BBC History Mag
is the NPG portrait, I beleive. The portrait at
Arundel Castle, though I have not been there, is most
likely the one I have seen in the Eyewitness travel
Guide of Great Britain. It is strikingly different from
other Richard III portraits, he seems younger and
kindlier. The book doesnt have any info on the portrait
itself, it doesnt even mention where it is housed.

Re: Richard III Portrait

2000-07-11 14:40:53
gary\_conelly
Is the picture of Richard in the eyewitness book in the history section?

Richard III portrait at Arundel

2000-07-12 18:16:56
gary\_conelly
If any of you are interested here is a reply I
received from the Duke of Norfolk's librarian regarding
the Richard III and John Howard portraits at Arundel
Castle<br>Thank you for your communication about the portraits of
the 1st Duke of <br>Norfolk and King Richard III. The
portrait of the Duke is posthumous and was <br>painted in
the late sixteenth century for Lord Lumley who
commissioned many <br>ancestral portraits of his family and
connections. It is likely that the <br>portrait of Richard III
is from the same source, as Lord Lumley had
portraits <br>of the relevant monarchs among the ancestror
portraits at Lumley Castle.<br>Black and white photographs
of all the pictures in the collection here are
<br>available from the Witt Library, Courtauld Institute of
Art, Somerset House, <br>Strand, London WC2R 0RN.

Society reply to BBC article

2000-07-18 15:35:52
ukaflyer
If you go to the Society web site and visit the 'Hot Topic' page, you will see a response to the article by Hicks<br><br>www.richardiii.net

BBC article

2000-07-22 01:32:40
summerille70
I guessed what it was going to be like when I saw
it was by Hicks, so I wasn't surprised or angry.
However I was rather irritated by the recommendation of
Seward and Weir. I mean, not only are they
dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists, but I believe they make mistakes
of fact. Not exactly going to give anyone a balanced
view, are they? They should at least have recommended
Kendall or Potter to put the other side.<br><br>I was
also concerned that the article implied that Richard
was accused of the murder of Clarence in his
lifetime. This definitely is wrong, as the first allegation
of involvement is made only in More.<br><br>Will the
Society be sending a rejoinder to BBC magazine?

Sunday evening meet

2000-07-22 11:03:45
ukaflyer
Don't forget our regular Sunday meet.<br><br>It starts 21:00 BST which should be 16:00 in the US. For our friends down under this is may<br>be 07:00 in the morning?<br><br>Hope to see you all Sunday!

Daughter of Time?

2000-07-26 18:00:27
bjjsavate
I am a big fan of Penman and it was indeed
"Sunne.." that got me interested in Richard III.<br><br>I
recently prepared a paper on Richard III (History Grad
Student) and thought Bertram Field's ROYAL BLOOD provided
some great ideas to go and research.<br><br>Somone
just recently turned me on to JOSEPHINE TEY DAUGHTER
OF TIME.<br><br>Can someone share some insight on
this earlier book on Richard and how "accuarate" it
may be?<br><br>Thanks!<br>Armando

Re: Daughter of Time?

2000-07-26 20:37:09
bar1114
Are you a member of the Sharon Kay Penman fan
Club? If not its a great place to discuss her writing.
Also I just recently read Tey's Daughter of Time, and
it was great. If your interested in good historical
fiction about Richard, read Rosemary Hawley-Jarman's We
Speak no Treason, and The Kings Grey Mare. Her books
are out of print, but still available whereever out
of print books are sold.

For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-27 02:07:12
hiraeth2
Check out my Penman movie site:<br><br><a href=http://members.xoom.com/Revlongirl/cast.htm target=new>http://members.xoom.com/Revlongirl/cast.htm</a>

Re: Daughter of Time?

2000-07-27 16:12:16
kristymcquillen
I thought Tey's "Daughter of Time" was terrible.
I'll probably be roasted over the coals for that...but
geeze. I was very disappointed. It created more
questions for me personally and a couple of the references
the detective used don't even really exist! I am
specifically referring to the book, "The Rose of Raby". I have
tried everything to find this title and have had NO
luck. What is so great about made up sources? I'll have
to ask OJ.

Re: Daughter of Time?

2000-07-27 18:44:54
bjjsavate
Well, the book was first printed in England in
'51, so maybe this book is out of print?<br>Sometimes,
for the neophyte, just getting the right questions is
half the battle...I've only started reading it
recently...I'll see.<br><br>"What is so great about made up
sources? I'll have to ask OJ." LOL!<br><br>Armando

Re: Daughter of Time?

2000-07-27 19:00:45
kristymcquillen
which book was printed in '51? Daughter of Time?
Or do you mean the Rose of Raby? I have posted this
question to SO many people in the "right
places"....whatever those are,lol. I also asked<br>"jeeves" He didn't
know either. <br>I just don't think it ever existed. I
did receive an e-mail recently from a kind man who
said that The Rose of Raby was a ballad. I thought
Daughter of Time was entertaining at best, but I hope you
enjoy it. I've tried to collect as many "Richard"
articles and books as I can get my hands on, positive and
negative. Have you read Alison Weir's book "Princes in the
Tower"? Not exactly slanted Richard's way..lol...but it
was well done so far as contemporary sources are
concered.

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-27 19:05:39
kristymcquillen
I still think Tom Cruise would have made a terrific older Richard! Go ahead ...scream at me

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-27 21:21:19
Aquaeus
Good job. That must have been a massive
effort.<br><br>As a old, male fart of 50, my only criticism would
be that the males are uniformly so "pretty." I know
that Penman's books have the rep of being whatever the
literary equivalent of "chick flicks" might be, and that
"The Sunne in Splendour" has an abundance of male
characters (Edward, Richard, Warwick, Buckingham and even
Clarence) possessed of some amount of charisma. But even
Henry VI looks like a model! I think that these books
are a great deal more than romance novels, and I find
it somehow a little hard to see these guys duking it
out with broadsword and morning-star mace.
Craggy<br>good looks, and even a character actor or two, might
help.<br><br>For all I know. After all, the best I was able to do
for an older Richard was Lance
Hendrickson!<br><br>Well, he DID make a damn fine Lincoln....

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-27 21:54:58
kristymcquillen
There is a VERY good reason for these main
characters being nice looking dear....Contemporary
chroniclers stated they were. In fact..they said that Edward
IV was the most handsome prince in christendom. Even
Henry VIII was VERY handsome as a youth. He wasn't
always fat ya know?! The good looks probably stems from
the fact that John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster
married a beautiful commoner, then they had beautiful
children. They were the ancestors of both houses. <br>As
for Penmans novels being the literary equivalent of a
"chick-flick" ?.....I wonder if they would have said the same
of Braveheart. There was more man-woman romance in
that academy award winner than in Sunne. Chick flicks
usually don't have battle scenes or heads being chopped
off or any of the other grafic violence that needs to
be shown to the audience for historical purposes.
Although....you never know, it probably wouldn't be the caliber
of something like...hmmmmm let's see BIG DADDY
maybe?<br>Who in the world is Lance Hendrickson!

Re: Daughter of Time?

2000-07-28 07:15:38
hiraeth2
The book The Rose of Raby DID exist. I think my
r3 branch has a copy of it in the library. It was
part of a trilogy on Cecily Neville and was written by
Jean Plaidy but under another name. Eleanor Fairburn I
think.

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-28 10:10:32
Aquaeus
LOL! I wondered the same thing about many of the
British actors you mentioned, and had to look them up on
the Internet!<br><br>I didn't say "nice looking." I
said "pretty," sometimes to the point of effeminite.
Craggy good looks are also good looks- and while I have
no doubt either of the sexual appeal or of the
charisma of the folks in question, I don't think many of
them (and CERTAINLY Henry VI and Tudor, from the
pictures I've seen) looked like models!<br><br>Lance
Hendrickson starred in the Fox series "Millennium," in "The
Day Lincoln Died," and in "The Right Stuff," in which
he played astronaut Wally Shirra. He also played the
heroic android, Bishop, in "Aliens."<br><br>Hey, I
didn't say The Sunne WAS the literary equivalent of a
"chick flick." Just that some see it that way. I have
read it eight times, and would go to see a movie based
on it at least that often,<br>if it were done at all
well.<br><br>Interesting point about Braveheart. And William Wallace
DIDN'T impregnate the Princess of Wales, whereas the
love story of Richard and Anne is true.

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-28 10:11:45
Aquaeus
That's "effeminate," obviously.

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-28 17:01:44
hiraeth2
I tried as much as I could to cast actors who
were the same age as the characters. Richard was only
32 when he died so I wasn't going to cast some guy
in his mid-50s so Lance Henrikson didn't even get a
look-in! I thought Paul McGann would make a good Richard
as he actually looks a bit like his portraits. I can
see him twisting that ring!<br><br>And I tried as
much as I could to avoid Hollywood-izing it so no Tom
Cruise (sorry Kristy!).

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-28 19:51:56
kristymcquillen
OK...maybe Tom Cruise wouldn't be the BEST
Richard, but that guy from millinium is definately NOT the
choice I would make. I am stoked about the Rose of
Raby...but now I need to know how to find it...could you
possibly set me on the right track. I can't borrow books
from the society library as I am in the US. <br>On the
subject of Braveheart.....I am not sure there IS much
historical fact to the movie. I used that movie in my
analogy becuase there was the whole story of his wife and
then the Princess of Wales. The entire movie is based
on the idea that Wallace started kicking English
butt because they killed his wife. Maybe that is
correct and maybe it isn't but my point is that there was
alot more of the "chick-flick" mentality to that movie
than in all of Penman's books combined. Don't get me
wrong, I've seen it about 100 times and I own it on VHS,
DVD and laser disk. It's just that I've had it with
people dismissing historical novels as fluff just based
on the fact that they are novels. Has any of you
ever read ANY of Tony Morrison's books? They are
trash, I mean TRASH and mainstream Americans think she
is the best thing since sliced bread. They made a
movie based on the novel Beloved. Ever read it? It
stinks. I DEMAND HOLLYWOOD TAKE NOTICE OF PENMAN! LOL
Think they heard me? I know,Let's<br>get the million
reader march going and storm the idots!

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-28 20:15:15
brian\_yorkist
I'd love to see a good film version of the Sunne in Splendour - problem is,all evidence suggests Holywood can't be trusted with English history. They would probably make a total joke of it.

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-29 11:09:24
cathryn\_66
I haven't actually read any of Penman's books but I thought I would have a look at your site anyway. I thought your suggestion of Steven Mackintosh as Tudor inspired!

The Duke of Norfolk at Bosworth

2000-07-29 16:19:04
gary\_conelly
In 3 different books I have read that at Bosworth
the Duke of Norfolk actually came to strokes with the
Duke of Oxford. During this encounter (the books say)
Norfolk's bever was torn loose after which a lucky arrow
struck him in the throat and killed him. In at least one
of the books it is state that all this took place
after Richard started his charge. I have been unable to
find anything like a contempory source to confirm
these incidents. If anyone knows a good source for
these accounts could you please pass it on to me.

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-30 05:27:19
hiraeth2
Regarding the "effeminacy" of the actors that
were chosen - I don't think they're effeminate at all
(with the possible exception of Jude Law but then
againt Clarence was apparently very pretty!) I don't
think they would have had time to get old and craggy as
they were all so young when they died. Richard was 32,
Edward 40 and Clarence not even 30.

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-30 22:59:25
bar1114
If Sunne in Speldour were ever made into a movie,
they would have to cast unknowns, because nobody in
Hollywood would be appropriate. The only actor who would
resemble Richard, in my mind is Welsh actor Roger Rees,
remember Robin Colcord on Cheers? And he is to old now to
play a man who only lived until 32. I cant picture
Natalie Portman as Anne Neville, Anne and her sister were
said to be frail, petite blondes. As for Daughter of
Time, I only read it recently and it was not terrible
at all. I have always felt there was evidence of the
two princes still being alive when Henry VII began
his reign,her evidence is not only convincing but
anyone with any doubt would stop and think and say, yes,
that makes sense. In my opinion, Sunne in Splendour
fell apart when she went into the whole thing about
Buckingham being the guilty one. The Tudors "took out"
anyone with a drop of Yorkist blood, and the two Princes
were most likely the first to die.

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-31 03:27:52
hiraeth2
In Sunne Anne kept being described as having huge
dark eyes and dark hair so that's why I thought of
Natalie Portman. I've seen Roger Rees in movies (he was
in Robin Hood: Men in Tights) and I agree that he'd
have been a good Richard but is now too
old.<br><br>Most of the actors I cast were English anyway and not
Hollywood.

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-07-31 07:56:00
brian\_yorkist
I think I'm right in saying there's no
*contemporary* physical description of Anne Neville except for
the suggestion in Croyland that she was similar to
Elizabeth of York, who was of course (very) tall and
blonde. (Remember the reference to them exchanging
dresses.)

Re: Extant bill

2000-07-31 18:56:06
bar1114
Does anybody have an opinion re extant bill for
two doublets of silk, one jacket of silk, one gown,
two shirts and two bonnets, for my Lords Bastard?
This bill was written not long before Richards death
and is proof that the princes were alive and under
Richards protection. Some beleive it may be refering to
his bastard son John, but John would not be refered
to as a Lord.

Re: Extant bill

2000-07-31 20:17:45
bjjsavate
This was discussed at length (and very well) in
Bertram Fields book. I also think it was in reference to
the Princes who were being accorded a place of honor
and their seem to be a lot of evidence that Richard
had planned for them to attend this event.<br>I don't
think it was referring to the bastard son, (who most
likely would not been given this type of
treatment).<br>To argue that Richard ordered these items in hopes
of creating the illusion the Princes were still
alive after he killed them would seem far-fetched to
me.....maybe....<br><br>Armando

Re: Extant bill

2000-08-01 11:06:57
littflowr12
Hi,<br> I was recently reading "The Goldsmith's
Wife" by Jean Plaidy(Victoria Holt), her novel about
Jane Shore. Ms. Plaidy presents the theory in the
novel that the Princes were alive all thru Richard's
reign and that he was planning on having them come to
court to be with their mother and sisters,but Bosworth
interfered with his plans. She then goes on to describe the
death of the princes as happening under the reign of
Henry VII. The Extant Bill seems to be proof that this
theory is not only possible, but probably very likely.
As much as I love Thomas More, I have to admit that
there is no real reason why Richard would have wanted
the princes dead, or needed them to die, while Tudor
had all the reason in the world to get rid of the
brothers of the woman he was planning to marry.

Re: Extant bill

2000-08-02 21:07:03
bar1114
No doubt the princes would have come to court
after Bosworth. I heard of a theory that in the event
of his death in battle, the princes were to be taken
aboard ship to Burgundy where they would be safe from
Tudor who planned to marry their sister Elizabeth. As
for Thomas More, he was a pupil of John Morton, an
enemy of Richards, and he was only 8 years old when
Richard died. Josephine Tey described More's Writings as
backstairs gossip accepted as history, which is a good
description. There is other evidence of Henry's guilt, If
Richard were truly an usurper why were all copies of
titilus regis ordered destroyed by Henry VII? And why was
Elizabeth Woodville suddenly shut up in a nunnery 14 months
after he became king? (Giving a lame reason for it
too.) And James Tyrell prospered for 17 years during
Henrys reign, given a prestigious commision outside of
England. Then he was executed for murder of the princes
supposedly under Richards order, after 17 years. Richard
would have accomplished nothing by murdering the two
boys, there were other heirs to the throne, but Tudor
needed them dead.

Medieval Daily Quiz

2000-08-04 19:28:20
gary\_conelly
Here is a link some of you might like. It has a
daily medieval question. You might also like the mother
site. They have some interesting medieval stuff and not
surprisingly offer links to most R3
societies.<br><a href=http://historymedren.about.com/homework/historymedren/library/day/blqabout.htm target=new>http://historymedren.about.com/homework/historymedren/library/day/blqabout.htm</a>

Re: Medieval Daily Quiz

2000-08-05 14:39:46
white\_surrey
I checked out the Daily Medieval Quiz and did
very well. Then I went to the site, "Who Wants To Be A
Medieval Millionaire" and got to 2,000 deniers before
bombing our on the question about castles.<br>This is
lots of fun! Thanks, Gary, for the link!

Another interesting medieval website

2000-08-05 15:16:10
gary\_conelly
Here is a very interesting site. The pictures are
of an astonishing good quality. It isn't R3 stuff
directly, but it certainly covers some very interesting
events prior to the Wars of the
Roses.<br><a href=http://www.bnf.fr/enluminures/aaccueil.htm target=new>http://www.bnf.fr/enluminures/aaccueil.htm</a><br>This is a French site but it can be viewed in English.

Re: Extant bill

2000-08-13 23:16:18
dickon1
it is possible that the bill you mention does
refer to either Richard's or Edward's bastards, as
their royal blood would have entitled them to be called
Lords without them necessarily having any other title
(earl, baron etc). but it could also be the two boys
Edward had by Elizabth Woodville - who Richard declared
illegitamate, as you say. Richard had at least one bastard son
and at least one bastard daughter, but there may have
been others lost in time. There is no forensic
evidence of anything 515 years ago, just our opinion
coloured by our society and our standards and our laws.

Bosworth

2000-08-21 22:34:10
summerille70
It's that time of year again. Has anybody been or
is about to go to Bosworth? I've been to two
re-enactments, including last year's, and I went earlier on this
year in May, when it was totally deserted. I've never
been on the official Richard III Society visit. Has
anyone? I presume that the re-enactment/society visit was
the weekend of 19/20 August. Is this
correct?<br><br>Last time I visited I did the cafe, the visitor
centre, spent too much in the bookshop, couldn't find the
well, but did find the death stone.<br><br>What do
others like to do there?

Re: Bosworth

2000-08-22 11:40:10
lyn\_lynz
I went a few years ago (when I was in the UK,
it's a bit of a mission to do it on a day trip from
Auckland), once pretty early in the season (clear blue sky,
Richard's flag surrounded by some kind of cereal crop) and
once for the memorial service (overcast/raining). That
year they had the re-enactment the week later, so i
missed that. My memory of the Well was twofold
disappointment; first that there was rubbish flosting in it, and
second that the inscription on it was in latin (I'm just
an ignorant Kiwi!). This year I have had to make do
with visiting the Bosworth section of the American
Branch's website - almost as good as the real
thing!<br><a href=http://www.r3.org/bosworth/index.html target=new>http://www.r3.org/bosworth/index.html</a>

Re: Bosworth

2000-08-22 23:10:53
Aquaeus
A friend of mine ventured to Bosworth during the
time when she was stationed in England with the U.S.
Air Force. By coincidence, she visited on the 500th
anniversary of the battle! According to her, the most popular
item in the area was a T-shirt reading, "Never trust a
Stanley."

Rosemary Hawley Jarman letter

2000-08-27 01:45:19
bar1114
I received a letter from Rosemary Hawley Jarman
writer of Richard III novel We Speak No Treason. She
informed me that the musical director and composer at the
Royal Shakespeare Company has written an overture based
on We Speak No Treason, which will premiere in
Birmingham on Sept.9th. The gentleman asked her to write the
program notes and a few short poems to be set to music,
the subject being Middleham.

Re: Bosworth

2000-08-27 20:02:54
lblanchard1485
summerille70 asks:<br><br>"Last time I visited I
did the cafe, the visitor centre, spent too much in
the<br> bookshop, couldn't find the well, but did find
the death stone.<br><br>"What do others like to do
there?"<br><br>I see that someone has kindly posted the URL for
the American Branch's web section on Bosworth --
<a href=http://www.r3.org/bosworth/ target=new>http://www.r3.org/bosworth/</a> . I think it could easily be worth a full day or
even an overnight trip to get a good feel for the
countryside.<br><br>The battlefield tour is an obvious activity. I would
also suggest a ride on the Battlefield Line, when it's
operational, and perhaps a ride on one of the narrowboats on
the Ashby Canal. There's a boat basin with
concessions not far from the battlefield center. Another
possibility is one of the six canal walks -- there are
leaflets at the Visitor Centre.<br><br>I'd also suggest a
trip to the nearby village of Sutton Cheney to view
St. James' church and to get a bit to eat in The
Almshouses. Another good trip for the determined Ricardian is
a search for the "other" Sandeford -- the location
put forth by Peter Foss et al for the actual site of
Richard's last battle -- and the surrounding churches at
Stoke Golding (very handsome) and Dadlington (which I
didn't see).

Re: Bosworth

2000-08-28 14:02:32
white\_surrey
The American Branch Ricardian Tour made its
obligatory pilgrimage to Bosworth this summer and we also
did get over to Dadlington church. The church itself
has been "modernized" with a coat of stucco or
something and it has completely taken away the medieval
flavor - too bad! But a determined group of "alternate"
battle site believers had a wonderful display set up
inside the church for our tour group. They made a
special effort to mount this display for us!<br>Peter
Foss's book was available and I did purchase a copy. I
found it very convincing!<br> My advise to these folks
is to do away with the "modernization" of the church
exterior if you want to sell the Foss idea. Tourists,
especialy Americans, want to see the "olde tyme" look and
not an updated building. I don't know if a tour of
the "alternate" battlefield is available or if it is
now covered up by a parking lot. We only got to stay
a short while. But it would be worth a visit.

Re: Rosemary Hawley Jarman letter

2000-08-28 21:03:47
YORKIST1
Do you have more details on this performance?

Re: Bosworth

2000-08-31 00:07:34
dickon1
Poor old Stanleys! Merely protecting their
interestes just like everyone else - after all one of them
was married to Henry of Richmond's mum Margaret
Beaufort and a formidable female she was. I haven't been
to Bosworth since my honeymoon but it was lovely and
warm and clear and golden and quiet, not like it would
have been on that fateful day. I suppose all
battlefields eventually loose the agony of warfare, but not
the spirit(s). The King's Stone was very very moving
and there were white roses laid there.

Re: Rosemary Hawley Jarman letter

2000-09-03 17:50:15
summerille70
What a wonderful piece of news! I live in
Birmingham. I know Sept 9 is some kind of ArtsFest for B'ham
and there will be a livelink with the Last Night of
the Proms, but this is the first I've heard of
this.<br><br>Where is it being performed? How do you get tickets,
etc?

New Richard III site

2000-09-08 17:34:48
hiraeth2
It's my website - the West Australian branch. Visit it at:<br><br><a href=http://members.iinet.net.au/~hardegen/ target=new>http://members.iinet.net.au/~hardegen/</a>

Sunday chat time

2000-09-23 13:32:37
ukaflyer
The summer is drawing to an end, now is as good
as time as ever to see if any one is interested
again to meet on a Sunday for a discussion about
Richard.<br><br>It starts at 21:00 GMT on Sundays, which is 4 p.m.
Eastern, 3 Central, 2 Mountain and 1 Pacific in the US.
<br><br>See you in the chat room Sunday!

Richard III Society Queensland Website

2000-09-24 14:39:59
louis\_xi2000
The Queensland Branch of the Richard III Society
has just entered into cyberspace. Our newly launched
Website can be found
at:<br><br><a href=http://www.riiiqld.org.au target=new>http://www.riiiqld.org.au</a><br><br>Please drop by and take a look around and see what the
Queensland Branch is up to.

Re: Sunday chat time

2000-09-24 22:36:05
dickon1
I am interested in re-joining the Chat Room but I
cannot guarantee that I can always be there either on
time or at all. I found the last series of chats
informative and interesting and would be keen to do it again.

R3 "Must see" in London area?

2000-09-25 16:07:53
bjjsavate
My wife and I and another couple will be
traveling to London over the Christmas holidays. Can anyone
suggest some Richard III "Must see" places in London or
close by?<br><br>I'm going to re-read some of my books
to try and make a little itinerary, but if someone
has already done the research, it'll be a big
help!<br><br>Thanks!<br>Armando

G'day

2000-09-28 05:31:04
bethgael15
I have been a "fan" of Richard III for quite a few years now... I live in Canberra, Australia and cannot locate A R3 society to join in my local area. Any clues?

Re: G'day

2000-09-28 15:00:29
hiraeth2
I'm a member of the WA branch and I know that there's one in NSW, SA, Victoria and Queensland but I'm not sure about Canberra. I will ask the Secretary of our branch and get back to you on that.

Re: G'day

2000-09-28 22:39:54
bethgael15
Great! I'd appreciate that!

Wars of the Roses - Desmond Seward

2000-10-05 06:17:31
bethgael15
I was wondering if anyone can clear something up
for me. I've had a copy of the above book for ages,
which is of course unembarrasedly in favour of the
"Richard did 'em in" viewpoint (I quote in his
introduction: "Most of the novelists subscribe to the strange
cult of King Richard's innocence...") Betcha didn't
know we are all in a "cult", hey ;-)<br><br>Mind you,
I've noticed that he uses Thomas More's tome
extensively as reference material, making his work a bit
"sus" in my opinion. It was published in
1995.<br><br>However, Horrox's book "Richard III: A Study in Service",
published 1989, mentions "new" research that puts Richard
back in the hot seat, so to speak, without actually
telling us what it is... I was wondering if anyone can
fill me in on what a Lancastrian would consider this
evidence is. (Obviously Seward subscribed faithfully to
it). <br><br>I noticed both draw heavily on Polydore
Virgil. Can anyone fill me in on who this person was, and
what relationship he had to Richard III that allows
him the title "contemporary"?

Another thing that's been bugging me for

2000-10-05 06:59:53
bethgael15
a while... Tey's book has indicated that there
were no decent rumours re the prince's disappearance
or angst against Richard in his time, that this
seems to be a leter addition... but I have read in
numerous accounts (both pro and anti R3) that there were
some rumours re their possible disappearance and
murder. Some comments have been made on both Henry's
failure to produce bodies... however, a question that
comes to mind is this: If there were rumours during
Richard's time, why didn't he produce the boys ALIVE? There
doesn't seem to be any contemporary sources that have
"seen" the boys alive around the Bosworth period...
unless I haven't found it... please direct me to them if
there are! Many thanks again...

Margaret Beaufort

2000-10-05 07:14:53
bethgael15
Last one (for today, anyway - promise!):<br>What
are other member's thoughts on the likely possibility
that neither Richard NOR Henry were the instigators of
the Prince's disappaerance, but that Margaret
Beaufort was? I know modern historians tend to ignore her,
but that could be a carry-over of that ideal that
medieval women didn't wield that much power (ha. You
THINK? lol).<br>Also the idea that a woman wouldn't kill
innocent children? Hmmmm, I don't think so, not to help
her own kids (I have 5: I should know! No that didn't
come out quite right... I haven't killed anyone lol
but I understand what a mother might be prepared to
do for her children).<br>Any thoughts?

Re: Wars of the Roses - Desmond Seward

2000-10-06 21:46:23
ukaflyer
I have not actually read Desmond Seward's 'Wars
of the Roses' but have read his 'Richard III,
England's Black Legend' which was quite enough for me! He
might as well have just reprinted More!<br><br>I do not
know when Polydor Vergil was born but he was an
Italian who wrote an 'official' history for Henry VII in
1505. It was commissioned by Henry VII in 1505 but the
work was not completed until 1517 - long after Henry's
death in 1509. He wrote typical Tudor propaganda and is
'accredited' with destroying much valuable documentary
evidence which contradicted the Tudor myth. He was the
first historian to actually acuse Richard of the murder
of the Princes in the Tower. His work was not
published until 1534. Although he could be said to be a
contemporary of Richard's, it is unlikely that he was in
England during Richard's reign or lifetime.<br><br>I am
not sure what evidence Rosemary Horrox refers to in
her book. I have asked a friend of mine for any ideas
she may have and I will forward them on if she has
any. I cannot think Horrox is referring to Crowland
and Mancini - both 'anti-Richard' - because they have
been around for some time now. She may have just been
referring to modern historians' attitudes and writings (eg
Hicks, etc.) Can you give me the page number and I can
read what she actually says?

Re: Another thing that's been bugging me

2000-10-06 21:57:13
ukaflyer
Well, that is a 6 million dollar question! One
possible answer is that Richard knew the boys were a focus
for rebellion. After all the so called 'Buckingham's
Rebellion' started out as an attempt to put Edward V back on
the throne. Henry Tudor was just a desperate 'after
thought' when people thought the boys were dead. Richard,
therefore, might have thought it better that people think
the boys were dead in the hope that, if he could
defeat Tudor, people would accept his kingship because
God had given him victory in battle. If people
thought the boys were still alive then there would always
be the threat of pretenders and rebellion - as Henry
Tudor found!<br><br>Another answer, which contradicts
my first answer but I am just mooting ideas here -
is that the boys were dead. Even if Richard had no
role in their slaying (others, such as Buckingham,
Morton and even Norfolk, have been accused of murdering
the boys) he knew he would have a job proving his
innocence and, if he produced the dead bodies, people would
accuse him of being a Herod to secure his throne.

Re: Margaret Beaufort

2000-10-06 22:09:30
ukaflyer
I really don't know! I am quite sure Margaret was
involved in plotting Richard's downfall. She and her
fellow conspirators, Morton being one, were up to their
armpits in intrigue and political dealings. She may have
put about the rumour that the boys were dead -
although if they were still alive it would have been a
gamble because she could not be sure whether Richard
would produce them or not - but I find it difficult to
believe that she would arrange for their murder and how
could she manage it any way? She had no access to the
Tower and quite probably would not have known to where
Richard would have moved them, if he had removed them
from London.<br><br>Also, if she knew definitely that
the boys were dead (ie she had had them murdered),
why did Henry not produce the bodies on his accession
and blame Richard for the crime. I am sure he would
have stood a good chance of convincing people that
Richard was the murderer!<br><br>However, this is all
speculation!

Re: Another thing that's been bugging me

2000-10-06 23:00:53
lblanchard1485
bethgael15 writes:<br><br>Tey's book has
indicated that there were no decent<br> rumours re the
prince's disappearance or angst against<br> Richard in his
time, that this seems to be a leter addition... but
I<br> have read in numerous accounts (both pro and anti
R3) that<br> there were some rumours re their
possible disappearance and<br> murder. <br><br>As I
recall, Tey discounted Croyland because Morton could have
been there and spread a rumor. I believe she picked
this notion up from Markham. Others can correct me if
I'm wrong, but the general consensus appears to be
the the author of the Crowland Chronicle
Continuations was well-versed in the political events of the
time, although not necessarily absolutely of the inner
circle.<br><br>It's also possible that Tey wasn't aware of Mancini,
since that work was only discovered in the 1930s, and
she may not have seen it when she did her research. I
recall Laurence Olivier saying that she came to him with
the script for her play, _Dickon_ in the early- to
mid-1940s, and it's possible that she did little additional
research before embarking on the mystery novel.<br><br>I
could speculate on reasons that Richard might not
produce the boys if they were alive, but it would only be
speculation. He may have feared, rightly or wrongly, that to
produce them might inspire some Edwardian loyalists to
buckle on their plate armor and have another go at
him.<br><br><br>Regards,<br>Laura Blanchard<br>lblanch001@...

Re: Wars of the Roses - Desmond Seward

2000-10-07 08:34:55
bethgael15
I'll dig up the book and see what i can find... It's somewhere in the deep recesses of my bookshelves (and I'm a book addict lol!)

Re: Another thing that's been bugging me

2000-10-07 08:37:03
bethgael15
Is it at all possible that it's because there
were no such rumours (or at least, that the rumours
weren't widespread enough to reach richard's ears)? Or is
it firmly established that the rumours did, in fact,
exist during Richard's reign?

Re: Margaret Beaufort

2000-10-07 08:40:06
bethgael15
Maybe Henry 1) didn't know, and she didn't tell
him, or 2)DID know and didn't want his beloved mother
involved... maybe the evidence "against" Richard wasn't as
stitched up in that time as historians have thought with
the benefit of hindsight?<br>(PS Not saying I believe
this, mind you, just stirring up some discussion: but
wouldn't it be interesting to consider the possiblity that
BOTH of the Kings were actually innocent of this?)

Re: Another thing that's been bugging me

2000-10-07 08:42:46
bethgael15
Thanks for your thoughts Laura! I had speculated on something similar... but I was wondering about the absence or otherwise of rumours. <br><br>Heather<br>medieval_village@...

Re: Wars of the Roses - Desmond Seward

2000-10-13 18:58:21
ukaflyer
Hi again!<br><br>I said my friend would come up
with some thoughts - and she has! <br><br>1. The Wars
of the Roses.<br><br>She has not read this
particular book but has read 'Black Legend'. Her reaction to
that book at the time was: why didn't Seward write on
a postage stamp, "I totally subscribe to Thomas
More" and save the bother of his pastiche on the
saintly Sir Thomas. He doesn't just use More extensively
- his work IS More!<br><br>She suggests that you
read Keith Dockray's Richard III: A Source Book. This
outlines all the sources for Richard. Dockray also has
similar books on Edward IV, Henry VI and Margaret of
Anjou. They tell you what contemporary works to look
for. Like me, my friend is unsure what Rosemary Horrox
is referring to unless she is referring to that bit
in John Stow about a rebellion in London around the
time Richard was at Minster Lovell but she cannot see
that as particularly damning evidence.<br><br>2.
Polydore Vergil wrote two books:<br><br>The Angelica
Historia of Polydore Virgil (1485-1537). Edited and
translated by D. Hay. Royal historical Society Camden Series
Vol 74 1950.<br><br>Three Books of Polydore Virgil's
English History. Edited by Henry Ellis. Camden Society
1844.<br><br>Polydore was writing in the later part of Henry VII's
reign so is by no means contemporary to Richard BUT he
probably met and talked with people who did know Richard.
From memory she thinks the 'Three Books' is the one
which covers Richard and this is certainly the one
featured in Dockray's book.<br><br>3. Rumours about the
Princes' Disappearance.<br><br>The Great Chronicle of
London gives the last sighting of the Princes - around
July 1485. The rumours came from Phillipe de Commynes
and of course Josephine Tey attempts to tie this in
with Morton's escape to the Continent. The other
source is Mancini though not known to modern historians
until the 1930s. She cannot think of any other truly
contemporary sources. The Richard III Society's 'Speaker's
Notes' is quite useful. If you are not a member, perhaps
you should join and buy this publication?<br><br>4.
Why did Richard not produce the princes?<br><br>She
comes up with various possible reasons:<br><br>a)
Richard had killed them.<br><br>b) Buckingham had killed
them and Richard felt responsible.<br><br>c) One or
both had died of natural causes but this would have
been as embarrassing as if he or Buckingham had killed
them.<br><br>d) He didn't take the rumours seriously or they were
not important to him as they were not as widespread
as some historians would make us think.<br><br>e)
They had escaped the Tower and Richard did not know
where they were.<br><br>f) He had them safe somewhere
(Tower, Gipping (Tyrell's Manor) or the North) and he did
not want them exposed to danger - especially after
Tudor's declaration to marry Elizabeth of York which
would make them a danger to Henry.<br><br>As to any
contemporary rumours about their being alive at Bosworth - she
does not know of any - more's the pity!<br><br>She
warns us of forgetting the wonders of hindsight.
Richard would not have known he was to die and be reviled
by history.<br><br>5. Margaret
Beaufort<br><br>Historians have suggested that she was conspiring against
Richard during Buckingham's Rebellion and afterwards but
no one has seriously suggested her involvement in
the alleged murder of the Princes. How could she have
possibly done so unless via Buckingham? There is no
evidence so any accusation is pure conjecture and should
be treated with great caution. She reminds us that
medieval man believed fervently in God and Divine
retribution and Margaret Beaufort would know that she would
be putting her immortal soul at great risk if she
organised the death of two children.<br><br>I hope that has
been of interest to you. My friend is on the committee
of the Richard III Society - on the research side.

HELP PLEASE! (London....)

2000-10-17 21:40:32
bjjsavate
I will be in London for Christmas and want to
visit Richard III related sites. Can anyone recommend
any good sources for this or maybe some of your
favorite places.....I need this soon to plan our
itinerary.<br><br>Thanks!

Re: HELP PLEASE! (London....)

2000-10-17 23:08:33
ukaflyer
The Tower and Westminster Abbey are the obvious
ones but there are one or two others which might
interest you.<br><br>The Church of St Bartholomew the
Great near Smithfield is very picturesque and has
Shakespeare's tomb in it (or is it his brother's?). Nearby is
St John's Gate and Priory in Clerkenwell, St John's
Lane, Clerkenwell, London EC1M 4DA (the headquarters of
the Order of the Knights of St John). I think Richard
gave his famous denial there in March 1485 but it is
steeped in history of all sorts. As far as I am aware,
normal scheduled tour times are Tuesdays, Fridays and
Saturdays at 11.00 am and 2.30 pm. Donations are requested
for tours - ý4.00 per person and ý3.00 per senior
citizen (1999 prices). The nearest station is Farringdon.
To check Christmas opening times, ring 020 7253
6644.<br><br>Nearby is Guildhall. Although only the base of the walls
have survived from Richard's time, the building is of
great interest to Ricardians as the name Shaa appears
with other Lord Mayors of London in the stained glass
window - under the monogram of Richard III. The crypt is
a must! It is a perfect blend of old and new with
the walls dating back to the 13th century and the
stained glass windows dating back 1971!<br><br>Southwark
Cathedral (St Mary Overy) is of interest and is of
Richard's time and of course The Globe is a must (even if
it is not strictly from Richard's
time!)<br><br>Bishopsgate is the home of Crosby Place where Richard lived
when in London but it is no longer there - Crosby Hall
is now in private hands, having been moved to
Chelsea. However, you can stand on the spot where Crosby
Hall once stood - next to the Church of St Helen at
Bishopsgate (I cannot remember its proper title) which is
well worth a visit - it is only open during the week.
I have not visited it myself but hope to do so
before too long!<br><br>The College of Arms - set up by
Richard - is at Queen Victoria Street, London EC4V 4BT. I
don't know if you can arrange to visit it but a number
to ring is 020 7329 8755.<br><br>Hopefully this
should keep you going! I hope you enjoy your stay!

New Web Site

2000-10-18 11:05:51
bardtv
Can you help us? We would really appreciate your
opinion. Why don't you take a look at our new web site, we
are based in Stratford-upon-Avon, England and our
site is for people interested in Shakespeare, The
Renaissance and British History.<br><br>You can find us at
www.bardquest.com and www.bardclub.com, we hope you enjoy it, we
are adding more content shortly, and would welcome
any feedback as the site develops, you can e. mail us
at BardTV@....<br><br>Regards,<br>Brian
Larcher<br>C.E.O. Bard TV

Re: HELP PLEASE! (London....)

2000-10-20 08:47:03
riciiididit
Along similar lines - are there any WotR related
sites in the West Country? I've been to Salisbury
Cathedral (which has tombs/effigies of Lionel Wydville, Sir
John Cheyney and Richard Beauchamp.)<br><br>Is there
much else or am I in the wrong area?!

How do you log into the chat room

2000-10-22 17:59:39
summerille70
I tried to enter the chat room at 9 pm last
Sunday and downloaded some software. it said something
about you could use it to actually talk to people in
real time. The problem is I don't know how to use it.
Are there any members who could explain to me how the
chat room works? (I spoke to an acquaintance who said
in most chat rooms you log on and start typing and
your messages and other people's messages appear on
screen and that it's really easy, but in that case what
is the voice chat for)? I would be really grateful
if someone could explain what to do so I can join in
the fun!<br><br>Many thanks

Trying to use the chat room

2000-10-22 21:28:35
summerille70
I tried to use the chat room tonight but I
experienced technical difficulties. I have emailed Yahoo
about them but I don't know what else to do. There was
someone else in the chatroom at one point because I saw
their name appear but all I heard on my computer was a
burst of static. I apologise to that person for not
speaking. I wasn't being rude I just could not get through.

Models of Richard 111

2000-10-22 22:57:49
patriotUK
I have posted 3 pictures of models I have found
on the net. If anybody is interested in purchasing
them send me an instant message and I'll send the web
address to you. Models of that period are quite hard to
find and I thought these were very good. I think the
mounted one can be purchased unpainted for about ý50.00.
I have also found Warwick the Kingmaker, another
excellent model which is reasonably priced.

Re: New Web Site

2000-10-23 05:06:34
hiraeth2
Hmmm you're brave to post about Shakespeare in a Richard III forum!!!

Re: New Web Site

2000-10-23 10:01:16
riciiididit
I suspect if it hadn't been for Shaky there would be no Richard 111 debate!

Re: New Web Site

2000-10-24 01:30:07
hiraeth2
And judging by your user name you're even braver!

new to club

2000-10-25 20:19:18
andyjd\_uk
Hi all very pleased to see a Richard III site on
the web and suprised as well. The character and life
of this most interesting of English Kings has been a
source of great interest for me since my Undergraduate
days look foorward to some good chats etc in the club.
I must say I do tend to a middle ground in my
beliefs as regards his character and career between the
Black Legend and the White Knight in Shining armour!!!

Re: Did Richard Really?

2000-10-25 21:33:48
andyjd\_uk
Tim has a point here Also I find richard a far more interesting character as a normal medieval prince than as a dashing white knight

Re: New Web Site

2000-10-26 11:04:52
theworldsashtray
Hiraeth2~~~ Thats bloody funny! I thought
:)<br><br>riciiididit~~I am so very biased, Sharon Kay Penman fan, (eh,
Hiraeth2? *winks*) I think its too bloody hilarious to
debate, you're just asking for trouble ;)<br><br>As
Always~~<br>Ashes

Re: Trying to use the chat room

2000-10-26 19:23:15
andyjd\_uk
As i understand it in the chat room you can
choose to voice chat or type chat have not tried it in
this club yet so think it will be ok when you next try
if there is nothing wrong with your pc or your
connection to the net ok hope to see you in there so we can
chat about the dear old knight in shining armour (he
he) till then best wishes!!

Seeking Opinions

2000-11-01 18:37:58
Nutmeg070398
I'm seeking opinions on why Richard had Hastings executed so quickly, or executed at all. I find this to be as much a mystery as the disappearance of the princes.

Re: Seeking Opinions

2000-11-01 19:39:50
andyjd\_uk
nutmeg,<br> my opinion on this is that it was the
logical thing to do considering the political situation
he was in.<br> Given the course of action that he
chose or had forced upon him by the woodvilles.<br>
Hastings was an obstacle to his ultimate seizure of
power.<br> So he had to be eliminated or Richard would have
to face a Woodville/ Hastins "alliance"

Re: Seeking Opinions

2000-11-01 20:16:40
Nutmeg070398
I'm still puzzled. Hastings was practically part
of the family . . . though I do appreciate his
propensity for a Woodville alliance.<br><br>Still . . .
after years of observing George's attempts to overthrow
Edward, and then arguing to spare George's life, surely
Richard was a man of at least some tolerance (in almost
all aspects of his life, except with Hastings).
<br><br>So why release Morton and Stanley (especially
Stanley), but execute Hastings? Of course, I accept that
Stanley had forces that might have<br>opposed R3 had
anything happened to Stanley. <br><br>Still, I can't help
but think that at the council meeting at the Tower on
or about June 13, something most odd was discussed
-- something so<br>threatening to Richard (or
perhaps to the princes who were still legitimate on that
date) that Hastings had to be eliminated,
immediately.<br><br>Will we ever know what was discussed on June
13?<br><br>Thank you very much for your reply. This issue occupys
all my waking thoughts.

Re: Seeking Opinions

2000-11-01 21:51:47
Aquaeus
Richard acted in the midst of an attempted coup
de etat. He acted decisively, and within his legal
authority as Protector. If, as some speculate, Hastings had
been alienated by Richard's increasing intimacy with
Buckingham, this could explain Hasting's switching horses, as
it were.

What about the bones?

2000-11-02 02:37:30
bjjsavate
I always get cornered when defending Richard when
it comes to those skeletons found in the
Tower.<br><br>In ROYAL BLOOD, the author dismissed this evidence
especially because, even if it was the Princes, it doesn't
prove Richard did the murder (or even if in fact, they
were murdered).<br><br>BUt in Alison Weir's PRINCES IN
THE TOWER (though no Ricardian she), she says that
DNA samples done on the remains of Anne Mowbray
(cousin to the Princes) showed a relationship to said
bones.<br><br>Can some enlighten me to the newest developments on
this?<br><br>Thanks!<br>Armando

News on What about the bones?

2000-11-02 03:03:02
Nutmeg070398
It's diffifult to dispute Field's argument. Even
if the bones are the princes', they do not tell us
that the boys were murdered, and/or if so, by
who.<br><br>As for DNA testing, I believe there is some dispute
as to whose DNA the bones might be compared. HRH
Elizabeth II, evidently, has thus far halted efforts to
have the bones re-examined. For the latest, check out
this site:<br><br><a href=http://www.richardiii.net/topic.htm target=new>http://www.richardiii.net/topic.htm</a>

Re: Seeking Opinions

2000-11-02 03:36:40
Nutmeg070398
But a coup against whom? Who knows what Richard
is planning in mid-June.<br><br>If Hastings is
perceived as switching horses, is it from Richard to the
Woodvilles (re: some type of protector issue) . . . or is it
from the princes side to Richard's side (re: who
should be king issue). <br><br>Was the coup against the
young prince . . . or Richard, who had just learned of
the illegitimacy claim and who had not yet been asked
to be king at the time of Hastings death. <br><br>If
we give Richard the benefit of the doubt and assume
that he was planning Edward's coronation on June 13,
Hastings must have been conspiring against the prince, or
possibly against Richard as Protector. Richard is
defending either the prince, or his position as Protector.
No? I think this is possible. <br><br>Alternatively,
if Richard's aim was the throne at that time,
logically Hastings must have been conspiring against
Richard. But still . . . why execution and not mere
detainment. This from a man known well for almost
over-kindness to traitors (restoring lands and titles to
families, etc.).<br><br>I can appreciate Richard's arrest
of Hastings; but I think the act of his execution is
completely, completely out of character with Richard
theretofore.<br><br>And with that said, I wonder if this was some kind of
triggering event that altered his future behavior. Of all
the men arrested, Hastings was surely the closest
family friend, and condemnation must have been
difficult.<br><br>Do you see my point. This is the one act in
Richard's life that I feel is completley out of character.
If driven to kill Hastings, why let Stanley
go?<br><br>Am I just missing something that is well known about
the conspiracy?

Re: Seeking Opinions

2000-11-02 04:42:26
lyn\_lynz
Hastings closeness to the family could be exactly
the problem, of course. If loyalty was (as we are led
to believe ý and I do) a cardinal virtue in
Richardýs eyes, then the disloyalty shown by conspiring
against the protectorship would have been all the more
unforgivable as it was come from someone Richard felt he
should have been able to trust absolutely, and with whom
he had a shared history. I have read or heard
somewhere (Kendall mentions it in passing) the theory that
the swiftness of the execution may be due to Richard
needing to act in the heat of his anger. Realising that
if he put it off, or had a chance to reflect, or let
Hastings speak in his own defence, then his resolve would
weaken, and he would fail to go through with it, he
demanded the execution take place immediately.<br> A
similar situation may be seen in his execution of
Buckingham whom, in spite of his pleas, Richard refused to
speak with before he was executed.<br>This is the only
way I have been able to reconcile this behaviour with
what I believe to be true about Richard's
character.<br><br>Lynda

Great Opinions

2000-11-02 15:26:33
Nutmeg070398
A most excellent theory. I'll ponder this . . . I
think that your theory is sound. <br><br>I especially
appreciate your last comment about reconciling Richard's
behavior (in executing Hastings) with his character in
general. I just haven't been able to reconcile it; but
when you mention Buckingham . . . perhaps it does make
sense.<br><br>Do you think that the conspiracy was against Richard
taking the throne, or perhaps against his support of
young Edward. My suspicion is that, from the time he
was young, Richard never, never anticipated holding
the throne. There were just too many heirs ahead of
him. Perhaps he truly supported the prince . . . at
least until presented with the rolle in late June
(after Hasting's death).<br><br>Thanks for your reply. I
really appreciate the line of thought.<br><br>Kathy
Davis

Re: Great Opinions

2000-11-02 20:14:12
andyjd\_uk
I really do think that R111 was reacting to
events for most of his life. Most of his actions during
that fateful summer and beyond into his reign were
reactive rather than proactive .<br> I think conspiracy
theories here as well as in most History are fine in
hindsight,but not a good way to explain the actions of real
people.<br><br>We must be careful not to ascribe"modern" values to
the actions of people of the past.Remmember R111
lived against the backdrop of very violent times,and
for me it is more credible to see R111 as a product
of those times. Thus i dont see him as a good man
who was the "victim" of people around him but as a
man and nothing more not a "bad" man just a man
reacting to events in the best way he
thought.<br><br>R111's great weakness was he was unable to face facts
around his position at the end of his life/reign,just as
so many of his supporters who attribute him with a
squeeky clean personality are often unable to face facts
(as of course does Seward,though i do not agree with
all of his conclusions.

Re: Seeking Opinions

2000-11-02 22:31:44
Aquaeus
First, there was a coup afoot by SOMEBODY.
Richard's action was justified by, and made sense if one
posits, a switch by Hastings to the Woodvilles. Motive
already discussed.<br><br>The difference between
Richard's actions toward Stanley and toward Hastings can be
explained by the circumstances. Hastings appears to be the
ringleader of the plot, if any. Richard doubtless felt
especially betrayed it Hastings, of all people, had acted in
such a way. It was, if Richard was telling the truth,
a very close run thing: the arrests, as I recall,
took place in Council! Admittedly, we don't know the
details. Admittedly, we don't know what (if any) further
steps were contemplated by the conspiritors (if there
were such). We do know that a loss of protectorship
for Richard would have been equivalent to his own
summary execution. In an extreme situation, Richard might
well have considered decisive action mandatory. Why,
after all, execute Lord Grey when the original plot, of
which Hastings himself warned Richard, was foiled?<br>I
would suggest that the circumstances might well be seen
as quite similar.<br><br>Admittedly there are a host
of OTHER explainations that would make sense,
including Hasting's discovery of a plot by Richard to seize
the throne. Even though the pre-contract had not yet
been disclosed, there can be little doubt that
Richard, even if subconsciously, was under a great deal of
pressure. Time was on the Woodville's side, and the danger
of a coronation which would end Richard's
protectorship- and his life- must have weighed heavily on him. I
don't think it at all extraordinary that when a
normally decisive man found himself under the combination
of pressures Richard would have found himself under
at that Council meeting, he would act to remove the
source of the threat as quickly and efficiently as
possible, if only for the sake of demoralizing the other
conspirators.<br><br>The bottom line was that the Woodvilles held all the
cards. Time was on their side. Richard must have known
that young Edward's majority, at the very least,
threatened his life

Re: Seeking Opinions

2000-11-03 23:56:32
andyjd\_uk
Quite Aquaeus,<br> I feel ur analysis as far as
it goes sums up the situation(s) so the next step is
i think to ask ourselves wat must R111 do nothing
and fasce death,or seize power and move on from
there!!<br><br>your point about the coming of age of Edward prompts
the question what would a "good2 Richard fear from
the new king ?hmmmmmm

Re: Seeking Opinions

2000-11-04 02:42:46
Aquaeus
Not from the new King per se. From the Woodvilles, and especially from the Queen Mother, who would not have suffered Richard to live long.

Re: News on the bones?

2000-11-04 18:24:57
dickon1
The Queen is in charge of Westminster Abbey where
the supposed bones of two young children are intered
in a huge marble urn. One set is too young to sex,
even. This is because the Abbey is part of what is
called a Royal Peculiar and as vicar General of the
Church of England this is her public place of worship,
just as her private place of worship is a small chaple
off The Strand near Charing Cross. Fergie is not I
think a decendant of Plantagenets and to get a proper
DNA result I think at the very least it would be
necessary to find someone who was - which may be a bit
difficult as Henry VII/HVIII etc bumped off most of them.
The present Royals might do but they probably would
not consent - they trace their claim through the Saxe
Coburg Gotha/Hanover/Stuart/Tudor line, after all, and I
think that although somewhere in all that there may be
a splash of Plantagenet blood I am not expert
enough to say if it would help iven if it could be used.
Titles mean nothing - userpation, treason, end of
bloodlines, etc have changed English nobility a fair bit in
1000 years.

Re: News on the bones?

2000-11-04 18:43:30
dickon1
It would be impossible to exhume anyone without
the consent of the coroner, the Dean and Chapter of
the church concerned and in the case of Westminster
Abbey or St George's Chapel Winsor, the Queen, I think.
Radiocarbon testing cannot date that diagnostically - only
within say 50 years either way - 1450-1500 A.D. say,
which is not very helpful. Also at the time the boys
went missing (there is no evidence of their death that
is forensically valuable) there were over 600 people
living and working in the Tower of London: it was the
National Treasury, the Royal and National Armoury, a Royal
residence, and one of the forts protecting London with a
fairly large garison. It had been inhabited since Roman
times, i.e. since about 50 B.C. I think. 1500 years of
occupation in an era that was not famous for good health or
hygiene, longevity or infant survival, leads me to suppose
that these famous bones could have been almost anyone!
They were found during the reign of Charles II in the
1600s and modern science as we now know and use it was
not really available then. Again, no one knows who
they are, exactly when or where they died or of what,
and to claim that this is factually clear is not
true. They may be the sons of Edward and Elizabeth.
Incidentally no one is sovereign until they are crowned and
little Edward the Prince of Wales never was so there was
NO EDWARD V - but of course Henry VIII's son had to
be Edward VI didn't he to tell everyone that there
was an Edward V who was horridly done to death by his
wicked uncle. History is politics.

Re: News on the bones?

2000-11-04 18:55:17
dickon1
Sorry - the bones presently interred in
Westminster Abbey and called the Pronces in the Tower are a
different set of bones all together. Edward IV married his
youngest son Richard to the heiress of the Mowbray Duke of
Norfolk and thus the little boy became the Duke of
Norfolk. The little Duchess died about two years later,
aged about 7 or 8. The marriage agreement said that
even if there were no children of the marriage and the
little girl (who was only about 6 at the time) died
before she had had any babies or was herself very young,
Prince Richard would retain the title Duke of Norfolk.
At the time all Dukes were the sons of, or the
decendants of the sons of, kings. The Mowbray family were
decendants of the one of the sons of Edward III I think. The
lad did not even have to be legitimate. English
history from the reign of Edward III (who had hordes of
sons) makes the whole thing horrendously complicated,
but fascinating. When Richard III became king there
was no Duke of Norfolk, so he gave the title to the
Howard family who had an ancient claim to it I believe.

Re: The protectorship

2000-11-04 19:07:42
dickon1
We are debating a personality of a prince of the
blood who became king and died over 500 years ago - it
is important I think to try to understand the
context of the pereiod in which this man lived and to try
to see what he wanted, why and how he set about
achieving it. For riches, power and authority nowadays some
people go in for big business or high politics. Then, if
you were already a royal prince and a huge landowner
and rich you were more than half way there. Democracy
was just not a part of his thinking; feudalism was.
And that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Re: What about the bones?

2000-11-04 19:19:02
dickon1
Anne Mowbray who was married at the age of about
5 to Edward IV's yougest son Richard was her
husband's cousin - they both had Mowbray decent in them.
Anne was the only hair to the then Duke of Norfolk.
All the DNA shows is their relationship, not that the
boys were killer, how, who by or when even!

Re: For those who like Sharon Penman....

2000-11-04 19:30:58
dickon1
Howl!!!!!!!

Re: R3

2000-11-04 19:38:06
dickon1
Westminster Abbey - site of Anne Nevill's burial
and of the infamous bones of the princes in the
Tower. Westminster Hall - part of the House of Commons.
Jewel Tower - just across the road from Houses of
Parliament and near Westminster Abbey. The Museum of London.
The British Museum. The Imperial War Museum, and in
Leeds which is not near London (it is in Yorkshire) the
Royal Armouries which are fascinating. Hope that helps
and have a brilliant time.

Re: Wars of the Roses - Desmond Seward

2000-11-04 19:44:53
dickon1
Dear old Polydore! He was an Italian poet who
wrote a sort of biography of his employer Henry VII.
There is no evidence he met or knew Richard III and of
course he was keen on getting on the good side of his
boss. Arn't we all. Henry VII gave him a hefty pension.

Re: Margaret Beaufort

2000-11-04 19:52:30
dickon1
The children could have been dead by illness,
e.g. summer fever (which killed Richard's own son) or
disease, or the instigation of someone else, or they may
have been spirited out of the Tower by someone other
than Richard. Buckingham was Constable of the Tower at
the time. As to Margaret, she had one son, born to
her when she was only 13 and she had an obsessive
belief that he and he alone had the right to be king.
Speculation is such fun.

Re: Seeking Opinions

2000-11-04 20:13:44
dickon1
At the council meeting, did not a message arrive
and Richard leave the room for a while, then re-entre
in a very angry state and accuse Mortin and Hastings
of 'withering my arm by treason'? Have I got this
right? If I have, then he could have had Hastings
summarily executed for treason, that treason being either
the spreading of rumours too detrimental to ignore
about Richard's protectorship, or because he thought
that Hastings knew that Edward IV and Elizabeth had
not been married and had kept it secret rather that
expose his friend and give either Clarance while he was
alive or Richard himslef their rights to sovereignty.
Just an idea.

Re: Seeking Opinions

2000-11-04 20:18:11
dickon1
Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort mother
of Henry Earl of Richmond, the last Lancastrain
claimant. Perhaps he wanted to keep him 'on side' or as a
hostage. Morton was a priest and the killing of priests
was a sin beyond all sinning and Richard was a pious
prince and at the least conventional in his beliefs. All
he could do to Morton was put him under the custody
of his friend Buckingham. Strange how Buckingham
stopped being a loyal Richardian not long after isn't it?

Re: R3

2000-11-04 20:45:59
dickon1
message 188 offers more sites. I will reley them
here for you. The Tower of London and London Wall
nearby, The Church of St Bartholomew the Great near
Smithfield, near to St John's Gate and Priory in Clerkenwell,
St John's Lane, Clerkenwell, London EC1M 4DA
(headquarters of the Order of the Knights of St John) Tour
times: Tues/Frid/Sat 11 am and 2.30pm donations
requested ý4.00 ADULT ý3.00 senior citizens. Nearest London
Underground is Farringdon. Check Christmas opening times ring
020 7253 6644.<br>Nearby is Guildhall, with wonderful
crypt. Southwark Cathedral and the Globe Theatre even if
it's a repro!

Re: Margaret Beaufort

2000-11-05 03:15:06
hiraeth2
It's strange how she was married 4(?) times and
yet only had the one child. I think it's highly
likely that she was damaged in some way during H7's
birth as she was so young then and from all accounts, a
very small woman too.

Re: New Web Site

2000-11-06 11:06:50
bardtv
Thanks for your reply to our
post,<br><br>Hopefully when you looked at the site you will have seen
the links we have to the Richard III Society on our
pages, even the authorship debate sites will be linked,
no doubt you will agree that the more information
that can be made available the better.<br><br>If you
want to put any comments on our bulletin board or
suggest any good links please do so.<br><br>Brian at Bard
TV

JJ Norwich

2000-11-11 00:47:23
oz\_rain\_walker
Hullo all! I've lurked about for a few months but
haven't posted before. I've been a Ricardian for years
and have done my best to read reliable and
authoritative sources. But a friend recommended I buy John
Julius Norwich's book, "Shakespeare's Kings", which I
duly did, yesterday. And by 9 pm I was in a flaring
temper! In the accounts of Richard III, Norwich merely
reiterates the old rumours, lies and half lies that surely
have been discredited...? And he makes maddening
statements like "He almost certainly murdered H VI with his
own hands", as well as attributing to Richard
attitudes and emotions which, at this distance, none of us
can know. Eg Norwich states that Richard is brutally
cruel to his dying Queen - but, aside from the fact
that no Ricardian wants this to be so, the only
evidence for it is from tainted sources...Has anyone else
encountered this book? I am trying to break myself of the
habit of 'reading the end first',[another version of
which is: I only buy books that are pro-Richard!] but I
wish I'd done so yesterday......Ana

Re: JJ Norwich

2000-11-13 19:46:25
andyjd\_uk
JJ,<br> Though I respect your beliefs as regards
R111's character,I think it may be worth stating that we
just dont have enough eveidence to settle the matters
of his "guilt" of various crimes,or his
character,(as you state!!). For me there is much evidence which
can be selected by Historians from either
camp!!<br><br><br>y own view is that Richard was a man of his times,
who REACTED to events as they happened from motives
of self preservation,and self interest.Consider the
dangerous times and situations in which he
lived!!<br><br>Many of his supposed "crimes" were actions of a man
who grew up in the violent struggles that were the
Wars of the Roses,and my view is that from our vantage
point of the 20th Century we should not judge him with
20th Century value systems!!<br><br>I know this may
not appeal to your sense of Richard being the victim
of "Tudor Propaganda",and that he was a "white
knight in shining armour",but i do feel that he is a far
more interesting character when presented as a man and
not Hollywood movie stereotype.<br><br>Looking back
at what I have wriiten I appear to be rude to your
sincerely held beliefs,believe me I post this not in a
sense to be abusive but in one that hopes to stimulate
discussion,<br>Sincerely<br><br>Andy Davies

Sunday chat!

2000-11-18 13:01:31
ukaflyer
The weekly meet has its regular members who chat
about topics related to Richard and other matters. If
you wish to join in the times are posted below.
<br><br>Don't be afraid to say something, as it all adds to an
interesting time.<br><br>It starts at 21:00 GMT on Sundays,
which is 4 p.m. Eastern, 3 Central, 2 Mountain and 1
Pacific in the US. <br><br>See you in the chat room
Sunday!

Re: Margaret Beaufort

2000-11-20 23:39:24
bar1114
It was said that Margaret Beauforts marriage to Stanley was in name only, she had vowed to remain celibate.

Re: Margaret Beaufort

2000-11-28 22:48:40
dickon1
Could you say where you read this please? If it was a marriage of convenience, who for? It would be interesting to know. Thanks.

Re: Margaret Beaufort

2000-12-01 21:26:43
summerille70
I believe she took a vow of celibacy after Henry
VII became King. It was probably due to her piety.
Stanley's reaction is not recorded!<br><br>I think Henry
also allowed her to be treated as a femme sole ie have
complete control over her finances and property rather
than being subject to her husband. Married women who
were involved in trade were sometimes allowed to be
considered femme sole so that there husbands could not be
liable for their debts, but it was unprecedented for a
noblewoman and reflects the power Margaret wielded.

Re: Margaret Beaufort

2000-12-03 20:35:55
white\_surrey
I have read this somwhere, too, but it may have
been in a novel! Are there any documents to prove this
or are we just making it up? :-)<br> Seriously, do
we have any proof this is so other than Sharon Kay
Penman or Rosemary Jarman?

More on Margaret

2000-12-03 21:18:52
white\_surrey
Actually, I am going to answer my own question
about sources. I have a book on Margaret entitled, "Of
Virtue Rare," and I referred to it after reading the
latest postings. It seems that it is true she took a vow
of chastity in her mid-fifties. In the book a copy
if that vow is printed and the source is "Memoir of
Margaret" by Charles Henry Cooper, printed in 1874.
Evidently a copy of the vow is in the British Library!

Re: Wars of the Roses - Desmond Seward

2000-12-14 21:55:46
bethgael15
Thanks for that!

King's Council

2000-12-27 14:59:55
fender2uk
I have read a couple of postings which
confidently declare that a late king's will would have no
binding effect upon his council, which was empowered to
make its own decisions. I wonder how this can be,
since the King's Council existed solely by virtue of
having been appointed by a particular reigning monarch.
Surely upon the death of that monarch its legitimacy
ceased except (perhaps) insofar as it was bound to
execute the late monarch's last known
instructions.<br><br>I fail to see how Edward IV's council members had
any legitimacy to make independent decisions after
his death - rather a new King's Council needed to be
formed by the succeeding king or by the protector in his
name. Alternatively, if there existed some kind of
interregnum, presumably the members of the preceding council
might make interim decisions but these would surely be
subject to ratification (or otherwise) in retrospect by
the new monarch's council once properly appointed.
<br><br>What do other members think?

Re: King's Council

2000-12-28 14:58:37
Aquaeus
There's a certain degree of anachronism at work
here. We assume that there would be an accepted, if
unwritten, set of rules for who takes power, when, and how.
In modern England, or the United States or Australia
or New Zealand, this would be the way things would
work. But as a practical matter, as I recall, a number
of arrangements were<br>resorted to after the death
of kings. <br><br>Certainly no dead monarch could
enforce his will on the Council. On the other hand, Lords
Protector sometimes had pretty extensive executive powers
of their own- and sometimes not. I think it was
largely a matter of who had the political power, de
facto, to make his or her viewpoint stick.<br><br>I
think that such anachronism is one reason why there is
so much criticism of Richard during his
Protectorate, and so much controversy. Everybody is looking for
constitutional law when the law of the jungle was what obtained.

Re: King's Council

2000-12-30 15:15:50
andyjd\_uk
quite right aquaeus,<br>you are close to making
the salient point here!!<br>discussions of legitimacy
are irrelevant here!!<br>in the situation R111 was in
legitimacy didnt matter !!! survival did in terms of his
position if the woodvilles came to power under the young
king

King's Council

2000-12-31 11:11:44
fender2uk
You will note that the words "legitimacy" and
"constitutionality" did not appear in my humble enquiry.<br><br>I
merely asked whether a King's Council appointed by
(e.g.) Edward IV had the power to take new decisions and
act on them after the sovereign's death, or whether
the council lapsed until a fresh group was appointed
by a fresh monarch or protector.<br><br>Where's the
anachronism in that?<br><br>Please allow the occasional
non-expert to voice the occasional query.

Re: King's Council

2001-01-01 07:08:30
Aquaeus
I'm hardly an expert!<br><br>I think the answer would be that the Council would remain in power until somebody with more guns than anyone else decided that it shouldn't anymore.

Happy New Millenium and New Century...

2001-01-01 07:13:20
Aquaeus
...to us all! (Ricardians are contrarians in all sorts of ways...)

Anthony Cheetam book: Richard III

2001-01-03 12:38:17
bjjsavate
My wife gave me Mr. Cheetam's book for Christmas
this year. I had not heard of it before and I haven't
started to read it yet.<br>Anyone familiar with it? What
is its general tone?<br>Regardless, there is a great
amount of excellent illustrations and documents
facimilies from the period.

Henry VII

2001-01-03 23:06:59
bmcwfb1
Hi, this is my first time posting but I have
found your forum very interesting. I would like to know
if anyone has thought about whether Henry VII would
have invaded if Edward V was king?<br>Would Richard
have still been Protector????

Re: King's Council

2001-01-04 01:20:43
dickon1
surely the situation was then very fluid. No one
was really in charge but the administration had to
continue until whoever was Top Cheese took over. Normally
the elderst son of the dead monarch but little Edward
was very young and perhaps considered too imature?
'Put not your trust in Princes' perhaps? Someone had
to ensure the administration of justice which by
this time was fairly well established, the defence of
the realm etc.

Re: King's Council

2001-01-07 22:28:16
bethgael15
The last "minority" rule was Richard II wasn't it? And that hardly turned out well...

Re: King's Council

2001-01-08 01:03:31
patriotUK
Henry VI was only 8 months old when his father Henry V died. Which is when the problems started, England was ruled by council and then later the Queens favourites.

Re: King's Council

2001-01-08 15:08:47
lblanchard1485
patriotUK wrote:<br><br>"Henry VI was only 8
months old when his father Henry V died. Which is when
the problems started, England was ruled by council
and then later the Queens favourites."<br><br>I just
re-read Ralph Griffiths' "The Sense of Dynasty in the
Reign of Henry VI" in connection with a research
project of mine. Griffiths makes the point that the
troubles in Henry VI's reign did *not* start during his
minority, but rather they started when the dynasty became
unstable. The infant king had some young and vigorous
uncles, with excellent prospects for producing some royal
cousins to serve as collateral heirs. It was actually
when those uncles died off and/or were obviously not
going to reproduce that things became problematic,
according to Griffiths. <br><br>During the dynastic
instability of the 1440s, the Lancastrians were working very
hard to make sure no one remembered the Mortimer line.
They even produced genealogies of Henry VI that
conveniently omitted Lionel of Antwerp from the lineup of sons
of Edward III.<br><br>Regards,<br>Laura
Blanchard<br>lblanch001@...

Re: King's Council

2001-01-08 18:08:07
Aquaeus
Neither for Richard II himself nor for Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester (gulp!), the Lord Protector who lost his head upon Richard's majority!

Re: King's Council

2001-01-09 00:28:27
patriotUK
Is it not true that Henry's uncle and great uncle
Humphry Duke of Gloucester and Henry Beaufort Bishop of
Winchester fell into a bitter contest for the supreme
authority on the council of Regency with their retainers
fighting openly on the streets of London. And didn't Joan
of Arc take back for France most of what Henry V had
captured for England during Henry's minority. <br>It seems
to me that England suffered greatly during that
period.

Lord Scales in a Chivalric Tournament

2001-01-12 01:56:05
bjjsavate
While reading "The Martial Arts of Renaissance
Europe" (medieval martial arts is another interest of
mine), I came across a very interesting reference to a
chivalric contest between Anthony Woodville and the Bastard
of Burgundy in 1467.<br><br>Apparently, the
eyewitness accounts differ depending on whether they were
English or Burgundian, but Lord Scales did take the
day.<br><br>In fact, one of the most prominent of the witnesses
was the famous Olivier de la Marche, a reliable
chronicler of other events as well, so this contest did take
place.<br><br>Anyone else know more about this event or about this
particular Woodville's pre-occupation with tournaments and
pas d'armes?<br><br>Armando

Re: Anthony Cheetam book: Richard III

2001-01-13 14:05:04
ukaflyer
Cheetham's book is an excellent start to
Ricardian research. Being part of a whole series of books
on kings and queens it is, by nature, a lightweight
biography. It is therefore a very easy read and gives you
all the relevant basic information plus some
background. It is pro-Richard in sentiment. I read it in an
evening (that shows what an easy read it is) and
thoroughly enjoyed it. I hope you do too.

Re: Lord Scales in a Chivalric Tournamen

2001-01-14 20:34:56
dickon1
apart from Lord Scales being the brother of the
queen, he was also a highly educated well-read and
cultured man - I think he gave Edward IV the first printed
book produced by Caxton for example - and in addition
to all this he was also a great horseman and hunter
and militarist. I think his brother in law asked him
to take part in a celebration of the visit of the
Burgundian as it was part of a major trade/commercial
treaty.

Music from the time of Richard III

2001-01-31 14:56:20
bar1114
There is a CD called Music from the time of Richard III available in Britain. I live in New York, does anyone know how or where I can purchase it? I tried Amazon with no success.

Re: Music from the time of Richard III

2001-01-31 22:15:31
dickon1
dear bar1114<br>I think I have a spare copy - I
need to check. If I have can I send it to you? It is
lovely music played on reproduction authentic
instruments by very skilled people, and I'd love to share it
with you. e-mail judy@....
Look forward to hearing from you.

Re: Music from the time of Richard III

2001-01-31 22:29:00
dickon1
further to my previous reply - details of the cd
are as follows:- <br>Music From The Time of Richard
III by <br>The York Waits <br>produced by Saydisc
Records, <br>Chipping Manor, <br>The Chipping,
<br>WOOTON-UNDER-EDGE, <br>Glos. <br>GL12 7AD
<br>England<br><br>Telephone Dursley (01453) 845036<br><br>Digital-Sterio
CD-SDL 364<br><br>Hope this helps - I do not have a
spare recording as I thought, sorry. Teh recording was
made in 1986-7 so the phone number may be out of date.
Good luck

Re: Music from the time of Richard III

2001-02-01 10:14:00
ukaflyer
Further details:<br>For people in the US, copies
are available from 'Qualiton' distributors, in Long
Island City<br>Web page is:-
<br><br><a href=http://www.qualiton.com/cgi-bin/ePages.storefront/462389685/ePages/Customer/Search/Run target=new>http://www.qualiton.com/cgi-bin/ePages.storefront/462389685/ePages/Customer/Sear
ch/Run</a><br><br>which will take you the page for the CD.<br>The main
web site is www.qualiton.com<br><br>Price US is
$14.25<br><br>For copies in the UK, they are available from Griffon
& Co on 01524-844399 and cost is ý11-99<br><br>You
can't purchase from Saydisc records direct any more as
of yesterday<br><br>Hope this helps

Re: Music from the time of Richard III

2001-02-01 10:26:01
ukaflyer
Sorry - the link doesn't work. You will need to go to main home page and enter:- the york waits<br>This will take you to the page

Re: King's Council

2001-02-01 20:42:04
andyjd\_uk
Yes and look what happened to humphrey the previous duke of gloucester!!

Re: Music from the time of Richard III

2001-02-02 19:34:49
bar1114
Thank you all so much! I just ordered it online from Qualiton dist. here in New York. I cant wait! There is nothing more beautiful than 15th century music.

Bosworth Anniversary Weekend - HELP!!

2001-02-05 06:06:24
louis\_xi2000
Hello All,<br><br>I was wondering if any can help
me please. I am booking my European holiday at the
moment and desparately need to know the date of this
year's Bosworth anniversary weekend. From what I can see
there are 2 possible weekends, the 18th and 19th or the
25th & 26th. My itinerary is very very tight and need
to know the date so I can book. I need to book in
the next couple of weeks or we will miss out on the
cheap airfares. I also don't want to miss this event
either.<br><br>If anyone can please help me you will be forever in
my graditude. Thanks in advance.<br><br>Steven
Weier<br>Richard III Society - Queensland Inc<br>Australia

Re: Bosworth Anniversary Weekend - HELP!

2001-02-08 22:07:14
ukaflyer
The dates are the 18th and 19th August and the Society will be at Bosworth on the 19th.

Topic for debate this Sunday evening

2001-02-08 22:24:40
ukaflyer
We have a regular group of members who
participate in regular live online debates on various topics
relating to Richard. We would welcome other members of the
Forum to join in, either to impart their own knowledge
or inquire on areas they are unsure of.<br> <br>The
meetings take place in the main 'chat' room and you may
need to download secure files from 'Yahoo' to gain
access. The 'chats' start at 21:00 GMT and finish about
an hour or so later.<br><br>To kick it off for this
week I was going to suggest that the topic for
discussion be about Richard and his relationship with the
northern gentry. Was their loyalty to Richard due
primarily to his marriage to Anne Neville, Warwick's
heiress, or had he built up his own personal following
during his time as Lord of the North?<br><br>In future,
the first member who raises a topic by the Tuesday of
that week will have their subject debated on the
following Sunday.

is this your Richard?

2001-02-14 00:55:52
research\_team
Icame across the following. An associated
document gives the regnal year as 1 which isn't much good.
(Most kings seem to have one). I had a cursory look at
the Sutton & Hammond book on RIII Coronation
documents but couldn't see it there... but maybe there's an
account tucked in an obscure footnote somewhere.
<br><br><br><br> <br>Woll ye graunt and kepe to the people of
England the<br>lawes and custumes to theym <br>of old
Rightfulle and devoute kinges graunted and the<br>same
Ratefie and conferme by yo'r <br>othe. And sp'ialli the
lawes and libertees gr'unted<br>to the Clergy and
peaple <br>by yo'r noble p'decessor and glorious kinge
saint<br>Edward. <br><br>R'es Regis. I graunt and promitte.
<br><br>Ye shall kepe after yo'r strenght and power to
the<br>chirch of god to the clergie and the <br>people hoole
peas and godly concord <br><br>R'es Regis. I shall
kepe <br><br>Ye shall make to be doen aftre yo'r
strenght and power<br>egall and Rightfull iustice in
<br>alle your domes and Iugementes and Discrecion
with<br>m'cy and trought / <br><br>R'es Regis I shall do.
<br><br>Do ye graunt the Rightfull lawes and custumes to
be<br>holden and promitte ye <br>aftre yo'r strenght and power
suche lawes as to the<br>Worship of god and shalbe
chosyn by <br>yo'r people by you to be strengthed and
defended <br><br>R'es Regis. I g'unt and p'mitte.
<br><br>Syr kynge we aake of you to be p'fitly gevin
and<br>g'unted unto us that ye shall kepe <br>to us and to eche
of us and to all the Chirches that<br>be yevin and
co'mitted unto us <br>and to eche of us the p'vileges of
Lawe Canon and of<br>holye chirch and due Lawe and
<br> Rightfulnesse and us and them defende as a
devoute<br>xpen kinge ought to do And <br>in like wise to g'unt
and do thorough alle yo'r Realme<br>to ev'y bisshop
and Abbot and to all <br>the chirches to them
co'mitted. <br><br>R'es Regis <br><br>Wyth glad Will and
devoute soule I promitte and<br>p'fittey graunt that to
you and <br>to ev'y of you and to alle the chirches
to you<br>co'mitted / I shall kepe the p'vileges of
Lawe <br>Canon and of holy chirch and due lawe
and<br>Rightfulnesse / And I shall in asmoche <br>as I may be Reson
and Right With goddes grace defend<br>you and ev'y of
you and theym <br>co'mitted. <br><br>Alle thise
thinges and ev'y of them I Richard kinge of<br>Engeland
do<br>promise and conferme to kepe and observe so helpe
me<br>and by thise hooly Ev'ungelistes by me <br>bodely
touched uppon this holy aulter. <br><br><br><br>does
anyone know of a font which covers
contractions?<br><br>regards<br><br>john <br><br>I ran this past your Provisional wing but
got no responses ...

St. George's Chapel Windsor Castle

2001-02-27 16:54:24
etonfields
Why doesn't St. George's Chapel have a profile in
the Richardian Churches list? Richard as Duke of
Gloucester was a Knight of the Garter. His Garter plaque is
on display. It is also the burial place of Edward IV
& Elizabeth Woodville. Several of the key players
1483-1485 are associated with the Chapel and/or are buried
there.

Re: Topic for debate this Sunday evening

2001-03-02 05:36:16
bethgael15
Is this a weekly thing or will you "post ahead" to let us know? Would love to learn in "real time".

Re: Topic for debate this Sunday evening

2001-03-02 07:03:20
ukaflyer
This is a weekly event that starts around 21:00
GMT Sunday evening and can last a couple of hours
depending on topic etc. The idea of posting a topic of
debate in advance is to give those members who join in a
chance to read up on the subject and have a good healthy
debate. So, if you have a topic you wish to talk about
you can post it early the previous week. We aslo
diversify on to other topics as well, not difficult
considering other influences that happen around a single
topic.<br><br>Most people type but if you have a mic. you can also
chat with other members in real time!

King Richard iii

2001-03-06 00:36:43
roseofraby1485
I would like to know other opinions on exactly
what happened to Richard's remains. There is so much
debate as to wheather they remained in the River Soar or
found and reburied near Bow Bridge.Also, is there
definate proof that the bones thrown ito the river were
actually his?<br>I would appreciate any info or opinion
frm anyone, feel free to E-mail me- concerning the
subject of King Richard related issues only, please!
E-mail address is below.<br>This is a great site,
thanks!!<br>E-mail;roseofraby@... Thanks

Re: Topic for debate this Sunday evening

2001-03-06 03:00:22
bethgael15
Thanks for letting me know! This would be Monday our time so I'll try and make it, but with little ones: not always easy lol. Hope to see you there!

Letter in BBC History magazine

2001-03-10 18:15:50
summerille70
It's s reply to a letter I didn't see by John
Ashdown Hill about Desmond Seward's review of Michael
Hicks's Richard III. It's a rebuttal by Seward himself.
Ugh.<br><br>He reiterates that Crookback was a contemporary
nickname for Richard and refers to his own biography of
Richard as a balanced view. Words fail me.

Re: Letter in BBC History magazine

2001-03-13 08:38:05
bethgael15
An expert in the art of plugging onesself is he
lol. I have that book, and it's anything but
"balanced". Decidedly one-sided is my opinion: he is writing
as an obvious admirer of Margaret Beaufort et al. He
calls the "movement" that claims Richard's innocence a
"cult". Scholarly? Yes. Well researched? Yes - if you
don't mind the fact that his definitive reference is
More's work. BALANCED? Hardly.

Re: Letter in BBC History magazine

2001-03-13 08:38:05
bethgael15
An expert in the art of plugging onesself is he
lol. I have that book, and it's anything but
"balanced". Decidedly one-sided is my opinion: he is writing
as an obvious admirer of Margaret Beaufort et al. He
calls the "movement" that claims Richard's innocence a
"cult". Scholarly? Yes. Well researched? Yes - if you
don't mind the fact that his definitive reference is
More's work. BALANCED? Hardly.

I'm new, and topic for discussion

2001-03-20 03:32:36
duchess\_cecily
Hi, I'm new to this club. I'm from the states,
but English history and literature is my
passion.<br>Anyway, this club looks interesting, and I had a question
that I thought might be interesting to debate. If
you've already discussed this, ignore me i suppose. What
do you think really happened to the Princes in the
Tower? I'm reading a book on the subject now, and wanted
to hear other viewpoints. Thanks.<br>Crystal

Re: I'm new, and topic for discussion

2001-03-20 17:02:17
preraph2000
That's hard to say. I think they either out lived
Richard (in a kind of witness protection) or were the
first to fall in the Tudors bloody grasp for control.
It really is a personal thing. If you haven't read
"Royal Blood" do. It is a good look at the possibilities
writen by a lawyer.

Richard Bios/fiction

2001-03-20 17:38:16
preraph2000
(trying again - sorry if this shows up
twice)<br><br>I'm working on some stuff for Gradschool and am
interested in Biographies and other historical fiction about
Richard. I have quite a few, but the more the better. I
have Tey's and Jarman's works. <br>Also, if anyone has
information (papers, articals ect.) that deals with
Shakespeare's Henry VI and RIII I'd love to know about it.<br>
Give info Get info - The Utah Shakspearian Festival
Performed an adaptation of the Henry VI plays in 2000. The
scrpt is quite good and I was inpressed in how they
showed justifiable motivation in Richard. I was able to
buy the script, so if interested they have a web
sight Bard.org (I think) and it may be avalible still.
thanks

Re: Richard Bios/fiction

2001-03-20 18:47:39
lblanchard1485
Preraph2000 says:<br><br>"I'm working on some
stuff for Gradschool and am interested in Biographies
and other historical fiction about Richard. I have
quite a few, but the more the better. I have Tey's and
Jarman's works. Also, if anyone has information (papers,
articals ect.) that deals with Shakespeare's Henry VI and
RIII I'd love to know about it."<br><br>We have a
section on Ricardian fiction at the American Branch web
site --
<br><a href=http://www.r3.org/fiction/roses/index.html target=new>http://www.r3.org/fiction/roses/index.html</a><br><br>This includes a talk by Roxane C. Murph, who has
produced a full bibliography of fiction set in the Wars of
the Roses, published by Greenwood Publishing. I
believe that both the Society library (Carolyn Hammond)
and the American Branch library have a copy. If you
are a member, you can borrow it. If not, perhaps your
university can get it for you on interlibrary
loan.<br><br>We also have a number of reading lists up on the
American Branch web site --
see<br><br><a href=http://www.r3.org/biblio.html target=new>http://www.r3.org/biblio.html</a><br><br>If you look at the "library" and "drama" sections
you should find links to a number of essays that may
be of interest to you.<br><br>Regards,<br>Laura
Blanchard<br>lblanch001@...<br>(webmaster, <a href=http://www.r3.org/ target=new>http://www.r3.org/</a>)

The Edward IV Roll

2001-03-20 19:00:29
lblanchard1485
I'm pleased to announce that The Edward IV Roll,
a magnificent propaganda genealogy of Edward IV in
the collections of the Free Library of Philadelphia,
is now on display at the Philadelphia Museum of Art
as the centerpiece (quite literally!) of an
exhibition of medieval manuscripts.<br><br>The Richard III
Society and the American Branch joined forces with
individual donors from the Branch to provide the funds for
conservation of this manuscript. The results of that project
can be seen in Philadelphia -- and on the web.
There's a link to information on the conservation, to a
digital facsimile of the manuscript with explanatory
text, to the exhibition's web site and to more
information on the Branch's manuscripts conservation
fund.<br><br><a href=http://www.r3.org/ target=new>http://www.r3.org/</a> and click on the picture of the mounted knight
(which looks a bit like a horse covered with a
tapestry).<br><br>Regards,<br>Laura Blanchard<br>lblanch001@...<br>webmaster,
<a href=http://www.r3.org/ target=new>http://www.r3.org/</a>

Re: I'm new, and topic for discussion

2001-03-20 19:02:15
lyn\_lynz
I have never even heard of "Royal Blood" (and there was me thinking I knew everything)! I don't suppose you can remember the author's name?? How recently was it written?

Re: Royal Blood

2001-03-20 23:58:49
preraph2000
"Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the
Princes" is by Bertram Fields. It was publushed by
ReganBooks in 1998; ISBN 0060987383 I had not noticed till
now, but it won the 1999 Ricardian book of the year.

"Royal Blood"

2001-03-21 00:00:44
roseofraby1485
I have that book and it is written by an attorney
named Bertram Fields" and it mentioned a few
possibilaties about what happened to the princes thathadn't
occured to me, however bethgael is quite right in stating
that he is quite an admirer of Margaret Beufort<br>I
only became interested in King Richard a few months
ago, and have a lot to learn but I have a couple of
questions which I shall include my next post. Thanks very
much,L.H.

Princes in the Tower

2001-03-21 00:45:29
roseofraby1485
I have not been at this for long,so please
forgive me if this has already been covered.My first
question concerns two paragraphs in "Royal Blood"on page
217 that states an alleged Tyrell family legend
states that the boys stayed at the Tyrell home "by
permission of the uncle" and I had ever heard that before.
Is anyone else familier with this story?Also in
Alison Weir's book, "The Princes in tne Tower", she
makes reference to "all the evidence that has been open
for public review",does this mean that there are mabe
some contemperary records that we are not aware of,
and if so, where would they be? Thanks, L.H.

Re: I'm new, and topic for discussion

2001-03-21 02:40:58
duchess\_cecily
It's interesting that you mention Royal Blood.
That's actually the book i mentioned that I'm reading. I
also think it's excellent, and as I'm a possible
future lawyer myself, I find Field's logic wonderful.
However, it's the only book on the subject I have read,
and he seems to slam Alison Weir for her version of
the events. Are there any other authors with
interesting perspectives?<br>Crystal<br>p.s. my feeling so
far is that the Princes were somehow concealed, but
not killed by Richard. Perhaps they were never seen
again, or at least not as Princes, or perhaps they were
killed by Henry VII or in accordance with his wishes.

Royal Blood

2001-03-24 00:54:23
white\_surrey
This book is currently out-of-print but can be
purchased on-line as a used book or in paperback.<br>It is
very readable and a good overview of the "Princes
problem". In the Michigan Chapter, American Branch, we give
a copy of "Royal Blood" to libraries where we sent
up Richard III displays. That way we are sure they
have at least one Ricardian book :-)<br> Regarding the
Tyrell ledgend, there is an oral legend in the Tyrell
family that the Princes were taken from the Tower and
stayed for a time at Gipping the family estate. I once
received a letter from a lady living in Bermuda who is a
Tyrell descendent and she told me the tale. I guess it
is pretty well-known now if Bertram Fields even
knows about it. But it is not documented so only counts
as heresay....

Bosworth Field and Middleham Castle

2001-03-24 13:18:33
ukaflyer
Due to the 'Foot and Mouth' crisis Bosworth
Battlefield and Middleham Castle are closed until further
notice. Updates will appear as I hear about them. I'll
check on other sites and update as and when.

Re: Royal Blood

2001-03-24 15:37:36
sandra\_dup2000
I would be very interested to receive any more
details you have on the Tyrell legend and details of the
book you speak of...Royal Blood, author, publisher,
etc. I live in South Africa, so would need to use a
book search to get hold of a copy. <br>Also forgive my
ignorance, but who is Betram Fields ?

Re: Royal Blood

2001-03-24 16:59:23
lblanchard1485
sandra_dup2000 writes:<br><br>"I would be very
interested to receive any more details you have on the
Tyrell legend and details of the book you speak
of...Royal Blood, author, publisher, etc. I live in South
Africa, so would need to use a book search to get hold of
a copy. <br> <br>"Also forgive my ignorance, but
who is Betram Fields?"<br><br>Hello, Sandra and
others. The discussion of this book on this forum has
finally jerked me out of my sloth to do something I'd
been meaning to do for a long time. I've put my review
and some other material on the Fields book online
at<br><br><a href=http://www.r3.org/basics/fields/ target=new>http://www.r3.org/basics/fields/</a><br><br>This review ran in the winter 98-99 issue of the
Ricardian Register, the journal of the American Branch of
the Richard III Society. In the same issue there was
an account of a TV interview of Fields that shed
interesting perspectives on the reason for the book. I will
now make an effort to contact Anne Smith, the author
of that review, and see if I can get it online as
well. I've also picked up the dropped ball of the
footnotes to the book, which Fields told me he'd be happy
to have us put up on the web since his publisher
wouldn't allow them in the book.<br><br>Regards,<br>Laura
Blanchard<br>lblanch001@...<br>(webmaster, <a href=http://www.r3.org/ target=new>http://www.r3.org/</a>)

Re: Royal Blood

2001-03-25 03:30:04
bar1114
Betram Feilds also states the theory, which seems
to me one of the most logical and interesting, that
on the event of his death, Richard arranged to have
Edward Brampton bring the princes over to Flanders, for
their safety and protection. To be raised by the
Warbecks, Mrs Warbeck being a kinswoman of Bramptons, (and
possibly she was a mistress of Edward IV when he was
exiled years before.) Formaly her name was Catherine
Faro, I beleive. Does anyone else have an opinion about
this?

Re: Royal Blood

2001-03-25 07:21:57
duchess\_cecily
I thought the logic for that theory was well
thought out as well. I think it's logical to believe that
Prince Edward died young from being sick, but that
Richard could have been brought up by the Warbeck family.
I also think it could have been under the
knowledge, and possibly financial support of Mary of
Burgandy. She supported the 'pretender' Perkin Warbeck. i
thought that it was logical that the real Perkin could
have died young and Prince Richard assumed his
identity, or Perkin was a stalking horse for Prince
Richard. I thought that was all one of the most logical
theories presented. Personally, if the Princes were killed
in the Tower, during Richard's reign, I'm inclined
to believe that the Duke of Buckingham was
responsible more than Richard.<br>Crystal

richard 111

2001-03-25 20:24:53
edsakiss2000
i personally believe that richard did have his
nephews put to death to attempt secure the throne for he
and his ptential heirs......he had definitely had an
on going feud with the queen (his brother"s wife)
and her upstart family for close to 20 years (as had
probably half the old nobility) and the queen and her
brothers had a tremendeous influence of the two young
princes......one must remember that this was a totally different
era and rules were different and less civilized than
today....richard would probably have lost his position, his
holding and possibly his life if the widow queen and her
family had been in cotrol and they would have if either
of edwards sons had been crowned king......plus with
richard getting rid of the two princes opened the way for
the tudor reign which produced two excellent rulers
(henry the seventh and elizabeth the first and henry the
eighth who if not a great king was at least well known
down in history for the many wives, etc

Re: richard 111

2001-03-25 22:09:41
assucyp
Untill there is a DNA test on the bones in the
tower there is no proof that they are the bones of the
princes.I cannot recall reading that any contemporary
clothing or other items were found with the bones and if
there was then it would have been easy for the
murderers to have put them on any body that was in the same
age group as the Princes.All this speculation does no
good to the reputation of King Richard the King.

Re: richard 111

2001-03-25 22:39:36
white\_surrey
I disagree that speculation is damaging to
Richard. It is speculation that allows us to posit other
suspects. Even if the boys were killed, it doesn't mean
Richard did it. There are several other possible
perpetrators. And, of course, if the boys were not killed, but
were removed from the Tower, it definitely lets
Richard off the hook.

Re: richard 111

2001-03-25 22:42:53
beauclerk2001
I still find it difficult to believe the two
princes would be murdered in the Tower and their bodies
disposed of 'under a staircase.' The Tower at the time
housed hundreds of people and performing such acts
(murder and disposal of the bodies) could hardly have
been kept secret.<br><br>As for the DNA testing of the
'bones' this is most important as proper identification
of 'murder victims' is the first step in any
investigation. Any updates on the progress of the 'request' for
testing?

Re: richard 111

2001-03-25 22:45:58
duchess\_cecily
In regards to edsakiss2000:<br><br>I'm not quite
understanding your justification for Richard III killing the
Princes. Richard was hardly feuding with the Woodville's.
Granted he was opposed to them, and a threat to their
power, but during the reign of Edward IV he kept his
loyalty to his brother and minded the northern areas he
was in charge of. He didn't vocalize hatred for the
Woodville's to the general public. If anyone was 'feuding'
with the Woodville's, it would have been George, Duke
of Clarence.<br>Granted Elizabeth and her family had
influence over the Princes, but that influence was
significantly lessened with the executions of Rivers, Grey and
Vaughn, which I believe to have been justified on
Richard's part. They had been planning to overthrow the
protector, which can be considered an act of treason. Rivers
himself showed faith in Richard's decision, and made him
executor of his will.<br>Also, Richard was popular with
the people, especially in the North, and as you
stated yourself, the Woodville's were not. Neither was
the prospect of a boy king. And as Richard had only
one son, it would have been more beneficial to him to
hide the Princes somewhere on the Continent, possibly
keeping them there by fear for their lives, or convincing
each that the other was already dead. He could then
keep their fate ambiguous to the people, and if need
be, possibly produce one of them as his heir when he
was close to death himself, in the event that his own
son was dead, which would have been the case. In this
way, he could have consolidated his own power, kept
the Woodville threat down, and made provisions for
the continuance of the house of York that didn't rest
on Clarence's possibly weak minded son.<br>It was
also stated that the death of the Princes made way for
the Tudor monarchs. That's clearly irrelevant to the
statement that Richard killed them. Even if it could be
proven that he did, making way for Henry Tudor, was not
a motive for that. Richard thought he could defeat
Henry Tudor. It was not his aim to see Henry Tudor on
the throne. Perhaps it is fortunate that Henry Tudor
did achieve his goal of getting the throne, not
because Richard would have been a bad king, but because
the Tudors were intelligent monarchs. It could also
be considered very unfortunate that the family that
gave us Henry VIII, the tragic Jane Grey, and Bloody
Mary were allowed to reign, as a clearly usurping
dynasty.<br>Crystal

richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-26 01:12:23
edsakiss2000
still...no one had the gain that richard did if
the boys were dead unless we feel that henry tudor
was clever enough to arrange this deed to the
villification of richard which helped open the door to henry"s
invasion plus also took out to potential adversaries thaqt
otherwise henry would also have had to deal with....has he
eer been a suspect?

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-26 01:28:53
Aquaeus
How would Richard have gained? Unless the princes
were KNOWN to be dead, they would have remained as
great a threat to him as if they were alive.
Unannounced, the death of the princes would have benefitted
Richard not at all. After all, it was as symbols that
they were dangerous, not personally!<br><br>Moreover,
the contemporary sources suggest that the English
people were quite happy with Richard's<br>ascent to the
throne. The last minority reign, after all, had bought
England the Wars of the Roses! Why should Richard have
loosened his own grip on the throne by doing the one thing
the people of England would not have forgiven-
killing<br>the boys? As one historian has pointed out, Richard
would have been blamed for their deaths even if they
had been of natural causes; he must have "trembled
every time young Edward sneezed!"<br><br>I personally
believe that Harry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham- whom I
believe was actually next in the Lancastrian line of
succession, and next after<br>the children of Edward IV and
Richard in the Yorkist line (thus being able to unite the
claims of both houses!) had by far the best motive for
the murder. As we have seen, Richard would be blamed,
essentially removing him from contention; no female had ruled
England since Matilda, so Edward's daughters would have
been no obstacle. Buckingham's behavior certainly
would make sense if the murder of the princes was part
of an attempted coup on his behalf. And, as Lord
Constable, he had every bit as much access to the princes as
did Richard!

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-26 02:38:08
edsakiss2000
so what happened to buckingham?....also didn't
richard court edward"s oldest daughter after his wifes
death...i feel richard was willing to do anything to obtain
and keep the throne whether it be murder or incest
(marrying his neice)......i don't fault him...."he was a
man of his time"

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-26 02:43:35
duchess\_cecily
Richard didn't really have anything to gain from
the boys' death. They were already declared
illegitimate, and the people were happy with his
reign.<br><br>And yes, Henry VII has been a suspect. It can't be
proven that the Princes were even killed and if they
were killed, no one can say for sure when they were
killed. And certainly Henry VII had more to gain from
killing them once he was king than Richard did. In order
for his marriage to Elizabeth of York to bolster his
claim to the throne, he had to reverse the act making
the children of Edward IV illigitimate. If he did
that, it made Edward V the rightful king, and if he
were dead, his younger brother Richard.<br>If Richard
III had killed the Princes, or it had been done on
his behalf, why didn't Henry, when he found the boys
weren't in the tower, raise some kind of investigation to
find them, or have the Tower grounds searched for
their bodies? One logical explanation could be that the
boys were still alive, and that Henry had them
killed.<br><br>you also claim that no one stood to gain from the
boys death but Richard III. Henry Stafford definitely
also stood to gain. He was first peer of the realm
during Richard's reign. He also thought that he was more
gifted to be king than Richard. Certainly getting the
princes out of the way, and blaming it on Richard would
have helped his cause. He could then pretend to
support Henry Tudor, with the secret plan to have Henry
killed in battle and take the crown for
himself.<br>Crystal

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-26 02:52:57
duchess\_cecily
Richard did not court Elizabeth. He considered
marrying her to thwart Henry Tudor's plans. And, back
then, incest could have been many different things, but
with the dispensation with from the Pope, it would
have been a legal marriage. If you go back far enough,
I believe you may even find that he was related to
his first wife, Anne, in some way. They were both
descendents from Edward III. Richard through Edward III's son
Edmund, and Anne through John of Gaunt.<br><br>Also,
killing the princes would have been more of an inhibition
to his keeping the throne, than to helping him keep
it. He would have outraged the people and the
nobility if he had done so. I also believe he knew how few
prospects there would have been for the house of York upon
his death. His own son could obviously die at any
time, in battle, of sickness. Clarence's son was
thought to be at the least weak minded and unintelligent.
Not to mention there was still and attainder against
him. Keeping the princes alive would have been more
beneficial than killing them.<br><br>I would like to know
what your basis is for saying that Richard would have
done anything to keep the throne. What makes you
believe he was such an extreme minded person?<br><br>As
to the fate of Buckingham, he was executed for
treason for plotting with Henry Tudor. This further
corroborates my claim that he had reason to kill the princes
more than Richard did.

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-26 02:53:03
duchess\_cecily
Richard did not court Elizabeth. He considered
marrying her to thwart Henry Tudor's plans. And, back
then, incest could have been many different things, but
with the dispensation with from the Pope, it would
have been a legal marriage. If you go back far enough,
I believe you may even find that he was related to
his first wife, Anne, in some way. They were both
descendents from Edward III. Richard through Edward III's son
Edmund, and Anne through John of Gaunt.<br><br>Also,
killing the princes would have been more of an inhibition
to his keeping the throne, than to helping him keep
it. He would have outraged the people and the
nobility if he had done so. I also believe he knew how few
prospects there would have been for the house of York upon
his death. His own son could obviously die at any
time, in battle, of sickness. Clarence's son was
thought to be at the least weak minded and unintelligent.
Not to mention there was still and attainder against
him. Keeping the princes alive would have been more
beneficial than killing them.<br><br>I would like to know
what your basis is for saying that Richard would have
done anything to keep the throne. What makes you
believe he was such an extreme minded person?<br><br>As
to the fate of Buckingham, he was executed for
treason for plotting with Henry Tudor. This further
corroborates my claim that he had reason to kill the princes
more than Richard did.<br>Crystal

Sorry

2001-03-26 02:54:18
duchess\_cecily
didn't mean to post that twice. i don't know what happened. <br>Crystal

Re: Richard Bios/fiction

2001-03-26 08:59:50
bethgael15
Have you seen the video Al Pacino's "Looking For Richard"? Totally from the Shakespearian "guilty" side, but enlightening nonetheless.

Re: Royal Blood

2001-03-26 09:04:42
bethgael15
Hi, Just a quick note for you: the isbn in
Australia/New Zealand will be different, but I did a quick
search at dymocks.com.au and they have it in "limited"
paperback stock for AUD$39.95<br>Hope that helps!

Re:

2001-03-26 09:06:44
bethgael15
Did I? *blink, blink* Never read this book, I'm
afraid, but I did think Desmond Seward was... so Bertram
is another one.... does that give us an impression
of the tomne of this book?? (I'll be buying it soon
lol so forewarned...)

Re: Looking For Richard

2001-03-26 11:14:49
lyn\_lynz
Yes! such a wonderful film... so
(unintentionally) funny! I had the good fortune to see it with a
well informed audience, so I was not a lone voice
laughing at "Al" playing fast and lose with the
bard.<br>Lynda

Update on Bosworth Battlefield

2001-03-26 12:53:56
ukaflyer
The Battlefield is closed until the end of April, the situation will then be reviewed to see if it can re-open again.

Update on more Ricardian sites

2001-03-26 13:34:20
ukaflyer
Barnard Castle open<br>Berkhamsted Castle to open
1st April<br>Berwick Castle open<br>Clifford's Tower
open<br>Dartmouth Castle open<br>Eltham Palace open<br>Farnham
Castle Keep to open 1st April<br>Fountains Abbey
closed<br>Kenilworth Castle open<br>Mount Grace Priory
closed<br>Pickering Castle open<br>Richmond Castle open<br>Rievaulx
Abbey open <br>Scarborough Castle open<br>Warkworth
Castle open

Genealogy of Anne and Richard

2001-03-26 18:30:38
preraph2000
Someone made the comment of Richard and Anne
being related. Yes in deedy they were! I have pulled
out my Family History (I am Proud to be related to
this whole mess)AND <br>Richard's Mother - Cicely
Neville (The Rose of Raby)<br>Anne's Grandfather -
Richard Neville(Earl of Salisbury)<br>and my VERY
Great-Grandfather - William Neville(Earl of Kent)<br>Where Brothers
and Sister. Their Dad and Mum bing Ralph Neville and
Joan Beaufort.

Further update on Ricardian sites status

2001-03-26 19:56:42
ukaflyer
A full list can be found at:-<br><br><a href=http://www.richardiii.net/topic.htm target=new>http://www.richardiii.net/topic.htm</a>

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-26 21:14:13
Aquaeus
Buckingham claimed that Richard had murdered the
princes and tried to lead a revolt against him. The
problem was that nobody believed him! That being the
case, Richard had comparatively little trouble cutting
off the good Duke's head.<br><br>Hey, I don't dispute
your right to feel that way about Richard! But there
is no credible evidence that he tried to marry his
niece, and with the possible exception of Hastings
(possible!) the evidence that he murdered anybody is pretty
much confined to posthumous Tudor propaganda.

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-26 22:27:32
bethgael15
I haven't read "Royal Blood" (yet - I am off to
Dymocks today lol!), and I hadn't heard the theory that
Richard had the boys hidden with the Warbeck's, although
I have always thought that if any of the later
"Pretenders" had a claim to be one or the other of the missing
princes, Perkin would have been it. <br><br>I agree that,
out of the 2 monarchs, Richard had the lesser cause
to "need" the boys dead: they were illegitimised and
therefore no longer in the line of sucession. Once Henry
had come to the throne (more by "conquest" than by
blood), he needed the boys dead, or at least out of the
picture in some permanent way (well, dead!), as he would
be all too familiar with the claims of an
illegitimate line - he was an example of this. He also married
their sister, legitimising her in the process, which
made the elder boy king of England... he was against
Richard because he was a "usurper", was he not?
Therefore, if the boys had been alive, he would have also
been a usurper.<br><br>However, this is not to say
that Henry himself had the boys killed. He may have
actually believed that Richard had them killed, whether
they were dead or not. I can imagine one of 2
conversations between Henry's supporters (Who? Who
knows?):<br>Possible conversation number 1: <br>"So, where are the
Princes?"<br>"I dunno. They seem to have disappeared."<br>"Uh-oh.
What do we tell the king[Henry]?"<br>"Let's just tell
them they're dead and Richard did it. I'm sure we can
come up with someone who'll help."<br>"OK."

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7 (part 2)

2001-03-26 22:30:00
bethgael15
I wasn't sure how much yahoo would take, and my
post was turning into a novel, so here's the rest of
it:<br><br>Possible Conversation Number 2:<br>"You do realise that
Henry is hardly the strongest contender for the
throne."<br>"Yep, but better an adult than another minority.
Remember Richard II?"<br>"Yeah...OK, then, we need to
strengthen his claim a bit."<br>"Well, how about the
marriage between Lancaster and York that Henry
suggested?"<br>"Elizabeth? That will hardly help: she's
illegitimate."<br>"Yeah... but we can easily reverse that, we'll ahve the
original document sealed..."<br>"Hey, great idea! Just one
minor problem..."<br>"What?"<br>"Doing that will make
her brother King of England, you dunce!"<br>"Ah.
Didn't think of that."<br>"Any more brilliant
ideas?"<br>"Well, they've been in the Tower for a while. Let's have
them done away with."<br>"You're talking about
murdering children. For all Henry's faults, I doubt he'll
like that much... that will ahrdly make him popular
with his future wife."<br>"So we don't tell
him."<br>"Fair 'nuff."<br><br>I tend to think that Henry may not
have had a working knowledge of what happened to the
boys. He and his son Henry 8 did away with most Yorkist
rivals, but there was always a judicial "reason" for
their executions. Henry 8, in particular, always liked
to yeild to the dictates of his "conscience"
(especially when this lined up with his desires)... he had to
pick that up from somewhere... Henry 7 had a
reputation for financial meanness.... then again, Henry
7th's shabby treatment of Katherine of Aragon after his
son Arthur's death shows he had a cruel streak to his
character, so I could be way off. <br><br>I tend to feel,
though (impossible that may be), that it needs to be
firmly established that the boys did in fact die at
around that time, before any debate on who did it...
<br><br>Of course, there's the other possibility: Henry, or
less likely, Richard, ordered the boys dead but
whoever was supposed to do it was the one who hid one or
both boys...<br><br>As an aside, does anyone find it
ironic that the French, who supported the Lancastrian
Henry 7 at the time of his exile, then did an about
face during Henry 8th's reign, to support the Yorkist
Reginald Pole?

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-26 22:45:06
bethgael15
A man of his time... maybe, but that would have
him take the throne despite the presence of another
heir, for the good of the country, or even himself, but
the murder of children was not "of his time"... else
(to follow your presumed source), why would there
have been a "general outcry" against Richard during
his reign? (I should note I have said this as the
source - More - that states that Richard murdered the
boys and that there was an outcry also is the one you
can trace the rumour that Richard wanted to marry his
own niece, not because either of these things were
true). <br><br>I can understand a loyal uncle taking his
nephews throne (again, I am not suggesting that this is
what Richard did, I tend to think that he believed the
boys illegitimate - he knew his brother too well), and
I can see an otherwise ambitious man being
corrupted by power and killing off some of his beloved
family, BUT not in this case... Richard's loyalty to his
family has always been remarked upon, even by More's
account, and it takes time for a man to be that corrupted
(in Henry 8th's case it took 23 years to go from a
reasonable, loved king to divorcing his first wife due to the
"dictates of his conscience" to killing off the second one
on trumped-up adultery and incest charges - and he
was of a character more corruptable than Richard's
and showed little family loyalty, ever).<br><br>We in
the 20th Century are all too often taking the moral
"high" ground, suggesting that murder was somehow more
sanctioned in the Middle Ages than it is now. It was more
common, to modern eyes, but judicial murder was always
dressed up as religious or secular law. Common murder was
actually more heavily penalised than today... we tend to
let murderers walk free more frequently.<br><br>But
Richard do "anything"? there is no real evidence for
this. He had even forgiven the very people for treason
that were his undoing at Bosworth... does this sound
like a merciless tyrant to you?

Re: Genealogy of Anne and Richard

2001-03-26 22:57:57
bethgael15
They were cousins, true. Mind you, this was
hardly uncommon, most royalty in Europe was related...
even first cousins have never been forbidden to marry
(as repugnant as that can sound to modern ears),
Biblically or otherwise... relationships in "the first
degree" were considered incest (and still are, I might
add): aunt to nephew, uncle to niece, siblings, parent
to child. Not to say this was an impossible
situation, papal dispensation could be sought (but let's
face it, in the first degree blood rarely was). Most
"first degree" dispensations actually were "first degree
consanguinity (sp?)", ie, relations with no first degree blood
tie but a sexual or marriage one. For example, Henry
8 needed just such a dispensation to marry
Katherine of Aragon as she had been married to his brother,
therefore was Henry's sister - but there was no blood tie
(other than the usual convoluted one - Katherine was
descended through her mother from Edward I). He needed
another one to marry Anne Boleyn as one of his mistresses
was her elder sister Mary, and again when he married
Katherine Howard as she was Jane Seymour's
cousin.<br><br>But I cannot think of a situation during that period
of time where someone in the first degree by blood
married, doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course, just my
memory is not too good right now - I'd love to be
corrected on this...

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-27 01:42:13
Aquaeus
And if Lady Eleanor Butler, the actual woman
named in Titulus Regis as Edward IV's first wife (she
became a nun when Edward married Elizabeth Woodville;
More conflated two of Edward's mistresses to give the
lady an entirely different name)actually DID enter
into a precontract (never dispensed) with Edward, the
throne didn't belong to young Edward. He and his
siblings would have been illegitimate. The son of Clarence
was already barred from the throne as the son of a
convicted traitor.<br><br>If, as I say, Lady Eleanor's
motive was other than a suddenly-discovered predilection
for the religious life, the rightful and legal
successor of Edward IV was his brother, Richard III.

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-27 10:41:07
bethgael15
Yep, this is about where I reckon it stood too.

Sudeley Castle

2001-03-29 14:59:07
ukaflyer
Sudeley Castle will be open from Saturday 31st March. <br>Opening times are 10.30 to 5.30

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-31 00:41:31
bar1114
There is evidence that the princes were alive at
the time of Richards death, such as household and
wardrobe accounts, refering to them as "lords bastard".
Also, is it not sort of strange that James Tyrell, (the
man who supposedley murdered the princes at Richards
orders), was given various prestigious commands and titles
by Henry VII? then he executed him 20 years later?
What was Henry in fear of? Tyrell fingering him as the
real murderer? Also, in Betram Feilds book, he
mentions the theory that prince Richard of York had
married one of Sir Thomas Mores daughters! What a hoot I
thought that was. Interestingly, More never had his
biography of Richard published, it was discovered after
Mores death, I guess he knew it was a sorry bunch of
lies.

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-03-31 02:11:10
woodville1483
Sir Thomas More has always intrigued me. Here is
a man who sacrificed his life because he refused to
sacrifice his principles. I don't think that he was the
type of man who would knowingly write a "bunch of
lies". That just doesn't fit in with his character. I'm
not saying that his biography of Richard is the
gospel truth but there has to be some element of truth
to it. That's the nature of any biography,
information that is true but often flawed for various
reasons.

Richard, loving uncle?

2001-03-31 15:51:41
woodville1483
I find it very difficult to believe that Richard
allowed his nephews to remain alive after he usurped the
crown. I'm not saying that he gave the orders to dispose
of his nephews but I believe that it happened
sometime in 1483 and that Richard, although he may have
been deeply disturbed by it, nevertheless breathed a
sigh of relief that it was done. No one, I mean no
one, lets a rival with a better claim to the throne
remain alive. Richard was so consumed by his hate of the
Woodvilles that it led him down the path of usurpation.
Sadly two innocent boys were sacrificed along the way.

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-03-31 16:17:59
Chntress
Hmmm..interesting, both this and your last post.
I always found it hard to take Thomas More very
seriously on this matter. He was, after all, only five
years old when this was going on. I think much if it
came from John Morton; Thomas More was apprenticed in
his household. Personally, I think John Morton was
exceedingly corrupt. As Henry VII's personal thumb screwer,
it was he who came up with the theory that if a man
could live in affluence, he could pay the King a high
tax and if a man weren't rich, he should pay the King
a high tax anyway because he was obviously hiding
his wealth. <br><br>He also backed Richard III, then
backed Hastings, then backed Margaret Beaufort. In
short, this man went where the wind blew and therefore,
in my opinion, is not a very valid source of
information. <br><br>More himself proved a master of
propaganda and, although I consider him my patron saint, he
was still human and only at the end did he die for
what he believed in. While he lived, he made good for
himself. Many of his writings were never meant to be seen,
the History of Richard III and Utopia being the two
most popular that I know of. I can't see how his
history can be considered more than a rhetoric lesson for
students. <br><br>As far as Richard III killng his nephews,
the evidence is still not conclusive. He never showed
the bodies, which was a practice done with the other
usurpers of the War of the Roses. That in itself leads me
to believe that something is awry with More's
theory. RIII would have known there would be uprisings in
Edward V's defense. (I believe Hasting's was involved in
a "rescue attempt.") Edward IV found out the hard
way what happens when a deposed monarch lives into
the next reign. <br><br>Then there is the matter of
Margaret of Burgundy being absolutely certain that Perkin
Warbeck was her nephew. And what about the 'Lords
Bastard' entry that appeared, I think somewhere on RIII
northern estates for new clothing and food. If it were
just for his son John, wouldn't it say 'Lord Bastard'?
And wasn't John at court anyway?<br><br>I think I'll
stop here. I'm just going on about something people
already know about. Sorry for the long winded emergence
from lurkdom. I would like to believe he did not do
it. Am I positive? Well, no. The evidence, to me,
leans more toward his not doing 'the
deed'.<br><br>Thanks for reading, <br><br>Laine

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-03-31 21:26:52
woodville1483
Unfortunately we will never know if Richard was
an accomplice in the murder of his nephews. However
we do know that he was guilty of usurpation.
Stealing someone elses crown isn't a nice thing to do but
it happens. Richard knew that if Edward became king
that the Woodvilles would have complete control of
him. And as long as the Woodvilles were in control
Richard would be on the outside looking in. He couldn't
accept that possibility so when he saw his chance to put
himself in control he did just that. Many people hated
the Woodvilles but that is another scenario that
repeats itself throughout history. When certain people
have too much influence with a monarch, as the
Woodvilles did with Edward IV, then there will always be
those who are jealous. The thing with the Woodvilles
was that there were so darn many of them. If
Elizabeth had been an only child or only had one or two
siblings then none of this may never have happened, who
knows? Afterwards Richard had to come up with some kind
of explanation and that was when he put forth that
ridiculous story concerning Eleanor Butler.

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-03-31 22:06:33
Aquaeus
Calling the story of Eleanor Butler "ridiculous"
isn't an argument, but an assertion. And the question
remains: if it were so ridiculous, why did Thomas More and
Shakespeare go to such great lenghths to hide her identity?
Why did Henry VII go to such lengths in an attempt to
destroy every extant copy of Titulus Regis, which
specifically named Lady Eleanor? Moreover, even if Richard WAS
technically a usurper, the Woodvilles were involved in
treasonable plots from the moment of Edward IV's death. The
success of any of them would certainly have cost Richard
and likely his son their lives. Finally, the legacy
of a boy king had been well-displayed in recent
English history. <br>Richard II had ascended the throne
as a child. Henry VI had asscended the throne as a
child. One ascension resulted in a true usurpation
without any possibility of doubt; the other, in civil
war. Moreover, the possibility of a reassertion of
Lancastrian claims (and there were true Lancastrians with a
far better claim to the throne than Tudor) could not
be eliminated. This was no time for a boy
king!<br><br>On the other hand, that Henry Tudor was a usurper,
just like Bolingbroke, cannot be denied.

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-04-01 22:18:06
woodville1483
I think that people even back then kind of raised
their eyebrows and said "you've gotta be kidding"
whenever they brought out the Eleanor Butler story. Even
if there was a precontract doesn't it seem a little
strange that nobody thought anything of it until
Stillington conveniently brought it to light in order to have
a reason for declaring Edward's sons bastards? What
about the story that Edward IV himself was a bastard?
That theory was trotted out at the same time to the
great dismay of Richard's mother.

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-04-01 22:35:00
Aquaeus
Doubtless. People have always been cynical about
such things. Some people thought that LBJ was in back
of the Kennedy shooting.But then, there is the Tudor
coverup....As to the story that Richard accused Edward of being
a bastard, it's an invention of Cardinal Morton,
repeated along with all the other twaddle by More.

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-04-01 23:16:50
bar1114
Excuse me, but Richard did not usurp the crown!
He became king by parliamentary decree. And how
could you possibly beleive Sir Thomas Mores history has
some element of truth? More was a pupil of John Morton
and was only a child when Richard was killed.

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-04-01 23:28:45
bar1114
As for the Eleanor Butler pre contract, how can
anyone call it ridiculous, didnt Edward IV also marry
Elizabeth Woodville in private? Is it not possible Bishop
Stillington feared for his life? He was imprisoned for a
time. He had nothing to gain by coming foward. It is
likely that George of Clarence found out about the
pre-contract from Stillington and was executed by the
insistance of the Woodvilles most likely.

the precontract

2001-04-02 04:40:41
woodville1483
No evidence was ever produced to
prove<br>a<br>precontract. It's sudden appearance sure
is<br>suspicious.<br>Besides, if it were true, why hadn't it been used
in<br>the<br>past by any of Edward IV's known enemies.
It<br>sure<br>would have come in handy for others besides
Richard.<br>I<br>can think of two people who could have
used<br>it,<br>Warwick and Clarence. And if it did exist,
what<br>would<br>have prevented Edward & Elizabeth
from<br>getting<br>remarried after Eleanor Butler died in 1468?
Since<br>the<br>princes were born after 1468, how could they
be<br>bastards?<br>Only Elizabeth of York was born before
1468.<br>The<br>marriage of 1464 had been regarded as valid by
both<br>church<br>and state for 20 years. And to top it
off,<br>Richard<br>had Clarence's children barred from the
succession<br>on<br>grounds of their father's attainder. Richard wanted
to<br>be<br>king and it didn't matter that he was way
down<br>the<br>line in the succession so he did whatever it
took<br>to<br>"go to the head of the class".

Re: the precontract

2001-04-02 14:03:17
Chntress
Firstly, R3 didn't use the attainter to remove
Clarence's children from the line of succession. The
attainter was very capable of doing that itself, since that
is generally the nature of such an act. (It is the
forfeiture of lands, estates, titles and, frequently, one's
life)<br>Consider this: <br>If Edward IV was capable of the
destruction of his own brother, what do you think he would
have done to Stillington? E4 is as close to an
absolute ruler as H7, he wouldn't have lasted very long.
There could be no remarriage if E4 was hiding the fact
that he was married before Elizabeth Wydeville.<br>A
precontract then is the same as taking the vows now. E4's
marriage to Elizabeth was bigamous. There was no chance to
use this against anyone while E4 was alive because he
knew it could only come from two places: Eleanor
Butler or Stillington. <br><br>Laine

Re: the precontract

2001-04-03 01:35:49
woodville1483
Stillington's sympathies and
partisanship<br>is<br>tainted with his antipathy towards Edward V's
parents.<br>He<br>was a known hater of the Woodvilles and Edward
IV<br>did<br>have him imprisoned for a while because
of<br>his<br>involvement with Clarence.

Re: Seeking Opinions

2001-04-03 01:43:50
woodville1483
Why did Richard kill Hastings? Either Hastings
became suspicious of Richard's ultimate goal to make
himself king OR Richard, knowing that Hastings wouldn't
support his claim to the throne, decided to eliminate him
because he was just about the only person who could
oppose Richard with any real chance of success. Once
Hastings was eliminated the Council acted more out of fear
of Richard than out of approval.

Re: Seeking Opinions

2001-04-03 06:37:48
Aquaeus
Or because Hastings was implicated in a
treasonous plot headed off in the nick of time, which needed
to be decisively dealt with before Richard himself
could be eliminated? Your speculation about the
Council's motives, once again, tends to grow out of an
assumption that Tudor propaganda portrayed Richard
accurately- an assumption not supported by contemporary
evidence.

speaking of bastards

2001-04-03 22:21:25
woodville1483
What about the papal dispensation that Richard needed to marry Anne Neville? He never bothered to get one! What does that make his son?

Re: richard 3 vs. henry 7

2001-04-04 04:28:00
bethgael15
True... however, wanting to be a martyr doesn't
mean he didn't believe what he was told, at first,
lies or no (remembering he was only 8 when R3 died).
He published many books, and he did work for H8
until Henry's papal break. He also wrote at least one
book under a pseudonym for H8 which he didn't
necessarily believe in (this is from memory, I have to check
my facts on this one - if anyone can enlighten me or
correct me, much appreciated).

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-04-04 04:30:40
bethgael15
The use of the word "usurper" shows your opinion
anyway *grin* Legally, he was not a usurper at all, he
was the true heir in the absence of legitimate issue
of the previous king. And may I ask where you get
your evidence that he was "consumed by hate for the
Woodvilles"? (apart from More and Shakespeare, both suspect
sources?)

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-04-04 04:34:23
bethgael15
Laine, please keep repeating the obvious, because
every time someone "repeats common knowledge", I learn
something new! This (and one previous post), is the first
time I've heard about records of the "Lords Bastards"
- I would love someone (anyone?) to expand on this
information!

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-04-04 04:38:14
bethgael15
There is an awful lot of assumption in this post
- there seems to be a lot of "he couldn't accept"
and "he thought". This reeks of gossip rather than
solid evidence - how he was thinking can only be
hearsay, unless he wrote it down himself. If Richard
"stole" a crown (being in the legitimate line of
succession even ignoring his nephew's illegitimacy), then H7
certainly did (having no more right by blood than his
mother Margaret Beaufort did).

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-04-04 04:39:41
bethgael15
It is also a fact that the "story" of Eleanor Butler came before, not after, Richard ascended the throne.

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-04-04 04:41:52
bethgael15
The Edward IV "bastard" story has no further source than More - need I say more? There is NOTHING in contemporary historical documents that even suggests that Richard declared his brother a bastard.

Re: the precontract

2001-04-04 04:55:17
bethgael15
Quickly:<br>1. The fact is, Edward and Elizabeth
didn't "remarry" after 1468, so their marriage, if
invalid at that point, would have remained so, whenever
the boys were born. <br><br>2. It wouldn't have been
used by his enemies as they didn't know about it - it
didn't come to light until after Edward's
death.<br><br>Richard didn't have Clarence's son debarred from the
succession due to Clarence's attainder - that was the law.
Again, forgive me if I am wrong, but I remember reading
that Richard had Clarence's son reinstated after his
own legitimate son's death (no suggestion of his own
illegitmate son taking the throne, by the way, he was
consistent).<br><br>The thing about the precontract is that these could
always be set aside without a problem without causing
other marriages to be invalid, but it required a papal
dispensation to do it. Precontracts, and even proxy marriages,
that had not been consummated did not pose a problem
in this regard. The thing is, if a precontract was
consummated it gained the force of marriage and a
dispensation was absolutely essential and often hard to get
(depending on who you were). There cannot be much doubt,
considering Ed's reputation at the time (evidenced by
contemporary documents overseas that he was a very "comely
prince" - H8 was considered to be the most comely since
his grandfather - Edward) that he consummated this
union. <br><br>Given that, I don't think the common
people would have been surprised at all. (That is only
my opinion though).

Re: the precontract

2001-04-04 04:58:33
bethgael15
Considering this then, if there was a lie to be
told re precontracts, then it would have been
Stillington who told it. It doesn't necessarily follow that
Richard also knew it to be a lie (if indeed it was).

Re: speaking of bastards

2001-04-04 05:02:00
bethgael15
Anne Neville was his cousin. A dispensation was not required in this instance. You could marry your first cousin today, perfectly legally, and perfectly morally (even if it does raise eyebrows).

Re: speaking of bastards

2001-04-04 22:05:43
woodville1483
In order for the marriage to be recognized as legal by the Catholic church, Richard most certainly needed a papal dispensation. Even Clarence was smart enough to get one before he married a Neville!

Edward V

2001-04-04 22:22:52
woodville1483
What gives someone the right to have clerks erase
the name of a rival just to make himself look more
legitimate? The Grants of Edward V released by the Camden
Society include the actions of the king and his
administrative documents during his brief reign. Some of these
documents are merely pertaining to the day to day
activities of the crown and are quite tedious. Richard's
clerks erased Edward's name in many of the documents and
entered Richard's name instead (page 74 of the Grants).
Can you imagine someone feeling so threatened by a
deposed 12 year old king that they couldn't even bear
that these mundane documents carried his name?

Tudor propaganda

2001-04-04 23:02:31
woodville1483
What everyone here refers to as Tudor propaganda was what Englishmen of the 15th century called public opinion.

Re: Tudor propaganda

2001-04-05 02:03:49
duchess\_cecily
Public opinion that was shaped by Henry VII and
his children. Henry VII had to do everything in his
power to blacken the name of RIII because his own claim
to the throne was very, i repeat, very weak. The
Tudors were absolute rulers, what they said went. The
people who wrote didn't necessarily write what the true
public opinion could have been, but what they knew would
keep them alive. Writing against RIII only helped keep
the writers on the good side of the King. If anyone
had spoken out any other way, they most likely would
have been imprisoned or killed.<br> Henry VII also had
to keep the young Princes out of the way, because if
they were alive, their claim to the throne was much
stronger than his, despite their illegitmacy, which could
have been reversed if they had gotten a strong enough
backing, which most likely wouldn't have been difficult.
<br> I'm curious to know what you are basing your
opinion on woodville1483. I'm guessing you haven't read
"Royal Blood" by Bertram Fields. I would reccommend
it.<br>Crystal

Re: Tudor propaganda

2001-04-05 11:55:12
tmc\_dale
With respect <br>I suggest that you recall some
of the details of the so called propoganda. Firstly
many of the writers in question were not in the employ
of the crown, secondly both Andre and Vergil were
not afraid of upsetting their patrons. Vergil's
attack on the Wydeville's was rather embarrassing given
that his Arundal patron was a nephew of Elizabeth
Wydeville likewise if memory is correct Andre or Vergil
hardly endeared themselves to Henry VII by declaring
that the Arthur legends were nothing more than myth
(Given the Tudor reliance on Arthurian
propoganda)<br>More wasn't writing for anything other than
intellectual exercise and his history was not intended for
publication.<br><br>While I doubt it would have been in anyone's interest
to paint Richard in an excellent light it doesn't
necessarily point to a campaign to blacken his name...in fact
Henry himself was extremely vague in the accusations
made against Richard in his first
Parliament.<br><br>The Tudor's were no more absolutist (if you accept
the meaning of the term) than any English Monarch. By
the end of his reign Henry VII was relatively secure
as evidenced by the peaceful succession of Henry
VIII - achieved with hardly any bloodshed. In
attempting to secure his own throne Richard III -
bastardised the issue of his eldest brother, ignored the
dynastic claims of his next brother's children, removed
Hastings, Rivers, Richard Grey, Thomas Vaughan, Buckingham
etc. To secure his Henry VII legitimised the offspring
of Edward IV and married Elizabeth of York, defeated
and killed Richard III, executed Edward Earl of
Warwick, defeated John Earl of Lincoln (who was openly
rebelling against a King who two years earlier he had
accepted)at Stoke, and forced the remaining de la Pole's into
exile.<br><br>By the way the legitimacy of the Prince's was
reversed in Henry's first Parliament in order to
legitimise Elizabeth of York.

Re: the precontract

2001-04-05 12:04:50
tmc\_dale
Briefly Beth<br>I do agree on one point if Edward
IV was precontracted then it certainly did
invalidate a subsequent union with Elizabeth
Wydeville.<br><br>The question of the legitimacy of their issue should
always depend on whether there was a
precontract.<br><br>The evidence is scant to say the least and a little
to convenient.<br><br>However Attainder did not bar
Edward of Warwick from assuming the throne. If attainder
barred succession then many English Monarchs including
Edward IV would have been barred. Clarence's attainder
merely barred the boy from the title of duke. Edward
IV's own actions towards the boy suggest that he
retained his position and place within the York
Dynasty.<br><br>Richard could hardly have "reinstated" him as you suggest
- the 1484 parliament used Clarence's attainder to
ensure the throne went to Richard - to do so would have
been to invalidate Richard's own dynastic claim.

Young Warwick

2001-04-05 20:16:19
lyn\_lynz
This talk of George's son, and his place in the
line of succession to the throne has stirred some
vague memories that I read somewhere the he was "not
the full quid". Is there contemporary evidence for
this, or is it just some novelist's (or indeed later
historian's)fancy? Or do I have completely the wrong Plantagenet
cousin? <br>Lynda

Re: Young Warwick

2001-04-06 08:37:16
hiraeth2
I think that anyone who spent most of their life
from childhood in prison would be "not the full quid".
He was probably born perfectly normal but
imprisonment and ill-treatment would have caused him to become
mentally slow.

Re: Young Warwick

2001-04-06 11:18:24
tmc\_dale
That is certainly a general assumption about
Warwick however from memory of the details of his trial
he seemed reasonably compus mentis. His imprisonment
wasn't exactly a deep dark dungeon merely confinement
and given his status he doesn't seem to have been
treated harshly in any way.

Re: Young Warwick

2001-04-06 18:13:30
preraph2000
"Prison" was not really how we think of it for
the nobility. As memory serves (at times foggly) Mary
Queen of Scotts had herself a rather nasty hissy-fit
when Elisabeth cut the staff at the Tower down to two
or three cooks and a hand full of ladies in waiting,
valets and pages. Most places like the Tower were
residences not Jails. being put there was a bit like how the
daimyo (lords) of Japan were required to live in the
Shogon's city (Edo) for periods of time. It's a polite way
of keeping an eye on things.

opinions

2001-04-06 23:28:17
woodville1483
I realise that I'm probably the only person here
who isn't a fan of Richard III, I mean with a moniker
of Woodville1483 how could I be? Anything that I say
is just my opinion, we all have opinions. I've read
quite a few books over the years and everything that I
have read has resulted in the opinions that I express.
It's all a matter of interpretation. You see things
one way and I see them another way. I don't have
proof of anything but who does? Some of you probably
think that I'm an advocate of Henry VII but you would
be wrong. My interest and loyalty belongs to Edward
V, the rightful King of England (just my opinion). I
may not be as knowledgeable as some of you but I
would hope that you would be interested in my opinions
even if they differ from your own. With that in mind I
hope to have many "opinions" expressed in the future.

Re: opinions

2001-04-07 00:11:42
ukaflyer
If we all had the same views the world would be a really dull place. No newsgroups, no debates, no freedom of expression etc.

Re: opinions

2001-04-07 06:51:26
roseofraby1485
Although I disagree with most of your
opinions,I'm glad that you are willing to be the underdog in
ths forum, for if we were all to agree on everything
pertaining to King Richard and the princes,it would be a
stalemate.If all the historians and authors had interpeted the
info the same way then the writings of More would
stand as gospel.<br>However, you can take only so much
from any book you read on the subject then you must
compare the 'facts' and use a little common sense. I
beleive that Richard was the rightful King,but it doesn't
mean that my heart isn't with the princes either.<br>
Loyaulte' me lie, Lynda

everyone getting along

2001-04-07 14:14:56
edsakiss2000
it is just so sweet to see how we all get along
and respect each others right to
differ.......therefore lets do a little excerise in alternate
history......what would have happened if henry had lost the battle
and richard 111 had not only retained his throne but
been strenthened by the death of certain nobles in the
ba!!!!!ttle who had prior held to much influence due to his
need of their support......if henry had fled back to
france and richard had pursued and possibily reconquered
normanady and his new marriage had produced a intelligent
and strong heir....what then to englands
confrontation with spain and taking a world power position
under elizabeth.....well

Re: everyone getting along

2001-04-07 21:37:50
lyn\_lynz
Hi there,<br>Interesting that you should ask us
to consider what might have happened in an alternate
history. In light of recent discussion, I have been
wondering what might have happened if Ed V had been
crowned. Would Tudor have invaded anyhow? How long had he
had his eye on the English throne? I guess it would
have depended on how united the nobility were behind
E5, but given the Woodvilles propensity for putting
noses out of joint the outcome may have been much the
same as it was under R3.<br><br><br>But then again
eveything might have worked out splendidly with young
Edward as king...... who knows? In this version of
history the current English royal family may have still
been Plantagenets!

Re: everyone getting along

2001-04-08 00:17:53
tmc\_dale
I doubt any of the things you suggest would have
happened.<br>Henry Tudor had been a minor irritation during the
latter part of Edward IV's reign - and only became a
serious claimant after Richard took the throne.
<br><br>To be honest the evidence doesn't suggest that the
principal two Wydeville's (Rivers and the Queen Dowager)
were that unpopular or difficult to deal with.
Personally I think Edward V's minority supported by his
influential Uncles' Richard of Gloucester and Anthony Earl
Rivers would have coped and survived rather well. He may
well have ended up getting rid of both of them (king's
uncles didn't tend to do well in these circumstances
anyway).<br><br>Politically if you look at the state of England on Edward
IV's death there is nothing to suggest that Edward V's
reing wouldn't have been successful.

Re: everyone getting along

2001-04-09 01:04:13
bar1114
I cannot help wondering how different history
would have been if Edward IV had only married a foreign
princess. I cant help but hold him responsible for the
instabilities that ultimately cost Richard his life. (and
reputation). His marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was totaly
unsuitable, and unwise.

Re: everyone getting along

2001-04-09 19:42:38
edsakiss2000
totally agree with you plus would have not had
the bad woodville influence.....a foreign princess
might have also brought a dowry or territory: in
addition edward 4 wouldn't have lost his throne and then
had to regain again

Pre-contract

2001-04-10 21:45:31
summerille70
Gosh, there has been a lot of activity since my
last visit to this site. Hello to all posters, old and
new.<br><br>IMHO the pre-contract boils down to this:<br><br>Was
Stillington speaking the truth or not?<br>I think that he was
and that therefore Edward was illegitimate, but it is
my opinion. The pre-contract is not something
tangible, it is just a matter of how credible you find it.
There is no actual proof, which is why some people
believe it and some don't. And neither side can say that
they are right and the other is wrong.<br><br>As for
Warwick, I suspect he was of normal intelligence until his
imprisonment. I think under Mary I one of the Courtneys,
descendants I believe of Anne, daughter of Edward IV, was
imprisoned. On his release he was considered stupid because
being locked up he had not picked up the necessary
social graces of the nobility. He could not even ride a
horse. (BTW he became a frequent visitor to houses of
ill repute, or so they say. He was making up for lost
time.)

Stony Stratford

2001-04-10 23:15:05
woodville1483
Was there a plot by the Woodvilles or not? If
there was then some questions need to be answered.
Edward IV died on April 9th, Edward V heard about it in
Ludlow on April 14th but he Rivers, Grey & Vaughan
didn't leave for London until April 24th. If the
Woodvilles were trying to race Richard to London then why
did they wait 10 days? I know you're going to say
that they needed time to raise arms, men, etc. but is
that the only reason? Maybe they felt there was no
reason to hurry because Richard was still not perceived
as a threat. When Richard & Buckingham went to Stony
Stratford after arresting Rivers they found that the king
and his escort where still there even though it was
late morning. Otherwise one would have expected them
to have left early in order to take advantage of
River's detainment of Richard. If there was a plot to get
the king to London fast, why would all of those men
still be traveling with Edward? If speed was of the
essence then the size of the escort alone would have
slowed things down considerably. The conspirators would
have stayed behind, well armed to confront Richard,
while the king was rushed forward to London with a
small but heavily armed band of men. Also, the route
between Ludlow & London that Edward & company took is not
direct, but bends notherly, as if they were accomodating
Richard on his way from the north.

Re: Stony Stratford

2001-04-11 06:26:28
ludbrook2000
Reputedly Rivers lingered at Ludlow because he
wished to celebrate St George's Day before leaving. He
agreed that it would be appropriate for Gloucester and
his retinue to enter London together, hence the
meeting at Stony Stratford. There is nothing in Rivers
behaviour to suggest that he was plotting against Richard,
and nothing to indicate he was suspicious of
Richards's intentions. The talk of a Woodville "plot" was
nothing more than an attempt by Gloucester to justify his
pre-emptive strike against the Woodville's, who were likely
to oppose his attempt at the Protectorship or even
the Crown itself. There is no contemporary evidence
from any independent source to suggest a Woodville
plot.

Re: the precontract

2001-04-11 06:39:11
ludbrook2000
The issue of the pre-contract is really
irrelevant to the question as to whether Richard murdered
the Princes. The argument from the pro-Ricardians is
generally that the Princes were legally disinherited and
therefore Richard had no reason to murder them. I have
never believed this, as long as they were alive they
represented a threat. The fact that they were disinherited
did not stop Buckingham and much of the Southern
gentry from rising in Oct 1483 to liberate them and
restore them to the throne. It was only after news of the
Princes' deaths was "put about" that the focus of that
rebellion switched to Richmond.<br><br>The pre-contract is
intuitively feasible (given Edward IV's prediliction for the
ladies), but should have been before an ecclesiastical
court for judgement. However in my view it was a
spurious attempt by Richard to justify disinheritance of
the Princes, and was actually his second throw of the
dice (the first, claiming Edward IV himself was a
bastard had failed to fly.)

Re: the precontract

2001-04-11 15:37:36
tmc\_dale
Actually I would question some of this ....
Edward was undeniably popular and attractive and the
surviving accounts attest to his popularity with women and
general attractiveness - although that in itself doesn't
necessarily mean he was shall we say over generous in his
affections. We know of very few Bastards and if as has been
suggested he did put it about a bit one would expect more
of them given the fertility of his marriage to
Elizabeth Wydeville.<br><br>Incidentally a number of
mistresses wouldn't necessarily increase or decrease the
chances of him promising to marry someone prior to
Elizabeth Wydeville.<br><br>I have been informed that while
it is true that a church court was the real place
for a judgement of the marriage to have been made -
the injured party should have brought the case - so
actually following public accusations attacking the
marriage Elizabeth Wydeville and/or her children should
have taken the case to court requesting obviously a
judgement in their favour.<br><br>"The pre-contract is
intuitively feasible (given Edward IV's prediliction for the
ladies), but should have been before an ecclesiastical
court for judgement. However in my view it was a
spurious attempt by Richard to justify disinheritance of
the Princes, and was actually his second throw of the
dice (the first, claiming Edward IV himself was a
bastard had failed to fly.) <br><br>The first claim
regarding Edward IV's bastardy had been raised much earlier
and was more connected with English xenophobia and
Edward's foreign birth.<br><br>On a few other points -
Stillington is indeed a fairly poor witness on this matter -
closely connected to the York family used as an
intermediary between Edward and Clarence during the readeption
he remained close to Clarence apparently and that
probably was the reason for his brief fall from favour
following Clarence's fall. Incidentally he also had
connections with the North.<br><br>There are only two
suggestions that it was Stillington who "revealed" details of
a pre-contract - one in the work of Commynes and
the second from Henry VII's Parliament - reported in
Bacon I think - that "the Bishop of Bath made the bill"
presumably referring to Titulus Regius.<br><br>I doubt the
pre-contract for a number of reasons - firstly that the lady
in question Eleanor Butler was extremely well
connected and therefore much harder to bury and secondly
Edward IV became much more politically ruthless in his
second reign and therefore had Stillington or anyone had
knowledge of a pre-contract I would be amazed that they
survived Edward's reign.

Richard at Bosworth

2001-04-11 22:03:40
roseofraby1485
Does anyone happen to know what type of armur Richard wore at Bosworth and if it was made in Germany? thanks, Lynda

the pre contract

2001-04-11 23:08:49
woodville1483
Not only is the pre contract highly suspicious
but when the reasons were given(from Richard's first
parliament)why Edward V was unfit to rule, the pre contract
story was listed AFTER the reasons pertaining to
sorcery & witchcraft. I find that amusing.

Jacquetta of Luxemburg

2001-04-11 23:33:02
woodville1483
If anyone has any information pertaining to this
great lady please pass it along. I find it interesting
that even though she was the daughter of Count St Pol
and could claim descent from Charlemagne many people
conveniently forgot about her connection to the House of
Luxemburg. That same blood flowed through the veins of
Elizabeth and all her siblings, certainly not a thing to be
ignored.

Re: the precontract

2001-04-12 00:38:26
lyn\_lynz
Ludbrook2000, you raise a couple of interesting
points. <br>To deal with the second one (the claim that
Eddie 4 was a bastard) first, I was under the
impression that there is no contemporary
evidence/documentation that R3 made this allegation. It may (as a later
posting claims) have been blabbed about much earlier on,
but not at the time that Richard was making his play
for the crown. It is only later on (in Dear Old More,
I believe) that this bit of mud-slinging is laid at
Richardýs door ý along with the substitution of Elisabeth
Lucy for Eleanor Butler, of course (Dear Old More ýas
accurate as ever...). However, I canýt find the source for
this ýimpressioný, so feel free to shoot me down
;)<br>The matter of the princes, then, is a bit trickier.
You say, ýas long as they were alive they represented
a threat.ý I would counter with ýas long as
everybody thought they were alive they represented a
threat.ý The lads (even though they were, by your
reasoning, long dead) managed to be the focus of several
uprising during Henry XII reign ý in the guise of Lambert
Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. After Harry VI met his end in
the Tower ý whether he tripped over a carelessly
dropped prayer book in the dark and bashed his head on
the floor, or was stabbed to death with a specially
sharpened crucifix, or whatever, Edward had the good sense
to say ýWhoops! Guess what?ý, put his body on public
display, and then give him a fitting funeral. He did the
same with those killed at Barnet and Tewkesbury.
Richard would have had to have been as stupid as a stump
not to do likewise if he perceived the boys as that
much of a threat. To do the lads in and then keep it a
secret would achieve precisely nothing. There are plenty
of other theories about what happened, and Iým still
not sure which sounds most plausible, but for me the
traditional story is not what really happened, because it
just doesnýt add up.

Re: the pre contract

2001-04-12 06:47:26
Aquaeus
Your main "argument" against the precontract seems to be the argument ipse dixit. Again, I personally see the suppression of Titulus Regis as far more suspicious than the document itself.

the precontract Ricardian style

2001-04-14 20:41:55
woodville1483
Even some prominent Ricardians don't hold much
faith in the precontract. This is a quote by Anne
Sutton in the Ricardian Register of April 1977: "If
Edward V's supporters had been the strongest in 1483,
the precontract would not have mattered." Also the
Ricardian Thomas Costaine states in his book "The Last
Plantagenets" that "It is probable that Richard grasped at the
Bishop's belated exposure as a means of easing his
conscience...He did not need to mask his intentions under so
frail an excuse." Also a quote from Caroline Halstead
"Had he (Edward V) confided in Richard...he might have
succeeded in tranquility...and there have perpetuated a
dynasty which, from the brilliance of its commencement,
bid fair to shine as one of the most glorious of any
recorded in British history."

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-04-14 23:20:36
lyn\_lynz
Woodville1483,<br>Iým not quite sure what point
you are trying to make here. I donýt believe there is
anything in any of those three extracts that say the
authors donýt believe in the precontractýs authenticity
or validity.<br>I think what Halsted is trying to
say (and I have not read the original, so have only
your extract to go on) was that if Richard thought he
would be able to act as Eddie 5ýs regent the way his
big bro had asked him to, then he wouldnýt have
bothered with the throne for himself. Instead, Ed 5 seems
to have hooked up with the Woodville push. Whatýs a
Regent and loyal brother to do? The pre-contract came to
light, and Richard had to decide what to do about it. He
could let it lie, or it could be the solution to what
he may have seen as Englandýs problem ý a king who
was still in his minority (and mixing with the
'wrong' crowd). Just because the precontract was
convenient doesnýt make it fabricated.<br>Oh, and another
thing - on the topic of what Ricardians thinký we (and
yes, I count myself as one) donýt all think Richard
was perfect, innocent of all sins, and utterly
without fault. We donýt all even believe the same parts
of the story were true, or subscribe to the same
alternatives for the bits we disbelieve. We do however believe
that the traditional story has many aspects that are
not supported by either the evidence or by common
sense. Iým sure you have already visited The Societyýs
home page <a href=http://www.richardiii.net/index.htm target=new>http://www.richardiii.net/index.htm</a> and the
home page of the American branch <a href=http://www.r3.org target=new>http://www.r3.org</a> -
both of which will give you a fair idea about what
Ricardians think.<br><br>Happy surfing ;)<br>lyn_lynz

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-04-15 07:23:13
Aquaeus
Sutton's quote in no way calls the precontract
into question. The same can be said of
Halstead's.<br>That Costain believed that Richard even had the moral
right to take the throne without the precontract seems
to be more to the point of his comment than his
personal disbelief. In any event, your arguments remain
strictly ipse dixit. <br>You still haven't explained the
single most telling piece of circumstantial evidence:
Henry VII and Polydore Vergil's elaborate attempt to
suppress the actual text of Titulus Regis, and to falsify
its content! Coupled with the fact of Eleanor
Butler's rather convenient timing in taking the veil, you
have quite a bit of arguing to do to come out even on
the precontract!

blood-supper

2001-04-15 15:05:21
woodville1483
Richard's treatment of Rivers and others arrested
at Nothampton and Stony Stratford is evidence of an
antipathy that certainly existed before 1483. Without trial
and only weeks after the arrest, Rosemary Horrox in
"Richard III A Study in Service" cites the Harleian
manuscripts that Richard began to confiscate
Rivers'properties 'although there were no legal grounds for
forfeiture.' Richard's treatment of Edward's friends, and
especially of the Woodvilles, indicates that he expected to
make Edward's reign a blood-supper of his maternal
relatives, intimates and friends. There is no justification
for Richard's brutality in the treatment of Hastings,
Rivers, Grey & Vaughan. After Stony Stratford and
certainly after he started calling for more troops to fill
the capitol, there was no power that could stop him.
But instead, and during a time of peace, the bodies
of the friends and supporters of his rival litter
Richard's way to the throne. All of this could not be other
than vengeance for years of stifled hatred and
resentment toward the Woodvilles. As for the Woodville's
actions after Edward IV's death, even the historians
aren't sure how guilty they were. Ross, Kendall, Mancini
and Horrox indicate that the Woodvilles seized Edward
IV's treasure and fought to have young Edward brought
to London at the head of a large army. Whether they
intended the army to ambush and kill Richard & Buckingham
is by no means certain. If the Woodvilles intended
to use the army against Richard, they did a lousy
job of it! April 29th & 30th (Northampton & Stony
Stratford) would have presented the Woodvilles with their
best opportunity to crush Richard militarily. They
outnumbered him and they had the King. Instead, they were
arrested, they lost control of the King, and the army was
peaceably dismissed. Never again would the Woodvilles have
such an opportunity to use force against Richard. And
never would they ever find support to raise such an
army, as they attempted when they heard that the King
was taken. This tell me that, if this was the best
they could do militarily, they could never defeat
Richard by force. Their chief importance to anyone lay in
the affection with which the King held them. If one
were developing a job description for the Protector,
one would include the ability to compromise and the
ability to use wise and deliberate justice. Hastings was
the only one who demonstrated these qualities.
Richard was a very rash man who couldn't think beyond his
immediate objective. He ruined his relationship with Edward
at Stony Stratford because he was either too stupid,
too insensitive or too uncaring to realize that a
measure of mercy toward the Woodvilles, especially since
they were powerless after Stony Stratford, would do a
world of good in that relationship. Richard
demonstrated the validity of the Peter Principle by rising to
his incompetence in the position of Protector. Here
is a quote from Ayn Rand's magnificent novel "Atlas
Shrugged." It reminds me of both Richard's usurpation and
Tudor's desire for the throne:"Looters believe it safe to
rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to
disarm them. But their loot becomes a magnet for other
looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the
race goes, not to the ablest...but to those most
ruthless at brutality."

Re: blood-supper

2001-04-15 20:57:40
Aquaeus
The Woodvilles were in the process of taking
young Edward to be crowned- an act which would have
cost Richard not only his protectorate but probably
his life. It was, in any case, an attempt to
circumvent Richard's authority and, not to put too fine a
point on it, to stage a coup
d'etat.<br><br>Comparatively few even of the most partisan traditionalists
would suggest that Richard was other than an effective
ruler.<br><br>Richard dealt decisively with the participants in a
clearly treasonable plot in such a way as to ensure both
his own safety and that of the realm. And again, you
are still dealing in the argument ipse dixit- simply
quoting the positions of others without regard to
evidence or logic, and arguing that your viewpoint must be
true because somebody else once said the same thing.

Re: the precontract

2001-04-16 08:46:40
ludbrook2000
I think that news of the Princes' deaths was put
about by Richard when the Buckingham rebellion broke.
The aim was to forestall the rebellion, but it didn't
work because the focus of the rebellion then switched
to Richmond. I think Richard was in a difficult
position - to have publically revealed the deaths of the
Princes and displayed their bodies was likely to have
caused a wave of indignation, to have said nothing at
all would mitigate the "benefits" of killing them. In
these circumstances, putting about in a low-key way
news of their deaths was probably the best of a bad
series of options. It should be noted that although
Henry VI's death was certainly announced publically,
news of the deaths of other deposed monarchs (Richard
II, Edward II) were "put about" by their successors
in exactly this kind of low-key way.<br><br>I am
fairly certain that the Princes were dead by late-1483
as I can think of no set of circumstances under
which Elizabeth Wydeville would have supported the
proposed marriage of her daughter to Richmond and the
latter's bid for the crown, unless she had believed her
sons were dead.

Re: the precontract

2001-04-16 10:05:43
Aquaeus
Interesting. Here is what I think
happened.....<br><br>Buckingham (rather than Henry Tudor) was, in fact, the
closest thing to a legitmate Lancastrian heir on the
scene. Take Richard and his son (and also the daughters
of Edward IV, and also young Clarence) out of the
picture, and that same Buckingham was also the closest
thing to a bloomin'YORKIST successor.....<br><br>Hey,
man. The blinkin' Lord Chamberlain of the Tower- a guy
with *every bit as much motive for killing the Princes
as did Richard*- was in a position by the simple
expedient of killing young Edward and young Richard to
become the ever- loving heir of BOTH the Houses of
Lancaster and York to the
throne!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br><br>ANNOUNCE THE NEWS! Nothing more!!! Simply that!!!<br>"Hey,
crowd! That creep Richard of Gloucester MURDERED YOUNG
EDWARD AND YOUNG RICHARD so that he- already Lord
Protector of bloody England..... MIGHT BECOME THE
KING!!!!!!!!!!!"<br><br>And more than that.........the UNDISPUTED king!
Undisputed by ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!<br><br>Only that. Nothing
more. And Henry of Buckingham-- rather than Henry
Tudor-- is Henry VIII of England.<br><br>Except that
nobody BELIEVED it.... except that the people of England
were willing to cast their allegience upon Richard of
Gloucester as their King...

Re: the precontract

2001-04-16 10:09:34
Aquaeus
Actually, make that Henry VII, not Henry VIII. <br><br>Follow the power. If you do so, Glouster stands acquitted, and Buckingham stands convicted.

Re: the precontract

2001-04-16 12:00:18
yanbee2
Hullo to everyone here. I just joined. For some
strange reason I find topics having to do with R. III's
reign fascinating and look forward to participating in
interesting disucssions. Ludbrook, I'm not sure I agree with
the last paragraph of your message. First of all, I
can think of an equally plausible explanation:
Elizabeth believed that her sons (or at least one of them)
were alive and hoped Henry Tudor would lead a
rebellion to put Edward V back on the throne, not claim the
crown for himself. Secondly, Elizabeth's behaviour is,
at best, ambivalent: She is said to have supported
Henry's marriage to her daugther, but also came out of
sanctuary, accepted a pension from Richard and even wrote to
her son (Dorset) to come back home since he had
nothing to fear from his uncle! Very strange behaviour
from someone who believed Richard had murdered her two
boys! Of course, there's the possibility that she
believed the boys dead but not that Richard had murdered
them. But if that is so, then she could only think that
Richard's opponents had done the "bloody deed" in which
case her support for Henry is again hard to
understand. Let us not forget, also, that her good
relationships with Henry did not last long. In 1487 she was
ordered into a convent for the rest of her life. It seems
this was because she was thought to be involved in
revolt headed by a pretender! Now, I'm not sure, nor I
think is it certain, exactly who this pretender was
claiming to be, but if Elizabeth believed he was Edward V
then she can't have believed her boys were dead. And
if she didn't believe that he was Edward V (and
believed Edward dead) then why involve herself in a revolt
against her own daughter who, after the princes, she
believed to be next in line to the throne anyway?

quoting the position of others

2001-04-16 13:54:49
woodville1483
Mr Aquaeus, I'm sorry if my quoting the position
of others bothers you but I am quoting the thoughts
of some of the foremost historians of our day. I'm
sure that you know of quotes by historians to help
support your viewpoint. We certainly can't ignore the
thoughts and opinions of such learned people. So with all
of that in mind I thought I'd throw in a few more
quotes to sweeten the pot. How about the usurpation? I
know some of you don't like that word connected with
Richard but here is what some of these historians have
said about it. Paul Murray Kendall in "Richard III"
page 363 says: "The passionately loyal brother...may
be traced in the King...But between these lives
stands the Protector who usurped the throne, the brother
who thus doomed, if he did not murder, the boy king
who was Edward's son...It is a fractured life, and
the man who lived it must also have been obscurely
fractured." Here is something from Thomas Barnes in the
Ricardian Register of Sept-Dec 1977: he went on to say that
Tudor propaganda smeared Richard but also said "there
is no way to escape the fact that Richard was a
usurper...and made himself King." Winston Churchill from "The
Birth of Britain: History of the English Speaking
Peoples" page 356 says: It is contended by defenders of
the King Richard that the Tudor version of those
events has prevailed. But the English people who lived
at the time and learned of the events day by day
formed their convictions two years before the Tudors
gained power or indeed were a prominent factor. Richard
III held the authority of government. He told his own
story with what facilities were available and he was
spontaneously and almost universally disbelieved. Indeed, no
fact stands forth more unchallengable than that the
overwhelming majority of the nation was convinced that Richard
had used his power as Protector to usurp the crown
and that the Princes disappeared in the Tower. It
will take many ingenious books to raise the issue to
the dignity of a historical controversy." Thomas
Costain in the "Last Plantagenets" page 384 says: They
(most men) looked askance at what seemed the injustice
of it (the usurpation). In their eyes, the son of
Edward was the 'the Lord's annointed.'" From Charles
Ross' "Wars of the Roses" pages 94 & 95: "Probably it
was fear for his own safety and future which inspired
his action rather than any deep-laid plan or
determination of 'prove a villain (per Shakespeare and Tudor
historians)...But in the circumstances his seizure of powere could
only be achieved by extremely violent means, and these
seriously weakened the ruling Yorkist party and heightened
the divisions within it. Richard's cynicism and
ruthlessness cost him the support of the leading gentry of
southern and western England." One more by Dominic Mancini
from "The Usurpation of Richard III": "But whom will
insane power spare, if it dares violate the ties of kin
and friendship?" Just because you don't agree with
what they say doesn't make their beliefs (or mine) any
less valid. Like I said before, I'm just stating my
opinions. I forget who it was here that said "how nice it
is that we can all get along" and they were right on
target.

Re: quoting the position of others

2001-04-16 15:37:20
Aquaeus
Doesn't bother me. Just is not an argument.
People have been known to have said the most amazing
things. It's just that your arguments...well, aren't
arguments. They are merely the repetition of the statements
of anti-Ricardian partisans.<br><br>You are
entitled, of course, to your opinions. But just don't
confuse them with arguments!

Re: the precontract (Pt.2)

2001-04-16 21:02:03
yanbee2
Picking up where I left off in my previous
message, for what it's worth I believe neither Elizabeth
Woodville nor anybody else was certain about what had
happened to the two princes in the tower. In addition to
Elizabeth's behaviour that I already mentioned (coming out of
sanctuary, writing to her son etc.) there is the very
important fact that nothing about their fate is included in
H.VII's attainder of R.III beyond a broad reference to
the "spilling of infants' blood". Now, if Elizabeth
Woodville knew, then H. VII also knew (he was, after all,
marrying her daughter) so why didn't he put it in the
attainder? Also, I think when the pretenders appeared H.VII
behaved as though he wasn't sure whether they were "for
real" or not, indicating that he was not himself
certain if the princes had escaped or not. This, of
course, would mean that H.VII had not had them killed
himself, otherwise he would have been certain what had
happened to them!

New Virius Warnings!!

2001-04-17 00:03:07
roseofraby1485
Attention all, I just received the following
warning from a member of the Nott. and Derbyshire group,
these are important warnings issued from IBM AOL and
Microsoft<br>Do not open the following E-mails with these
titles.<br>Ha Ha Ha with a file attatched titled"Sexy
Virgin"<br>an E titled California it is very powerful and there
is no remedy!<br>Also one titled "Win a
Holiday"<br>and one titled "Pretty Park"<br>These are new, pleae
forward this to as many people as you can as not many are
aware of them. Thanks, Lynda

Re: the precontract (Pt.2)

2001-04-17 10:27:50
ludbrook2000
One thing that's often forgotten is that
Elizabeth "surrendered" her daughters to Richard in the
certain belief that Richard had ordered the "judicial
murder" of one of her sons by her first marriage, along
with her brother up at Pontefract (I believe). Before
releasing her orders she obtained the most strenuous
guarantees from him that her daughters would be safe. This
does suggest to me that she strongly suspected Richard
had murdered the Princes, but felt she had no
alternative other than to come out of sanctuary at that
time.<br><br>As for her banishment to a nunnery in 1487 it is not
clear what brought this about. I would be very
surprised if she supported a rebellion to depose her
son-in-law and daughter and think some other (currently
unkown) reason lay behind this.<br><br>The reference in
the attainder to "shedding of infant's blood" can
only be a reference to the murder of the Princes by
Richard, who to that point (and indeed thereafter) had not
(to my knowledge) ordered the deaths of any other
children.<br><br>I must say that Richard would have been an unusual
ruler indeed to have left his successor or any serious
rival to the throne who he had in his power alive.
Consider the fate of previously deposed monarchs or rival
claimants up to that period;<br><br>Henry I - became king
very possibly after ordering the murder of his elder
brother William in the New Forest. Captured his other
elder brother Robert in 1106 and imprisoned him for
life<br>King John - murdered (possibly with his own hands) his
nephew Arthur who as the son of his elder brother was
the legitaimate ruler under primogeniture.<br>Edward
II - murdered on the orders of his wife and her
lover Mortimer who ruled in Edward III's name from
1327-30<br>Richard II - murdered on the orders of his successor
Henry IV who usurped his throne in 1399, and after a
rebellion to reinstate Richard to the throne had
failed<br>Henry VI - murdered on the orders of Edward IV in 1471
after Edward reclaimed the throne.<br><br>Add to this
all the potential claimants "murdered" by the Tudors,
from Warwick to Mary Queen of Scots, and you can see
that for Richard to have left the Princes alive while
they were in his power would have been an almost
unique act for an English monarch.

Re: Edward V

2001-04-17 10:55:11
dickon1
I am sorry that I am so late to your message:
Edward V was never crowned so he was never king. He was
heir apparent and heir presumptive but NOT KING.
Kingship depended upon recognition by God through the
church and the annointing of holy oil on the breast,
head and face: thus Annionted King.As he was never
king he was also ipso facto never deposed. The Tudors
invented his kingship.

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-04-17 11:09:56
dickon1
There is some evidence that Richard actually got
on with Anthony Lord Scales and with Elizabeth: he
was an arbiter in a land dispute on their behalf I
think and also an executor. Also the children were in
the Royal Appartaments in the Tower where a prince
traditionally awaited coronation, at least to start with. They
may have been more 'closely kept' to protect them
from threats; from Henry, from Buckingham, from
whoever.

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-04-17 11:18:34
dickon1
Precontract was used by nobility to dispose of
unwanted wives in Europe too. Henry VIII tried it on his
first missus over her marriage to his brother as well
as the incest thing, I think. Also other bastards
were bumped off too: Duke of Monmouth I think he was
(son of Charles II?) in battle - that was over
religion. And nephews were mrudered also - Prince Arthur in
King John's time.

Re: speaking of bastards

2001-04-17 11:26:13
dickon1
Richard also obtained a dispensation through a
bishop using the precedent of his brother Clarence's
Papal dispensation and this was allowed as the brothers
were marrying sisters and the relationship was in the
same degree. This was the explanation given by a Roman
Catholic priest I was chatting to some many years ago in
Rome about marriage and Vatical archives etc.

Re: blood-supper

2001-04-17 11:53:51
dickon1
I thought that due to the sense of unrest because
of the delay in the coronation, Richard called for
600 armed men from his northern neighbours. The delay
was due to Stillington coming forward with
information about the precontract which was made before him
as a priest all those years ago. The reason
Stillington had not mentioned it before was that Edward made
him stay quiet and 1)Clarence was next in line until
his lawful attainder for treason and 2) once the
attainder was in place, Gloucester became the next
legitimate heir and had to be told once Edward was dead.
What on earth would you do, faced with this? A young
family you had sworn to protect and serve now to be
ousted from their places at the top of the tree? Ouch.

Re: Edward V

2001-04-17 12:12:51
tmc\_dale
I believe I know what you are getting at but it
isn't strictly correct - you can't have a "death in the
crown" it is quite simply not acceptable - "the King is
dead, long live the King" is simply that. On Edward
IV's death his eldest surviving son succeeded as
Edward V - proclaimed as such and I would remind you
that most of the nobility including Richard of
Gloucester acknowledged him as such. The Coronation was
important as you rightly say for both religious and secular
reasons but every document issued from the death of
Edward IV to the accession of Richard III is issued
under the name Edward V. A new bidding prayer (for
Edward as King and Elizabeth as Queen Mother) was
composed and so on. The coronation was the icing on the
cake but I am afraid that a monarch was monarch from
the moment he succeeded not at the moment of his
coronation. <br><br>Incidentally you can't be heir apparent
and heir presumptive. You are one or the other.
<br><br>No-one invented Edward V's Kingship.

Elizabeth Wydeville and Bermondsey

2001-04-17 13:17:14
tmc\_dale
I have posted on this before so forgive the
repetition.<br><br>In 1487 Elizabeth Wydeville removed herself to
Bermondsey.<br><br>this followed hard on the heels of Lincoln's revolt
and a council meeting according to that most
unreliable of sources Bacon (writing a century later)where
she was deprived by the crown of the pension
previously granted her by Henry VII. The grounds given
according to Bacon where her previous dealing with Richard
III in handing her daughters over to
him.<br><br>However all properties she held were transferred to her
daughter Elizabeth of York. Henry VII granted her an
annuity for which notes and receipts survive. She also
appears to have received Christmas Gifts from him aswell.
During negotiations with the Scots Elizabeth Wydeville
was still on that table from England as a possible
wife to James III and in 1488 she is recorded as being
present at a reception with her daughter Elizabeth the
Queen for a foreign embassy. Bermondsey was hardly a
jail but an important house - it's dean/abbot (forgive
faulty memory) had officiated at Edward IV's funeral and
would no doubt have been well known to her. As a widow
of the descendant of the Clare's who founded
Bermondsey she would have been entitled to the hospitality
always offered to those connected with an institution
and it was a river trip from the great London
palaces. Hardly locking her up and throwing away the
key.<br><br>There may be many reasons for her retirement - she
certainly took a lease on a house in 1485/6 which indicates
that she may well have not intended to live at her
daughter's court at all. She may have been pushed into
Bermondsey by Henry's unwillingness to continue paying the
maintenance on two Queen's. She may have simply been ill in
which case Bermondsey would have been a simple and
obvious choice. It is far too easy to simply take Bacon's
word that it was "dangerous to speak to her" and she
was banished from court. Neither statement appears to
be true.

Re: speaking of bastards

2001-04-17 13:20:18
tmc\_dale
If he did then it hasn't survived or been found.
There is no evidence that Richard ever obtained a
dispensation for his marriage to Anne Neville.<br>Actually he
was in a worse position thanks to Clarence - through
George and Isabel's marriage he and Anne were
canonically doubly related infact their marriage would have
made a dispensation a bit more pricey and much more
necessary.

Re: Jacquetta of Luxemburg

2001-04-17 13:25:02
tmc\_dale
Indeed what do you want -<br><br>Her bloodline was impressive - numerous Plantagenet descents aswell.

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-04-17 13:28:36
tmc\_dale
Not to but in - but not for the first time
Eleanor Butler did not at any time take the veil. If she
had done you might be in trouble because embracing a
religious life and taking vows of celibacy would have given
Edward IV a dammed good chance of getting a dispensation
for any supposed pre contract.

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-04-18 09:19:51
Aquaeus
You're not butting in.<br><br>My (persistant)
bad. The lady named by Titulus Regis is NOT Eleanor
Butler (I'm not sure where I got that name), but Lady
Eleanor TALBOT.<br><br>You are right in another respect:
Edward would indeed have stood a damned good chance of
getting an annulment- if he had not been the instigator
of the vow of chastity in the first place. Of
course, <br>if the trip to the monastary was an attempt
to hide what all along had been a clandestine
marriage- which is what Stillington charged, after all-
then it is quite understandable that Edward would have
seen the path of least resistance in burying the
secret of the precontract rather than admitting to it
and dragging it out into the open just as his wife
"happened" to take Holy Orders!

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-04-18 11:00:54
tmc\_dale
Lady Eleanor Talbot and Lady Eleanor Butler are one and the same - Talbot by birth Butler by marriage. Sister to the Duchess of Norfolk and therefore Aunt to Anne Mowbray aswell.

Re: quoting the position of others

2001-04-18 22:55:54
lyn\_lynz
Hi again, <br><br>I'm obviously not as widely
read as many other members of this club. I was
interested in Woodville1483's list of extracts from various
historians the other day, in particular the one from
Churchill. The lack of equivocation, indeed the vehmence
with which Churchill's statements are delivered has me
wondering what his sources are. I thought one of the
problems with studying Medieval times was the lack of
information about what 'the overwhelming majority of the
nation" might have been thinking. My guess was that they
were actually more interested in the weather (or if
they were going to have to fight in another bloomin'
battle) than whose rump was actually on the
throne...<br>And before anyone says "but it was Churchill writing,
how could he get it wrong?" my response is to cite
the case of The Sainted More :)<br><br>As I have said
before, I welcome informed contradiction to my rather
uninformed opinion!

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-04-20 12:07:23
Aquaeus
Right. Which explains why I confused the two :)!<br><br>Her precise relationship to the Carmelites is the subject of some debate. More on this later.

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-04-21 00:18:08
bar1114
Someone mentioned earlier that Elizabeth
Woodville had to beleive her sons were dead , otherwise why
would she agree to have her daughter marry Henry Tudor.
I beleive this is entirely untrue. I cannot help
but beleive she was just a greedy stupid woman, who
wanted nothing but vengeance (destroying Richard by
supporting Tudor) for bringing herself and her family down
low. why doesnt anyone seem to heed the evidence,
besides myself, that the princes may have been alive in
the north upon Richards death? There is evidence to
support this.

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-04-21 00:41:54
ludbrook2000
What evidence are you referring to? I think I
know what you are talking about, but it is almost
certainly a reference to Clarence's children and possibly
some of Edward IV's daughters. I still think it is too
far-fetched to be credible to suggest that Elizabeth would
agree to the disinheritance of her 2 sons simply to
achieve vengeance on Richard. And anyway, in these
circumstances how would Richmond have had a claim? If the sons
were legally disinherited then so would be Elizabeth
of York, if she wasn't legally disinherited then
neither would be the princes. The overwhelming balance of
probability suggests that all the players in this drama after
October 1483 were acting in the belief or very strong
suspicion that the princes were dead. Whether Richard had
them murdered is less certain, but still the likeliest
occurrence in my view.

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-04-21 08:20:57
tmc\_dale
I wonder what evidence you are basing your view
that "she was just a greedy stupid woman" on.<br><br>I
would hazard a guess that if someone wrote similar
comments about Richard III there would be quite rightly be
a barrage of messages about some of the man's good
points. <br><br>I would be interested to hear your
evidence for your opinion regarding Elizabeth Wydeville.
Opinions are usually more highly regarded when based on
facts.<br><br>On the Prince's the evidence of their survival of
Richard's reign is scant to say the least - that doesn't
necessarily make him a villain though.

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-04-21 15:18:36
dcidarling
New to the forum, if not to the Ricardian Debate
- and delighted to see many good chums and old
faces here <g>. After a quick look in the
Archives<br>I've been following this particular thread with
interest and hope this first posting is informative to
some.<br><br>A R3 Soc plaque was unveiled 31 July 1999 at the
archway that is all that remains of the Whitefriars
Priory site in Norwich where Eleanor<br>Butler was a
benefactress and 'conversa' [lay member] and where she died -
thought to be of the plague, although' Sir George Buck
claims 'out of doubt kindnesse was not the cause'!
<br><br>The plaque gives her dates as 1436-1468. <br><br>One
of a few skeletons unearthed at the Whitefriar's
site (and buried within what had been the church's
precincts), in 1958 and re-examined in 29 Aug. 96 shows a
sturdily built woman between 25-35, in good health, *who
had never borne a child* (You may recall Buck claimed
she and Edward had a son, Edward of Wigmore). The
condition of the teeth suggested they'd enjoyed a
high-born's diet containing sugar.<br><br>Eleanor was said to
have apparently caught Edward's eye when she
petitioned him about her inheritance (the King was in
Norwich in May and<br>Oct. of 1461), though the Butler
family were acquainted already with him since Lord
Sudeley's sister, Lady Say, was Edward's
godmother.<br><br>Eleanor's death appears to have been unexpected - her
younger sister Elizabeth was out of the country when
Eleanor died, accompanying<br>Margaret of York to
Burgundy. They had brothers: John Talbot, Lord Lisle (b.
1425), Louis (b. 1428 approx.) and Humphrey (b. approx.
1434).<br><br>Humphrey had apparently received a general pardon from
Edward 28 Jan 1469, and Elizabeth Talbot had also
received a pardon before 7 Dec 1468.<br><br>After her
death Eleanor's manors were returned to her
father-in-law. As Tim says, she was married to Thomas Butler,
heir to Ralph, Lord Sudeley, a<br>Lancastrian, when
she was approx. 14 yrs old. Thos. died in 1461 (a
Thos. Butler is recorded as having died at Towton, [CPR
1467-77], but he<br>may not have been the bloke who was
Eleanor's [first] husband).<br><br>Eleanor's sister
Elizabeth later became a Mowbray Duchess of Norfolk. She
was an executrix of Eleanor's Will (which has not
survived). As<br>well as the Norwich Whitefriars being
beneficiaries of Eleanor's Will, Corpus Christi College in
Cambridge also benefited from Eleanor's<br>patronage. She
was closely associated with the College for over 30
years and, at Elizabeth's later request, a Fellowship
to her 'famous and<br>devout' sister (and Thos.
Butler was set up) and continues today.<br><br>On the
pre-contract matter specifically, John Ashdown-Hill in his
Dec. 97 article in the 'Ricardian' points out that
strictly speaking,<br>according to canon law of the time,
it was up to Eleanor herself, as the 'wronged
party', to put her case to a Church court, and
Stillington had<br>no obligation to speak out against the
pre-contract if Eleanor hadn't done so. <br><br>John goes on
to say that once the allegation had been made (in
1483), the onus of bringing the case before an
ecclesiastical court properly belonged to one of the parties in
the dispute e.g. Elizabeth Woodville and her children
- NOT Richard, who was not directly involved in any
way<br>in the point of canon law which was at issue. An
important point backed up by Richard Helmholz, an authority
on medieval canon law, incidentally.<br><br>(Above
info mainly from Ricardian Bulletin Dec 99, & Journal
Dec 97)<br><br>Regards - Lorraine<br><br>[Yahoo
wouldn't let me use a 'sensible' ID for some reason
<g>]

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-04-22 22:55:42
dcidarling
I'm with Tim on this one. I don't go along with
Elizabeth Wydeville being a 'greedy stupid' woman. For a
start, even if Edward fell heavily for her, I cannot
believe any of the sons of the imperious Cecily of York
would ever wish to be married to 'greedy stupid' women.
The York boys must have been used to having bright,
intelligent women around them if their mother and sister were
anything to go by. Margaret of York was admired in her
time for her capability and no-one has ever suggested
the Neville girls were dim.<br><br>In any case,
there's no evidence that Elizabeth was anything other
than conscientiously looking out for her family, as a
woman elevated to her<br>rank would have been expected
to do (and what Jacquetta did if it is true she
helped the match along <g>). The marriages
Elizabeth allegedly arranged for her family would not have
gone ahead if the King had not wished them to do so
and he obviously found it politically advantageous to
bind the nobility to the House of York with family
ties. If perhaps you are thinking of the 'Queen's Gold'
business after the so-called Cook incident, then according
to Hicks, there is no evidence this was ever
collected by Elizabeth - but in any case, this tax was an
entitlement<br>that even Anne of Bohemia I believe had been perfectly
entitled to receive as Queen Consort - it wasn't invented
specifically for Elizabeth.<br><br>But with regard to your
specific point about about the Tudor/Eliz of York
marriage, R3 Soc Librarian (US Branch) Helen Maurer makes a
very good case that EW probably didn't agree to any
such marriage actually (see her article in the
'Ricardian Register' Summer 82 that *must* be available in
the US Soc Library Archives).<br><br><why doesn't
anyone seem to heed the evidence, besides myself, that
the princes may have been alive in the north upon
Richards death? There is<br>evidence to support
this.><br><br>Whilst it's true there's circumstantial evidence that
the Princes may have been in the north (or at least
*alive*) in early 1485, I do beg to differ as to whether
they were still there in Aug 1485. I doubt it as AFAIK
there is *no* evidence to say they were in the north in
Aug '85.<br><br>Personally I believe they were well
out of the country by then! :)<br><br>Regards -
Lorraine

Re: Richard, loving uncle?

2001-04-30 19:30:18
dickon1
To be a sovereign one had to be crowned by the
church and annointed with the Holy Oil on the shoulders,
hands, head and each breast: seven for the seven wounds
of Christ, and to be accepted by your peers by them
saying 'vivat'vivat' when the highest ranking churchman
at your coronation led you to face them.<br><br>For
Edward V this never happened. Honest. <br><br>Edward
disappeared as an ex-Prince of Wales, not as king.
<br><br>And there is no evidence now, and probably never will
be, as to how or where or when the children died, and
can only be speculation. However my first point is
true and all you need do is confirm it with your local
Christian Arch Bishop (doesn't matter whether Anglican or
Catholic). I wrote to Arch Bishop Fisher of Canterbury many
years ago and he confirmed it for me and signed
it<br>'Cantuar' and wished me all the best wtih my A<br>levels!

Re: the precontract

2001-04-30 19:55:17
dickon1
Buckingham's own claim to the sovereignty was
actually fairly strong. He was the grandson or
greatgrandson of Ed III - he of the many sons. Buckingham's
rights were through the youngest of EIII's sons, whereas
the Yorkist claim was through an older son. Buck was
also married to one of Elizabeth Woodvyle's sisters
(Ktherine?) so the boys were his nephews and he could claom
to concerned for their wellfare. But I think Buck
used the boys as a 'cover' for the insurection which
cost him his life. He wanted to be king.

Going OT: When is a King not a King?

2001-05-01 12:15:01
dcidarling
I maybe shouldn't get involved in what appears to
be a semantic argument, when the point is
interesting, but wrong, as far as most people would be
concerned.<br><br>Surely another Edward, Edward 8, who last century didn't
go through a Coronation ceremony or anointing with
holy oil and the subsequent canonical presentation you
described, was at the time - and still is - regarded as a
British monarch? His Abdication Speech makes it clear he
thought he had been, up until then, the Sovereign.
<br><br>Archbishop Fisher may have been speaking from a purely
theological perspective, I wouldn't know, as I don't know how
your original question to him was phrased. Could he
have been speaking from a personal perspective and not
the Church party line, as sometimes happens with our
Bishops<br>over here (David Jenkins, one time Bishop of Durham
springs to mind)?<br><br>I would've thought that for the
Church, the holy oil ceremonial would have a greater
significance than it would for the average man/woman in the
street or in the media, who are far more likely to
accept 'The King is dead, Long Live the King!' idea of
continuity, rather than wait to accept something confirmed
publicly by the Church some time after the death of the
previous sovereign (one doesn't arrange Coronations in one
week flat, no matter how much Elizabeth Wydeille
wished one could <g>).<br><br>You may recall that
in the case of Edward 8, the Prime Minister, the
Cabinet and leading churchmen all debated whether Mrs
Simpson could be *Queen*, not Mrs Windsor, or whatever
they were calling the Royal Family at this time, which
seems to imply an Establishment's clear acceptance of
Edward as King.<br><br>Edward 8 could have sweated it
out and hung on to the Crown, I suppose, but it
became clear eventually that he was losing the support
of those in a position to keep him on throne,
(including the media who largely agreed to keep a lot of the
'back story' from the British people). And *that* is an
untenable situation for a monarch to be in.<br><br>Remember
this happened only 60, 70 years or so.<br><br>Going
back to Richard 3's time, it is clear from the
surviving accounts that Edward V was considered right from
the start to be the King.<br> <br>Grants are made out
in his name as a King and AFAIK there's no provisos
anywhere which say he is King only when the Coronation
takes place.<br><br>However, as we all know, churchmen
as well as the commons decided to throw in their lot
with Richard and so he was asked to take the crown
instead. The fact is in he summer of 1483 Richard was
largely preferred over Edward V, regardless of the truth
or otherwise of the pre-contract. The popular vote
swung it, in other words.<br><br>I have no doubt the
pre-contract was true and Richard had every right to be King,
but, speaking personally, I do feel sorry that his
nephew was<br>so publicly demoted through no fault of
his own and to me it harms no-one to acknowledge
that, however briefly, the lad *was* believed to be an
English King.<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Sunday chat room!

2001-05-02 22:57:03
ukaflyer
As there has been a flurry of new members in the
last week or so, I thought I would plug our weekly
online chat room. <br>You need to download the Yahoo
software, which you are prompted, and then you can join the
chat room which has the ability to let you actually
talk to other members if you have a mic. and speakers,
or you can just type interactively with other
members.<br><br>The weekly meet has its regular members who chat
about topics related to Richard and other matters. If
you wish to join in the times are posted below.
<br><br>Don't be afraid to say something, as it all adds to an
interesting time.<br><br>It starts at 21:00 GMT on Sundays,
which is 4 p.m. Eastern, 3 Central, 2 Mountain and 1
Pacific in the US. <br><br>See you in the chat room
Sunday!

Marriages, plotters and princes

2001-05-06 16:59:20
summerille70
I am interested in the theory that Richard did
get a dispensation for marrying Anne. Hicks and
Seward are adamant that he didn't even bother. Seward
points to the Act of Parliament dividing the Warwick
inheritance which says something like if the marriage is
declared invalid Richard and Anne must marry again. If
despite Richard's best efforts they cannot have a valid
remarriage then he can keep Anne's lands providing he does
not marry another woman during her
lifetime.<br><br>There is also Crowland. This states that at Christmas
1484 it was being speculated that Richard was going to
marry Elizabeth of York either after Anne's death or
"through a divorce for which he considered he had
sufficient grounds". Surely the only grounds would be
consanguinity for which no dispensation had been
received?<br><br>On the other hand I'm sure Dickon 1 would not make
an incorrect assertion and s/he has spoken to
members of the Catholic church about it. I also remember
that George Neville arranged for the dispensation of
Clarence and Isabel, and Morton did so for Henry Tudor and
Elizabeth of York, so it's perfectly feasible that Richard
negotiated with Rome via a bishop rather than as a private
petitioner. Does this mean that the petition may be hidden
somewhere in some episcopal archives and that we are
deducing wrongly that Richard never got a dispensation
because he got somewhere else to do it?<br><br>On the
subject of marriages, where is the evidence that
Elizabeth of York had already been mooted as Henry Tudor's
bride whilst Edward IV was still alive? I believe
Morton, Margaret Beaufort and Thomas Stanley were
negotiating for his return and absorption into the Yorkist
establishment, but surely the King's oldest daughter was too
precious to squander on him. I believe an unspecified
daughter was suggested. One of the younger daughters
maybe? (I don't know all the details but Edward arranged
lots of marriages, didn't he? I know Cecily was going
to marry the future James IV. Was this idea
completely defunct by the war with Scotland, which I think
was 1480-81?) Anyway, wasn't Elizabeth still formally
Madame la Dauphine? Wasn't it only with the peace of
Arras in late 1482 that Louis XI reneged on the pension
and the treaty of 1475? Edward IV was dead by April 9
1483, so surely the narrowness of the time scale argues
against it?<br><br>As for Elizabeth Woodville being
immured in Bermondsey, I think this may have been her
choice of residence. She was more pious than people
realise and as she died in 1492 perhaps her health was
already failing. I also think that the reason she was
stripped of her lands was that Henry found her a burden on
his finances. He didn't want to pay for the upkeep of
two queens, so he had the lands handed over to his
wife, her daughter. However, I still think he had
suspicions of her over the Lambert Simnell rebellion in
1487. He never allowed the Woodvilles the position of
power they enjoyed under Edward IV. He even imprisoned
his own queen's half-brother, Dorset, during the
crisis. This shows his lack of trust. Also, if the rebels
in Ireland were claiming that their figurehead was
Edward V rather than Edward of Warwick, Henry could well
have thought that the Woodvilles had a motive to join
the rebellion and they already had a justified
reputation of plotters. Even if you do not believe they were
plotting against Richard as Protector, they indisputably
plotted against him as King. Henry of all people knew
that. I also think Henry's behaviour shows that whilst
he had probably been told that the Princes were
dead, and worked on the assumption that they were, he
didn't know for sure. And I don't think he ever did.

Re: Marriages, plotters and princes

2001-05-07 10:36:14
dcidarling
Just to address a couple of points in your post.
In his 'R3 as Duke of Gloucester' pamphlet Hicks
tells us why he doesn't think Richard &
Anne<br>obtained a Papal Dispensation - because his old tutor (and
the discoverer of Dominic Mancini's account of the
summer of 1483), C A J Armstrong, looked through all the
Vatican records and couldn't find one!<br> <br>The final
settlement about the Warwick Inheritance, makes it clear
that Richard and Anne are not yet married at this
stage. I'm not sure of the exact wording offhand, but
one of the official phrases is something like 'When
the Duke *marries*...'.<br><br>Obtaining a
dispensation would apparently be more difficult in Richard &
Anne's case than it was for George & Isabel, as the
Clarence marriage had also given them each a kinship by
marriage as well as blood (i.e. Richard would be marrying
his brother's sister-in-law, as well as his second
cousin). Hence the proviso about remarriage etc. that you
mentioned. It suggests that they weren't expecting things to
go smoothly<br>and wanted the inheritance solution
to be watertight.<br><br>In 'R3 as Duke...' Hicks
also makes the interesting point that if they did not
obtain a Papal dispensation, then technically any child
of the union was a bastard. He uses this to suggest
that he doesn't see Richard's assumption of power to
be the long-term goal that others
have<br>suggested.<br><br>On the Tudor/York proposition, I suggest you try to
get hold of a copy of the Helen Maurer article on
this topic which I mentioned in an earlier post (from
the 'Ricardian Register', Summer 82. Try the R3
Library). <br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: the precontract

2001-05-08 05:22:23
tmc\_dale
Personally I don't think Buckingham wanted to be
King. His dynastic claims were weaker than a parcel of
Lancastrians and Yorkists. He was the senior co-heir of Anne
only daughter of Thomas of Gloucester the youngest son
of Edward III and through his mother he was
descended in the female line from John of Gaunt (Edward
III's third son)however that was a Beaufort descent and
his Aunt by marriage Margaret Beaufort Countess of
Richmond was the senior Beaufort heir.

Greetings from Oregon (Land o' Slugs)

2001-05-09 07:59:39
maddogoforegon
I just found this forum after surfing the
Ricardian society page. I'm here in Portland, Oregon, and
I've read most of the more popular stuff on Richard
III/War of the Roses, and lot of the primary sources on
the Society website.

Complicity in murder of Edward Lancaster

2001-05-09 20:36:43
maddogoforegon
I propose the following: Shakespeare got it right
in Henry VI. <br><br>Richard III murdered or
participated in the murder of Edward Lancaster after the
battle of Tewksbury. Edward would have been the most
prominient person on the side of Lancaster, yet no account
survives of anyone seeing him fall. This is in contrast to
most of the other well-known battles of the War of the
Roses, where, it seems to me, when a leader is killed,
the focus of the narrative shifts to the leader and
we get a lot of detail.<br><br>Murder behind the
scenes doesn't get much press.

Re: Complicity in murder of Edward Lanca

2001-05-10 02:41:18
Aquaeus
There is as much reason if not more to suspect
Clarence than Richard. In fact, other than the
More/Shakespeare political screed, there is no reason to suspect
Richard at all. If anything, your "evidence" ("We don't
know what happened, so Richard must have done it") is
a good example of the weakness of the
More/Shakespeare argument- and of the traditionalist
position!<br><br>Murder performed only in the subsequent imaginations of
political partisans, unfortunately, gets a great deal of
press indeed, if one of them is named More and the
other Shakespeare!

Re: the precontract

2001-05-10 02:43:54
Aquaeus
But his dynastic claims were far superior to Tudor's, or to anyone else in a position to assert theirs!

Re: the precontract

2001-05-10 02:44:29
Aquaeus
But his dynastic claims were far superior to
Tudor's, or to anyone else in a position to assert theirs!
Also, he benefits more than anyone else- emphatically
including Richard- from the death of the princes.

Sorry for the double post.

2001-05-10 02:57:46
Aquaeus
Sorry for the double post.

Help Mr. Wizard

2001-05-10 06:08:16
maddogoforegon
when I clit on a message to view it, it doesn't open the message, instead I am teleported backwards about 360 messages, and nothing opens up.<br><br>What can I do?<br><br>MadDog of Oregon

Re: Help Mr. Wizard

2001-05-10 19:23:59
Aquaeus
It's called Yahooification. You will be able to see the messages at some point. At SOME point.

Paintings of Richard

2001-05-14 21:21:36
preraph2000
I am on the look out for paintings and etchings of Richard. If any of you out there know of a particularly nice or rare one please let me know.

Lady Butler v Elizabeth Lucy

2001-05-16 16:46:25
rjc970
I have heard that Lady Butler's name was
deliberately replaced with that of Elizabeth Lucy in Titulus
Regius.<br><br>As I am new to the subject I would be grateful for
any views on the reason/s for this.

Re: Lady Butler v Elizabeth Lucy

2001-05-16 18:32:31
Aquaeus
Actually, Elizabeth is the first name and Lucy
the last name of two different mistresses of Edward
IV. This wholly fictitious person was substituted for
that of Lady Butler in the falsified version of
Titulus Regis promulgated in the reign of Henry VII. The
mythical Elizabeth Lucy is also mentioned by More. This
otherwise inexplicable alteration is often regarded by
Ricardians as circumstantial evidence supporting the story
of the Precontract.

Re: Lady Butler v Elizabeth Lucy

2001-05-16 18:59:36
dcidarling
Are you sure about this? Elizabeth Lucy was in
fact a real person in her own right. She was also
known as Elizabeth Wayte (the first surname being her
married name, the latter being her maiden name). This
Elizabeth was thought to be the mother of Arthur
Plantagenet, later Viscount Lisle (see Markham's 'R3', the
late R3 Soc stalwart Jeremy Potter's 'Good King
Richard?' and Weir's 'Princes', to name but a few disparate
sources on the woman's definite existence!
<g>).<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Lady Butler v Elizabeth Lucy

2001-05-16 22:40:42
Aquaeus
I went back and reviewed my sources. I
misremembered what I had read there. In fact, you are right and
I am wrong.<br><br>Elizabeth Lucy was indeed a
mistress of Edward. Elizabeth Jane Shore was another, and
I suppose that was what confused me. The fictional
element comes in the notion that prior to the ascension
of Henry VII anyone had ever suggested either was
the woman of the Precontract. That idea actually
seems to originate with Thomas More, who spent a great
deal of trouble proving something which nobody had
ever alleged: that Elizabeth Lucy had never been
precontracted to Edward. In fact, Lady Eleanor was the woman
named in Titulus, and the subsequent falsification of
its text under the Tudors by the insertion of the
name of Elizabeth Lucy is the element which is seen as
circumstantial evidence that there might have been some truth to
the story after all. Otherwise why go to the trouble
of changing the identity of the woman alleged to
have been involved?

Re: Lady Butler v Elizabeth Lucy

2001-05-17 22:07:14
dcidarling
Thank you for the additional
information.<br><br>I wasn't aware of any subsequent *actual*
falsification of its text under the Tudors - just that
Elizabeth Lucy was erroneously named. IIRC, it took a few
more years, and the efforts of Sir George Buck, to
unearth the gist of Titulus Regius that was
contemporaneously recorded in Croyland Abbey, and longer still for
the original draft Titulus Regius document to be
found.<br><br>When I'm feeling generous, I tend to think More was
simply mistaken, rather than malicious, in his naming of
Elizabeth Lucy as Ned's blushing bride. After all, copies
of this document were ordered to be surrendered
unread! ;) <br><br>The whole issue of the precontract
fascinates me. While I'm not 100% certain a Ned/Butler
betrothal took place, I should add I'm pretty certain that
*Richard* didn't make the story up, but was shown evidence
which convinced him of its veracity.<br><br>I'm also
completely satisfied that some sort of proof of the
pre-contract *was* presented to proctors and other witnesses,
as confirmed by Grafton's earlier editions of More,
I believe (mentioned in Markham's R3 Biography), an
event which is corroborated by Commynes, who mentioned
Stillington's involvement - a man Commynes doesn't appear to
have liked/respected, IIRC.<br><br>And I'm convinced
Tudor himself believed in the pre-contract's existence,
for he certainly had his learned judges debate the
matter (from memory, Hilary Term 1485 is the ref. for
this debate).<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Lady Butler v Elizabeth Lucy

2001-05-18 01:18:14
tmc\_dale
To be honest it may have been a simple error
<g>.<br><br>It appears that Titulus Regius was repealed and it
also was highly disparaging to Elizabeth of York
therefore it was highly unlikely that it was in common
circulation for very long after Henry VII's first Parliament.
Arthur Plantagenet's supposed mother was one of the few
well known and acknowledged mistresses of Edward IV
therefore with only half a tale More and later historians
tended to assume she was the precontracted party partly
because they didn't know anything about Eleanor Butler
because they didn't have access to the original text.

Repeal of Titulus Regius

2001-05-18 14:04:51
dcidarling
<it appears that Titulus Regius was
repealed<br> and it also was highly disparaging to<br>
Elizabeth of York therefore it was highly<br> unlikely that
it was in common circulation for<br> very long after
Henry VII's first Parliament.><br><br>Your comment,
and my own earlier, reminds me that I don't believe
I've ever seen a reliable source given for the repeal
of TR: a Rotuli Parl. ref or something official like
that, I mean - do you have one, Tim?<br><br>Or is it
like one of the numerous other 'facts' that aren't
anything of the sort, once one starts looking hard..?
;)<br><br>The notion that TR was 'highly disparaging' to
Elizabeth of York is also overstating matters a smidgeon, I
reckon.<br><br>The public declaration of bastardy which enabled the
rump of the 3 Estates to offer the crown to Richard
had been made over two years before Titulus Regious
was repealed by Tudor (*if* he ever did repeal TR,
that is) - long enough for everyone in the land, high
and low-born, to get used to the idea, and (as far as
I know) that was all that was inferred about
Elizabeth of York in the TR document.<br><br>Don't forget
that, after TR was first aired in the 1484 Parliament,
Richard had also made a solemn oath to marry the girls
off 'to gentlemen born as befitted his kinswomen' (if
I can paraphrase here), so if there'd been anyone
who'd missed the subtext in TR the first time about the
girls' new status, it had been repeated in public again,
and at Elizabeth Wydeville's own
insistence.<br><br>So I find it rather strange, Tim, that you think a
belated 'delicacy' about young Elizabeth's social status
was behind the suppression of the contents of this
document.<br><br>After all, Tudor didn't know her, wasn't claiming his
throne through her and in any case in Rennes Cathedral
had supposedly earlier declared his intention to
marry her when by then she was already regarded as a
bastard in England, anyway, as presumably all his
contemporary European Heads of State knew already. <br><br>If
anything, there's a good case for saying it was her
*mother* that was disparaged in the document.<br>However I
can't resist pointing out that it's unlikely that the
repeal of TR was even to spare Elizabeth Wydeville's
feelings, never mind those of her daughter(s), bearing in
mind how her son-in-law was to treat her just as soon
as he dared! ;)<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Paintings of Richard

2001-05-18 23:44:39
bar1114
Someone posted the address of the Courtauld Institute in London, I wrote and requested a copy of the portrait of Richard that is in Arundel castle. Does anybody know the address?

Re: Paintings of Richard

2001-05-18 23:46:01
bar1114
If not, I could try to dig it up somewhere. It is a wonderful portrait of Richard.

Re: Paintings of Richard

2001-05-19 13:19:21
ukaflyer
I spoke to Courtalds about a year ago asking if I
could have a copy of the picture for the Society web
site, they said there would be a charge of about ý75
and that the picture was in black and white only, I
declined the offer.<br><br>When I visited Arundel castle
last year, I asked if they had a colour copy I could
use and the reply was 'no'. <br><br>I'm sure a colour
image exists but I haven't located it yest.

Re: Paintings of Richard

2001-05-19 13:44:01
dcidarling
In case this is of interst to anyone, colour
prints of the earliest known portrait of Richard (the
one of him in gold robes), are for sale, framed or
unframed, from the Society of Antiquaries in
London.<br><br>Tel: 44 020 7734 0193 for further details.<br><br>The
original, said to have belonged to the Pastons, is
currently hanging in the Society's
boardroom.<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Bosworth Battlefield re-opens!

2001-05-23 18:32:15
ukaflyer
At last some news from the
Battlefield.<br><br>The Battlefield is re-opening on Saturday 26th May
daily for the season until the end of
October.<br><br>For the moment some of the battle trail <br>footpaths
will remain closed but the Visitor <br>Centre and part
of the trail will open this <br>Saturday.

Re: Repeal of Titulus Regius

2001-05-24 21:09:03
ejthompsonuk
For the record, Richard III's act for the title
of the king was repealed by Henry VII's first
Parliament in 1485. The repeal forms item 16 on the right
hand column of page 288 of volume VI of the Rolls of
Parliament. It is also quoted on pages 122-123 of the first
volume of Campell's 'Materials for a History of the
Reign of Henry VII' (Rolls Series, 1873). <br><br>A
more recent discussion of the political background is
on page 66 of Chrimes's 'Henry VII' (Eyre Methuen,
1972) - see especially note 2. The<br>constitutional
backround was discussed on page 266 of his 'English
Constitutional Ideas in the XV Century' (Cambridge, 1936) -
especially note 4.

Re: the precontract

2001-06-08 01:02:27
bethgael15
He did however name him his heir? How could he do this without legally reversing the attainder? (Not doubting you, just wondering...)

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-08 01:20:14
bethgael15
Just finished reading "Royal Blood" (which took
10 weeks to arrive! *sigh*) and learnt a lot that I
didn't know before. Interesting book. For Woodville1483,
if you haven't read it, I recommend it, it gives a
very balanced viewpoint and doesn't (necessarily) come
down on Richard's "side". <br><br>I also believe
Richard took the throne rightfully (ie didn't "usurp"),
and have always felt sorry for Edward V... who died
whenever and however he did (Fields suggests some evidence
that he was actually ill with a bone disease and would
have died sooner rather than later even if he had
occasioned the throne). So, we would have had a Richard III
anyway, whether Edward's uncle or his brother lol. The
book has a very good, contemporary drawing of Perkin
Warbeck... I actually thought it was Edward IV until I read
the caption. My husband, however didn't think they
looked alike at all, so that's "eye of the beholder"
stuff.<br><br>Woodville1483, I was wondering if you had read Alison Weir's
book? Also if you had heard about the "rebellion" in
the name of an "Edvardvs" supported by Elisabeth
Woodville and the boys' Aunt Margaret in Burgundy, AFTER
Henry VII,s ascending the throne? I hadn't before, but
it was interesting reading. One thing I did enjoy
about the book is that Fields offers an analysis about
all of the "contemporary" writers (some of them are
not as "objective" as they first appear - a couple of
the Italian writers spring to mind) and manages to
avoid statements like "such and such thought this" and
other definitive statements which speak to what was
going through someone's state of mind (impossible for
us to know, of course). He just concentrates on what
was actually done, in light of "contemporary"
accounts and what is known of their authors. (A great
analysis of the possible author of the Croyland Chronicle,
most enlightening).

Re: everyone getting along

2001-06-08 01:24:22
bethgael15
Fields has a very interesting, if not highly
speculative) "alternate" history which suggests that if Edward
V had ascended the throne, there would have been no
reformation (probably true) but he goes on to argue that WW1
and WW2 probably would have not happened either (yes
he does say this is farfetched, and I agree, but who
knows???).

Re: everyone getting along

2001-06-08 01:29:36
bethgael15
Oh yes, definitely unwise... however, considering
the evidence of a precontract, would that have made a
difference, I wonder? Same problem with any issue... mind
you, another lady could have been barren, and there
wouldn't have been issue, putting Richard III on the
throne anyway... or if the princess were French, they
may have supported Henry's claim anyway as they
clearly did not want a strong monarch on the English
throne to support Burgundy, with which England already
had ties. Which leads me to lyn's post about the
"what if..." Edward V had ascended the throne, would
the French have supported Henry VII? Probably not, a
minority would have been just what the French ordered...

Re: the precontract

2001-06-08 01:43:19
bethgael15
Re Butler: it is possible she was easy to "bury"
as afr as the precontract as she may have had a
shred of dignity and not wanted her reputation bandied
about, that's only my opinion though as there is nothing
that I can find about the character of the woman, I
can only speak AS a woman. Some of us get vengeful
when rejected, some fight for what they have, some
acknowledge when they've been "used for a good time" and
carry on with life. Butler was a widow, so her viginity
was not "damaged", as some may have been. A dignified
exit to a convent may have been her only perceived
option, especially if tghere was a precontract and she
was a religious woman (she may have thought any
future possible children she had would have been
illegitimate if she remarried). I wonder if the Woodville
marriage came as much as a surprise to her as to Edward's
mother?? Of course, this is all pure speculation on my
part, can't back it up with any evidence, but I like
the "what ifs" *grin*. It has even crossed my mind
that Butler may have thought herself barren and may
have "gracefully" let Edward go if she felt she
couldn't carry out the Queen's duty to bear princes? But
that of course ignores the possiblity (that has been
backed up by a small jot of contemporary eveidence
mentioned in Field's book read since I thought this) that
Butler actually did have a child by Edward, secretly,
before retiring to her convent. If so, that child also
would have had more claim to the throne than Edward V
AND Richard III, assuming the precontract... if he
were male.

Re: the precontract

2001-06-08 01:49:44
bethgael15
Richard was living with his mother at the time
More states these stories were bandied about, they had
also been mentioned MUCH earlier, not by Richard but
by Clarence! (Yes there is definite evidence for
Clarence saying this). This is in Field's book, as well as
Tey's and in the Croyland (I think - I may be wrong
there). No contemporary evidence (apart from More) that
Richard had suggested such a thing... More states that
Richard said Clarence was also not his father's. The real
rumour seems to have been started in France, who of
course had no reason to support Edward IV.

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-06-08 02:04:41
bethgael15
Anne Sutton's assertion is correct: if his
supporters had been stronger, it wouldn't have mattered,
doesn't mean it didn't exist though... Costaine relies
heavily on More so his references are suspect... again,
no contemporary evidence that Richard intended to
take the throne before time, he took not one, but two
oaths supporting Edward V before Stillington dropped
his information.<br><br>Speaking of Stillington... I
have often thought he was the "bad guy" of the whole
scenario but after reading Field's book I have to wonder
if I haven't been a trifle unjust... information I
didn't know before, I guess. Yes, he was imprisoned by
Edward IV but there is no evidence that Stllington had
any enduring hatred of him. Otherwise he could have
come up with the story before Edward's death rather
than after. Fields suggests, due to the wording of
Clarence's attander (which does mention CLARENCE saying that
Edward was illegitimate) and Stillington's reason for
imprisonment, that Stillington MAY have told Clarence about the
precontract, and Clarence was about to "spread the word", so
to speak (my phrase, not Field's). Clarence had been
accused (rightfully!) of treason against Edward at least
3 times before this (that I know of), yet each time
hadn't been executed, although he should have been. This
time he was. Edward would have needed Papal approval
to exectute Stillington, which would have meant
discussing WHY... I should also mention it was EDWARD who
ordered Clarence executed, NOT Richard, who went North
and was quite angry about it, by contemporary
reports, such as the Croyland (I think). <br><br>PS you
will have to forgive my "I thinks" when mentioning
sources, I am 32 weeks pregnant and my brain is in my
belly! My memory should improve in about 10 weeks, all
going well lol.

Re: blood-supper

2001-06-08 02:31:19
bethgael15
I have Horrox's book, it is also one which relies
heavily on More's account for the "usurpation". Rivers
was not immediately executed, although Richard did
ask the Parliament to do so. As far as "littering
with bodies"... well, Henry VIII could take the throne
peacefully because Henry VII's reign was littered with
Yorkist bodies, unfortunately. The Woodvilles could not
use the army to attack Richard simply because he
preempted this, along with Buckingham. It seems significant
that Richard did not bring an army with him when he
rode south (also not at speed, I might add, seeing as
you rightfully pointed out that Rivers et al did not
move at speed. If this is evidence that Rivers did not
consider Richard a threat, then the same must apply to
Richard). What the Woodvilles wanted, I believe, was to
"usurp" the Protectorship that Edward IV's will had given
Richard. THIS is what Richard moved against... the
Woodvilles were standing firmly against the expressed will
of the former King, so Richard's moves (whatever his
"true" intentions, the throne or the protectorship) were
legally correct. There is evidence to suggest he did not
definitly know of the Woodville intentions until he met
with Buckingham (although only an idiot would not have
suspected something was going on and Richard was clearly
not anidiot, whatever else may be thought of him!),
and even then, Buckingham offered 1000 men and
Richard kept him to 300, the number in Richard's retinue.
Evidence of Richard's suspicion of Buckingham? Maybe. But
Buckingham hated the Woodvilles (he had been forced to marry
one against his wishes, yes this is backed up by
evidence) and would have been happy to go against them,
perhaps it was HE who instigated the event against Rivers
etc... perhaps he misled Richard? Yes, Richard could be
rash (Bosworth could have been won if he had waited a
day or so for other reinforcements to arrive), but
perhaps that was not rashness but confidence in his
military competance, perhaps one of the Stanleys did
something that needed to be preempted NOW (he was aware of
one of the Stanley armies' intention to defect, and
knowingly unsure of the other), perhaps he thought by
taking Henry on in personal combat (which Henry would
have undoubtedly lost - he did not even bother to take
the field at all at Bosworth) he could end the saga
altogether. We'll never know for sure.<br><br>Speaking of
"littering" with bodies, Richard actually held the son of one
Stanley (the one he was unsure of), the nephew of the
other as a hostage to ensure Stanley's loyalty. Satnley
defected anyway, obviously he did not like his son that
much... no-one comments on that, I notice. BTW, Richard
did NOT have Stanley, jnr killed even when it was
apparent his father had crossed sides. Maybe Stanley knew
this about Richard and was confident that his son
would still be alive after Bosworth?

Re: the precontract

2001-06-08 02:49:24
bethgael15
I have to wonder exactly how much more we would
have known about this whole mess if the Tudors had not
been so determined to make sure their throne was
secure by telling half truths. Whatever Richard did, or
did not do would have been made so much clearer if
important documents had not been destroyed. If the Tudors
had known about the Croyland Chronicle, for example,
or that there was just one more copy of the original
"Titulus Regis" out there, we wouldn't have those either.
How many other chronicles went? Then of course, there
is the possibility that the reason why it wasn't
out-and-out written that the Princes were not dead was
because "everyone" knew they weren't and it would have
been ridiculous to say they were. The croyalnd
Chronicle says a "rumor" started that the boys were dead,
he does not confirm or deny or even give his own
opinion on the matter. This could be as easily taken to
mean the boys were known to be alive as that they were
believed to be dead. Perhaps the reason why Elizabeth came
out of sanctuary was to see her boys, for crying out
loud (as the mother of five so far, I can understand
this!). If there had been ANY comment on their deaths,
the Tudors would have carefully preserved this,
especially from their mother... maybe the real reason why
Richard didn't show their bodies was that they weren't
dead??? Maybe the reason Henry didn't was that they
weren't there? The Tower wasn't a prison, persay, at that
time, but a royal residence. It was HENRY VIII that
gave the "Tower" its sinister connotation.

Re: quoting the position of others

2001-06-08 03:04:02
bethgael15
I love debate! Please understand that I think
Aquaeus is debating your argument, not your personality
(me too lol). Here's a quote "Woe to our King, most
piteously murdered". About Richard, from a contemporary
source IMMEDIATELY after Bosworth. More reliable than
More, IMHO. yes, it's Yorkist, yes, its from York... so
"everyone" didn't think Richard a usurper. There was a huge
division between Northern and Southern Lords, a lot of
enmity towards Richard in the South was due to the fact
he was a Northern Lord. Mind you, a contemporary
souce in Kent (there's that "I think" again) said
similar. BTW, no king was "the Lord's anointed" until
after their coronation, so whoever wrote that was
technically incorrect anyway (I give the example of the Civil
war between Matilda and Stephen where Stephen held
the position that even if Matilda was the "rightful"
heir, he could no longer choose to give up the throne
to her as he had gone through a coronation ceremony
anointing him as God's choice. His final answer was to name
her son his heir). Mancini is a highly suspect
source, even though "contemporary", Fields gives the
reasons why he is not, in fact, "objective", even though
as an Italian he seems to be (I leant the book to a
friend so cannot give the full reason, someone else with
the book may like to give Field's reasoning, brain in
belly again means I am not careful enough of detail to
give the full story without possibly misleading the
court lol. Suffice to say he was writing for someone
who was anti-Ricardian and pro-Tudor).

Re: Edward V

2001-06-08 03:13:24
bethgael15
Exactly. Saying Edward V was king would be like
claiming a "Queen Matilda". After all, Stephen really DID
usurp the throne, on the grounds of her femininity, and
this after her father had had all of his Barons swear
oaths to support her. One wonders why Stephen was never
claimed as a "monster" when he had those who stayed loyal
to their oaths to the rightful heir executed for
treason? (Yes he was the King so treason was technically
correct but still!) An entire garrison at Shrewsbury
springs to mind, for example, over 90 men acting under
orders from those loyal to Matilda. Perhaps Henry II
didn't feel the need to spead lies as he had a "real"
right to the throne anyway, unlike the Tudors?

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-06-08 03:18:28
bethgael15
Thanks for this post. When I read Aquaeus' correction i thought I was truly going mad lol!

Re: quoting the position of others

2001-06-08 03:30:08
bethgael15
I agree with you, I am also not an "expert" on
the matter and love informed debate (maybe just for
the sake of the arguement as my hubby would say
haha!). Even opinions that do exist would hardly give
general opinion of the masses, so to speak, I think. You
just have to look at what we think of the royal Family
today and how much of that "opinion" is misinformation
and we are much more informed than the avaerage
Mediaeval peasant. They hardly had "New Idea" to refer to,
after all (for our O/S posters, this is a women's
magazine published in Australia: Russel Crowe
("Gladiator") likes to call it "No Idea"). And opinion that did
exist was "noble" or "clerical" opinion, sometimes
"mayoral" (ie "merchant") I don't think we can rely on
anything that says "the people thought" as they didn't
have a great deal of time to write it down anyway even
if they could read and write. I think the situation
re written opinion stands like this; "I think..." or
"the King told me to write..". (I have similar
opinions when I read "experts agree..." I tend to read
that as "My buddies all think that...", especially
when the viewpoints are the same as the authors!
*grin*)

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-06-08 03:39:17
bethgael15
Yes. Woodville was a "commoner" (hence Cecily
Neville's disgust at her son) and used her position to get
her relatives married into the royal family, like
Buckingham, even whe some of those Royal fellers didn't want
to marry her siblings and cousins (and she had quite
a few!). I disagree that she was stupid. Greedy,
yes. But stupid? She insisted on marriage before
allowing Edward to bed her (Eleanor Butler could have
learnt from that). In modern parlance, I think she had
"street smarts". She didn't actually support Tudor until
he was a "done deal", putting her daughter on the
consort's throne was the next best thing to being there
herself, considering the circumstances. She then involved
herself in at least one plot to get Henry OFF the throne,
having a son on the throne had to be a step up from
having a daughter there. She could hardly marry Henry
herself. Greedy, definitely. Ambitious, yes. Vengeful,
perhaps... although you could also say that she was
protective of her family. Stupid? Probably not...

Re: the precontract Ricardian style

2001-06-08 03:43:15
bethgael15
Goody. I get to go back to my theory that she may have been barren *grin* This was most informative, thankyou!

Re: Going OT: When is a King not a King

2001-06-08 03:48:34
bethgael15
Don't know much about this, but I have to ask:
there has been talk about the current Prince Charles
"abdicating" his claim to the throne for his own son William,
even though Elizabeth II is still the reigning
monarch. It seems to me that, if this is accurate, you can
abdicate as Prince of wales as well as a King (as an heir
to the throne). I could be wrong!

Re: Marriages, plotters and princes

2001-06-08 03:53:45
bethgael15
I read somewhere that the future Henry VII had
taken an oath in France that he would marry the eldest
Woodville girl (actually that's inaccurate, I guess she
would have been the eldest Plantagenet girl as Edward
IV's daughter - sorry!). But this was when Richard was
on the throne, not Edward....

Re: the precontract

2001-06-08 03:58:36
bethgael15
In fact, with the Princes and Richard dead (not including Warwick), he was next in line to the throne.

Re: Help Mr. Wizard

2001-06-08 04:01:06
bethgael15
This often happens in Yahoo's clubs if you try to
open a message that has just been posted. It is a
yahoo bug (one of many). The answer to that (if this is
your problem) is to wait about 10 minutes, refresh the
head page and try again. I used to be a "Community
Leader" with GeoCities so I'm familiar with yahoo's many
difficulties! *grin* HTH.

Re: Lady Butler v Elizabeth Lucy

2001-06-08 04:02:00
bethgael15
Not in TR, but in More's work.

Re: Lady Butler v Elizabeth Lucy

2001-06-08 04:04:46
bethgael15
Yes, I was given to believe that Elizabeth Lucy
was a known whore and mistress of Edward's, and that
replacing Butler with her gave the precontract a further
air of being complete nonsense, as no king would
precontract Lucy!

My apologies

2001-06-08 04:10:43
bethgael15
for the long string of posts... I tend not to get online much and comment as I read. Sorry! (I'll be off again for another 3 weeks or so, "phew" I hear you say *grin*)

Re: Lady Butler v Elizabeth Lucy

2001-06-08 19:53:54
oregonkaty
According to my reading, Elizabeth Lucy and
Elizabeth Butler were both real persons, as dicdartling
says. Elizabeth Lucy's maiden name was Elizabeth Wayte
and she was the mother of Arthur Wayte and another
child by Edward IV, also named Elizabeth.
<br><br>Elizabeth Butler's maiden name was Talbot...she was called
the daughter of the old (ie, not the current) Earl of
Shrewsbury, Jon Talbot, in the testimonies re Edward IV's
pre-contract with her. The then-current earl, also named John
Talbot, was her half-brother. The old earl had married
twice and had a son named John by each marriage. The
older son John died with his father fighting in France.
<br><br>Those duplicate names didn't seem to give their
contemporaries any trouble keeping straight...there are also the
Paston brothers -- full brothers at that -- John and
John, and a few decades earlier we have Isabel
Despencer and her husbands, Richard Beauchamp and Richard
Beauchamp, both earls at that. But Shakespeare thought the
two sons John of the Earl of Shrewsbury were the
same. And Barbara Tuchman wrote, re her "A Distant
Mirror", that she spent about a year of research following
the life of the wrong Enguerrand de Coucy. Who'd
think there could be two men of that name moving in the
same cicles at the same time?

Re: Lady Butler v Elizabeth Lucy

2001-06-08 23:18:57
oregonkaty
As soon as I hit the "Post Message" button I
realized that either I was hypnotized by the same-name
syndrome myself, or my allergy medicine was kicking
in.<br><br>I meant Eleanor (Talbot) Butler, of course, and not
Elizabeth Butler.<br><br>My apologies to all, and I am
going to go write "Eleanor, not Elizabeth" 100 times on
the blackboard.<br><br>(Calling John Talbot "Jon" in
one place was merely a typo, not an abberation of
memory.)

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-09 04:39:32
brontewcat
I would not rely too heavily on Fields's book.
While he tries to be more balanced than other authors -
both pro- and anti- Richard, he still distorts
things.<br><br>I was quite irritated by his smugness when
discussing Weir, particularly when he criticizes her and
then does exactly the same thing himself.<br><br>The
prime example is his discussion of Shaa's sermon. There
is only one contemporary account,
Mancinci.<br><br>Weir says the basis on which Shaa said the 2 boys were
bastards related to Edward IV being a bastard. She doesn't
mention that other sources mention Shaa discussing the
boys being bastards because of pre contract. She can
be rightly criticized for not discussing the other
accounts.<br><br>Fields has a go at her for this, then he too presents a
distorted view of what was discussed. He says Shaa said the
princes were said to be bastards because of the
precontract, but it is not clear whether the story of Edward
IV being a bastard was also dicussed. That is not
true.<br><br>We do not know what was said by Shaa exactly - the
accounts differ widely. What is clear is that Mancinci,
the only person writing within months of the sermon,
not years later as with the other accounts, says it
was Edward IV's legitamacy that was
preached.<br><br>You certainly do not get that impression from
Fields's book. The ironic thing is, although Weir can be
criticized, as I said for not discussing the other sources
her account is backed up by Mancini. Fields has
clearly ignored the primary source and used other
accounts to bolster his case, which is exactly what he
accuses Weir of doing. <br><br><br>Have you read/ do you
own Hammond and Sutton's Richard III: The road to
Bosworth Field. Thats where I got the above from.<br><br>I
did enjoy Fields's book, but I am cautious of him,
particularly when he starts telling us what the law is. He
doesn't exactly give false information, but he doesn't
provide the full picture, especially about the effect of
the precontract - just promising to marry someone was
not the equivalent to a marriage.
<br><br>Jane<br>Jane

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-09 17:03:13
oregonkaty
I'm new to this forum, so I don't know if this
has already been discussed, but another poroblem with
quoting any of the material from 500 years ago is that
the language has shifted. Words in ordinary use today
and then do not have the same meaning in both eras.
I've found that sometimes a quotation can have another
shade or a completely different meaning, after
consulting the OED. <br><br>Some such words that come right
to mind are "merry", which now means jolly or
cheerful and once meant clement or moderate or tractable
("merry olde England" for instance, makes more sense);
"silly" which once meant innocent; "gentle" which once
meant cultured or a landowner, not sweet-natured and
easy-going ("gentle Brackenbury"). There are many
more...sometimes every word in a sentence from days of yore can
have a different nuance than it has now.

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-10 22:22:29
bar1114
It may well have been so if that "promise" was
made before a preist. Feilds book was a good read, it
posed some good arguments and was quiet rational,
unlike Weir who cannot seem to back up her theorys other
than what is mere speculation.<br>Going back to the
portrait of Richard from the courtauld Inst. I was charged
only about 12 pounds<br>about 20 US dollars for a b&w
8by10 photo. Pretty reasonable.

Re: opinions - medieval marriage/precont

2001-06-11 02:43:02
brontewcat
No, the fact vows were taken before a priest did
not make a promise to marry a marriage. The were 2
ways of marrying under canon law.<br><br>1 Exchanging
vows of marriage - there were no specific vows. So "I
marry you" would be sufficient.<br><br>2. Exchanging a
promise to marry, was just a promise until the couple had
sexual intercourse. Once sexual intercourse occurred
Canon Law deemed the couple to be lawfully married. If
sexual intercourse did not occur there was no marriage
and the couple could dissolve their promise by mutual
consent.<br><br>In the case of Eleanor Butler, I understand she was
not actually known as one of Edward's mistresses
until the precontract was discovered.(I am not sure
about this - so maybe someone can point a pre-1483
source referring to the relationship. Accordingly, for
the subsequent marriage to Elizabeth Woodville to be
invalidated positive evidence of a sexual liasion would have
to be produced. As both Edward and Eleanor were
dead, then such evidence would have been
difficult.<br><br>I suppose indirect evidence such as an admission of
the relationship to a friend, eg Hastings or evidence
from servants of the 2 disappearing into a bedroom
alone (a la Lady Rochfield and Catherine Howard 80
years later)may have been admissible. But in the
absence of such evidence, then it is likely a Canon Court
would have found no marriage between Nell and Ned and
the Princes would not have been
bastardised.<br><br>BTW - before anyone says but of course Edward must
have slept with Eleanor - look at his reputation -
there are few things to note:<br><br>* Even if Edward's
reputation makes it likely there was sexual liasion,
evidence of reputation and character are not admissible in
a court of law to prove a fact. At least that is
the case today, but the basis of that rule of
evidence is logicaland would have applied back then. Just
because X has has sex with A,B,C and D doesn't prove X
had sex with Y.<br><br>Therefore Edward's reputation
would have been inadmissible, and basically on what
else is there to assume sexual intercourse took
place.<br><br>* Even with Edward's reputation it still takes 2 to
tango. apparently Edward never forced his attentions on
a woman who did not agree. Eleanor may have made it
clear she was waiting for a public acknowledgement of
their relationship and a public relationship.<br><br>*
For the same reason that we can accept that the
possibilty that there was a precontract, ie Eleanor was of
high birth, we can also accept that she was not like a
light of love mistress who Edward could sleep with and
then cast off. Particularly given the relationship
happened early in his reign when he would not be anxious
to make an enemy of someone like the Earl of
Shrewsbury by dishonouring his sister? and maybe reignite
the wars.<br><br>My understanding of the law of the
time comes from a legal textbook on family law -
Dickey 2nd ed. Its an Australian textbook, but discusses
the history of divorce including back to medieval
times. <br><br>Of course the best place to check the
actual law at the time would be to go back to the
precedents of the time. I note Audrey Williamson discusses a
few cases in her book, but the precedent she cites
was over 300 years old. It is one of the strengths of
the Common Law system that it grows and changes. I am
sure there would have been more recent precedents that
could have been relied on in 1483(for either side of
the case)<br><br>Ultimately I am reasonably convinced
that if the question had been put to the Canon Courts,
the Woodville marriage would have been
validated.<br><br>Judges have a way, sometimes, of following certain cases
and distinguishing other cases to achieve a certain
outcome. Everyone wanted Edward V to be king; the odds of
a Canon Court bastardising him if there was any
case that could be used to argue the opposite would
have been extremely slim.

Re: opinions - Fields/Weir

2001-06-11 03:11:25
brontewcat
Much of Fields's book is speculation, as is any
book written at the time. I would also dispute Weir
doesn't back up her arguements, she does, but her sources
have been characterised by the sainted Tey and Markham
et al as Tudor propaganda.<br><br>I, for one, do not
accept the arguments that anything written in Tudor
times should be dismissed as propaganda. To argue that
point of view would mean you could also dismiss the
works of Hugh Trevor Roper, Alan Bullock and many
modern historians on WWII and the Nazis as anti Nazi,
Allied propaganda. While it is not quite the same thing,
we are seeing an attempt to do this by those who
deny the Holocaust and dismiss much of what is written
now as propaganda/exaggeration.<br><br>I am not
suggesting Richard was like Hitler, but the example might
make the point that both More and Vergil were probably
recording the history that they quite geniunely believed to
have happened. They spoke to eye witnesses and at
least some of their facts are probably right. Richard
was unpopular in the South,and this started almost as
soon as he took the throne. This is not Tudor
propaganda.<br><br>We know so little of what actually happened and our
interpretation depends on what facts we chose to
accept.<br><br>I enjoyed both books very much, except I found
Fields's attitude toward Weir to be very arrogant.

Re: the precontract

2001-06-11 04:35:34
brontewcat
The assumption is that the pre-contract was
consummated because of EIV's reputation. Evidence of
reputation is not admissable in a court of law, and it was a
court of law that should have decided the question.
Therefore, without evidence of consummation there was no
marriage between EIV and Eleanor.<br><br>I think Richard
realised that (my opinion only).

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-12 04:14:30
bethgael15
Yes, a precontract was definitely as binding as
marriage (and not just in this case: cf Henry VIII and one
of his wives - I *think* it was Howard who had had
an engagement before her marriage to the king and
didn't lose her head just for "adultery" but for
"bigamy" as well), and I would say the promise was
definitely made in front of a priest - Stillington (if what
he said was true).

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-12 18:10:02
oregonkaty
Another instance of a precontract invalidating a
subsequent marriage was in the case of Joan of Kent and
Thomas Holland. She was later married to (the first name
escapes me...Willliam?) Montague, but the story was that
she had precontracted with Holland before he went off
to France, where he got rich via the ransom of a
wealthy nobleman he captured. <br><br>It seems fishy that
the precontract story stood up, since at the time
Joan was only 12 years old and unable to enter into
any legal matter without permission of her guardian.
Her guardian was Queen Phillippa and Thomas Holland
was another of the Queen's wards, the orphaned son of
a disgraced knight. It doesn't seem likely that she
would have consented to such an
arrangement.<br><br>However, Montague did not object to having his marriage to
Joan set aside in favor of this alleged precontract.
If you count on your fingers, you get a possible
reason: Joan was pregnant by somebody at the time. If it
was Montague's child, he scarecely would have let her
go. If it was Holland's, not agreeing to having the
marriage annulled would have meant Montague's heir was
some other man's son.

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-13 02:33:39
brontewcat
Actually no, a pre contract that is vows made 'de
futura' would appear to have been binding only if sexual
intercourse took place. It was only if the vows were made 'de
praesenti' would the vows made before Stillington have the
force of a marriage. <br><br>In Kathryn Howard's case
sexual intercourse almost definitely took place with the
man she supposedly married. She was NOT executed for
bigamy. Bigamy and adultery are mutually exclusive. If
you commit bigamy the law holds that there has been
no marriage to the subsequent partner. If you were
not married then you cannot commit adultery against
the second partner.<br><br>In fact I understand that
this fact was held out as a lifeline to Kathryn
Howard. If she admitted to a pre contract with her lover
she could have saved her life (I am not absolutely
sure the offer was made but the point is the same).
The story goes, Katheryn, being easily the most
stupid of Henry's wives, refused to acknowledge the
engagement because of family pride.<br><br>However this was
the grounds on which the marriage with Anne of Cleves
was annulled. She was originally pre contracted to
the son of the Duke of Lorraine. It was however an
excuse only. When Anne first arrived in England and
Henry VIII decided he didn't like her he tried to get
out of marrying her. He tried to bring up the pre
contract,and it was thoroughly investigated. The result of the
investigation showed the vows were made "de futura" and the pre
contract had been revoked. Later Henry was able to obtain
his divorce because Anne agreed, and the pre contract
was used as an excuse (although there was some
question as to whether a dispensation had been
obtained).<br><br>The real issue with the precontract would have been
whether Edward needed a dispensation to marry Elizabeth
because of the precontract, as this was clearly not
obtained.<br><br>However such an argument would not have helped Richard as
he also did not obtain a dispensation to marry Anne
Neville, to whom he was related within canonical
definitions . If he raised the issue of there being no
dispensation, then his own marriage could have been called into
question, and his own son's legitimacy could have been
questioned. All in all EIV's marriage ws probably as valid as
RIII's.

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-13 02:49:34
brontewcat
From my understanding Joan may have been forced
into the second marriage. If she did not consent to
the second marriage then even today the second
marriage could be set aside on the basis of duress. A
suggestion of duress and the precontract would have been
enough to persuade the Pope to give Holland his
wishes.<br><br>As I said in most legal cases there are legal
arguments to support both sides of any question. <br>For
example had the Pope not been heavily influenced (almost
his prisoner at one stage) by Charles V,(Catherine's
nephew) most historians believe he would have given Henry
VIII the annulment he sought from Cahterine of Aragon.

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-13 03:56:12
bethgael15
One wonders why Richard's marriage wasn't brought
up (that we know of) at the time. If it wasn't, then
there could have only been a couple of reasons I can
think of (any others would be welcome!):<br><br>1.
There was a dispensation of some sort and everyone knew
it.<br><br>2. There was a lot more support for Richard than
some of "those" contemporary reports have led us to
believe.<br><br>Any other suggestions?

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-13 05:23:31
oregonkaty
I lean towards #2...that there was a lot more
support for Richard than we have been lead to believe.
The populace and, more importantly, Parliament, may
not have been too keen on the idea of a king still in
his minority, and a regent. The turmoil surrounding
the early years of Henry VI's reign were within
living menory, and certainly within recent
history.<br><br>I have always wondered why Edward IV sent his heir
off to Ludlow at age 3 and left him there for a
decade. For one thing, I can think of safer places than
the Welsh Marches. For another, all logic and reason
say he should have been keeping him in the public
eye, raising him at court, taking him on progresses,
and so on. Edward himself certainly wasn't raised
that way -- he was riding at the head of an army at
age 12 -- and he grew up in the middle of
life-and-death struggles involving his father. Nor was Richard
shuffled off to some distant castle. I have always
wondered if there was something wrong with young Edward,
only from such vague circumstantial
evidence.<br><br>At any rate, the people may have prefered a grown
man of proven ability to a child who was virtually a
stranger to most of the country, especially to the seat of
power in London.<br><br>And the idea that the mere
thought of usurpation would send the people into a frenzy
seems rather weak...it didn't in the case of the
genuine usurpation of Richard II's crown by Henry IV.

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-17 22:55:50
bethgael15
I agree. I have always found it a bit strange
myself, considering the family background Edward had. I
considered it might have been his mother, but then, she was
obviously pretty involved with her family too. Then again,
it could have been because of the Woodvilles anyway
(Edward getting his son out of their "reach"??). Mind
you, this family proximity - or lack thereof -
nullifies the theory that the younger Edward preferred the
Woodvilles over Richard any more than the other way around.

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-18 10:50:34
brontewcat
Young Edward being brought up away from his
parents was the norm in the 15th century. Parents of
noble birth often sent their offspring off to be
brought up in the households of other
nobles.<br><br>Richard was brought up in a very similar fashion, ie away
from his parents. He spent most of his early childhood
at Fotheringhagy Castle in the company of his
brother George and sister Margaret. His father during
most of this time was based at Ludlow. I assume the
Duchess of York travelled between the two castles and
other other houses owned by her husband.<br><br>A few
years after EIV became king Richard was sent to
Warwick's household to complete his education and
training.<br><br>Far from trying to remove young Edward from the
Woodvilles, EIV entrusted him to their care. Young Edward's
governor was his maternal uncle Anthony, Lord Rivers. His
half brother Richard Grey was the household
comptoller. Three other maternal uncles had places in the
Prince's houswehold. He was surrounded by various
Woodvilles and their adherents. On the other hand he barely
knew his paternal uncle Richard.<br><br>While age 3
was very young to be sent to Ludlow, the heir to the
throne usually did have a separate
household.<br><br>There is no evidence, not even circumstanial, that
there was anything wrong with youg Edward. In fact the
evidence is to the reverse - Edward was recognised to be
intelligent, well educated and charming.<br><br>I suggest the
reason why he was sent to Ludlow at such a young age, as
opposed to having his household established near London,
was an attempt to buy the loyality of the Welsh (this
is speculation). Once Henry VI was murdered, and his
son killed, the Lancasterian claim fell to Henry
Tudor. Henry's uncle, Jasper was only one generation
removed from 100% Welsh blood and the Tudors, who had a
strong power base in Wales and the Marches, would have
commanded a significant following amoung the Welsh. My
guess is that Edward was trying to buy some of that
support for York.

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-18 18:17:17
oregonkaty
It still seems odd to me that Edward IV kept
young Edward so far removed from London for so long. I
believe he did have him brought down for some court
occasion or other. Maybe he thought he had all the time in
the world to bring his heir forward and let the
people get acquainted with their future king. <br><br>If
tradition had been followed, young Edward would have gone
to live in another great household at about age 7,
to remain there till 12 or 13. I don't know that
Anthonu, Lord Rivers, qualifies...actually, Richard would
have been the logical choice. Something else to wonder
about...why Edward IV didn't send young Edward to be fostered
in Richgard's household, as Richard was in
Warwick's.<br><br>The flip side of the question of why young Edward was
sentso far away for so long at such a young age is why
his brother Richard was left in the "nursery" with
his sisters for so long. He was still there at age
9...until Edward's death and young Edward's return to
London for his never-to-be coronation. Young Richard
should have gone off to another household a couple of
years earlier.<br><br>Edward IV was raising his sons,
the royal scions ("the heir and the spare") in an
unusual way. One has to wonder why. Maybe it was just his
personal eccentricity, but it was a break with tradition.

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-19 00:24:56
oregonkaty
Some more thoughts... I recall reading that
someone or maybe several persons who saw young Edward
ride into London with Richard's contingent said the
boy was blond and goodlooking. But I don't recall
reading anything saying he was charming oand intelligent.
Maybe he was. But I've also read that Richard was a
hunchbacked monster who was in his mother's womb for a year
and emerged with teeth and claws.<br><br>I know that
his handwriting was atrocious, from his signature on
the document of Stony Stanford. And I don't think
that's being picayune: Edward IV had a special interest
in handwriting, and young Edward should have been
practicing his regal signature from the time he could hold a
pen by the correct end. His tutor would have had
something to answer for. (And one can't say that everyone
had bad handwriting in those days. I can read
everything of Richard's that I've seen reproduced, even the
one that was probably written from the back of a
horse, and John Kendall writes very legibly, as would be
expected. If you look at the coreespondence reproduced the
The Lisle Letters, while one person may as well be
writing in sabscrit, many are on a beautiful clear
hand.)<br><br>It still seems to me that it was past time for
Edward IV to have had young Edward at court, learning
statecraft and getting used to politicing and diplomacy and
learning who was who. Leaving him in a distant castle with
so long is hardly what I'd call a good idea...it
isn't the same situation as fostering a son with a
great household.<br><br>Edward did other things that
weren't a good idea, of course...marrying Woodville for
one, and giving so much power to her "omnivorous"
relatives, for another.

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-20 03:53:21
dcidarling
Hello all<br><br><But I don't recall reading
anything saying he was charming oand
intelligent.><br><br>You may not recall it, but he *was* said to be
so.<br><br><I can read everything of Richard's that I've seen
reproduced, even the one that was probably written from the
back of a horse, and John Kendall<br>writes very
legibly, as would be expected.><br><br>On the other
hand, according to her biographer (Christine
Weightman), Margaret of York was not a terribly good writer -
so maybe Edward took<br>after his aunt?
;)<br><br><It still seems to me that it was past time for
Edward IV to have had young Edward at court, learning
statecraft and getting used to<br>politicing and diplomacy
and learning who was who. Leaving him in a distant
castle with so long is hardly what I'd call a good
idea...it isn't the same situation as fostering a son with
a great household.><br><br>If you want to know
more about the actual position and the particular
circumstances behind and about all the principals involved with
young Edward's upbringing, may I suggest you read the
highly informative 'Edward 4, The Wydevilles and the
Prince of Wales' Council' article from the<br>'Bulletin
of the Board of Celtic Studies' journal xxix,
1980-81? <br><br>Maybe the R3 Library has it for you to
borrow - I got my copy via public access at my local
University library.<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-20 04:47:49
oregonkaty
Thanks for suggesting that reference, Lorraine. I'll see if I can get ahold of a copy. I'm always interested in more reading on the subject.

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-20 14:39:00
brontewcat
The source for my saying that EV was charming and
intelligent is Charles Ross's Richard III, 1999ed Yale Press,
p71. He quotes Mancini, who described young Edward as
having charm, dignity and an educational attainment in
advance of his years. Ross then says this opinion was
supported by Bishop Russell who described Edward as having
"a gentle wit and ripe understanding, far passing
the nature of his nature of his youth".<br><br>Both
these are contemporary descriptions, unlike those you
referred to about Richard, so we can probably rely om
them, although there may have been some element of
flattery. (Charming and intelligent is my
paraphrasing)<br><br>I am not sure why Edward was sent off at such a
young age. As I said I expect it had something to do
with trying to buy popularity from the Welsh. The
Crown still does it. Prince Charles was sent to a
university college in Wales for a term, when he was studying
at Cambridge, to learn something of its culture and
language. Henry VIII sent his daughter Mary to Ludlow as
well for a time after he made her Princess of
Wales.<br><br>Edward probably thought he could count on London's
loyality, but not on the Welsh. Therefore it may have been
more important to show the flag in Wales than have the
Prince in London. The Prince did visit the court a bit.
He spent Christmas 1482 at Court. As you said Edward
probably thought he had plenty of time.<br><br>While I do
not think the Woodville marriage was a mistake,(for
one thing it provided a balance to the power of
Warwick) I know Ross believes giving the Woodvilles so
much control over Edward was fatal to his son's
fate.<br><br>The quality of someone's handwriting is not an
indication of their intelligence, just their penmanship. My
brother is extremely intelligent (as long as he never
knows I said that, i would never admit it to his face),
but his writing is shocking. It was so bad no one
could read his answers in exams, so he failed virtually
every subject in his senior year at school. However I
believe his IQ is higher than mine and I have 2
university degrees!

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-20 17:27:49
oregonkaty
Good points. Regarding courting the loyalty of
the Welsh, there is of course the entire tradition of
the "Prince of Wales" pre-dating Edward IV. (When did
the king's eldest son regularly become called the
Prince of Wales, anyway, after Edward I's -- I hope it
was Edward I, since I didn't stop to look it up -- so
designated his newborn son? Who was not his heir at the
time, as I recall...there was an elder son.) And Henry
VIII sent his heir Arthur to Ludlow also, and he died
there.<br><br>My comment on young Edward's bad handwriting was
more properly a reflection on his education than on
his intelligence. One of my sons, who is quite
intelligent and advanced in his field, has such poor
handwriting that for years we didn't realize that he is also
an atrocious speller.<br><br>Mancini, though a
contemporary, isn't unbiased. But he certainly was more in a
position to know that I am, and I can't quote anyone who
says young Edward wasn't charming and intelligent and
well-educated. Whether Edward IV was keeping him far removed
from London because something was wrong with him is
just something I've thought about...I think all sorts
of far-out and possibly crackpot ideas should be
considered, then hopefully researched and then refuted if
appropriate. <br><br>Such as, what if Edward IV really was
murdered (poisoned)? What if Henry VI wasn't murdered, but
actually did die of "pure melancholy" (on hearing of the
death of his son, perhaps)? In one place I read about
the existence of an Edward of Wigmore, born of
Eleanor Butler...did he exist and what happened to him?
Could Arthur Plantagenet really be Edward IV's son,
since he seems to reach every milestone in his life
about 20 years too late to have been born in Edward's
lifetime? <br><br>I know the authorities on the subject(s)
have their definite and very respectable standpoints
but it's still interesting to think about the
what-ifs. It's harmless and it keeps me off the streets at
night.

Re: Going OT: When is a King not a King

2001-06-20 23:09:12
tmc\_dale
Not at all<br><br>There is no provision under
British Law as stands for a dynast (ie a member of the
royal house) to abdicate their rights. Effectively
there is no such thing as a line of succession to the
British Throne. Succession is governed by statute as set
by the British Parliament - currently on the death
of a monarch the next lineal heir general of Sophia
of Hannover (d1714) is the next monarch providing
they are a member of the Church of England, not
married to a Roman Catholic or a practising Roman
Catholic themselves.<br>Just as there is no provision
under statute for the abdication of a reigning monarch
there is none for the surrender of dynastic rights of a
Prince of Wales.<br><br>Remember Edward VIII did not
abdicate - he simply intimated to his Prime Minister that
he wished to do so - Parliament then legislated to
permit him to do so - he didn't abdicate until he gave
the Royal Assent to the Bill permitting his
abdication. That Act applied to Edward VIII and any putative
children he may have had and them only.

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-21 00:13:57
dcidarling
Thank you - the author was D E Lowe, BTW. I forgot to mention this yesterday.<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-06-21 10:44:23
brontewcat
It was Edward I who made his son the 1st Prince
of Wales.<br><br>I agree about "what ifs" - they can
be quite interesting. That could raise some very
philosophical considerations. what does it mean to 'know'
something? How do we 'know'. we take so much history for
granted and a lot of it never happened eg there is no
evidence that Marie Antionette ever said 'Let them eat
cake', it is more likely a story spread around to
discredit her.<br><br>So I think the Richard III Society
does an important job of refuting a lot of the myths,
but I also think he should not be made out to be a
better person than who he really was. Thats the most
fascinating thing about him, trying to find the truth.
Ultimately I don't think we can "know", but it is
fun/interesting trying.

Re: the precontract

2001-06-21 20:04:57
tmc\_dale
Forgive my late reply been away<br><br>Buckingham
wasn't next in line at all - the point of my original
post on this subject was that while it is perfectly
correct to say that Buckingham could be considered to
have pondered his closeness to the throne he himself
would have had to invent a pretty good reason for
claiming a dynastic right to it.<br><br>After the Princes,
Richard III and the Earl of Warwick - the House of
Plantagenet was extinct in the Male Line. It then become a
battle for who has the strongest claim as heir general -
and then you have many many people (some even adults)
before the Staffords - not only the daughters of Edward
IV, but then Warwick's sister Margaret Plantagenet
(and think what an ambitious influential noble could
have done with those girls), then you have Edward IV's
young niece Anne St Leger, then the De La Pole boys
(the elder of which was not only the nephew of two
King's but an adult male to boot). You then have the
Bourchiers (descendants of Richard of York's sister Isabel)
the Earl of Essex was a minor during Richard's reign
but again several adult relations who may well have
decided to chance their arm and so on.

Upbringing of Edward V

2001-06-21 20:31:42
tmc\_dale
The tradition of sending the sons of the nobility
to be educated in alternate households did not
necessarily apply to Royal Infants.<br><br>Edward IV was
brought up seperated from his parents and his siblings
(apart from Rutland) at Ludlow himself which may have
influenced his decision where to establish his son's
household.<br><br>Edward V was not sent to a nobleman but was given his
own household everything done by that household would
be carried out in his name. It is no surprise that
his brother Richard remained in London with his
sisters. Henry VII's sons were seperated with Arthur at
Ludlow while Henry VIII remained in London with his
sisters.<br><br>The establishment of a seperate household for Edward
V was necessary - it would provide him with his own
source for dispensing patronage once he grew to
adulthood, would provide a seperate conduit to gain Royal
Patronage to the other households (the King's and the
Queen's), would enable the control of the lands and
properties settled on the Prince of Wales to be controlled
seperately from the Royal Household. It was also politically
important as part of Edward IV's regional policy - with
spheres of influence being divided by people undoubtedly
loyal to the crown. Until the restoration of Henry VI
the key power in Wales and the Marches rested with
loyal Yorkists such as Herbert (earl of Pembroke) his
death (the decision not to entrust his heir with
power), the fact that another major Welsh landowner was a
minor (Buckingham) and the traditional pro-lancastrian
nature of Wales meant that Edward IV needed his son and
his son's council to control Wales which was
effectively what it did in the name of the Prince of Wales
however control rested with Anthony Rivers as Governor of
the Prince. In fact it is possible to argue that
Anthony Rivers and his other Councillors did as good a
job of governing Wales as Richard of Gloucester did
in the North.<br>Anthony Rivers was far from being a
mere "perfect knight" although it is true he did fit
the ideals of Chivalry in his public actions but in
addition he was until his end not a bad politician
either.<br><br>In fact Edward IV did have his son brought to London
- when he invaded France his son Edward was brought
from Ludlow and installed in the Queen's Household as
Regent although understandably power rested with Edward
IV's councillors who did not go abroad to fight (or
allow themselves to be bought off by French). It was
really a display though of course showing that the House
of York had male heirs and the dynasty was secure.

Re: the precontract

2001-06-21 23:35:38
oregonkaty
But from what we know of Buckingham's
personality, I could well see him coming up with some
convoluted scenario in which he could imagine himself the
next in line. The Staffords had a wild hair, from the
one who ordered his men to charge into a mire at
Shrewsbury to the later ones who attracted the Tudors' fatal
attention for o'erweening ambition.<br><br>Personally, I
would not have gone hunting in the New Forest with
Harry Buckingham.

Re: Upbringing of Edward V

2001-06-21 23:41:20
oregonkaty
Good and well-reasoned information...thank you. You summed it up better than I had seen so far. Maybe that's one less thing I have to wonder about.

Re: the precontract

2001-06-24 15:28:49
tmc\_dale
I am always interested when people say from "what
we know". Actually I was under the impression
perhaps misguided that we know very little about
Buckingham.<br><br>Care to elaborate on what you actually
mean.<br><br>tim

Re: the precontract

2001-06-24 16:50:21
oregonkaty
Maybe I should have said "from what I think I
remember reading about what we think we know from reading
what other people 500 years ago said they thought they
knew" about Buckingham. <br><br>I suppose we know very
little about most of the people and events of those
days, when you come right down to it. Which is what
makes it interesting to talk about.

Re: Upbringing of Edward V

2001-07-02 04:50:29
brontewcat
Thanks Tim<br><br>You always manage to put things better than I can. Probably comes from knowing more about the subject than me<br><br>Jane

Cecily in Isle of Wight

2001-07-04 09:49:15
Emmpeejay
Enjoying a weekend break on the Isle of Wight
recently, we visited Quarr Abbey and discovered that Edward
IV's daughter Cecily was buried there. Does anyone
know the history of her association with the island?

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-07-13 00:16:49
bethgael15
Quote:"It was Edward I who made his son the 1st
Prince of Wales."<br><br>And he did this nicely, too...
when the Welsh asked for at least a governor that
could speak their language after Edward took over on a
permanent basis, he promised them a Prince who could "speak
no other language". Of course, his infant son
couldn't speak at all... ah, the language of "diplomacy".
Don't you just love it??

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-07-13 00:19:30
bethgael15
Quote: "eg there is no evidence that Marie
Antionette ever said 'Let them eat cake', it is more likely
a story spread around to discredit
her."<br><br>Yeah there's a lot of this stuff around... I'd heard
or read (forget where) re this story, for example,
that she did say it, but it was in the lines of, well,
"they're starving? Send them out my food and let them eat
cake if they can't afford the bread".

Re: opinions - especially for Woodville

2001-07-14 06:53:36
brontewcat
I believe Edward I was very good at this sort of
thing. Making a promise and then fulfilling the letter
but not the spirit of the law. He would have made a
good lawyer today (He was a pretty good lawyer even
then)<br><br>Jane

Cecily, Baroness Bonville

2001-07-24 04:22:17
duchess\_cecily
Hi, I was wondering if anyone knew anything about
Cecily Bonville? Her mother was a sister to the Earl of
Warwick. Cecily's stepfather was Hastings. I know she was
married Elizabeth Woodville's son, Thomas, the Marquess
of Dorset. I'm wondering what became of her after
Edward IV died, during Richard III's reign, and then
after Bosworth field. Also, when did Dorset die? and of
what? I know after Richard gained control of the
government, Dorset fled to the low countries.<br>One more
thing, sorry to be so long winded, but does anyone know
if you can visit Astley manor in the Midlands? or
Shute in Devon? Shute was one of Cecily's manors, and
Astley was Dorset's and it's where Cecily is buried.
Thanks so much.<br>Crystal

Re: Cecily, Baroness Bonville

2001-07-24 13:37:45
tmc\_dale
Cecily had a rather eventful life to say the
least - she bore numerous children by Thomas Marquess
of Dorset and after his death she went on and
remarried the Earl of Wiltshire (second son of the Duke of
Buckingham and Catherine Wydeville) who must have been
nearly 20 years younger than her. She died peacefully in
her bed.<br><br>Little is known about where Cecily
was at any time during Richard's reign - Dorset
probably fled to Brittany at the back end of 1483 as we
know he was with Richmond by 1484. It's more than
likely that Cecily remained in England. Dorset and his
wife were quite wealthy even under Henry Tudor
(although they lost the Exeter inheritance that Edward IV
had intended should go to their son and eventual heir
when he married Anne St Leger - the half sister of
Thomas' first wife Anne Holland). Combining Cecily's own
inheritance (which was apparently considerable), Thomas'
minor and not vast inheritance from his grandmother
Baroness Ferrers of Groby (d1482) and whatever grants he
managed to get back after Richard' removal - it also
seems that at some point Dorset managed to get Astley
back (which formed his paternal grandfather's
inheritance from his great grandmother Joan Astley) - it was
in dispute in the early 1460's according to the
contract signed between Elizabeth Wydeville and William
Hastings.<br><br>Hope that helps a little.<br><br>Tim

Re: Cecily, Baroness Bonville

2001-07-24 18:52:49
duchess\_cecily
Thank you, that helps a great deal. Within the next couple years I'm coming back to England to study and I'd like to visit Astley if I can. <br>crystal

Richard III Era Heraldry?

2001-07-26 21:57:39
paddingtonfrisk
Does anyone know where I can find the heraldic
coat of arms for people that surrounded Richard III?
<br><br>I have scoured the internet and local libraries and
have found many, but there are still few left that are
much more difficult to locate.<br><br>The men in
particular I am looking for are Lord William Hastings, Lord
Thomas Stanley, Sir William Catesby, Sir Richard
Ratcliffe, Lord Francis V. Lovel, Sir James Blount, and Sir
Walter Herbert.<br><br>Do any of you have information
about these arms (assuming that they all had their own
individual coats of arms)? If not, do you know where I could
look, or anyone I could ask, to find them?<br><br>If
you have any information about these men's coat of
arms, or know of an arms they may've worn, I would be
most grateful for some kind of direction. So far I
have been very unlucky.<br><br>I appreciate any help
you can give.

Re: Richard III Era Heraldry?

2001-07-27 05:24:34
oregonkaty
I have seen a book called Shakespeare's Heraldry
or something similar. It is an aid to putting on
productions of the historical plays, and it gave heraldry for
all the characters who could be expected to wear any,
including heralds. <br><br>I have no idea how accurate it
is, and we know that Shakespeare himself was
inaccurate about who certain characters were and their
titles, but it might be helpful to you.<br><br>I found it
in a university drama department library.

Re: Richard III Era Heraldry?

2001-07-27 05:38:10
lblanchard1485
Oregonkaty writes:<br><br>"I have seen a book
called Shakespeare's Heraldry or something similar.<br>
It is an aid to putting on productions of the
historical plays, and it gave<br> heraldry for all the
characters who could be expected to wear any,<br> including
heralds. <br><br> "I have no idea how accurate it is, and
we know that Shakespeare himself<br> was inaccurate
about who certain characters were and their titles, but
it<br> might be helpful to you."<br><br>It is indeed
_Shakespeare's Heraldry,_ and is by C. W. Scott-Giles, who was
at one time Fitzalan Pursuivant Extraordinary of the
College of Arms and also an editor of Boutell's Heraldry.
As I understand it, those are pretty good
credentials.<br><br>Regards,<br>Laura Blanchard<br>lblanch001@...

Re: Richard III Era Heraldry?

2001-07-27 17:40:54
paddingtonfrisk
Thank you both so much!<br><br>I will go to the library today and try to find it!

Re: Richard III Era Heraldry?

2001-07-27 20:54:48
oregonkaty
I checked with Half.com and in their files there
are three books, by different authors, on the
subject.<br><br>None are in stock, unfortunately, but at least you
could get the titles and authors to help you in your
search.

Re: Richard III Era Heraldry?

2001-07-29 14:41:12
liverbirdl21
Michael Hick's book "Richard 111" contains colour plates of the coats of arms of Hastings, Stanley and Lovell. Hope this is of interest to you.

Edward 1V's will

2001-07-29 14:52:27
liverbirdl21
I would be interested to find out if anyone knows
of any contemporary references to Edward 1V's will
and Richard's designation by him as Protector. Who
would have been responsible for the safekeeping and
reading of the will? Wouldn't the royal council, who it
seems initially decided against a protectorate, have
been aware of it? Any comments relating to this
subject would be appreciated.

Re: Edward 1V's will

2001-07-29 17:44:13
dcidarling
The Will was certainly known about at Court and
was in fact discussed by Edward's executors, one of
whom was John Alcock, Edward V's tutor, along with
others on the Council. They met to prove the Will in
early May (8 May, I think, from
memory).<br><br>Edward's funeral cost ý1496 17s 2d and at this meeting
Edward's executors agreed to sell some of his jewels to
cover the cost.<br><br>I believe it is the Croyland
Chronicle who first mentions the codicils naming Richard as
Protector in 1483, but unfortunately these codicils have
not survived. We know that different executors were
appointed for this later Will than those appointed to
adminster Ned's pre-French trip 1475 Will in the event of a
fatality.<br><br>A copy of the 1475 Will survives though, as
detailed in the 'Excerpta Historica' (ed. S Bentley,
1831). However, this document doesn't name Richard as
Protector, perhaps because he was on the French trip with
Edward. <br><br>Hope that's some help to
you.<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Richard III Era Heraldry?

2001-07-31 04:24:10
paddingtonfrisk
oregonkaty & lblanchard1485: I found a copy of
"Shakespeare's Heraldry" by Scott-Giles at the library. It was
the library's ONLY COPY in their many branches. But,
it was a breath of fresh air when I got my hands on
it. It had everything! Thank
you!<br><br>liverbirdl21: Thanks for the title! I'll see if I can track
that one down too. Also, I noticed that Hicks has two
books on Richard III. One of the title which you named,
as well as another called "Richard the Third and His
Rivals: Magnates and Their Motives in the War of the
Roses". Does that one have any information on heraldry in
it that you know of?

Re: Richard III Era Heraldry?

2001-08-01 05:48:40
oregonkaty
Glad to know the suggestion was helpful.

Dadlington church

2001-08-02 09:03:24
roseofraby1485
Hi All,<br>I am planning to visit Bosworth and
Dadlington on 19 Aug and need to know if someone could give
me some information. I want to attend morning
worship service at Dadlington church and would like to
know if someone could tell me what time the service is
held, or where I may find out. Also does anyone know if
Fotheringghay accepts visitors on that Sunday or Monday.Any
info would be greatly appreciated. roseofraby

Re: Dadlington church

2001-08-02 15:17:15
dcidarling
Hi roseofraby<br><br>I rang the Bosworth Tourist
Info for you (it's in the Battlefield Centre
apparently). Linda, the lady I spoke to, mentioned none of the
local<br>churches hold regular services any longer and Dadlington
Church itself is in-between vicars at present but she
did give me a tel. no. of the<br>Dadlington Church
Warden, a Mrs Alcott.<br><br>She suggested you call the
Warden nearer the time to see if anything has been
arranged for that date. Her number (from the UK) is 01455
212 291.<br><br>Linda also mentioned details of two
confirmed memorial services for Richard, if you're
interested.<br><br>One is the annual R3 Soc. service at Sutton Cheney
Church on Sunday 19 Aug which starts at 12 noon. The
other is a short service of remembrance at the
Battlefield Centre at 'Dickon's Well', which will begin at 11
am on Wednesday 22 August.<br><br>Sorry - I didn't
check up about Fotheringhay, but according to the back
of the UK's 'Ricardian Bulletin', Phil Stone, the R3
Society's<br>Fotheringhay Co-ordinator, can be contacted via
email:<br><br>ptstone@...<br><br>He may be able to help further with your
query.<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Dadlington church

2001-08-03 06:24:16
roseofraby1485
Lorriane,<br> Thanks so very much for the info
about Dadlington. I've only been a Society member for a
few months and this will be my first visit to England
and I am looking forward to the memorial service for
Richard at Sutton Cheney and hope that I may meet some of
you there.<br>Again let me say how much I appreciate
the inquries that you took the time to make.<br>
Loyaulte me lie', Lynda

recognition

2001-08-03 21:05:06
assucyp
Is there a Tie or badge for members of the society to help in recognising other members at Ricardian sites.

Question:

2001-08-04 06:57:53
duchess\_cecily
Hello, I would like to know how to become a member of the Richard III society and what being a member entails. I live in America if that makes a difference. Thanks.<br>Crystal

Re: Question:

2001-08-04 15:42:09
lblanchard1485
Hello, Crystal. As it happens, I maintain the
American Branch website, so I can direct you to
<br><br><a href=http://www.r3.org/ target=new>http://www.r3.org/</a><br><br>for further information on membership in the Society,
in the American Branch, and so on. There's an online
form you can use to join, paying by credit card via
Paypal, if you're so inclined.<br><br>Regards,<br>Laura
Blanchard<br>lblanch001@...

Re: Question:

2001-08-06 04:28:04
duchess\_cecily
Thanks alot Laura. I am joining as soon as I get the packet in the mail. I'm also very interested in volunteering for the Illinois branch once it's up and running.<br>Thanks again<br>Crystal

Re: Question:

2001-08-06 14:02:46
lblanchard1485
I think I deleted my reply to this before
sending, so I apologize if it shows up
twice:<br><br>Crystal writes: "Thanks alot Laura. I am joining as soon
as I get the packet in the mail. I'm also very
interested in volunteering for the Illinois branch once it's
up and running."<br><br>Let me clarify, quickly. The
Illinois chapter is very much up and running. In fact, it
hosted our 1999 annual general meeting. They just
haven't built a web page. <br><br>You'll find contact
information on the back cover of the Ricardian Register when
you receive it. I'm sure they'll be pleased to
welcome a volunteer-minded new member to their
ranks!<br><br>Regards,<br>Laura Blanchard<br>lblanch001@...

Banner of London

2001-08-06 20:54:28
paddingtonfrisk
Looking through Scott-Giles' book "Shakespeare's
Heraldry", he gives an account of the Banner of London
during the time of Henry VI's reign (pg. 167 - fig. 187;
argent, the cross of St. George and in the first quarter
the sword of St. Paul, both gules)<br><br>Do any of
you know if this would have been the same flag to fly
during Richard's time?

Re: Banner of London

2001-08-17 18:58:16
oregonkaty
I thought one of the UK folk would have answered
by now, but since they haven't...as far as I know
that is currently the flag of the City of
London.<br><br>Whether it has changed, then changed back, in the
intervening centuries, I couldn't say. Hopefully someone else
can.<br><br>(You notice I've learned to qualify my
statements...anyone want some syrup along with the waffles?)

Yet another Richard III Novel!

2001-08-22 17:17:00
aelyon2001
Hello.<br><br>I have had an intermittent interest
in Richard III since primary school days (well, I
asked for 'a history book' for my seventh birthday -
and got it!) and recently started to write a novel on
the subject.<br><br>Yes, I know that there have been
a great many, and what makes me think that I can do
better? But I can't resist having a go. For me, the basic
problem is that most of the Richard III novels I have
read are over-romanticised, that in challenging the
'Richard as Villain' approach they go too far in the other
direction. Also, I've yet to come across a credible
explanation for the disappearance of Richard's
nephews.<br><br>What I am trying to do (whether I am succeeding is
another matter!) is to give proper weight to the
ambiguities of the time and to the shades of grey inherent in
the politics of that time. Ultimately, no one
succeeded in 15th century politics without being ruthless,
and without being prepared to engage in a certain
amount of double-dealing when it served a purpose.
Richard had, of course, been extremely successful in 15th
century politics up to the end of his brother's reign,
but with Edward IV's death everything changed.
Seizing the throne proved his undoing, but it is very
difficult to predict what would have happened had he not.
Clearly it appeared to be the right thing to do at the
time.<br><br>Any comments are welcomed.

Inconceivable

2001-08-22 17:32:01
Nutmeg070398
Why is it so inconceivable that the conspirators
in the Tower (including Hastings) were conspiring
against the young prince, and not conspiring against
Richard . . . and that Richard's ongoing defense and
protection of the prince resulted in the arrest and/or death
of these conspirators?<br><br>This seems the most
simple and obvious explanation, unless you prefer to
think of Richard as a power-hungry
usurper.<br><br>Anyone got anything that would prove the impossibility
of this?!

Re: Inconceivable

2001-08-23 04:07:30
ludbrook2000
Not quite sure what you're getting at. If they
were conspiring against Edward V then that has escaped
all chroniclers of the time. To that point, Hastings
had been totally loyal to Edward IV and his family.
You must remember firstly that it was Richard who
usurped the throne, and secondly that it was after
Richard's coronation, and well after the summary execution
of Hastings and the dispersal of the supposed
anti-Richard plotters in the Tower that the Princes
disappeared. If Richard was engaged in an ongoing defense and
protection of the princes then he had a funny way of going
about it. They were very probably murdered in August or
September 1483, very probably on Richard's orders. It was
quite unprecedented in English history for a new ruler
to leave his predecessor or any strong alternative
on the throne alive when he had him in his power
(recall the fates of Prince Arthur, Edward II, Richard
II, Henry IV, etc)

Re: Inconceivable

2001-08-23 15:27:46
Nutmeg070398
Back to my theory that the gentlemen at the Tower
council were conspiring against Edward V . . . it is
virtually meaningless to me that "chroniclers" have failed
to hint at this possibility. That DISPROVES
nothing.<br><br>Agreed. . . that Hastings had previously been loyal to
Edward IV and his family . . . and that could certainly
be interpreted to include Elizabeth's family --
Dorset, Gray, Rivers, Vaughn.<br><br>You evidently
believe that Richard usurped the throne, despite the
Rolle that was delivered to him, and despite the fact
that Richard took no proactive actions to take the
throne. He was approaced with this notion; he did not
conceive it.<br><br>As to the timing of the disappearance
of the princes . . . agreed; it was post-coronation.
And this means what?!<br><br>Richard asks for an oath
of allegiance to Edward; he sets a date for Edward's
coronation; he requests troops to protect Edward and his
position as Protectorate; and, he's faced with the
issuance of Royal orders by Hastings and Morton (on at
least two occasions) that make no reference to
Richard's role as Protectorate. <br><br>Is it inconceivable
that Richard's intention was to protect the princes
until Edward's coronation? <br><br>Richard executes
Hastings BEFORE the date set for Edward's coronation and
BEFORE he is presented with the Rolle requesting that
Richard be king. So why couldn't he be protecting
Edward's position?<br><br>It just seems equally arguable
that Richard was protecting Edward's position, and not
protecting his desire to take the throne. Richard was never,
ever raised to believe that he would be king, and
appears ever content with his role as Edward IV's
supporter, and then as Edward V's protector.<br><br>I won't
uselessly argue over the disappearance/death of the
princes, nor who might have ordered their execution. I
won't even say that it's impossible that Richard did
it. But during the council at the Tower, it seems
entirely possible that Richard was still protecting
Edward. After all, didn't Richard make inquiry of these
gentlemen regarding an appropriate disposition for those
conspiring against the crown? . . . and who represented the
crown at that time -- EDWARD.

Re: Inconceivable

2001-08-23 18:10:31
aelyon2001
Was Hastings conspiring at all? Clearly Richard
thought he was, but it does seem rather unlikely that
Hastings, with his long record of hostility towards the
Woodvilles, which had only been intensified by his rivalry
with Dorset over Mistress Shore, would suddenly start
conspiring with them. Yes, he had been unswervingly loyal to
Edward IV, and doubtless sought to protect the interests
of Edward V, but he seems to have enjoyed Richard's
respect, and, assuming that Richard did not decide to
seize the throne until a very late stage, might well
have been confident of his ability to influence and
restrain Richard. <br><br>On that basis, it seems
surprising that Hastings did not wait to see whether
influence would be sufficient but rushed straight into a
desperate plot in conjunction with his old enemies. Note
too that Rivers et al were not beheaded until 25th
June - almost a fortnight later.

Well said, Aeloy2000

2001-08-23 18:55:54
Nutmeg070398
Agreed . . . why would Hastings conspire with the
Woodvilles. I find it difficult to believe that Hastings was
plotting with his enemies, whether against Richard or
young Edward. Agreed, why not take a wait-and-see
approach.<br><br>In my mind, I think that the greatest mystery
surrounding Richard III is not the disappearance of the
princes but, rather, why he sentenced Hastings to death.
<br><br>I've never, ever heard a satisfactory response to this
issue. Never. But I'd invite opinions.<br><br>Further
confirming Richard's overall fairness is your mention of
Rivers' death, and the fact that Rivers named Richard as
executor of his will on the day before his death. Is the
appointment of Richard as executor the act of a man who has
reason to despise Richard? Of course not.<br><br>So at a
point when Richard had no reason to believe that he
could/would assume the throne (when he's been a loyal
Protectorate) why sentence Hastings to death, and place the
other "Tower conspiratory" under arrest, UNLESS they
are conspiring against the young prince.<br><br>I've
asked before, and I'll ask again . . . why execute
Hastings? Why does this question seem to escape the
attention of most "Ricardians?"<br><br>In a sense . . . who
cares about the princes? We'll never know and could
argue endlessly. If we could satisfactorily answer the
question of why Hastings was executed, I think we'd all
have a clearer insight into the personality of
Richard.

Re: Well said, Aeloy2000

2001-08-24 02:21:25
ludbrook2000
Surely the most likely reason for Hasting's
summary execution was that Richard wanted him out of the
way before he made a bid for the throne, very
possibly strongly encouraged by Buckingham. They both knew
that Hasings would not countenance the usurpation. The
only indication that Hastings, Morton et al were
engaged in some sort of plot came from Richard himself.
Hasings was dragged downstairs and immediately chopped
with no form of trial. If he had been plotting, why
didn't Richard try him? It was quite unprecedented for a
leading noble to be executed in this way with no form of
judicial process at all. <br>In this case I suspect the
obvious answer is also the right one.

Hastings Execution

2001-08-24 11:25:53
aelyon2001
I agree entirely that the Hastings execution
raises an awful lot of unanswered questions. If Desmond
Seward is correct that it should be dated to 20th June
rather than 13th June, then the thesis that Richard
wanted Hastings out of the way while he seized the
throne makes perfect sense, since he then launched his
coup almost immediately. However, if 13th June is
correct (and there is no strong reason why it shouldn't
be), it seems much less likely - why, having got
Hastings out of the way, would Richard then have waited
over a week to show his hand? After all, he had the
Duke of York in the Tower on 16th June, so no need to
delay any longer.<br><br>That Rivers should have
appointed the man responsible for his execution to be his
executor seems very odd to a 21st century eye. However, it
may have made perfect sense for Rivers to place his
widow under Richard's protection in that way. Also, if
there were many gifts to the church, Rivers may have
calculated that Richard was sufficiently religious a man to
ensure that they were carried out. I'm speculating a
good deal here, as I've no real idea of the terms of
Rivers' will.<br><br>The more I think about it, the more
it seems odd that Richard delayed so long in
executing Rivers and Richard Grey if there really was a
Hastings - Woodville conspiracy. Obviously Rivers and Grey
had been in custody since the end of April, so their
involvement in such a plot might well be restricted, but
Richard would presumably have thought them better out of
the way. Again, assuming that 13th June is the
correct date for Hastings' execution, Richard would have
waited until he had the Duke of York in custody, and it
then would have taken 2 or possibly 3 days for the
execution order to reach Pontefract from London. That takes
us to 19th June, or perhaps a day or so later, which
leaves nearly a week unaccounted for.<br><br>My feeling
- I can put it no more strongly, since we shall
never know - is that Richard only made his decision to
seek the crown around 20th June. Earlier, he was
concentrating on strengthening his position vis-a-vis the
Woodvilles, and the execution of Hastings may (I stress may)
have resulted from nothing more than faulty
intelligence. Otherwise, why all the delays? <br><br>If you are
going to mount a successful coup, you must act
decisively and make sure that the crucial moves happen
simultaneously. Richard had plenty of experience of acting
decisively and there were plenty of recent precedents to
show what the crucial moves were. Here the crucial
moves, assuming that Buckingham's support was already
assured, were to get Hastings out of the way, get
possession of the Duke of York, neutralise the Woodvilles
and proclaim your own title to the throne. As a
preliminary, you would also mount a propaganda campaign
stressing your opponents' turpitude and inability to govern
in the interests of the country, and your own
excellent qualifications to rule.

Richard's motive

2001-08-24 11:48:47
willison2001
For his own survival and that of his wife and
child, don't you think Richard had to kill or be killed?
After all, a Woodville backed Edward V would've been
impossible to live with. The Woodville's had been behind the
death of Richard's brother Clarence it seems and had
generally acted in an arrogant and vicious way!

Seeking to meet other members in U.K.Hi,

2001-08-24 13:37:05
roseofraby1485
Hi,<br>This is Lynda-roseofraby on holiday from
the US for one week.I am planning to visit Bow Bridge
and York and would like to meet any other members
that may be interested.I will be here until Friday the
31 and my time is flexable.<br>Anyone interested may
make a post or E-mail me
at:jimswift@...<br>Thanks so much<br>Loyaulte' me lie, Lynda

Re: Seeking to meet other members in U.K

2001-08-24 15:31:14
willison2001
If you'd like to meet, give me a date, time &
place. I know the Ricardian sites around Leicester well;
Bow Bridge, site of the Greyfriars, Hasting's
incomplete castle, Bosworth!<br><br>Loyaulte' me
lie<br><br>David

Love your logic, aelyon2001

2001-08-24 21:39:47
Nutmeg070398
I prefer to think of Hastings' death on the 20th,
versus 13th. And it's not that I'm a blind loyalist to
Richard. But in the absence of any chronicle relating what
really happened in the Tower, why would Richard act so
completely out of character and rush to judgment? This from
the man who argued to save Clarence time after time.
And on that subject, to others in the club who have
responded . . . Woodvilles leading to George's execution?!?
I'd say that George caused his own death; and
deserved it sooner.<br><br>Rivers' widow under Richard's
protection?!!? This from a man who is going to his death under
Richard's orders? Doesn't make sense to me - in any
century. Richard's history of just-decisions seems more
logical . . . and on the subject of gifts to the Church,
why not name as executor Russell or Morton. Don't
answer, that's just rhetorical? I know why not Russell or
Morton. Seems more logical that Rivers appointed Richard
in light of his prior fair-play, including the
restoration of lands, etc., to even Hastings'
family.<br><br>Indeed. Why delay the executions of Rivers and Gray with
a Hastings-Woodville conspiracy in the works? In my
simple mind, it's another example of Richard's logical,
patient, thinking. Why rush. Better question: why not
round-up Dorset and execute him, too?<br><br>But do you
think that Hastings was the major impediment to his
"coup?" As if Morton and Stanley aren't bigger
impediments. And I've heard to logical reasoning that Richard
would not have dared to execute Stanley with his
powerful lands and legions, nor Morton due to his standing
in the Church. So why bother with Hastings, in such
a hasty manner, and leave Stanley?<br><br>So did
Richard have Bouchier under his thumb? The Cardinal
persuaded Elizabeth to allow the young Duke to reside in
the Tower with his brother. Was he just Richard's
agent? Again, rhetorical.<br><br>I hate to hear the term
"coup" because it sounds so premeditated. But I'll agree
that if it was a well-planned coup, Richard did
virtually everything right (except leaving Stanley &
Morton).<br><br>Anyway . . . bottom line (yes or no) . . . is it
inconceivable to you that the Tower conspirators were
conspiring regarding young Edward (after all, who wanted a
minor king, again?) . . . either to remove Richard as
Protectorate, and/or to remove Edward altogther and crown a
king of their choice . . . and that Richard simply
didn't appreciate such talk, particularly from those
purportedly loyal to his brother/Edward's father. And isn't
it conceivable that Richard really didn't plan to
"usurp" the throne . . . but that after the announcement
of the pre-contract, and with no one wanting a minor
on the thrown, Richard felt it best if he accepted
the position presented to him in the Rolle. And I
won't disagree at all that it helped to have Buckingham
lined-up; and that the propoganda from the 20th on
certainly secured his position.<br><br>The execution of
Hastings: There lies the key to the entire mystery. I truly
believe this.<br>Who cares about the princes!

Re: Richard's motive

2001-08-24 21:49:05
Nutmeg070398
Kill or be killed. Hmm. Kill whom?<br><br>A
Woodville-backed Edward would have been a challenge, to say the
least . . . insofar as Richard would have somehow had
to protect his position as Protectorate. <br><br>But
assume with me that Richard didn't want the throne (at
least not IMMEDIATELY after Edward's death) . . .
certainly he was never raised to believe that he'd be king
. . . and his action prior and blind loyalty to
brother Edward never gave the least indication that he
had an eye on the throne (and far too many other
family members - nephews, brothers in the way, whom he
didn't kill) . . . so why not simply try to maintain the
Protectorate role until Edward's majority? thus keeping those
nasty Woodvilles at bay?<br><br>And excuse me, but what
did I miss? Woodvilles behind George's death?!?!? It
seems to me that no one could have had more to do with
George's death than George, himself. Talk about blatant
disloyalty. I actually like to think that George's death
ultimately came following his threat to announce the
precontract. But even if he had no knowledge of any
precontract, certainly his multiple conspiracies would merit
his execution. No?

Re: Well said, Aeloy2000

2001-08-24 21:58:27
Nutmeg070398
I don't disagree, certainly not with your point
about Buckingham's position. Agreed, why not try
Hastings? <br><br>But then, if Hastings was conspiring, so
too were Morton and Stanley. Why not try them
all?<br><br>And are you certain that Hastings was dragged down
and immediately beheaded (sure, we've all heard the
story). Absolutely NO doubt in your mind?!? Couldn't have
possibly been delayed until the 20th?<br><br>And if the
obvious answer is the right one . . . go ahead, call me
stupid. What's so obvious? Lock-up Hastings . . . like
Rivers and Gray. Otherwise, execute Stanley, too. And
whoops, the decision to let Morton live didn't work-out
too well. <br><br>I'm not certain about anything
being completely "unprecedented" . . . but Hastings'
speedy execution (speedy whether on the 13th or 20th) is
not only unusual for a nobleman of the British
monarchy at that time . . . it is completely contrary to
every action in Richard's life up to that point. Won't
you agree?<br>Singapore?

Kill or be killed

2001-08-24 22:12:21
willison2001
Don't you think that Richard would've been in
trouble<br>once Edward V threw off the protectorate? Edward
had<br>been brought up by the Woodvilles to be a Woodville
-<br>he was a Plantagenet-Woodville by Birth - and
would<br>hardly have liked the way Richard took his
rightful<br>position at the start of the reign. The
Woodville<br>faction had declared that they should be the
trump<br>cards and Edward V is recorded as whingeing about
the<br>removal of Rivers.<br><br>In those days of Realpolitik to
upset the King was<br>certain death; 2 previous Dukes
of Gloucester had been<br>murdered by the Royal
group in power at the time. <br>Richard was a military
man and no fool. Striking down<br>Edward V, his chief
supporters: Hastings & Rivers, was<br>essential for his own
survival. And who can blame<br>him?<br><br>I agree with you
that Clarence foolishly invited his<br>own
destruction, but the clamouring of the Woodvilles<br>for his
death and their hostility to Hastings - one<br>time
friend to Richard - gave Richard an
accurate<br>perception of them over what he might expect from<br>them:
so it was kill or be killed! Iillill

To imply . . .

2001-08-24 22:25:41
Nutmeg070398
To say that the Tower conspirators were
conspiring against Richard as King on June 13, implies that
Richard had indicated his intentions to take the throne
prior to June 13. And I just don't see
it.<br><br>Conspiring against Richard's position as Protectorate? --
OK, makes sense. Conspiring against a minor child as
king? -- makes even more sense.<br><br>What, what in
the history of this mess leads us to believe that
Richard intended to take the throne as of 12 June? Why
even bother with the oath of allegiance? <br><br>Why
not just make a June 8 announcment that the children
are bastards, get Buckingham in line, and announce
intentions to claim the throne. How much noise can Hastings
make against a church member who says that the
children are illegitimate?<br><br>And Stallworth's 9 June
letter that "there is great business against the
coronation" . . . might this simply refer to some concern
about a minor king. With no reference to the
pre-contract, surely Stallworth isn't referring to any
illegitimacy issues. Who thinks this is a reference to
Richard's coronation?<br><br>So Richard's request for
troops the next day, 10 June . . . might not this
request be to protect young Edward?

Re: Kill or be killed

2001-08-24 22:48:22
Nutmeg070398
Yes, I do agree that Richard was in a difficult
position. He might have held his position as Protectorate
until Edward's majority, and might have lived on if
willing to accept some relatively obscure role in the
realm. And with the Woodville's historical reputation,
no doubt Richard might have needed to eliminate
certain Woodvilles . . . or performed some real
bargaining for the sharing of power (hardly in character for
a Plantagenet).<br><br>And I can't possibly
disagree that Hastings would have supported Edward (thus
supporting the Woodvilles . . . because we all recognize
that Richard's role as Protectorate was tenuous and
likely short-lived with Woodvilles around).<br><br>But
I'm brought back to the why-quickly-kill-Hastings
issue. Whether one is pro-Richard or anti-Richard, who
can disagree that the speedy execution of Hastings
was completely out-of-character, and thus puzzling.
Refer to my "to imply" message. <br><br>There is no
need to execute Hastings. The children are not
legitimate heirs. Explain to me the logic behind the speedy
execution of Hastings. I've never heard a good explanation
that is consistent with Richard's character (his
attitude toward traitor-George is a prime
example).<br><br>Some one once told me that Richard had to execute
Hastings quickly while in the heat of passion . . . logic
being that Richard knew himself well enough to know
that if he didn't do it quickly, he'd soften and
pardon Hastings. Not sure I buy that . . . not in the
15th Century.<br><br>And with that said, and with my
belief that Richard never wanted nor expected the throne
. . . was he just caught-up in the circumstances of
the times? i.e., knowing he couldn't easily maintain
his Protectorate, and couldn't find any significant
role under Edward's rule upon his majority. Explains
alot, but not the speedy execution of Hastings.

Re: Seeking to meet other members in U.K

2001-08-24 23:41:41
assucyp
saw your message and it reminded me of a request
I posted on in the club asking if there was a badge
or tie or something that members could wear to help
in recognizing each other at sites.Your request to
meet someone is the very reason I asked.<br>i suppose
I should contact head office.<br>I hope you do meet
someone.

Re: Kill or be killed

2001-08-24 23:47:54
willison2001
I'm glad you agree. Richard knew that with a
proWoodville Edward V on the throne he needed to fight for his
life. Richard was known for his decisive action, so he
struck at Edward before he struck at
Richard!<br><br>Hastings was very proEdward V. Richard knew that Hastings
would've opposed any removal of Edward V, but the only
means to protect himself was for Richard to become
King. It was inevitable that Richard & Hastings would
fight over this, but, as with his decision to get a
blow in first against Edward V, so did he against
Hastings. This had the added effect of frightening other
opponents, but the main point is that Richard, who was known
for his decisive celerity, was forced to oppose
anyone who supported the proWoodville Edward V. Someone
described that bunch as the 'Would evil' family, but
Richard, who was a just man, got the knock-out punch in
first. Killing was the norm.in those days. And I don't
blame him in the least. Richard wasn't a wimp as he
proved at Bosworth, fighting manfully to the
last!<br><br>You remarked about the children not being legitimate
heirs, but they, their supporters and particularly
Hastings would not have agreed. They would have produced a
clergyman to disagree with Stillington!

Hastings

2001-08-25 08:24:13
tmc\_dale
As usual a fair bit of speculation and Wydeville
baiting.<br><br>I note in the Hastings discussion that no-one has
seen fit to mention Sir William Catesby. Catesby was a
Hastings councillor and it has been suggested that he was
reporting on Hastings to Richard. Catesby certainly had
much to gain from Hastings' fall from favour and
therefore may well have been involved in false
reportage.<br><br>It is unlikely that Hastings would have willfully
plotted against Edward V. Given that in his will he
specifically calls on his sons to remain loyal to Edward IV
and his sons at risk of losing a father's blessing if
they failed to stand by the King. <br><br>Personally I
am convinced that it was Hastings who pushed Richard
into action following Edward IV's death however I find
it unlikely that he would have turned against
Richard unless he felt he was doing something that
Hastings didn't approve of. Equally for Hastings to then
turn on Richard and plot with the Queen Dowager and
her son Dorset is also unlikely. The relationship
between the Queen and Hastings may not be as difficult as
has been imagined although not a perfect one - the
key problem is more likely to have been Dorset who
does seem to have managed to upset everyone at some
point.<br><br>For my money far more likely is that Richard or his
supporters knew Hastings wouldn't countenance the removal of
Edward V or Hastings was set up for slightly different
motives by those who would benefit from his downfall in
terms of patronage and influence.<br><br>Tim

1483 Events & Wydevilles

2001-08-25 08:45:39
tmc\_dale
On the Wydeville's<br><br>It is true to say that
the major control of the Prince's household from it's
creation was the Queen's family - principally Rivers, and
her second son Lord Richard Grey.<br><br>However
control doesn't necessarily mean influence. Anthony
Rivers as the Prince's tutor was as likely to fall as
any other Royal Uncle. <br><br>The Wydeville's
unpopularity dates from two key periods - the Readeption when
they and other new Yorksist Peers were attacked by
Neville and targetted as sources of resentment and
secondly in the immediate aftermath of Richard's
protectorate and eventual accession. The evidence for long
term resentment and dislike is hard to find - there is
to my knowledge no surviving evidence of the Queen
being personally disliked in any
document.<br><br>Richard's own relationship with the family was hardly poor
and certainly in April of 1483 they were not
necessarily going to be any threat to his personal position
as a Royal Uncle. Richard sat on the Prince of
Wales' council and appears to have made no attempt to
extend his influence in the Principality through that
post happy instead to let Rivers run things (which he
did rather well). Richard knighted the Queen's
youngest brother during the Scotish Campaign and served as
steward for some of her properties (a salaried position).
<br>As to the fall of Clarence certainly the Wydeville's
were amongst those calling for his death along with a
substantial chunk of Edward's court and from the surviving
evidence that Edward himself spoke against his brother
Clarence and was the key mover behind his brother's death.
Richard, if he resented them for Clarence's death seems to
have behaved very strangely indeed - his son was
created Earl of Salisbury (held by George of Clarence)
before George's death and Richard was a guest at the
wedding of his nephew Richard of York at the same time.
George's death also strengthened Richard's hold on the
Neville properties and new Act's confirming his hold
followed George's death.<br><br>When it comes to 1483 -
the whole court would be in a power struggle for
control of the King all rushing to ensure that their
positions held under Edward IV would survive the new
regime. Any minority would be short lived given the new
King's age and only a short time would be had to secure
their positions. Royal Uncles did indeed have a short
life span either dead for plotting against the new
regime (whether real or imagined) or worn out (like
Bedford) from their efforts on behalf of the new monarch.
However it was perfectly possible for Richard and the
Earl Rivers to come to some accomodation. Any effort
to undermine the new reign came from Richard's side
when he arrested Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey at Stoney
Stratford - an illegal act. <br><br>Any sensible look at
events from June through to Richard's coronation - has
usurpation written all over it.<br><br>Firstly protestations
of loyalty, then the arrest and death of Hastings,
then the surrender of the Duke of York & Norfolk by
the Queen, followed by a delay in the coronation,
followed swiflty by the murder of Rivers, Vaughan and
Grey, followed by news of the bastardy and ultimately
Buckingham's engineered petition to Richard to take the
throne.

Re: 1483 Events & Wydevilles

2001-08-25 10:20:26
willison2001
The reason why Richard resented the Woodville
Clan was probably due to the fact that Dorset, as
reported by Hastings, had declared that 'We are so
important as to rule without the King's Uncle.' Richard had
to move against the Woodville tribe in order to
protect his rightful position as Protector. Once he'd
done this he'd set up a dynamic of hostility which
meant that the only means of his personal survival was
to become King. It's on record that Edward V was
upset about the arrest of Rivers, so Richard knew what
to expect from him. As Richard was protecting his
legal position as Protector against Woodville
high-handedness, the arrest of Rivers & Co. was probably legal
and, in any case, such behaviour was normal at that
time. Sitting down to compromise with the Woodvilles,
given their rapacious track record & Dorset's
declaration that THEY wanted supreme power, was hardly likely
or a wise course to follow. Richard was no fool over
this!<br><br>When you say that Richard was happy to let Rivers run
things over the Prince of Wales, I doubt if Richard had
time, given his responsibilities, to do more.

Re: 1483 Events & Wydevilles

2001-08-26 01:20:44
dcidarling
<The reason why Richard resented the<br>
Woodville Clan was probably due to the fact<br> that
Dorset, as reported by Hastings, had<br> declared that
'We are so important as to rule<br> without the
King's Uncle.' ><br><br>I doubt Richard heard of this
quip, actually. Hastings' written message to Richard
has been recorded and don't mention much beyond 'For
pity's sake, get ye to London poste-haste as all has
been left to you!' and another chronicler records
there were a number of verbal messages from Buckingham
too.<br><br>I'm pleased Tim mentioned Catesby's involvement - for
he's certainly not as innocent and steadfast to
Richard as some commentators (and novelists) would have
us believe. His last hastily drawn-up Will bears a
close examination and gives us a clue he was in cahoots
with at least one of the Stanleys...<br><br>Also has
the Hastings/Buckingham dynamic been mentioned?
Hastings may well have resented the New Boy(s) taking over
- he spent a long time close to the power source,
don't forget...<br><br>Plus Hastings' wife was a
relative of (cousin?) Reginald Bray, a very close
associate of Margaret Beaufort's, and another of those who
were implicated in the summer of 1483 'plots'.
<br><br>Pamela Tudor-Craig included a fond letter from Katherine
Hastings to Reggie Bray in her excellent 1973 'R3'
Exhibition in the National Portrait Gallery,
London.<br><br>This whole situation is anything but straightforward
and involves several equally ambitious and/or
desperate people filling the power vacuum left by Ned's
untimely demise...<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: 1483 Events & Wydevilles

2001-08-26 01:58:52
dcidarling
<Any effort to undermine the new reign came
from Richard's side when he arrested Rivers, Vaughan,
and Grey at Stoney Stratford - an illegal act.
<br><br>Any sensible look at events from June through to
Richard's coronation - has usurpation written all over
it.<br><br>Firstly protestations of loyalty, then the arrest and
death of Hastings, then the surrender of the Duke of
York & Norfolk by the Queen, followed by a delay in
the coronation, followed swiflty by the murder of
Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, followed by<br>news of the
bastardy and ultimately Buckingham's engineered petition
to Richard to take the throne.><br><br>Aw - and
you were doing so well, Tim! :)<br><br>Leaving aside
the Stoney Stratford thing as it's at least arguable
whether the arrests were illegal if Richard was a
designated Protector who believed the actions of some of the
party amounted to treason, let's turn to the rest of
the post:<br><br>*Protestations* of loyalty? Really?
Weren't they simply the usual declarations of
loyalty?<br><br>The arrest and death of Hastings was as a consequence
of a specific charge, the penalty for which Hastings
is said by More to have suggested himself!
<br><br>BTW, as a sidebar on this topic folks, why don't you
read the evidence as presented by Hanham, Woolfe and
their academic associates? I'll post the basics in
another post.<br><br>News of the bastardy could have been
knowledge in certain clergy circles as early as mid-May
1483 as you well know, Tim, as per the urgent letter
in Harleian MS 433 from Richard/E5 to the Archbishop
of Canterbury. This was also displayed at the 1973
NPG 'R3' Exhibition, and it is Pamela Tudor-Craig's
view, as described in the NPG programme, that it was
just what it says: a crisis summons to debate
something of great national interest. (Rosie Horrox, it has
to be said, does not agree with her, but Horrox's
speculative reason - that it was for money - is not borne out
by the surviving Convocation
records/dates).<br><br>Buckingham's part in a public attempt to garner support for a
Ricardian takeover was a dismal failure, as Sir Thos. More
records. Luckily for Buckingham's short but glittering
future in PR, the rump of the 3 Estates that was already
in London agreed anyway that Richard was better than
the alternative and went ahead and offered him the
crown, despite those alleged apprentice boy 'plants' at
the Guildhall! :)<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Hastings' Execution

2001-08-26 02:10:09
dcidarling
I can't remember what Seward had to say about it,
now, but I seem to remember he's been mentioned onlist
recently in connection with this thread. However, it's a
fair bet he'd misrepresent the evidence somehow - he
does for most everything else! ;)<br><br>Here's the
rundown for the Hanham et al discussion/peer
review:<br><br>In April 1972 Dr Alison Hanham first suggested
Hastings was arrested - and immediately executed - on 20
June in an article in the 'English Historical Review'
journal (which is still going strong). She claimed to
have found evidence in the London Mercers records that
Hastings was alive and at liberty on Sunday 15th June
1483. <br><br>These records detail a conversation b/w
the Chancellor, the Lord Chamberlain (Hastings) and
the bishop of Ely (Morton) which was reported<br>to
the Mercers, which led them to resolve on 15 June to
send a deputation to Morton with a view to seeking
favours from Richard's Council. (Obviously something they
hardly would have agreed to do if Hastings was sans head
and Morton was banged up with Buckingham by then
after the Council Meeting at the Tower on 13 June, the
date of which is *not* in doubt).<br><br>Further, on
20 June a note was made in the Mercers records of
the Mayor of London's highly unusual instructions for
the keeping of the Watch,<br>which (Dr Hanham
surmised) meant the capital was on guard against civil
unrest.<br><br>In Oct. 74, Prof. B P Woolfe claimed, amongst other
things, these records had been misread by his female
colleague and were in fact for a<br>different year
altogether (some coincidence, uh?).<br><br>Alison got an
opportunity to reply in October 1975 and demolished Woolfe's
theories, including observations he'd made concerning the
Watch. <br><br>There's also some surviving ambiguous
statements in Bishop John Russell's assistant Canon Wm.
Stallworthe's letters to his chum Sir Wm.<br>Stoner (none of
these guys were exactly a Yorkist sympathiser, BTW)
that were also brought up by these 2 academics, with
Woolfe arguing that all the other 'admittedly
circumstantial' evidence points to the 13th (it doesn't), so
Stallworthe must have meant this too, and Ms Hanham pointing
out several linguistic traps that Woolfe, plus
Gairdner and Kingsford had fallen into over
that.<br><br>It had been suggested that Hanham was saying the
record had been deliberately falsified but she was at
pains to point out that she believed it was simply a
genuine dating error, not a conspiracy. <br><br>She
wasn't even claiming, as some have done and which is the
scenario I incline towards, that the arrest took place on
the 13th with an execution one week later - plenty of
time to organise a quick trial by Hastings' peers,
even if the verdict was a foregone conclusion. After
all, this is what happened in the Anthony
Rivers/Richard Grey et al executions at Pontefract, which trials
were hastily convened and presided over by the Earl of
Northumberland.<br><br>The differing dates cropped up again in October 1976
when Woolfe responded with further rebuttals, and C H
D Coleman waded in on Woolfe's side with a 1980
article in the Bulletin of the Institute of Historical
Research (BIHR) Journal, with evidence that Hastings'
death was listed as 13 June 1483 in the Black Book of
the Exchequer, now in the PRO
at<br>Kew.<br><br>No-one's come up with anything further that settled the
matter once and for all to my satisfaction, but
personally I thought Hanham put her case better and I was
particularly underwhelmed by Woolfe's patronising tone towards
his fellow - but female! - historian.<br><br>Regards
- Lorraine

Re: 1483 Events & Wydevilles

2001-08-27 00:01:26
bar1114
All evidence points to an Edward V coronation, to
say events from June until Richard's coronation has
usurpation written all over it, is merely your opinion. It
doesnt make sense to suggest that Richards actions were
one big plot to seize the throne. There is no
concrete proof to suggest this. There is proof however, of
an Edward V coronation taking place in a timely
fashion.

Edward V's Coronation

2001-08-27 01:05:00
dcidarling
<There is proof however, of an Edward V
coronation<br> taking place in a timely fashion.
><br><br>Really? <br><br>I thought there was general agreement
that Edward V did not have a Coronation - timely or
otherwise. <br>Indeed, 3 separate dates for this ceremony
were mooted:<br><br>1. 4 May 1483, agreed by the
Council before Richard arrived in London<br><br>2.
Richard's setting of a new date of 24 June 1483<br><br>3. A
further postponement until November 1483<br><br>But, of
course, events overruled every one of
them!<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Edward V's Coronation

2001-08-28 00:21:58
bar1114
Of course their was no Edward V coronation, what
I said was there was proof that the coronation was
to take place in a timely fashion, there was no
evidence at the time that Richard was planning to "usurp"
the throne as someone suggested, this is also mere
speculation.

Re: Edward V's Coronation

2001-08-28 01:16:55
dcidarling
Thank you for the further clarification, but when
you wrote in your earlier post:<br><br><There is
proof however, of an Edward V coronation<br> taking
place in a timely fashion. ><br><br>I merely took
that to mean that you thought there had indeed been a
Coronation, as the above statement - which I have not
altered, or taken out of context - certainly implies to me
that is what you thought.<br><br>If eminent historians
can be mistaken about certain fundamental points of
Richard's life and times, it doesn't surprise me at all
when any of us Ricardians can sometimes get our facts
wrong.<br><br>Tim - for it was he - was clearly expressing an
opinion, and one you clearly disagree with, but, and I
speak as an active Ricardian myself, even the most
rabid of Richard's present-day supporters must see some
of the activity that took place in the summer of
1483 is at least open to
interpretation!<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Hastings' Execution

2001-08-28 19:48:00
aelyon2001
Many thanks for your detailed reply. If 20th June
is indeed correct for both condemnation and
execution then my argument based on chronology of events
from 13th June onwards is clearly flawed. Seward
refers briefly to Hanham's 1972 article in his very
one-sided 'Richard III: England's Black Legend', published
in 1983 (p.102). However, in his much more recent
book 'The Wars of the Roses', in which he looks at 5
protagonists, including Hastings, he accepts 13th June without
comment.<br><br>I'll have to take a look at all the sources you cite
and come back - oh the joys of having a university
library to draw on! I actually teach law but find history
much more interesting!<br><br>Regards<br><br>Ann

Re: Banner of London

2001-09-01 18:47:41
paddingtonfrisk
Sorry, I haven't checked this in a while. I
guessed that no one was going to respond.<br><br>Thank
you for your response, oregonkaty. So (while we're on
the topic of flags) assuming that this flag was
waving next to England's red and blue leopards and
lilies, do you know of any other flags that may have been
flying in London during Richard's time?

Richard's Coffin

2001-09-03 00:53:30
willison2001
I read that Richard's coffin was used for some cellar stairs in Leicester. Has anybody seen these?

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-03 01:08:06
willison2001
I read that there is some variance about the
location of Richard's remains. Some say the River Soar,
some say Leicester Cathedral and some think he may
still be buried at Greyfriars: under street level. Any
news on this?

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-03 01:15:00
dickon1
I understood that R3 was originally buried in the
White Friars and the mass was paid for by HVII (10s6p??
I think) but that later perhaps when HVIII was
demolishing monasteries all over England, RIII's tomb was
desecrated and the bones chucked unceremoniuosly into the
River Stour. The place where they were thrown in is
marked by a statue in a small riverside garden in
Leicester.

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-03 12:26:21
willison2001
It's a pity Leicester Council don't undertake a
thorough investigation to see if they can find Richard's
remains, e.g dredge the River Soar at Bow Bridge. A lot
about him, e.g. height, could be learnt from
reconstruction and forensic techniques. International interest
was aroused over the attempt to recover Alexander the
Great's body at Siwa some years back and Richard is just
as well known. Think of the tourism any recovery
would attract to Leicester!

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-03 17:56:25
aelyon2001
There is a tale that Richard's coffin was used in
the 18th century to make steps in a pub in Leicester,
but although I lived in Leicester for 7 years,
nothing is made of this, and I don't know whether either
pub or steps still exist. <br><br>Of course, if
Richard's bones were scattered, either at the Reformation
or later, then the chances of discovering anything
identifiable or analysable are just about nil.<br><br>Also, a
fair number of bodies have ended up in the River Soar
over the years (I used to row on it regularly, and
have fallen in it a couple of times in the process, so
I can testify to its general gunginess and
waist-deep mud!).<br><br>Sorry to pooh-pooh the idea, but
there do seem to be serious practical difficulties.

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-03 18:58:58
willison2001
The White Horse Inn was the pub where Richard's
stone coffin was, reputedly, reutilised. The pub is
still there, but I've not enquired inside.<br><br>If
bones were discovered around Bow Bridge - probably with
stab wounds - it would be a fair assumption that they
would be Richard's. Radio Carbon dating for age is
possible.<br><br>I don't object to you mentioning practical
difficulties. I'm sure one would be to get anyone off their
backside to attempt it!

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-03 19:11:48
dcidarling
I recently posted on another List about this
topic - here is an edited version of that post (apols
to those reading this for the second
time!):<br><br>The first recorded mention of Richard's bones being
dug up and then thrown in the River Soar in fact
occurred some 70 years after the supposed event. (John
Wycliffe's bones - he of the Lollards - definitely was
exhumed and disposed of in remarkably similar
circumstances. Indeed, some historians have speculated the
Wycliffe incident was the inspiration behind this
particular R3 legend).<br><br>Coincidentally, bones were
discovered in the 19thC on the river banks in Leicester, and
these were assumed to have been Richard's. However, I
understand subsequent examination of these bones<br>revealed
they were too young to Richard's and furthermore they
were unmarked by battle wounds or any marks of
violence.<br><br>The Greyfriars grave site has been occasionally
written about since 1483.<br><br>In the early 17thC,
Robert Herrick, a former Mayor of Leicester, had built a
residence and gardens on the east side of the then partly
ruined Friary.<br><br>Christopher Wren's father (at the
time tutor to Herrick's nephew) was certainly
impressed enough to make a note of a memorial to Richard
that<br>he saw in the garden during a tour of the grounds in
1612 ['Memoirs of the family of the Wrens' (1750)].
<br><br>Presumably this replaced the 'mingled marble tomb' (as
described by Sir George Buck) that Tudor had paid for and
which had been destroyed during<br>his son's
Dissolution of the Monastries. <br><br>IIRC, Tudor was
presented with a bill for 10 guineas (which was ý10 10
shillings in 'old money', if memory serves) for the work. I
have no idea if he paid for any masses for Richard but
the original epitaph was merely a piece of
self-serving doggerel ('My English left me in the<br>luckless
field/As into Henry's arms I was forced to yield' being
fairly representative of the whole). <br><br>The Herrick
monument, said to be on the original grave site, has long
since disappeared. It was erected within months of John
Speed's visit to Leicester, where *he'd* described the
grave site then as being 'obscure and overgrown' in his
'Historie of Gt Britain' (published in
1611).<br><br>Several people have also reported on the subsequent use
and whereabouts (at least up until the early 19thC)
of Richard's supposed coffin. The traveller Celia
Fiennes saw the coffin in<br>1700 at what she called the
'Greyhound Inn' (actually the 'Talbot' inn in Talbot
Street). She made a note that the coffin was cut out to
Richard's specific form - though seemingly there was no
special arrangements made to accommodate a supposed
deformity! However, since a number of innkeepers seem to be
involved in the coffin story (the receptacle was variously
used as a horse trough, a cistern as well as broken up
for cellar steps), it could be they were using local
legend just to drum up trade for themselves!
;)<br><br>The Greyfriars site was gradually built on and is now
a car park. A small section of the medieval
Greyfriars building currently survive in<br>the car park
wall. <br><br>So is he lying under that carpark? Well,
Charles Billson writing in 1920 had no doubts where he
was. It was Billson's belief that Richard<br>was still
'beneath the northern (St. Martin's) end of Grey Friars
Street, or the buildings that face it either
side'.<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-03 19:21:06
willison2001
Well, if Richard's remains are still in situ at the Greyfriar's site, you'd think the local archaeologists would make some attempt at excavation.

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-03 19:59:16
dcidarling
Why? Richard III is a minor part of Leicester's
overall history...<br><br>Sadly, it's a fact of life that
things don't happen just because we want them them to,
otherwise the Bones in Westminstter Abbey would be
disinterred and in the labs as we speak! :(<br><br>Don't
forget it really is a big hoo-hah to start digging up
spaces in the middle of today's English cities,
especially since the site is so public, and especially since
car parking anywhere in England these days is at a
premium, drivers inevitably get up in arms when what
parking space there is gets taken off them - and drivers
are voters... ;)<br><br>Not to mention all the moral
ramifications in disturbing the dead that would need to be
addressed... <br><br>In fact, 'Time Team' a TV show shored up
by several capable archeologists and historians and
support teams who have dug up historical sites all over
the place for years and whose TV ratings are high
(suggesting the format is popular with viewers), not so very
long ago TURNED DOWN an opportunity to dig at the
site! Not sure of the circumstances now, but I
understand the R3 Society approached them with this request,
and it was 'Time Team' and not the City of Leicester
'officialdom' who refused to play.<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-03 21:52:19
willison2001
I think you answered your own question. The
reason why a recovery of Richard's remains would be of
value is the same reason that motivated the examination
of the 'princes'' bones in 1933. It would shed light
on what I, & presumably you as you contribute to
this Forum, take to be an interesting period. I
suppose you could ask the question why have reasons at
all, but that is more to do with
philosophy!<br><br>Richard is more to do with national history rather than
Leicester's history, but any recovery would help their
tourist trade! They have a multi-storey car park neraby
if that's a problem. As for moral ramifications of
disturbing the dead, it doesn't seem to bother the Time Team
no more than it did the ancient Egyptian
excavators.<br><br>It would be interesting to know why Time Team turned
down the chance to search for R3.

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-04 04:48:49
dcidarling
<I think you answered your own question.
><br><br>More than likely! I was just mildly curious as to why
you wanted him dug up, that's all. <br><br>Actually,
I just want the lad to rest in peace, wherever he
currently may be. Not for any strong religious/moral belief
either - I simply think he's been messed about with
enough...<br><br><Richard is more to do with national history rather than
Leicester's history, but any recovery would help their
tourist trade!><br><br>Yes, but you mentioned 'local
archeologists' and it was that 'local' point I was addressing
and why I said Richard was a minor part of
Leicester's overall history.<br><br><They have a
multi-storey car park neraby if that's a problem.
><br><br>Well, I can only speak from experience, and it
definitely wasn't in *my* home town, when car parks were
closed for excavation work. We have TWO multistorey
carparks and the City Council still nearly got run out of
town!<br><br><As for moral ramifications of disturbing the dead,
it doesn't seem to bother the Time Team no more than
it did the ancient
Egyptian<br>excavators.><br><br>It may well not bother the 'Time Team' personnel, I
wouldn't know, and I really don't know enough about
Ancient Egyptian excavations to comment on<br>those.
<br><br>However, I do know that publicity about the two online
Petitions (on the Later Medieval Britain List) for a
Reappraisal of Those Bones, either<br>by re-examination or
via additional information placed next to the Urn
giving the alternative perspective, certainly HAS thrown
into sharp relief the very real concerns people have
about disturbing those long dead. Indeed, the LMB List
had some very intense, passionate and lively debate
on this issue, and a trawl through old journals and
newspaper articles will reveal similar reservations being
expressed whenever exhumations are proposed. <br><br><It
would be interesting to know why Time Team turned down
the chance to search for R3.><br><br>Oh, Richard
III is probably not as televisually sexy as finding
ten tons of reject Wedgewood pottery teapots, I
expect! :)<br> <br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-04 11:16:45
willison2001
I think it could be argued that Richard should be
buried in a proper place. If his remains lie at the
bottom of the River Soar, near Bow Bridge, it was
looking more like the City Tip last time I was
there.<br><br>If Time Team discovered Richard's remains I would
think this would be extremely sexy televisually, given
the amount of literature Richard has
generated.<br><br>Regards - David

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-04 12:43:08
dcidarling
Hello David<br><br><I think it could be argued
that Richard should<br> be buried in a proper place.
><br><br>Hmm, yes, of course there is an argument for it (but
then there would probably be an unedifying debate
about which establishment would have the better 'claim'
to him, which is another reason why I'd leave him in
peace!).<br><br>I was speaking purely for myself, of course.
:)<br><br>I think, after all my research, and all that I've
read of the old accounts, that the 'chucked in the
Soar' tale is wrong and on balance, like Billson, I
think Richard is in the carpark, where he was placed by
the Grey Friars with, one hopes, a degree of respect
and a suitable mass in August 1483.<br><br>What sort
of tomb and epitaph he subsequently got is really
irrelevant, I suppose, since I'm sure the Friars would have
conducted the original burial to some sort of [Christian]
standard that would have been recognisable to Richard
himself (had he been alive to hear it). <br><br>Anyway -
them's my feelings on the matter.<br><br>I just think
once you start digging, David, it never stops. Some
bright spark will suggest he and Anne should be
together, so there's be more digging and more controversy,
about where to put the couple. Then someone else will
start a campaign to reunite Edward of Middleham with
his parents (the tomb at Sheriff Hutton is empty, of
course, as was discovered when the monument was restored
a few years ago), and at some stage a line has to
be drawn...<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-04 13:55:44
aelyon2001
I agree with Lorraine that if Richard is in the
car park he should stay there. It seems unlikely in
the extreme that the Greyfriars would have buried him
without the appropriate religious rites. He was not
excommunicate, and even if they viewed his activities in life
with horror (and there is no evidence that they did),
they would have only considered it more rather than
less important to pray for his soul. Given the
indigities heaped on his body by Tudor's troops, the
Greyfriars may well have been particularly concerned to see
that he was properly buried. I suspect he will have
had a plain and simple funeral in all the
circumstances, perhaps with only the Greyfriars themselves
present, though with all the proper religious observances.
<br><br>If that is the case, why disturb him?<br><br>Like
you, I am not in favour of digging up bodies unless
there are extremely strong reasons for doing so, and
though I have been an archaeologist in my time I am
uneasy about excavations of graveyards. Where remains
are uncovered by accident the considerations are
rather different, and, to my mind, more
complex.<br><br>That said, a memorial of some sort in the car park
would be entirely appropriate, as would something to
commemorate the priory itself if there is not already
something there.<br><br>If Richard was thrown into the
Soar, then it will be extremely difficult to identify
any remains that are found as his. Again, I am
inclined to leave things be.<br><br>Regards<br><br>Ann

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-04 20:52:08
willison2001
Well, I'm not proposing to dig up the car park
myself. I'm not planning to pop there one night with a
spade! I was simply floating an idea. It seems a pity if
the only inscription Richard has is a 'Pay and
Display' sign! Richard appears to be the only monarch
without a proper burial place, with the possible
exception of Edward V (if you think the bones in
Westminster Abbey aren't his. Personally, on the evidence, I
think they probably are!)<br> <br>I think Leicester
would have a prior claim to his remains and a tomb in
the nearby Cathedral would be more appropriate.
Personally, I'm not sqeemish about disturbing ancient
remains. Most remains buried have a sell by date and Time
Team, individuals like Howard Carter in the Valley of
the Kings and many others have been uncovering many
remains for a long time!<br><br>I was thinking that Radio
Carbon dating would suggest a means of identification if
Richard were found in the car park or river. And what
about a facial reconstruction, which was done for
Phillip of Macedonia? I notice that the local Leicester
museum has 3 of these already.

Recommendations

2001-09-05 01:37:19
lilith82200
Hello. This is my first post here. I was
wondering if anyone could recommend some books to read
about The War of the Roses and Richard III.<br><br>I've
already read Alison Weir's War of The Roses and Bertram
Fields' Royal Blood. I know Weir is a Tudor groupie and I
did read her Princes in the Tower and found it
colorful but not convincing.<br><br>Thank you for any
help.

Re: Recommendations

2001-09-05 06:34:38
roseofraby1485
Hi,As for one of my favorite books on the Wars of
the Roses, it is titled simply "The Wars of the
Roses" by Charles Ross.He also penned a book about
Richard, although I have yet to obtain a copy. I enjoyed
reading "The Life and Times of Richard III" by Anthony
Cheetham. As for the situation concerning the princes in
the tower, the best book that I have read on the
subject in a long time is called "The Decievers" by
Geoffrey Richardson.Also if you haven't read "The Sunne in
Splendour" by Sharon Penman, you must. It is fiction but it
is quite historically correct in the facts and gives
great insight into what it must have been like to live
in Richard's time. The author offers some
interesting and entertaining theories into the disappearance
of the princes as well as several other mysteries
and accusations that have been heaped upon Richard. I
hope that I have been of some help and whatever you
choose to read on this subject, I think that you will
find it most interesting. Lynda

Suggestions?

2001-09-07 03:51:18
duchess\_cecily
Hi everyone. I could use some help from you all.
I just got assigned my first speech for my
communications class. It's an informative speech, and i picked
Chivalry as my topic. We have to have at least 4 sources
to cite in our speech. I was wondering if anyone
knew of any good books about Chivalry in the middle
ages or renaissance period that i could look for. Any
ideas would be much appreciated. thanks<br>Crystal

De La poles

2001-09-09 18:20:15
ebac99
Hi. This is my second visit to the club and I
have plucked up courgae to write something. I have
been trying to write a novel and autobiography re John
De La pole Earl of Lincoln since I was 13. I'm now
40, so not much progress, or maybe I'm lazy!. Anyway,
If you have opinions, info etc. please share. I live
in Northants and would be interested in socialising,
sharing cost to sites etc, with anyone interested nearby.
Please see my email address in the members listing.
Can't join you tonight, but perhaps I'll get to the
Sunday forum next week!

Re: Recommendations

2001-09-09 20:29:46
liverbirdl21
Hello, and welcome to the Richard 111 Society
forum. The American branch of the society have compiled
a very useful bibliography which you can find at
www.r3.org/biblio.html - this comprises both fiction and non-fiction for
the period. The standard pro-Richard biography is
Paul Murray Kendall's Richard 111 but Charles Ross is
also a good read, he doesn't take such an extreme
stance as most traditionalists. The best fiction I have
read about Richard is Sharon Kay Penman's "The Sunne
in Splendour", it is excellently researched and she
puts forward an interesting, if contentious,
explanation for the disappearance of the princes. Hope this
is of use to you. Happy reading,<br> Regards,<br>
Christine.

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-10 15:44:34
dickon1
I am a serving borough councillor though not for
Leicester and believe me, local authorities just dont have
the money for this - it is hard enough meeting
statutory obligations. And no I dont think Richard III is
as famous as Alexander the <br>Great, but a public
appeal for funds may raise sufficient money. Or we could
ask Time Team, perhaps.

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-10 15:51:05
dickon1
Radio carbon dating may not be sufficiently
accurate to give an correct date of death, and cut marks
on bones may be any form of butchery of any other
death: if the bones (what is left of them) are in deep
mud they may be preserved enough for forensic
archaeologists to work on, but the many years of being
underwater and the liability to other predatory damage (pike
like bones I hear) would make identification very
difficult. Sorry.

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-10 16:37:26
roseofraby1485
Hi All,<br> Dickon, for the life of me I fail to
grasp why everyone becomes so negative when this
subject is mentioned.Of course it would be no easy task,
and maybe even impossible, but I for one would rather
chance it and, if we got lucky, have King Richard laid
to rest in a more deserving spot. That's better than
allowing him to remain at the bottom of a river or
underneath a carpark, which, by the way is where I think he
probably is.<br>Some have voiced their opposistion to
"desturbing the dead", oh please! They would jump at the
chance to have DNA tests run on the "the Bones" in
Westminster.<br>I grant you that if he was thrown into the river,
all chances of finding anything are long dead. But if
there is a chance he is still buried at the remains of
Greyfriars, what would it hurt to investigate? I don't expect
them to go head on and dig the place up,but with
technology today such as ground penatrating radar,if
somethng showed up then so what if a few parking spots are
disrupted for a short time? I, for one would gladly donate
a year's salary to help fund the project.<br>I am
having trouble accessing the messages here, yours are
the first two I've been able to get to for awhile, so
free to send me an E at my home if you should so
choose.<br>Thanks,Lynda

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-10 17:46:46
willison2001
It is, in fact, highly debateable who was the
most well known: Alexander the Great or Richard III.
Shakespeare wrote a play about Richard which has probably
been translated into every language in the World and
the amount of literature, films etc., Richard has
generated - a very controversial character if ever there
was one - must be immense. <br>I'm sure any discovery
of the body would make international news, would
boost the Tourist Trade for Leicester, allow forensic
study on any remains, e.g. there was some question
about his height, would a facial reconstruction match
the portraits? ... And, finally, allow Richard to be
buried with all due ceremony, which was probably denied
him by Tudor!

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-10 18:02:13
willison2001
I agree with roseofraby about this. I would've
expected members of the Richard III Society to be
enthusiastic about such an enterprize, but there appears to
have been a 'dead sheep' response from some!

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-10 19:01:55
dcidarling
Oh, and here's me thinking I'd been both helpful
and constructive in my contributions to this thread!
More fool me... :(<br><br>And, no, I'm not
particularly interested in DNA testing of the Bones in the
Urn, because I believe the boys outlived Richard. Be
that as it may, *I'm* still working very hard to get
the Abbey authorities to put up a supplementary
plaque to say the current wording on the 17thC Memorial
is misleading. What, may I ask, are you
doing?<br><br>Lorraine<br>Paid-up R3 Soc Member & Dead Sheep

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-10 19:58:25
lblanchard1485
Lorraine writes:<br><br>"And, no, I'm not
particularly interested in DNA testing of the Bones in the
Urn, because I believe the boys outlived Richard. Be
that as it may, *I'm* still working very hard to get
the Abbey authorities to put up a supplementary
plaque to say the current wording on the 17thC Memorial
is misleading. What, may I ask, are you
doing?<br><br>"Lorraine<br>Paid-up R3 Soc Member & Dead Sheep"
<br><br>---------<br>As a leftpondian, I confess that I don't get the
Dead Sheep reference. <br><br>On my one visit to
Westminster Abbey, I had trouble even finding the wretched
urn, and as far as I know the inscription is in Latin
with no supplementary English signage. If I'm correct
in this, I guess I'm even a deader sheep than
Lorraine, guessing that only a tiny fragment of the tourist
population is likely to "get" the Latin inscription -- if
they even notice the urn instead of gawping at baroque
excess of some of the other memorials in that general
area.<br><br>(As for what I'm doing, a question I know Lorraine
didn't direct at me, I'm catching my breath after some
years of trying to get as complete an archive of
fifteenth- and sixteenth-century sources as copyright law
will permit online.)<br><br>Laura Blanchard<br>paid-up
R3 Soc/American Branch member, webmaster,
<a href=http://www.r3.org/ target=new>http://www.r3.org/</a> and very dead sheep, I guess

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-10 20:19:17
roseofraby1485
Lorraine,(and/or dead sheep(?)<br> I think you
have been most certainly helpful and constructive. I
don't know if your question was directed at me or
someone else,but I agree with you that the boys were
alive after Bosworth.I was simply seeking opinions
about the spot of Richard's remains. The more I learn
the more I doubt that he was thrown into the Soar,
and if he is still at the old Greyfriars,I would like
to at least see an effort made to find out and give
him a decent resting place. If your question was for
me then please explain what you mean, as I seem to
be a dead sheep,too!(:<br> Lynda

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-10 23:15:16
dcidarling
Lynda and Laura<br><br>My earlier reply was in
fact more directed at David and his 'dead sheep'
reference, if anything...<br><br>I appreciate that nowadays,
since Latin is no longer regularly taught in secondary
schools, the Latin on the Urn would probably go over the
heads of many who pass by the memorial - but it's
hardly 'hard to read' for anyone with the slightest
interest in the Abbey surroundings - the inference that
the boys were smothered is pretty clear, even if,
like me, your Latin is a bit rough.
<br><br>Incidentally, since the Petitions issue has divided enough of
the R3 Soc membership already, I have no wish to
belabour the point on this Forum.<br><br>I just felt -
perhaps wrongly - a bit stung/hurt that I, and others who
had contributed to the thread, but who had made some
pertinent points about the problems of ID-ing bones from
the Soar, or who had other valid reservations related
to digging up the carpark should have been
cavalierly dismissed as being a tad negative. <br><br>I was
merely pointing out that I was being pro-active on the
quiet actually, and on something that I honestly do
think can be achieved on Richard's behalf, and in the
near future too - unlike the DNA testing of the
contents of the Urn and exhumation of various bones in
various places.<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-11 01:43:04
willison2001
I mentioned a dead sheep RESPONSE, not that
people are dead sheep entirely!<br><br>The Jewry Wall
Museum at Leicester expressed an interest in an
excavation of the car park site of Greyfriars once they get
a chance, so why shouldn't we?<br><br>About those
other bones, Ross/Weir make the point that the bones
found in the Tower in 1674 were shown to be the right
age for the princes, were well born, because clothed
in expensive velvet and must've been buried post
1400 because velvet didn't exist in England before
then.<br><br>So, we have a pair of well born children of the right
ages buried between 1400 and 1674. If this wasn't the
princes who may it have been? Any moves on
this?<br><br>Incidentally, I was only joking about dead sheep. We can all
feel and act that way, sometimes...<br><br>David

Bones in the Urn/Velvet

2001-09-11 02:36:49
dcidarling
David<br><br>On Alison Weir's mention of
velvet:<br><br>This theory of hers has been discussed in depth by the
US R3 Soc Librarian (Helen Maurer) in articles and
on other Internet Lists. <br><br>Here's something
from the notes I made from her email posts, public and
private:<br><br>The original "source" with the reference to velvet is
Richard Davey's 'Tower of London', which was published
1910.<br><br>On p. 22 Davey claims 'On the margin of one of the
pages of a curious manuscript on Heraldry inherited by
the writer [Davey] from his grandfather, the
following note in an ancient handwriting appears:
<br><br>'This day I, standing by the opening, saw working men
dig out of a stairway in the White Tower, the bones
of those two Princes who were foully murdered by
Richard III. They were small bones, of lads in their
'teens, and there were pieces of rag and velvet about
them. Being fully recognized to be the bones of those
two princes, they were carefully put aside in a stone
coffin or coffer.'<br><br>Helen points out there are a
number of problems for any historian using this
information to back up a theory:<br> <br>a) The original MS
has since vanished. Laurence Tanner (one of those
involved in the 1930s examination of Those Bones),
searched for it without success apparently. Like Sir
George Buck and that other contentious letter (from
young Elizabeth of York's letter about wanting to marry
Richard), only Davey appears to have seen this particular
account. <br><br>b) Someone else in the 17thC (the Royal
Physician, a bloke called Knight, IIRC) had already written
up a reliable eye-witness account of workmen finding
the bones, and the bones' subsequent burial in the
Urn. No mention of velvet was made in his demonstrably
contemporaneous report.<br><br>c) Bones of two children buried
together had been found just a few years before the 1674
one, with no subsequent hoo-hah. <br><br>Indeed,
Charles II's order for this particular burial followed a
period of political upheaval, when asserting royal
authority was probably a more likely reason at the time for
honouring this particular set of bones than any other
considerations. Helen also mentions that the Royal Warrant refers
to the Bones as the 'supposed bodies' of the
princes. <br><br>Between the discovery and the interment
it is to be remembered that the Bones were
apparently passed around and not kept particularly
honourably (or even to scientific standards applicable at
that time). Some bones were evidently replaced, since
the 20thC examination revealed bones of other
creatures, including fish, as well as a few rusty
nails.<br><br>Further information on the Bones in the Urn and the other
bones found in the Tower, (earlier and later than
these) can be found in Helen's articles in the December
1990 and March 1991 Ricardian Journal, available to
members from the UK R3 Soc. non-fiction Librarian, and
presumably in the US R3 Soc. Library too, from Helen
herself.<br><br>Lorraine

Re: Bones in the Urn/Velvet

2001-09-11 02:53:36
ludbrook2000
Am I not right in thinking that examination of
the teeth of both children gave a strong indication
that they were related, and that moreover examination
of the skullof Anne Mowbray, who was their cousin
(and I believe Richard D of York's child bride) gave a
reasonable indication that the 2 children were also related
to her? (I must admit I cannot recall where I read
these references so may be wrong, but if correct would
offer strong evidence of their identity).<br>I read
with interest the debate on looking for RIII's bones.
Living in Asia, I have little idea of the local politics
involved but imagine that excavting under a car park and
office buildings would be hugely expensive and very
inconvenient, and that the 99% of the population of Leicester
who I assume have no interest in this subject would
not be supportive. That is what matters to local
politicians who would need to authorise this after all.
<br>Personally I would like nothing more than exhumation of
RIII, DNA testing of the bones in the urn, creation of
proper visitor facilities at Towton, Tewkesbury etc
(which were non-existent when I visited in 1995), but
realise that such things are expensive and of very low
priority when compared to other demands on public funding.

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-11 10:25:12
ludbrook2000
Lorraine, I'm not quite clear about why you think
DNA testing wouldn't verify a) who the bones belong
to and b) when they died. I am certainly not up with
recent information on this, but I thought that the
balance of medical opinion was that the ages of the
skeletons in the urn are consistent with children of
approximately the same age as the Princes were in 1483, but
that the bones were too young to be have been the same
age as the Princes in August 1485 or
thereafter.<br>Surely if DNA evaluation does indicate that they were
the Princes then it is pretty conclusive to them
having been murdered around 1483 in the Tower. Granted
it doesn't prove who ordered their deaths, but it
eliminates the possibility that they were spirited away
overseas etc.<br>I recognise however that there may be
practical difficulties involved in DNA testing that I am
not aware of.

Re: Bones in the Urn/Velvet

2001-09-11 11:14:47
willison2001
The evidence is strongly suggestive that the bones were those of the princes. As Ross points out, who else could it have been?

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-11 11:40:36
willison2001
There have been many excavations in England.
Baynard's Castle (scene of Richrad's acceptance of the
throne) in central London was excavated a few years back
and Time Team and 'Meet the Ancestors' are 'forever'
arranging digs. There are already car parking facilities
nearby and the museum want to excavate the Greyfriar's
site.<br><br>I think any discovery of Richard III - who through
Shakespeare and Thomas More and countless other media
channels is known throughout the World - would be
sensational news and would bring journalists and tourists
flocking to Leicester, which would boost its economy.
Therefore, the local politicians should be behind this move
and even more so the Richard III Society.<br><br>DNA
testing is able to approximate the age of bones and were
any skull discovered within the remnants of Richard's
tomb it is perfectly possible to reconstruct the face
and compare it to the various portraits of Richard.
We may learn a lot about him scientifically: how he
died, appearance, height, but perhaps most important he
could be buried in a more accessible and suitable
place!

Re: Richard's 'Guilt.'

2001-09-11 13:45:34
willison2001
If we accept that Richard did execute the princes
in the Tower - and personally I think it's equally
possible that the treacherous Buckingham was responsible -
was this in any way a guilty thing to do?<br><br>The
Rebellion of 1483 was for Edward V and there is no doubt
that Edward would've approved of his release and the
execution of Richard III (& probably his son,) so,
effectively, Edward V - who Richard saw as a bastard in
probably more ways than one - was the leader of a
rebellion against the King, which was treason. Richard had
one answer for those GUILTY of treason against
himself, e.g. Buckingham's execution, so if he did execute
Edward V as a leader of a rebellion against himself, was
this not understandable? Richard reputedly died with
'Treason!' on his lips. <br><br>Richard's problem was that
he inherited too many enemies, e.g. Dorset, thanks
to the mismanagement of allocation of power of his
charming, but dissolute older brother: Edward
IV!<br><br>Edward V's age of 12 and the myth that he was an angelic
innocent was simply random luck and should not be used to
obscure the fact that he was an extremely dangerous
growing individual.

Re: New York etc.,

2001-09-11 21:48:12
willison2001
Condolences to all American members over the events of today.

Re: New York etc.,

2001-09-12 19:01:27
bjjsavate
Thanks for the good thoughts.<br><br>THough I
think all Americans are feeling the blow, we who live
in NYC or tri-state area are really traumatized. I
could see the smoke and fire from my window and saw the
second plane hit the tower live.<br><br>It was like
something out of a Dali nightmare.<br>It is an image I will
never get out of my mind.<br><br>Armando<br>NEW JERSEY

Re: New York etc.,

2001-09-12 20:18:52
willison2001
It saddens and angers me to think of the many innocent lives caught up in this insane cycle of violence.

Re: New York etc.,

2001-09-13 01:14:06
Chntress
I hope you find some peace, Armando. I'm farther
upstate, but there isn't a person in my immediate area who
isn't waiting for word on someone close to them.
<br><br>As of four this afternoon, all of my own were
accounted for. <br><br>To all others, thanks for the
thoughts. I'll go back to my regular lurk mode
now.<br><br>Laine

Re: New York etc.,

2001-09-13 14:09:24
willison2001
The images were so graphically displayed on
television that I know many people in the UK who also feel
traumatized.<br><br>I know that some people believe in 'turning the
other cheek, ' but that's not my view! If Osama bin
Laden and his group are responsible, then, send them to
Hell!

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-21 01:13:14
dickon1
I think that at the time of the 'supposed'
disapeparance of the sons of EIV there was a thriving community
of about 600 persons in the Tower: it was after all
te Royal Mint, the Royal Armoury, and a place for
Royal Council meetings and also a place of confinement
(not a prison) for hostages and high ranking persons.
I think it is possible thatt he bones in the Urn
are the boys just as it is possible that they may
have been someone elses' bones. They were too young to
sex and the younger set was even too young I think to
age, and as I understand it RC dating of organic
material from so long ago would not difinatively give a
date for death - ie it may give 'between years X and
Y' rather 18th October 1483. But I'm no expert.

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-21 15:40:14
willison2001
I think you are right to say that there is a lack
of certainty about the provenance of the
bones.<br><br>The evidence suggets that the 1674 bones were two
children of about the right ages who were well born & were
buried between 1400 & 1674 - as I said before - and I
suppose given the fact that they were found buried under
a staircase - not a conventional burial place -
there was something untoward about their deaths. I
think the Westminster Abbey authorities are reluctant
to carbon date or DNA test the bones, because they
think that PROBABILITY suggests that these ARE the
princes' bones. However, if we accept this and they were
killed in 1483, this doesn't prove Richard's
responsibility.<br><br>Richard may have felt, reluctantly, that they had to go -
he didn't hesitate to execute their half-brother
Grey or other leaders of the 1483 Rebellion, such as
Buckingham, so why excuse Edward V & his brother, who
would've been the supreme leaders of the
Rebellion?<br><br>It's sad for any 12 year old to be killed, but this
was not, otherwise, unknown in the 15th century, e.g.
during the wars in France, and the age of individuals
wasn't something that Richard could choose.<br><br>Much
sentimentality was created by Thomas More's moral tale of the
'evil' Uncle and 'angelic' nephews. This never was
reality!<br><br>And, personally, I think Buckingham, who seems to have
taken a leaf out of the book of Clarence, for
treachery, may well have set up the murders of the princes.
He clearly knew they were dead for why else support
Tudor's desire to marry their sister? Richard may have
been dropped in the mire with Buckingham hoping to
sweep away the Woodvilles (even though he'd married
one!) Richard, Tudor and with the possibility of
marrying the nubile Elizabeth of York himself.
Buckingham's vaunting ambition and superficial treacherous
personailty lend themselves to this theory.<br><br>Such
personalities still exist. The treacherous Bin Laden - known as
'Bin' (full of rubbish) to his enemies - comes to mind!

Re: Richard's Body

2001-09-21 17:49:23
aelyon2001
I agree entirely with what you have to say about
the bones, and also that Richard, whatever his
personal feelings on the matter, may well have concluded
that Edward V and his brother had to be eliminated. A
major formative experience for him must have been the
events of 1470-71, when Henry VI was installed by
Warwick as effectively a puppet king. Henry's credibility
by then must have rested entirely (or almost
entirely - there is room for a reputation for saintliness)
on his being an anointed king; he had been a
complete disaster as a ruler, yet Warwick's coup
demonstrated only too clearly that he was always a potential
focus for plots, so he had to go. <br><br>I think the
modern view of Edward V and Richard of York has been
clouded by More's portrait of 2 'angelic' boys, and the
sentimentalities of the Victorians (just look at that Millais
painting!) Edward was 12, which was relatively mature in the
15th century, a time when there was nothing unusual in
15 year olds doing battle, (Henry V at Shrewsbury is
the obvious example) and I think we can accept that
he was intelligent and well-educated. His father had
fought his way to the throne at 18, and it seems to me
that Edward was not simply a potential focus for plots
against Richard, he would within 3 or 4 years been
well-qualified to plot on his own behalf.<br><br>Buckingham
seems to have played a distinctly murky role in events,
but, of course, we can speculate for ever!

The Myth of Edward V

2001-09-21 21:23:27
willison2001
Thomas More certainly dramatised the events; he
was the main source for Shakespeare's Play with
Richard as a psychotic Devil and the princes as 'gentle
babes'...'the most replenished sweet work of nature that from
the prime creation ever she framed' with 'their
alabaster innocent arms.' Who's kidding who? I always
thought that description was a bit too flowery even for
Shakespeare!<br><br>More was in search of an ideal World. Living in the
reign of a real psychotic monster, like Henry VIII,
this isn't surprising and yet More, for all his
supposed idealism and his search for Utopia (which means I
believe 'No Place') was a Chancellor of England who burnt
Potestant heretics at the Stake!<br><br>The Victorians
could be full of sentimentality, e.g. the nauseating
portrait of the princes in the Tower where Millais used
his two pretty daughters as the models, and yet were
responsible for terrible crimes against Humanity, e.g.
sending children down coal mines!<br><br>If Richard
seemed hypocritical, aren't many people also? I believe
Richard, like More, was, in his own way, a genuinely pious
individual, but he was a realist also. He'd been brought up
in the World of Hard Knocks in the gritty North of
England: his Father and two brothers died violent deaths
and he'd been active in fighting fire with fire
through Barnet, Tewkesbury, campaigns in Scotland and the
machinations of the greedy, corrupt Woodvilles, facilitated by
the greedy and corrupt Edward IV, so, he was aware
that in this uptodate version of 'Walking with
Dinosaurs,' he or she with the largest and sharpest teeth or
most mobile swinging tail, may be the most likely to
survive longer!<br><br>More's 'idealism' led him to the
block. Ideals and reality can be very different animals!

Elisabeth Woodville

2001-09-22 23:16:16
athens842001
I'd like to hear from anyone interested in
Elisabeth Woodville and her affinity. There isn't much
written about her and I'm hoping to write a dissertation
on her so any views etc would be appreciated.

Re: Elisabeth Woodville

2001-09-23 04:08:23
roseofraby1485
Hi Athens842001,<br> I am interested in all the
major players during the reign of Edward as well as
Richard. My E-mail address is listed under my profile, so
feel free to get in touch with me.<br> Lynda

Princess Katherine b c 1479

2001-09-23 19:39:23
r3hero
I am trying to find out about the life of
Princess Katherine. She married William Courtenay, later
Earl of Devon. I have had sight of a few documents
mentioning her (Queen Elizabeth's privy purse accounts for
example) but little else. Does anyone have any suggested
reading? NB I intend to publish the results of my research
if at all possible.

Re: Elisabeth Woodville

2001-09-24 01:48:07
willison2001
I can give my view of Elizabeth Woodville. She
was a beautiful woman who captured a King. As wife to
Edward IV, she produced a large brood of children, but
did something happen to her once she became a Queen
and Mother to a prince of Wales? In view of the way
she feathered her nest for herself & Family:
brothers, sons etc., it may be that she assumed a dominance
at Court whuch should not beoverlooked. Edward IV
ruled England, but did Elizabeth rule him? Did she
drive him to find a myriad of mistresses though her
avaricious scheming? She was a survivor who tried to use
Sanctuary against Richard and was prepared to compromise
with him, even though he executed at least one of her
sons (Grey), in order to ensure that
survival!<br><br>Her quest for power came to an end under Henry VII
who packed her off to a convent. Perhaps, there
wasn't room in the hive for two Queen bees, the other
being Margaret Beaufort, who kept Elizabeth of York
under penurious control!

Re: Elisabeth Woodville

2001-09-25 17:32:31
dcidarling
Whilst I myself nowadays subscribe to a much more
revisionist view of the Wydeville family, I may be able to
help further with specific pro- and anti- source
material on Elizabeth if I had more info from you about
the scope of your dissertation. For instance, what
sort of Terms of Reference have<br>you chosen for it,
what will be its aims and objectives? Are you
investigating Elizabeth's property? Her piety? Her political
role? Her family? Her role as Queen Consort? Her
relationship to Richard? All of these/none of
these?<br><br>Perhaps you could expand a little on your original
post...<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

The real Richard iii?

2001-10-01 14:50:18
satkins50uk
I am a sixth form student currently taking an
A-level in History. For my personal project I have chosen
to study Richard III and discuss whether or not his
historical reputation is accurate. I would appreciate it if
you could recommend any books that might help me with
my study, as well as any leading authorities I could
contact or contemporary sources I could use. I already
have some basic information and books but I could do
with some more advanced texts with which to conduct my
study. Thank you for your time.<br>Yours
Faithfully,<br>Sarah Atkins.

Re: The real Richard iii?

2001-10-01 16:30:19
lblanchard1485
Sarah Atkins wrote:<br><br>"I am a sixth form
student currently taking an A-level in History. For my
personal project I have chosen to study Richard III and
discuss whether or not his historical reputation is
accurate. I would appreciate it if you could recommend any
books that might help me with my study, as well as any
leading authorities I could contact or contemporary
sources I could use. I already have some basic
information and books but I could do with some more advanced
texts with which to conduct my study. Thank you for
your time."<br><br>Hello, Sarah. You've chosen a
project that may evolve into a lifelong interest!
Certainly it has for many of us in the
Society.<br><br>We've put up some reading lists on the Richard III
Society/American Branch
website:<br><br><a href=http://www.r3.org/biblio.html target=new>http://www.r3.org/biblio.html</a><br><br>There are several essays on the American Branch website
discussing Richard's reputation; you'll find several of them
linked from the "Quick Start for Students" page --
<a href=http://www.r3.org/contents/student.html target=new>http://www.r3.org/contents/student.html</a><br><br>You asked about "leading authorities." I suspect that
as you work through your research you'll find some
whom you want to contact. An academic website on
medieval studies, ORB, has prepared some tips on
contacting scholars, and you can find them
at<br><br><a href=http://orb.rhodes.edu/questions.html target=new>http://orb.rhodes.edu/questions.html</a><br><br>The Institute for Historical Research, University of
London, maintains a list of scholars and their research
interests at
<br><br><a href=http://ihr.sas.ac.uk/publications/teachers/c901.html target=new>http://ihr.sas.ac.uk/publications/teachers/c901.html</a><br><br>You can often find their e-mail addresses at the
websites for their institutions.<br><br>Regards,<br>Laura
Blanchard<br>lblanch001@...<br>webmaster, <a href=http://www.r3.org/ target=new>http://www.r3.org/</a>

Re: The real Richard iii?

2001-10-02 18:32:32
aelyon2001
Dear Sarah<br>I would concur entirely with what
Laura Blanchard has to say, but as you read the
recommended books, look at the sources they cite and then go
to them yourself, as far as is realistically
possible. Do you have a university library within reach? As
you read, ask yourself whether what a modern author
claims is really based on an earlier source, or whether
it is just jumping to conclusions, and/or building
on assumptions made by earlier writers.<br><br>The
other suggestion I would make is to make sure you get
to grips with what is a pretty complex sequence of
events from the 1450s onwards - you need to do that in
order to put Richard into his proper context. Can I
also recommend Charles Ross: 'Richard III' in the Yale
English Monarchs Series in particular. To my mind Ross is
balanced and judicious, in a way that an awful lot of
other writers aren't, and so he makes a good starting
point. He has also 'done' Edward IV in the same series,
which you may find useful.<br><br>As it happens I am a
university lecturer (in law, not history, but history is my
passion!) so if you want some comments on drafts I would be
happy to help.<br><br>Good luck!<br><br>Ann Lyon

help me

2001-10-03 11:24:59
willow2vicky
i am also doing A level history we are having a debate at the moment. i think that richard did kill his nephews please could you help me find material to back my theory up.

Re: Elisabeth Woodville

2001-10-04 11:33:42
athens842001
Hello Lorraine<br>I've only just read yr message
on the RIII page and wonder if you might be able to
help me with a dissertation I'm thinking of writing on
Elisabeth Woodville, as you seem to be as interested in her
as I am.<br>I'm especially interested in her role as
a mother and Queen and her role within the wydville
affinity etc. Well anything really as I find her
fascinating!<br>Thanks for your help and I'd love to hear yr opinions on
her and the whole period.<br>Jane

Re: Elisabeth Woodville

2001-10-04 11:37:51
athens842001
Thanks for yr reply about Elisabeth Woodville. I
think she and Edward appear to have had quite a solid
marriage and he obviously continued to find her attractive
throughout it. She was jealous of the mistresses but he
always seems to have had respect for her as his wife
etc. Fascinating isn't it?!<br>Jane

Re: help me

2001-10-06 21:13:36
r3hero
Hello<br>I don't think you'll find a great deal
of information on this from a group of people who
believe that the truth of the matter is that Richard did
not kill, nor did he order the killing of, his
nephews.<br><br>However, you can always consult More's history of Richard
III which presents the Tudor version of events
(written around 1513). Your local library will have copies
of this and a whole host of other books seeking to
prove RIII was a murderer. As it stands at the moment
there is no evidence either way. A good source for
seeing both sides being put quite succinctly (although I
know it is not everyone's favourite)is the book of
Channel 4s "Trial of Richard III".<br><br>Good luck with
your debate.

painting of princes in the tower

2001-10-07 00:27:17
tsapling
I was raised in Canada and our textbook had a
book illustration of 2 boys with long blond curly hair
walking up a curving stone staircase in a tower with an
adult either in front or behind them They are carrying
candles and their eyes reflect the light as they look up
in the direction they are headed. I am trying to
find a copy of this illustration. I found Millais's
version of the princes standing on a landing with the
tower staircase behind them. While the drawing of the
boys is familiar regarding their balck outfits and
their blond hair,that is not the drawing. Is there a
rendition of Northcote's painting anywhere? Did Mallais do
any other drawings of the princes in the tower other
than the one where the boys are standing? Can anyone
refer me to a website?<br>tsapling@...

Re: help me

2001-10-07 10:19:50
aelyon2001
The basic difficulty (and this is what makes the
whole issue interesting!) is that there is no
conclusive evidence in either direction, only scraps which
are capable of widely differing interpretations.
Equally, the circumstances of the time can be used to
construct reasoning in either direction: Richard must have
eliminated them as they were just too dangerous, or richard
had no need to eliminate them as they were no threat
to him, and anyway he was devoted to his brother
Edward and would not stoop to the murder of his
brother's children however much their existence endangered
his position.<br><br>For 'anti-Richard'
constructions, anything by Desmond Seward or Alison Weir.

Two quick questions...

2001-10-07 22:51:29
paddingtonfrisk
Hopefully you all can help me with some
questions...<br><br>Which palace served as Edward IV and Richard III's
headquarters during their reign? Was it the White Tower at the
Tower of London or was there another castle in London
they used?<br><br>Also, during the battles in the War
of the Roses, were men who were knighted and had
arms carry their own banner flags with their personal
arms on them? Or did they carry the arms of the leader
of their group?<br><br>I appreciate any help you can
give.

Re: help me

2001-10-08 02:49:13
ludbrook2000
Not strictly true. Cannot speak for others but I
certainly believe that, on the balance of probability,
Richard did order the murder of the Princes, very
probably in September 1483. There have certainly been
other contributors to the board of the same
opinion.<br>The Appendix of Paul Murray Kendall's biography as
well as the UK Channel 4 book "Trial of Richard III"
both provide good summaries of the evidence on both
"sides".

Re: Two quick questions...

2001-10-08 12:48:52
aelyon2001
1) There was the Palace of Westminster -
presumably on the site of the present Houses of Parliament,
and I think also Whitehall Palace.<br><br>2) As far
as I am aware, practice varied. All knights were
entitled to pennons with pointed ends bearing their
personal arms, but I suspect that by the time of the Wars
of the Roses they did not always use them. Knights
who commanded other knights in battle were called
knights banneret and were entitled to banners, which had
square ends (when a knight was made a banneret the end
was ceremonially cut off his pennon). I think, but am
not certain, that peers had knights under their
command by virtue of the peerage (snobbery ruled, after
all!), and hence also had banners. I imagine that many
knights dispensed with their pennons (except perhaps on
their lances) and wore their leader's colours for
practical reasons, but those with particular pride in their
ancestry (and there was plenty of that!) would wear their
own. I have read in a number of places that surcoats
with coats of arms had pretty well gone out by then,
but I can think of good practical reasons for their
still being worn.<br><br>Hope this helps<br><br>Ann

thanx

2001-10-08 13:10:40
willow2vicky
thanx for giving me that info. we've had the
debate and we didn't reach a conclusion. we decided
there wasn't enough evidence to support either side.
weren't there some bones found in the tower of london?
and if so why haven't tests been carried out?

Re: Two quick questions...

2001-10-08 15:05:29
paddingtonfrisk
Ann,<br><br>Thank you very much for your quick
reply! It DOES help! <br><br>So, just out of curiosity,
if Edward and Richard used Westminster Palace as
their kingdom, what was the White Tower of the Tower of
London used for at that time? <br><br>I had read
somewhere recently that the White Tower served as the
residence of royalty at one point, but was a little hazy as
to to if that included the mid-late 15th Century or
not.

Re: thanx

2001-10-08 18:59:16
r3hero
Sounds like you're getting the Richard enigma
bug!<br>I am afraid there is no known cure and it can last
a lifetime!<br><br>As for your question:<br>Yes,
sometime in the 1674 I think. They were "buried" in an urn
in Westminster Abbey. There is currently a movement
to lobby the Dean and Chapter to have the bones
re-examined to try to determine their age, sex and possibly
even extract DNA. (Although I am not aware of any
existing female descendents to use for a match)<br><br>I
say re-examine, because they were "tested" in the
1933 by two eminent doctors (one a dentist I believe).
the dating techniques available then indicated they
could be 15th century but equally they could be saxon
etc. They were not sure on age either. Some have
sought to discredit their work entirely. my view is that
it is very valuable, if incomplete. I read all the
reports when at University many years ago.<br><br>The
RIII website has a piece on this( www.richardiii.net)
Under Hot topics.<br><br>if you are becoming hooked on
Richard's reign, you might like to think about joining the
society - they are a good source of information. I don't
know if there is an equivalent anti-Richard group.
Perhaps others in this forum could let you know on that
point.

Re: help me

2001-10-09 12:52:52
brontewcat
Hi<br><br>While many people here probably do not
believe Richard did not kill his nephews, I am more
inclined to the view that he probably did.<br><br>One of
the strongest arguments is that there is no
conclusive evidence that the boys were seen alive after
August/September 1483.<br><br>In September 1483there was a rising
against Richard. Originally the plotters intended to
restore Edward V to the throne, then a rumour arose that
the Princes were dead. If the boys were still alive
at that time one would have expected Richard to
produce the children to counter this claim. He did not do
so.<br><br>Interstingly about 10 years later, when Henry VII was on the
throne, there was a rising against him. A young man named
Lambert Simnel appeared claiming to be the Earl of
Warwick. (The Earl of Warwick was the son of the Duke of
Clarence, the middle brother between Richard III and Edward
IV) At the time Henry had Warwick locked up in the
Tower. When the young Simnel appeared Henry was able to
have Warwick brought out of the Tower and paraed
through the streets of London, and say "Here is the real
Earl of Warwick".<br><br>There is a huge number of
resources avalable.<br>Here is a few that think Richard did
it<br><br>Chapter 5 "The Fate of Edward IV's Sons" of Charles Ross
Richard III<br><br> (this is a good source as Ross has
written what is probably the current standard
biography)<br><br><br>Chapter 3 "Richard's Usurpation of the throne"<br>Michael
Hicks Richard III<br><br>(This chapter does not deal
directly with the fate of the princes, but examines the
evidence and debate regarding Richard's taking the throne
- this goes to motive"<br><br>Desmond Seward
Richard III<br><br>Alison Weir The Princes in the
Tower<br><br>Both the above accounts are highly readable, but be
warned anyone who is convinced Richard is innocent hates
these authors, and so thay have come under heavy
criticism - some criticism of is justifible, some
not.<br><br>Bertram Fields Royal Blood<br><br>Mr Fields tries to be
even handed, but he believes Richard is innocent, that
does cloud his judgment. He is very critical of Weir,
but sometimes does exactly what he critices her for
doing.<br><br>For example Richard took the throne by claiming his
nephews were bastards because Edward VI had precontracted
a marriage to another woman. (Mr Fields is an
entertainment lawyer, so he does not appear to understand the
complexities of medieval marriage - it is not clear even if
there was a precontract, it was equivalent to a
marriage - but that is another story)<br><br>Originally
Richard had the little princes declared bastards in a
sermon preached on 22 June 1483. No contemporary account
of that sermon exists. So we do not know the exact
basis of the claim of the Princes being bastards in
that sermon.<br><br>The most comtemporary account was
written 6 months later and said that Edward was declared
to be a bastard, other accounts written later again
claim the precontract story was preached. We do not
know!<br><br>Both Weir and Fields purport to claim they know what
was said, although Fields admits there is some
confusion.<br><br>One of the best resources is the American Richard
III's web site.<br><br>Go there and you will find lots
of material, including many of the original
sources.<br><br>Good luck<br><br>Jane

Re: thanx

2001-10-09 13:04:39
brontewcat
Oh i am sorry i didn't see your message, so my
post won't be of much assistence.<br><br>However I
think your class is probably correct in its
conclusion.<br><br>There were bones found in the Tower in Charles II's
reign. There is much debate as to who those bones belong
to.<br><br>DNA testing could resolve this - but you would also
need Edward IV's DNA and the children's mother to get
a really convincing result.<br><br>The bones have
not been DNA tested becaue they are in Westminster
Abbey - this is under the authority of HM the Queen.
For the bones to be tested she must give her
permission. To date she has refused her
permission.<br><br>Some people favour leaving the bones anyway until
there are better techniques available.<br><br>Even if
the bones are shown to be those of the Princes it
will not solve the puzzle. I think if the bones are
those of the Princes it prove on the balance of
probabilities that the Princes met with foul play - otherwise
they would have been buried in hallowed ground. (As
you may be aware there is a chapel, and quite a few
people are buried there). But it will still not prove
who did it. Again there is a lot to be said about
this.<br><br>Jane

Re: thanx

2001-10-09 13:07:18
brontewcat
I thought the Richard III society was for all of
those who were interested in Richard, including those
who are not great fans. Isn't the purpose of the
Society to encourage debate and discover the
truth<br><br>Cheers

Re: The real Richard iii?

2001-10-09 13:22:56
brontewcat
This depends on which historical reputation you
are talking about :-) <br><br>He now has 2 - one as
an evil king and the other as one of the best kings
ever to grace Enland's throne.<br><br>I concur with
what Ann Lyon has said. Ross is excellent<br><br>I
would also suggest Michael Hicks Richard III (who
apparently was a student of Ross)<br><br>When reading
anything on Richard look for the author's bias (most have
one) and read all works with an objective eye on the
author's bias. Evaluate everything you read and form your
own opinions. Probably even alternate the pro- and
anti- Richard books. <br><br>Start with Ross, who I
agree with Ann is probably as balanced as you will find

Re: Two quick questions...

2001-10-09 13:41:19
brontewcat
I think during medieval times, there was no one
palace used as a king's headquarters.<br><br>During
Tudor times (amd I imagine the practice was the same
during York's tenure), the Court moved relatively
frequently from one palace ot another. This was because of
the standards of hygiene. The methods of cleaning
palaces was not very effective while large numbers of
people were living in the palace. <br><br>What tended to
happen was that after awhile the palace became
unbearable. So, probably just before the unbearable stage was
reached the Court would move to another palace. Then the
first palace would be cleaned from top to
bottom.<br><br>The Tower was royal residence, although I think it
was being increasingly less used. I think there was
another structure next to the White Tower during
Richard's reign. I vaguely recall seeing a plan of the
Tower, with another building next to the White Tower. I
have a very hazy recollection it may have been the
Great Hall. but I couldn't swear to it.<br><br>There
was nothing sinister in the little Princes being sent
to the Tower, as the Tower was still a royal
residence. In fact the Council used to meet
there.<br><br>Jane

Re: thanx

2001-10-09 16:53:33
staflea
The society is indeed not a fan club of Richard
III but a society that wishes to reexamine the
history of the time. Indeed a speech by one of the
officers at the AGM this year made that very clear. AFAIK
There is no "society line" on the issues of the time,
though generally if you were to subscribe to the view
that Richard was a hunchback that spent two years in
the womb and came forth with teeth (as per Thomas
More) might find their eyes somewhat opened. :)

Re: thanx

2001-10-09 23:51:44
willison2001
'extract DNA. (Although I am not aware of any<br>
existing female descendents to use for a match)'<br><br>In
fact, if you wanted to compare the DNA of the
"princes'" bones in Westminster Abbey, why not use Elizabeth
of York, their sister, who lies in the same Abbey?

Re: help me

2001-10-10 13:08:54
lblanchard1485
R3hero writes:<br><br>"I don't think you'll find
a great deal of information on this from a group of
people who believe that the truth of the matter is that
Richard did not kill, nor did he order the killing of,
his nephews.<br><br>"However, you can always consult
More's history of Richard III which presents the Tudor
version of events (written around 1513). Your local
library will have copies of this and a whole host of
other books seeking to prove RIII was a murderer. As it
stands at the moment there is no evidence either way. A
good source for seeing both sides being put quite
succinctly (although I know it is not everyone's
favourite)is the book of Channel 4s 'Trial of Richard
III'."<br><br>I hope everyone will forgive me for pointing out
that the Channel 4 Trial was spearheaded by the former
chair of the Richard III Society, Jeremy Potter, who
most assuredly did not believe Richard guilty of the
murder of the princes. As I recall (and long-time
members can correct me), Potter went out of his way to
get high-powered talent as counsel and witnesses for
the prosecution despite his convictions.<br><br>We've
put up some resources on the Richard III Society
American Branch website to help folks look at this issue,
including Helen Maurer's excellent review of all the usual
suspects and a couple unusual ones -- "Whodunit?" This can
be seen at
<a href=http://www.r3.org/bookcase/whodunit.html target=new>http://www.r3.org/bookcase/whodunit.html</a><br><br>To put More's history into context, readers might
enjoy the section we have up
at<br><a href=http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/ target=new>http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/</a><br><br>This includes a hypertext edition of More's play,
Jeremy Potter's take on the work, and a pro-More chapter
from his biographer, the late Richard Marius. Before
taking More's history at face value, I would urge you to
see what A. J. Pollard, no defender of Richard III
himself, has to say about More's reliability in his
_Richard III and the Princes in the Tower_. <br><br>There
are many folks who believe Richard innocent but who
also are committed to providing access to other
viewpoints.<br><br>Regards,<br>Laura Blanchard<br>lblanch001@...<br>webmaster,
<a href=http://www.r3.org/ target=new>http://www.r3.org/</a>

Re: painting of princes in the tower

2001-10-10 13:17:06
lblanchard1485
Tsapling writes:<br><br>"Is there a rendition of
Northcote's painting anywhere? Did Mallais do any other
drawings of the princes in the tower other than the one
where the boys are standing? Can anyone refer me to a
website?"<br><br>Not a website, but there's a good pictorial essay on
artistic depictions of the Princes in Pollard's _Richard
III and the Princes in the Tower_. (This being the
second time I referred to this book in as many postings
today, I feel a compulsion to say that I don't get a
commission on book sales!)<br><br>The Northcote painting has
the two innocents asleep in their beds while two
hulking murderers, one of whom bears a remarkable
resemblance to Laurence Olivier, loom over them with
pillows.<br><br>Most of these works of art are under copyright and
online reproduction would be an expensive proposition
(unless one were willing to take the chance that the
institutions owning the paintings would not object). This may
help to explain why there are no "portrait galleries"
on r3.org, much as I'd love to have
one.<br><br><br>Regards,<br>Laura Blanchard<br>lblanch001@...<br>webmaster,
<a href=http://www.r3.org/ target=new>http://www.r3.org/</a>

Re: Two quick questions...

2001-10-10 19:48:36
aelyon2001
My understanding is that it was traditional for
the monarch to spend the period immediately prior to
his coronation at the Tower, so that it was entirely
proper for Richard to send Edward V there when his
coronation was pending.<br><br>Otherwise, I think by that
time that the Tower was mainly used as a military
strongpoint and arsenal, although the Council meeting of 13th
June 1483 at which Hastings & Co. were arrested took
place in the Tower (not certain whether this was the
White Tower).<br><br>I forgot to mention that there was
also a palace at Greenwich which Edward IV seems to
have used quite extensively.<br><br>Ann

Re: Two quick questions...

2001-10-10 23:40:30
dickon1
Another manorial building used by the Yorkists
(inc. EIV and RIII) was Barnard's Castle on the bank of
the Thames, now a BT office. I believe the remains
are preserved beneath the new construction. Also
there were other buildings e.g. The Great Hall between
the White Tower and the Thames which were used as
residences: I believe the White Tower was for 'ceremonial'
purposes, Council meetings, greeting ambassadors etc.

False, fleeting, perjured Clarence

2001-10-11 01:00:02
willison2001
Any views on the relationship between Richard &
brother Clarence?<br><br>Richard's wife was the sister to
Clarence's wife, so they may have been more bound together
than is supposed.<br><br>I read that Richard blamed
the Woodville clique for baying for the blood of
Clarence in 1478!

Re: False, fleeting, perjured Clarence

2001-10-11 09:09:09
hiraeth2
One thing I'd like to know is if there is any
evidence that he DID drown in a barrel of malmsey wine.
Were there really any rumours of that after his death?
Or is that just a legend that started years later?

Re: False, fleeting, perjured Clarence

2001-10-11 18:27:51
aelyon2001
The truth is that we really know very little.
Though there is some evidence that Richard pleaded with
Edward IV to spare Clarence's life in 1478, and that he
blamed the Woodvilles for Clarence's death, he and
Clarence had been rivals over many years for possession of
the Warwick lands. There is also evidence, though not
unequivocal, that Clarence opposed Richard's marriage to Anne
Neville precisely because that would give richard a claim
to the Warwick lands that was as good as his
own.<br><br>I tend to be a bit cynical about brotherly (and
sisterly love), as a result of personal experience. Just
because two people share the same parents, it doesn't
make them friends. <br><br>Also, and getting a bit
psychological here), there were 3 1/2 years between Richard and
Clarence, and an age gap of 3-4 years is supposed to be
about the worst possible in terms of promoting sibling
rivalry (my brother and I are just under 3 years apart -
I am the elder - and there is certainly a great
deal of rivalry between us!). There were 10 years
between Edward IV and Richard, which is nicely conduicive
to hero-worship, though Edward and Clarence, with 7
years between them, were also rivals). <br><br>Ann

Re: False, fleeting, perjured Clarence

2001-10-12 01:11:06
willison2001
I know what you mean about sibling rivalry. My
older brother and I - he's 5 years older than me -
never got on well & sadly that's very much the
situation today!<br><br>As for Clarence, he must've had
some personality problem. Brothers may dislike each
other, but execution is going a bit too far. Edward
sanctioned it and Richard didn't prevent it, after all!

Re: Two quick questions...

2001-10-12 19:05:33
dcidarling
I think you may mean Baynard's Castle, Cecily
Neville's property here. Barnard Castle *was* a property
which Richard got in the divvy-up of the Warwick
Inheritance, but that is in County Durham in the north of
England.<br><br>Regards - Lorraine

Re: False, fleeting, perjured Clarence

2001-10-12 19:39:24
aelyon2001
My brother and I have never got on either.
Apparently, when asked about a week after his birth what I
thought of him, I declared, 'I never asked for a baby
brother! When's he going back?'<br><br>Nowadays we simply
have nothing in common. A pity.<br><br>Back to
Clarence, I agree that he may well have had some sort of
personality disorder. You may have seen an article in The
Times about a week ago in the wake of the Michael Stone
retrial, which set out the characteristics of psychopaths.
My reaction was one word, 'Clarence'.
<br><br>Capable of being very charming, but impulsive to an
uncontrolled degree, expecting instant gratification of his
desires, and utterly incapable of appreciating when it was
time to retire quietly to his estates and wait for
things to improve.<br><br>Of course, after 500 years we
can never know, but it's interesting to speculate
what a modern forensic psychiatrist would have made of
Clarence, not to mention Warwick from 1469 onwards.

Re: False, fleeting, perjured Clarence

2001-10-13 00:38:40
willison2001
Clarence possibly was psychopathic, certainly
jealous of brother Edward. And what of Edward's
personality? What was all this overeating and overwomanising
about? Compensating for some sense of inadequacy in his
Life maybe? And then there's Richard. I wonder how all
this played in his mind?<br><br>I've wondered what the
decapitation of his Father and brother, Rutland, when Richard
was only eight may've done to Richard? It may have
created an anxiety which led to his quick aggression if
he felt threatened, e.g. he was known for a celerity
in decisions, as against the Woodvilles and in his
almost impulsive charge at Bosworth. Brother Edward
may've retreated to fight another day, but not Richard,
even when the day began to quail.

Re: False, fleeting, perjured Clarence

2001-10-13 13:58:11
aelyon2001
We can certainly wonder what effect the deaths of
the Duke of York and Edmund of Rutland could have had
on both Richard and Clarence, when they were aged 8
and 11 respectively. No doubt any modern child
psychotherapist would have a field day, but we also have to try
to bear in mind the context of the time. In
particular, it is quite possible that Richard and Clarence
had seen very little of their father or brother as
they were growing up, so that we cannot assume that
their sense of family affection was the same as we
expect boys of their age to have today.<br><br>This was
a very violent age, but also one in which
traditional norms were breaking down. Death in battle was, of
course, a common fate for noblemen, but what happened at
Wakefield and in its aftermath was certainly not in
accordance with established custom whereby brave enemies
were to be treated honourably in life or in death.
Rutland was killed in cold blood after surrendering (even
if the story is untrue it was certainly believed to
be true), as was the Earl of Salisbury, who was
Duchess Cecily's brother and therefore uncle to Richard
and Clarence. Another close relation killed was
Thomas Neville, who was one of Salisbury's younger sons.
And then the heads of all four were stuck up on
Micklegate Bar. Certainly the whole business must have come
as the most appalling shock to Richard, Clarence,
and no doubt Edward IV as well, with effects on the
characters of all three that we can now only guess at. Then
Richard and Clarence were hastily sent to Burgundy for
safety, so another emotional upheaval...<br><br>I cannot
help thinking that Richard's attitude to Edward was
essentially one of hero-worship. Just think. When Richard is
a young lad (quite possibly sickly), his eldest
brother is a handsome and dashing young man who is
avenging the terrible wrongs done to their father and
Rutland, restoring the family fortunes and fighting his
way to the throne to boot - what more perfect
breeding ground can there be for hero-worship? Clarence
was, of course, that bit older, and had more
opportunity to see Edward in less favourable circumstances.
Or perhaps he was just temperamentally less inclined
to be starry-eyed about his big brother, as well as
more inclined to jealousy? Of course, we can never
know.

Re: False, fleeting, perjured Clarence

2001-10-13 15:57:17
willison2001
I'm inclined to agree that Richard probably was
starry-eyed regarding Edward, but this may've worn off by
1483. Edward had turned into a fat, gluttonous, overly
promiscuous individual and Richard's pronouncements on Dorset
and Hastings probably reflect his disappointment with
Edward.

Re: False, fleeting, perjured Clarence

2001-10-13 17:21:04
aelyon2001
That is very much my feeling - my theory on hero
worship reflects the position up to the mid-1470s
(Philippe de Commynes suggests that Edward was noticeably
putting on weight in 1475). Richard's pronouncements on
Hastings and Dorset, who were Edward's companions in
debauchery, may well have been sharpened by disillusionment
with his former hero, and it is entirely credible that
he blamed them for Edward's decline. <br><br>Perhaps
it is a mercy that Edward died at 40. We have to
remember that Henry VIII was his grandson, and seems to
have taken after him physically to a far greater
extent than he did Henry VII. I'm not sure when he began
seriously putting on weight (as revealed by his suits of
armour), but it may well have been in his mid to late 30s
- was born in 1491 and this would bring us to
1525-30. Certainly his physical decline was under way in
1536, when he gave up jousting after a bad fall, and by
then measured 37 inches round the waist. His ulcerated
leg seems to have appeared about the same time. By
the early 1540s he was reduced to going on campaign
by litter.

Re: thanx

2001-10-14 00:43:53
tmc\_dale
Well said. After all the Society is a broad church as was said at this year's agm in York. In fact the Society's academic record rests partially on its willingness to admit "all comers".

Any thoughts about 1469?

2001-10-28 13:36:07
aelyon2001
Has anybody any thoughts about that curious
episode in 1469, when Warwick had Edward IV in his
custody for a number of weeks, and eventually seems to
have let him go? Historians seem rather to gloss over
it, and then jump forward to the rebellion in
Lincolnshire in early 1470. Edward seems to have behaved in a
rather passive fashion, and then been quite prepared to
forgive both Warwick and Clarence, which seems very
strange, not least because Elizabeth Woodville must have
been raging over the summary beheading of her father
and brother.<br><br>Just what was going on?

Re: Any thoughts about 1469?

2001-10-28 16:12:38
ukaflyer
Edward IV had nobody but himself to blame for
getting captured by Warwick. He totally underestimated
the strength of public feeling against him and his
unpopular favourites at that time and he was tardy in
opposing Warwick and the rebels.<br><br>However, once
Warwick (totally illegally) had removed the unpopular
favourites, the commons expected him to release Edward. As so
often in the Wars of the Roses it was the favourites
who people resented, not the king himself. When
Warwick was seen not to release Edward he lost support of
the commons. He never had support from the magnates
and they all took the opportunity to fight their own
battles and Warwick had great difficulty in keeping order
as the king's authority was considered the only true
one.<br><br>At the end Warwick had no choice but to release
Edward. Edward then would seem to have pardoned Warwick
and Clarence and actively promote reconciliation with
the Nevilles but it was only on the surface. Edward
would not trust Warwick again. Sir John Paston wrote:
"The King himself hath good language of the Lords of
Clarence, of Warwick and of my Lords of York and Oxford,
saying they be his best friends.....his household men
have other language."<br><br>Despite having his
freedom, Edward probably realised that Warwick was still
too strong to alienate and decided to bide his time.
No doubt Elizabeth Woodville was spitting venom at
the sound of Warwick's name - and rightly so - but
politics had to take precedence over personal vengeance.
This was something Warwick hadn't quite twigged for
the beheading of the earl of Pembroke, his brother,
Sir Richard Herbert and earl Rivers and his son, Sir
John Woodville was purely an act of private revenge
against those who had supplanted him in royal favour.

Four Questions

2001-10-28 21:35:00
paddingtonfrisk
Hi gang. I'm back. <br><br>My project on The Wars
of the Roses continues. I have collected
IMMEASURABLE amounts of information, much of it which I credit
to the help I have received at this forum! Thank
you!<br><br>I have yet more questions for you.<br><br>1) Where
did Thomas Lord Stanley live at the time of The
Battle of Bosworth (Aug 22, 1485)?<br><br>2) Where did
William Lord Hastings live at the time of his death
(1483)?<br><br>3) What room in Westminster Palace contained the
throne?<br><br>4) Okay, this is a good one. This is for the
hardcore medieval history buffs out there. (And believe
me, it IS relevant to the project! I assure you!) How
and where did Royals and people of
authority...*ahem... use the restroom?<br><br>Okay, those are the ones
I'm looking for now. Hopefully you can help me.
Again, any information at all is helpful!<br><br>And
thank you to everyone who answered my last question
that I forgot to thank!

Re: Four Questions

2001-10-29 02:48:04
tsapling
Re one of your questions and I don't know if it
applies to the specific castle of which you speak, but
some cutting edge medieval castles had an outhouse
built as an extension out of the wall of the castle and
overlooking the moat. It worked like a modern day
outhouse.<br>tsapling

Re: Four Questions

2001-10-29 09:44:29
aelyon2001
Here goes, as far as I can.<br><br>1) I'm not
certain where Lord Stanley lived in 1485, though his
Civil War-era descendants lived at Lathom, near
Blackpool (the Countess of Derby of the day put up a
spirited defence of the place). Sir William Stanley lived
at Hart on the Dee Estuary, and the family lands
were in South Lancashire, Cheshire and North Wales, so
presumably big brother was somewhere not far away.<br><br>2)
Lord Hastings had most of his lands in Leicestershire,
and was building a splendid residence at Kirby
Muxloe, just outside Leicester, at the time of his death,
though it was never finished and he may well not have
spent much time there. As Edward IV's Lord Chamberlain
and drinking companion he would, I suspect, have
spent most of his time under the king's roof.<br><br>3)
I'm tempted to say, the throne room.<br><br>4)
Margaret Wood: The English Medieval House, has a fair
amount to say about medieval conveniences. <br>The most
sought-after kind apparently connected with the castle moat or
a stream. Apparently, Middleham Castle had more
privies than Westminster Palace, and the recent obituary
in The Times of the owner of Bolton Castle (a few
miles further up Wensleydale) mentioned that the
medieval privies there were so efficient that they were
still in use until very recently. If Sir Thomas More is
to be trusted, medieval attitudes to natural
functions were more earthy than our own - he has Richard
III holding a vital meeting while seated on the
privy! <br><br>Hope this helps.

Re: Any thoughts about 1469?

2001-10-31 18:20:51
aelyon2001
Thanks for this detailed reply. <br><br>Do you
think that Warwick was at this stage seeking to do more
than remove the unpopular favourites? <br><br>It has
been suggested that he intended to persuade Edward to
abdicate in favour of Clarence. My gut feeling is that at
this point that was going a bit far even for Warwick,
and it is more likely that he thought Edward could be
persuaded to rely on him once more. The counter-argument is
that Warwick had to act before Edward had a son by
Elizabeth Woodville, which was going to happen before long
(and indeed happened less than 18 months later). If
Warwick was not seeking to replace Edward, why did he
summon a Parliament? The obvious answer is that he was
planning to have the Woodvilles and Herberts
attained.<br><br>Of course, Warwick's scheme backfired badly. Edward
quickly reasserted control, and made it clear that he was
not going to trust Warwick again. Warwick and
Clarence rebelled again, but it soon became clear that
Clarence was not a reliable ally, nor would he make a good
puppet, so Warwick threw in his lot with Margaret of
Anjou.

Re: Any thoughts about 1469?

2001-11-02 21:51:13
ukaflyer
I think Warwick used the removal of royal
favourites as a cover for his desire to control the king
once again. Because once the royal favourites were
removed, he did not release the king and that is when the
commons got edgy about what was going on and they looked
to the king again for authority. Of course Warwick
was in a fix really because he knew Edward was not
going to be friendly so soon after losing his
favourites. Warwick needed time to reassert his power and
convince Edward that what he had done was the right thing,
etc. His aim to become principal councillor backfired
because he had not accepted that Edward was a more mature
man, in control of his own destiny and not so content
to be the puppet Warwick had hoped he would
be.<br><br>I agree that Warwick was working to re-establish
the Neville royal connection before Queen Elizabeth
produced a son but whether he had plans to put Clarence on
the throne at this stage is debatable. However, Ross
argues (and I must confess I am taking most of my
argument from Ross 'Edward IV') that, once Edward was back
in control again and it was obvious that he was not
going to reinstate Warwick again as principal
councillor, Warwick then turned to putting Clarence on the
throne as a more malleable puppet king.<br><br>With
regard to the summoning of Parliament, Ross argues that
he may have been summoning it to replace Edward with
Clarence or it could simply have been to bolster his own
actions as the Council were reluctant to support his
authority. The Milanese ambassador in France certainly
thought Warwick planned to have Edward declared a bastard
and give the crown to Clarence.

Re: Any thoughts about 1469?

2001-11-03 13:12:04
aelyon2001
Thank you for your reasoned and detailed reply.
<br><br>That Warwick was seeking to control Edward IV seems
far more probable than that he was trying to replace
him with Clarence. My feeling is that Warwick
regarded Edward as his protege, and, in addition, that
Edward had shown him insufficient favour in recent
years, turning instead to the upstart Woodvilles. On
that basis, Warwick was seeking to remove the
favourites and bring Edward to heel (having given him a
serious fright by executing all the favourites he managed
to get hold of). Of course, Warwick may have won
Clarence over by suggesting that he should be King, and it
is far from impossible that even at this stage
Warwick fancied having a grandson on the
throne.<br><br>What the Milanese ambassador had to say is certainly
interesting, though it is always possible that he was
reporting rumour rather than Warwick's intentions - in the
circumstances it is only too likely that rumours of that kind
would be flying about.

Re: Four Questions

2001-11-12 22:10:12
brontewcat
Re privies <br><br>My husband and I have just
come back from visting England and Wales, where we saw
a few medieval castles.<br><br>Ludlow had some
interesting examples of toilets. In one tower, where Edward V
reputedly lived as Prince of Wales, there are 2 sets of
apartments both of whom have their own privies attached. The
part of the apartments containing the privies are
mirror images, reached through a small hall/foyer and up
some very dark, narrow winding stairs.<br><br>The
apartments were considered to be quite luxurious as they had
their own en suite facilities.<br><br>The toilets
themselves were set into a small room also very dark, in or
near the outer wall. Each contained a stone bench with
a hole in each and a wooden seat I think. I assume
the rooms were set near or over the river or
moat.<br><br>Other parts of the castle had similar rooms set off
various rooms such as guard rooms in the towers on castle
walls for communal use.<br><br>We also visted Stokesay
Castle - really a fortified manor house which had a room
built into the main family room - the solar - very much
like a built in wardrobe today, which served as the
privy for the family. There were no benches/holes, so I
assume a commode was used. Again there appeared to be
communal privies built into other parts of the
house.<br><br>I am not sure, but I also believe there were
chamber pots by then. So I assume one could use a chamber
pot if one did not have en suite facilities.<br><br>I
note you asked the question 2 weeks ago, so the info.
is probably too late, but the castles were quite
fascinating to see so I thought I would share what we
saw.<br><br>Jane

Four Questions: Reply to All

2001-11-13 06:12:13
paddingtonfrisk
tsapling: Thanks for your reply. You were the
first to answer! Sorry I didn't thank you
sooner.<br><br>aelyon2001: Thank you for your diverse answers to each of my
questions. I printed your answer and looked and looked but
haven't had any luck finding information about Derby and
Hastings' residences. Do you know anything else about where
they may've lived? Or know someone or somewhere I
could check? As for the throne's location, I got an
e-mail from the Estates Architect of Westminister
Palace. He told me that the throne was usually kept in
Westminster Abbey. Otherwise, it was kept in Westminster Hall
of the Palace when making judgment. You were close!
I know thats what you meant. (I won't tell anyone)
As for the toilet facilities of the day, thanks for
the reference. I need to look Ms. Wood up. Also,
brontewcat had alot to say about it. That answer is worth a
peek.<br><br>brontewcat: No! You're not too late! I'm still taking in all
I can get! Thank YOU for the explanitory message on
the chamber pots and suites. Your answer will be put
to good use!<br><br>Everyone else: If anyone has
anything to add, please do!

Re: Four Questions: Reply to All

2001-11-17 12:12:52
aelyon2001
Glad my info was of use.<br><br>Hastings also
owned the castle at Ashby de la Zouche, Leicestershire.
Like Kirby Muxloe, this is in the care of English
Heritage, so it may be worth contacting
them.<br><br>According to the Dictionary of National Biography, Lord
Stanley spent a good deal of money enlarging his house at
Knowsley, just outside Liverpool, for a visit by Henry VII
in 1495. This would suggest that he was already
living there in 1485 and earlier. The grounds are now a
safari park, and I've an idea, but nothing stronger,
that the family still own the house. Again according
to the DNB, Stanley also had a house in London (as
did most of the magnates), on the site of the present
College of Arms, so you might try approaching the
College. <br><br>Given your interest in privies, what is
the exact subject of your project?

Stanley

2001-11-21 00:09:34
willison2001
Has anybody seen the tomb of Thomas Stanley - the
arch-betrayer of Richard - and can they say where he is
buried?<br><br>'I spit on you grave' is the title of a fim & I
think some might do this to Stanley's!

Re: Stanley

2001-11-21 11:17:01
aelyon2001
I remember reading somewhere that one of the
Stanleys - I think Thomas, though it might be William - is
buried in the parish church at Ormskirk, which is about
15 miles north of Liverpool and not far from the
Stanley seat at Knowsley. I shall be in that part of the
world over Christmas, so will try to do a bit of
checking. Perhaps spitting on a grave in a church is going
a bit far, but I for one won't be praying for the
peaceful repose of his soul!

Re: Stanley

2001-11-21 12:40:03
willison2001
I'd be interested if you locate Thomas Stanley's
tomb. 'I spit on your grave,' is going too far, for me,
but, apparently, not for others! His brother William -
the one who led the charge against Richard 3 at the
behest of Thomas - was beheaded by Henry 7, so may've
been buried around London.

Re: Stanley, burial of Lord Stanley

2001-11-22 00:50:27
margaretofyork
According to the site www.1485.org/history, which
gives a history of the Stanley family and seems to
contain errors, "He is buried in the Stanley family
Chapel in the north aisle of the church of Burscough
Priory near Lathom."

Re: Stanley, burial of Lord Stanley

2001-11-22 09:48:44
aelyon2001
It's entirely possible that I'm mistaken. Somebody is buried at Ormskirk - perhaps it's the perfidious William rather than the perfidious Thomas.

Re: Stanley, burial of Lord Stanley

2001-11-22 23:10:26
willison2001
Perfidious indeed. Had I shaken hands with them, I would have counted my fingers afterwards.

If Richard had survived Bosworth?

2001-11-27 00:06:11
willison2001
If Richard had survived Bosworth would he have
faced new battles, because he was inherently unpopular
or would he have done a Henry VII & CRACKED down on
the likes of Stanley, do you think? Richard gave
short shrift to foes like the Woodvilles, Hastings &
Buckingham, after all!

Re: If Richard had survived Bosworth?

2001-11-28 11:23:07
willow2vicky
if richard had survived bosworth he would
proberly have been overthrown by his nobles. he gave them
to much power and didn't do enough to control them.
also he would still have had a lot of enemys left. as
you see in the reign of henry the seventh there were
rebellions. would richard have been in a good position to
destroy them?

Re: If Richard had survived Bosworth?

2001-11-28 17:31:36
aelyon2001
I disagree.<br><br>Presumably, Henry VII would
have been killed at Bosworth (Richard got within feet
of him after all, and Henry was no fighter). This
means that there would have been no rival claimant to
the throne, assuming Edward V and his brother were
dead, except Edward of Warwick - whether he would have
made a realistic rival or focus for plots is an open
question. Certainly, there would have been no Lancastrian
heirs except Margaret Beaufort hereself, and I'm
inclined to doubt whether the nobles of the day would have
rallied behind a female pretender.<br><br>On a practical
level, Richard would have needed to re-marry quickly and
seek to produce male heirs. Winning Bosworth would
have only enhanced the military reputation he already
had, and made him much more secure, but he needed an
heir, and, given recent history, needed to be around
long enough for a son by a second marriage to reach
adulthood.

Re: If Richard had survived Bosworth?

2001-11-28 23:54:21
willison2001
I'm inclined to agree that Richard would've been
relatively Home free had he survived. An heir was essential,
but anyone promising, apart from himself, to marry
Elizabeth of York might've been a threat. What would he
have done with her?

Re: If Richard had survived Bosworth?

2001-11-30 02:06:00
margaretofyork
As Aslan reminded Lucy: we are never told what
would have happened; but Richard's death at Bosworth is
one of the greatest tragedies of our history, an
unmitigated catastrophe comparable to the death of Llewellyn
ap Gryffyths, the native Prince of Wales.
<br>Elizabeth of York could have married any nobleman; your
raising of this interesting question recalls the mystery:
would killing his Woodville nephews have seemed
inevitable to Richard, when so many others, including his
nieces, presented equal threats? That problem seems the
heart of the enigma. He did send Elizabeth north, to
safety, did he not, before the battle?

Re: If Richard had survived Bosworth?

2001-11-30 13:48:17
willison2001
It may be that Richard had not decided what to do with his nieces, as he had more pressing cares. He may not have been into killing women unlike his great nephew: the psychopath Henry VIII!

Re: If Richard had survived Bosworth?

2001-12-01 17:41:20
aelyon2001
A point to make is that in the fifteenth century
England had no experience of women rulers, and only one
example of a woman pretender - Matilda, daughter of Henry
I, over 300 years earlier. (Before anyone jumps on
me, at that time and up to Edward I in 1272, it was
coronation that made the king; Matilda was never crowned,
and did not regard herself as ruler, but as the
rightful heir). Up to 1460, when Richard's father claimed
to have a better right to the throne than Henry VI
via his descent through the female line, the only
occasions on which a woman, or a man claiming via a female,
would be considered as a potential monarch was when
there were literally no male heirs in the male line.
This was a consistent pattern throughout western
Europe. Isabella (as in Ferdinand and Isabella) became
Queen of Castile in 1473, but the only possible
alternative candidate was her half-brother's daughter, whom
the half-brother had himself disowned, regarding her
as the product of his wife's adultery. Equally,
Margaret 'the Maid of Norway', who was regarded as
rightful ruler of Scotland after the death of her
grandfather, Alexander III, in 1286, was not only his only
living descendant, but the only living descendant of
Alexander's own grandfather, William the Lion. The only
alternatives were very distant cousins who traced their
descent through females - the Balliols and the Bruces -
and Margaret's death caused a major crisis.<br><br>On
that basis, Richard may not have considered his nieces
as a major threat in their own right, though it
would have been prudent to make sure that they did not
marry anybody ambitious. I rather doubt that he would
have married Elizabeth himself, though canonically it
would have been possible to get the necessary
dispensation (Philip II of Spain married his niece, Anne of
Austria, and other uncle-niece marriages did take place).
On a practical level, he may well have put the issue
of Elizabeth and his sisters to one side, to be
sorted out after he had dealt with Tudor. <br><br>Had he
survived Bosworth, perhaps the safest thing to do would
have been to persuade them to take religious vows. Not
only would that prevent them from acquiring ambitious
husbands, there was also a sense at one time that a priest
could not be a king. I'm not quite sure when that died
out in western Europe - in Russia, Boris Godunov had
one of his rivals forcibly tonsured at the end of the
16th century, but when Charles Edward Stuart died in
1788 his supporters acclaimed his brother as Henry IX,
for all that he was a cardinal.

Richard's 'coffin.'

2001-12-01 18:05:16
willison2001
Alison Weir reckons that Richard's coffin forms
part of the cellar steps of the White Horse Inn in
Leicester. I visited there at closing time last night &
mentioned this to the Manager, who was dumbfounded. He
looked at me as though I was drunk or mad and didn't
have a clue about this story!<br><br>Nice on, Alison!

American Branch Financial Aid

2001-12-01 18:09:52
lblanchard1485
Please share with any colleagues who might have
an interest for themselves or on behalf of their
students.<br><br>The Richard III Society/American Branch makes awards
each year to graduate students, typically those
researching or writing their dissertations, in the field of
fifteenth-century English history and culture. Applicants must be
U.S. citizens (or in process of obtaining
citizenships) or permanent resident aliens. The awards are
typically in the range of $500-$1,000. Last year we made
three awards of $1,000.<br><br>Application deadline is
February 28, 2002. udging is by a five person panel:
Lorraine Attreed (Holy Cross), Barbara Hanawalt (Ohio
State), Compton Reeves (Ohio University) Shelley Sinclair
(University of Wisconsin), and Charles T. Wood
(Dartmouth).<br><br>Additional details, including guidelines, application form,
and list of prior awardees, are available at
<a href=http://www.r3.org/edu.html#schallek target=new>http://www.r3.org/edu.html#schallek</a><br><br>Regards,<br>Laura Blanchard<br>lblanch001@...

Re: Richard's 'coffin.'

2001-12-02 07:17:18
brontewcat
I assume the manager of the White Horse Inn,
therefore, has not read many biographies on Richard. This is
NOT a story made up by Alison Weir.<br><br>The story
is mentioned by Charles Ross on the last page of the
chapter entitled "August 1485" in his biography on
Richard. He sources the story from Hutton W, The Battle of
Bosworth Field (1788). The story goes that Richard's
coffin had been a horse trough at the inn until 1758. In
1758 the horse trough had disappeared and the broken
pieces were built into the cellar-steps.<br><br>Although
I know Alison Weir has been criticised for failing
to give her sources, this is true of a lot of
popular authors. If you are interested and you dig around
it is not too hard to work out what her sources are
for most of her statements, even the controversial
ones.

Re: Richard's 'coffin.'

2001-12-03 00:26:45
willison2001
No criticism of Alison Weir meant.<br><br>The
manager clearly saw his Inn as a business and my interest
in Richard's coffin meant nothing to him. He did
show me a painting of the Inn as it was in the early
17th century, but I didn't get to see the cellar
steps. He seemd baffled and suspicious about a King's
coffin forming part of his Pub! I felt slightly foolish
mentioning it!

Re: Richard's 'coffin.'

2001-12-05 08:30:10
brontewcat
Apologies re Alison. It is difficult to get the
nuances of a person's post without the body language and
voice to go with it. it looked liek you were having a
go at Weir.<br><br>Nest time you are at the Inn you
can tell the manager the story. It might be a selling
point - if hatton is correct

Re: Richard's 'coffin.'

2001-12-05 11:35:34
willison2001
I was told by someone from the local museum that
3 Inns claimed to have Richard's coffin during the
18th century.<br><br>I'm not sure that people go to
Pubs to make reference to coffins & death. It might
increase alcohol sales if they did; they might enjoy the
sedative effect!

New Society Website

2001-12-09 10:29:51
ukaflyer
On 8th December 2001, the Society launched its
new website. The Society's first website, launched
three years ago, served the Society well and generated
much interest in Richard III. <br><br>The new, and
expanded website, offers several new features
including:<br><br>Daily message in the status bar relating to a late
medieval or early Tudor event.<br><br>Section on current
media stories connected to Richard III<br><br>Section
on exhibitions on Richard III and related subjects
<br><br>Illustrated diary of Society events<br> <br>Publication
details of the Richard III & Yorkist History Trust
<br><br>Expanded section on Ricardian sites <br><br>We look
forward to you enjoying the new look

Northumberland

2001-12-16 13:17:06
willison2001
What is the view of Northumberland's inactivity
at Bosworth, which appeared to seal Richard's fate?
Was he in treasonable conspiracy with Tudor or simply
incompetent, like Lord Percy Percy in 'Black Adder,' and
unaware of what was going on in the battle: he'd got his
eyes off the ball?

Re: Northumberland

2001-12-18 11:00:17
aelyon2001
I'm inclined to think that Northumberland's
inactivity was deliberate, and that he was hedging his bets
by failing to move when needed. Bosworth was
straightforward, as battles go, and fought in clear weather, so
that the prospects for genuine muddle and mistake were
limited, unlike Barnet, where confusion really did reign.
And Tudor consigned Northumberland to the Tower
afterwards (though it is always possible that Tudor was
taking revenge for Northumberland's failure to do a
Stanley!).

Re: Northumberland

2001-12-18 20:09:25
willison2001
It's interesting that of the 6 armies present at
Bosworth, Richard only had 2 actively engaged on his side:
his own & that of Norfolk, whom Richard had raised to
the ducal coronet.<br><br>Tudor, Oxford & Stanley
fought against and Northumberland appeared to be
indifferent to the outcome.<br><br>This doesn't suggest that
Richard was immensely popular!

Buckingham's Rebellion

2001-12-18 22:37:58
bjjsavate
This may already have been discussed, but I
wonder if anyone has feedback on this
book.<br><br>Buckinghams Rebillion and RIII by Louis Gill.<br><br>What is
her leaning, if any? I haven't read it but was going
to read it over the
holidays.<br><br>Thanks!<br>Armando

Re: Northumberland

2001-12-19 10:26:23
aelyon2001
To be fair to Richard, Tudor was fighting for his
own ends (or getting other people to fight!), Oxford
was an irreconcilable Lancastrian, and the Stanleys
were a pair of slippery customers (and who knows what
Margaret Beaufort was up to behind the scenes). The
actions of Oxford and the Stanleys are entirely
explicable, but the reasons for Northumberland's inaction are
much less clear and therefore more interesting.
<br><br>I haven't got a simple answer. Northumberland's
father and uncle had waged a private war against the
Nevills in the early 1450s (indeed, Michael Hicks in his
biography of Warwick suggests it was this which persuaded
the Nevills to support Richard of York), and his
grandfather, father and the same uncle had all been killed
fighting against the Yorkists. Northumberland, however,
had been restored to the earldom by Edward IV and
shown favour by him and then by Richard.<br><br>I
wonder a little about the strength of family loyalties
in those days, despite all the trumpeting of family
ties. Looking at the Nevills, when they were not
fighting outsiders they were fighting or bringing law
suits over lands against one another! Bear in mind that
Warwick and his brothers were first cousins of their
Percy enemies. On that basis, we cannot simply assume
that Northumberland belatedly remembered his ancestral
ties with Lancaster. It is always possible that he had
learned from all the Stanley fence-sitting over the years
and decided to try it for himself! A dangerous
tactic, given that Richard's charge could have been a
triumph, but it had worked well enough for the Stanleys in
the past.<br><br>Pity we don't have access to a time
machine.<br><br>Merry Christmas

Re: Northumberland

2001-12-19 17:14:04
willison2001
A time machine would be useful, but even then we
would need to be mind readers.<br><br>The fact is that
poor old Richard could not garner sufficient loyalty
at Bosworth. With Tudor, Oxford & Stanley against
his 2 forces, he simply couldn't win. Perhaps, the
way he came to the throne upset some of the
sensibilities of the Age!<br><br>Merry Christmas to all (even
though my own view about the religious content of
Christmas has taken a turn for the worst!)

Re: Northumberland

2001-12-20 15:20:51
aelyon2001
You may be right that the way Richard seized the
throne upset some of the susceptibilities of the age.
I'm not thinking so much about the disappearance of
Edward V and his brother, but at the time scale. There
had been three previous depositions of reigning
monarchs. All the kings concerned had reigned for long
periods - Edward II for 19 years, Richard II for 22 years
(11 as an adult and ruler in his own right), and
Henry VI for 38 years (23 after declaring himself of
age). All had demonstrated their unfittedness to rule
either through feebleness or behaviour which their
contemporaries (or at any rate their supplanters) characterised
as tyrannical, and various attempts had been made to
establish a workable form of government without deposition
before the final step was taken. Edward V's reign lasted
three months, and there was no real attempt to see
whether a workable protectorate or concilear system could
be established.<br><br>Here we need a time warp and
mind-reading abilities once more. Obviously, Richard well knew
what had gone on in Henry VI's reign, and he was a
witness to Edward IV's temporary deposition in 1470-71.
If we assume for present purposes that the tale of
Edward IV's pre-contract is untrue and was known to be
untrue at that time (and the two are not the same
thing)then we have Richard taking the extreme step of
deposing a king (admittedly one who had not attained the
semi-sacred status of anointed king), merely to remove his
own rivals from power, and as first resort rather
than last. That would, I think, offend contemporary
susceptibilities, unless the whole concept of monarchy had become
so debased by that time that the throne was simply a
prize up for grabs (and I don't think things had
actually got that far, but that is my personal view).

New Member

2001-12-21 11:37:35
islanddreamzzz
Hello all,<br><br>Looking forward to discussing R3 and other aspects of the late Middle Ages:)<br><br>Shaun

Re: New Member

2001-12-21 15:39:28
willison2001
Well, you may need to trawl back.<br><br>I
wouldn't suggest one other group connected with Richard 3.
They seem to have drifted into discussing anything!
George Harrison's demise got quite an airing
recently.<br><br>They may be discussing the impact of diplodicus on the
period next.<br><br>There's a lot of unrelated rubbish
around. I was talking about the Great Artists of the 16th
century recently & she turned it around into a
politically correct question as to why there have never been
any great female painters?<br><br>Trying to impose
political correctness on the Age of Richard & Lorenzo the
Magnificent is crass absurdity. They were dictators who used
military might to support their positions & what can we do
to change that now?<br><br>Fertility & mortality
rates were part of the problem for women, but if women
have not given themselves to painting there may be
other problems. Not everyone is interested in painting;
I'm not! What about aptitude?

Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2001-12-22 09:54:18
islanddreamzzz
Last year I read HENRY VIII (J.J. Scarisbrick) in
the Yale English Monarchs series. It was a lengthy
and informative read, but I was most intrigued by a
single paragraph near the very end.<br><br>The author
stated (almost in a throwaway line) that according to a
tradition, the king's body was disinterred by Cardinal
Reginald de la Pole, on the orders of Mary I and burned!
The author's reasoning for this (supposed) action was
pure revenge on the part of Mary for her father's
brutal treatment to those closest to her.<br><br>I was
surprised and a little shocked by this statement; nowhere
had I heard or read this before. <br><br>Can anyone
shed light on this? I would really like to hear
more.<br><br>Shaun

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2001-12-22 23:37:44
willison2001
I've not heard this from any other source. It sounds like the type of thing that some would've wished on the old reprobate.<br><br>It would be interesting if they tried to exhume him at Windsor!

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2001-12-23 23:58:38
hiraeth2
Unfortunately, like the DNA testing of the alleged bones of the Princes, HRH the Queen is unlikely to let that happen!!!

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2001-12-24 01:03:38
willison2001
I really think she's dead wrong about that. Our
knowledge of History and Archaeology would be broadened
considerably. During the 18th century many monarch's tombs were
opened: Edward IV,(Windsor) Edward I (Westminster) & John
(Worcester)!

Sir Francis Walsingham

2001-12-26 08:08:04
islanddreamzzz
I know the person above does not belong to our
favoured period, but I really must ask: does anyone know
if a study has been written on the life and career
of Elizabeth I's spymaster?<br><br>I have posed this
question in another group of mine to double my chances of
a response.<br><br>Though I may occasionally 'fall'
outside of the 13th and 14th centuries, fear not, I have
heeded the grim advice of willison2001 and will NEVER
discuss the late G. Harrison or any species of
dinosaur:)<br><br>Shaun

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2001-12-28 08:49:40
brontewcat
Carolly Erikson also mentions the story in her
book The Great Harry. But as far as i am aware it is a
story.<br><br>Henry's tomb was opened in the early nineteenth century
and his very large coffin was still there, together
with that of Jane Seymour and Charles I.

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2001-12-30 01:29:47
tmc\_dale
I doubt anyone has even mentioned it to the
Queen. Much of the debate about the opening of Royal
Tombs is couched in such terms but the facts are that
the Queen's consent is only required for the tombs
that are in buildings which she exercises some
influence and control over - for example Westminster Abbey
and St George's at Windsor.<br>Initially an approach
would be made to the Dean and Chapter of the
appropriate Cathedral whether a "royal peculiar" or not. If
the Dean and Chapter decided that they didn't want to
the tomb opening then they would be perfectly able to
say no without referring to the Queen. If the Queen
was approached directly then she is likely to take
advice from the relevant authorities at the relevant
church before making any decision - She is unlikely to
override the wishes of the Dean in any case. It is
unlikely that anyone wishing to exhume royal bodies would
have any success without having the relevant church
authorities onside.<br>To gain such support requires a clear
proposal indicating why and how and what historical
knowledge one might gain from such an enterprise. If
consent by the Dean (regarding the Prince's at
Westminster) hasn't been obtained then I would hazard a guess
that the arguement wasn't persuasive enough.

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-04 10:00:15
aelyon2001
I don't know anything about this, but
disappearing corpse stories seem to have been virtually
routine in this period. <br><br>Alison Weir has a tale of
a corpse being substituted for that of Edward VI by
the Duke of Northumberland in the course of his
attempts to establish Lady Jane Grey (a descendant of
Elizabeth Woodville's son, Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset)
on the throne. Edward's death was initially kept
secret (as his father's had been for different reasons)
so that Northumberland could set his plans in train.
Weir ('Children of England' p.159) refers to a letter
allegedly written by one of Northumberland's sons to the
effect that Edward was secretly buried in a paddock
adjoining Greenwich Palace, where he had died. A young man
of similar appearance was then murdered and his body
delivered to Westminster Abbey. <br><br>Weir gives no
source for this interesting story, and does not say
whether the letter is extant. It is not mentioned in
Jennifer Loach's recent and excellent biography of Edward
VI in the Yale English Monarchs series.<br><br>I
wonder whether the tale about Henry VIII's corpse
referred to by Scarisbrick was simply put about in
Elizabeth's reign to discredit Mary (just as a tale about
Edward VI's corpse would be a good way to heap yet
further opprobrium on the Duke of Northumberland).
Elizabeth made great play of being 'Great Harry's'
daughter, and suggesting that Mary was so totally lacking
in filial piety as to burn their father's corpse
might not be entirely out of keeping with the mood of
her reign.

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-05 01:28:11
bar1114
It is interesting that you mention Allison Weir.
It is my view that Ms Weir is a fiction writer
posing as an historian. Recently I viewed a program re
the Tower of London on the History Channel. Well,
needless to say I was appalled at its historical
inaccuracy, namely regarding Richard the Third and (the
princes) The program featured Ms Weir who arrogantly
states "There is no one else who could have murdered the
princes but Richard III). Well, Ms Weir, brilliant lady
that she is, has solved the greatest mystery of all
time, because as most know there is no evidence that
they were murdered at all by anybody. Ms Weir also
stated that this began the bloodiest period of the
Towers history. She paints a perfect picture of this
evil man who seized the throne and murdered his
nephews, when in effect he succeeded to the throne through
lawful means and ruled wisely. But of course they did
not mention that. Most know the Tower did not earn
its bloody reputaion until much later in history. Ms
Weir also stated the bones of the princes were found
in a box. Does anybody know if this is true? I read
they were found by workmen in the 1600's under a
stairwell. The tower was built over a Roman burial ground
other bones were found there including pre historic
ones. Sorry to go on but this kind of stuff gets my
goat.

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-05 04:56:37
hiraeth2
I think Alison Weir has got a bad reputation
among Ricardians because of her anti-Richard views but
I don't think all her work is bad. Her other
biographies (such as the Tudor trilogy) are good and well
researched and should not be tarred by the same
brush.<br><br>I think the ultimate anti-Richard book is by
Desmond Seward. He gets so personal in it that you'd
think he himself knew Richard and was done wrong by
him!

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-05 13:35:54
aelyon2001
It is rather galling that both Alison Weir and
Desmond Seward are very fluent writers and their books
'flow' extremely well - a case of the Devil having the
best tunes! As popular historians they are also freed
from having to clutter up their narrative with
footnotes, and their books are inevitably going to have much
more appeal to the ordinary reader than heavyweight
academic tomes, so that their view of events is the one
likely to embed itself in the popular mind. I do wish
they would cite sources for some of their more
contentious points, and make clear what is established fact
and what interpretation or educated surmise. An
obvious problem with Richard III is that the material
available is more scanty than for most of the later
medieval period, and what there is can be interpreted in
numerous different ways, even without the problem of Tudor
prejudice. Weir and Seward, of course, tend to pass
everything through an anti-Richard filter, just as Paul
Murray Kendall applied a pro-Richard filter. None of
them really considers alternative interpretations, and
they leave out details which do not fit in with their
view of events. <br><br>Back to missing corpses.
Scarisbrick is a sober academic historian (here my prejudices
as a sober academic lawyer are creeping in!) and
will no doubt have provided a reference for the tale
of Henry VIII's corpse. Does anyone have easy access
to the book? I will have a look for it in the
university library here, but may have to wait to get hold of
it.<br><br>Ann

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-05 16:58:08
etonfields2002
I am a voluntary steward at St. George's Chapel,
Windsor Castle and I can assure you that Henry VIII is
safe in his vault! At least the last time we checked
in 1813. You can read a detailed account in Sir
Henry Halford's Essays & Orations: An Account of the
opening of the tomb of King Charles 1st in the vault of
King Henry 8th (2nd edition published by John Murray
in London). Copy in the library of the Society of
Antiquaries of London. At the time it was reported by Sir
Henry that KH 8th coffin had been vandalised and you
could even see his skull. The damage allegedly done by
the Cromwellian soldiers that buried Charles the
First during their occupation of St. George's Chapel.

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-05 18:31:05
aelyon2001
Glad to hear your news. I'll still chase up the
Scarisbrick book just to see where the story comes from. As I
said in my earlier message on this topic, I think it's
likely to be a story cooked up (horrible pun not
intended!) in Elizabeth I's reign to discredit Mary, but my
sleuthing passions are now aroused.<br><br>St George's
Chapel is a wonderful building and I was most
disapppointed when I was last in the vicinity that the choir,
which was what I particularly wanted to see, because of
the Garter stall plates, was full of scaffolding!

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-05 23:46:53
brontewcat
I have a copy of Scarsbrick. He says there were
persistent rumours decades after Henry's death that the body
was taken out and burned by Mary. (source Fuller
Church History of Britain etc (1665),v, 255).<br><br>He
also says the story was repeated by Sir Francis
Englefield, a former privy councillor to Queen Mary and
Catholic recusant exiled in Spain, to Father Robert
Persons. Englefield told Persons he was present when
Cardianl Pole had the tomb opened and the body burned.
(source Persons Certamen Ecclesiae Anglicanae, ed Simons,
273) For reasons that are not clear Scarsbrick thought
it unlikely that Englefield was telling a lie or
Persons needed to misrepresent Englefield. <br>Scarsbrick
thought the story was corroborated by Fuller's rumours
and the fact Mary stopped work on the tomb.<br><br>It
appears that Scarsbrick has just accepted the
story.<br><br>I went to Windsor Castle in October and we were
told the story of the opening of Henry's tomb last
century. We were told the grave is actually very shallow.
Also when the tomb was opened in 1649, to bury Charles
I, there was just enough room for his body. Charles
was apparently put in the place intended for
Katherine Parr. This suggested Henry was well and truly in
the tomb, taking up a lot of room. <br><br>Which just
goes to show all historians are capable of accepting
historical traditions that are just not true. I am surprised
Scarsbrick accepted the story, when a visit to the tomb and
a talk to the guides would have cleared it up.
<br><br>I agree there is a problem with Weir and Seward in
that they don't give their sources. However often it
is possible to work out their sources if you look a
the primary sources. You will be pleased to know
Weir's latest work about Henry and his court is fully
footnoted. <br><br>But you are right they have put an anti
Richard interpretation on their sources, where as Kendall
has put a pro Richard on his. Its just that Kendall
is not criticised by many Ricardians to the same
extent.<br><br>I was probably more pro-Richard when I first joined
some of the internet groups I now belong to. But the
one eyedness of some (and I must emphasis some)
Ricardians and their uncritical support of any source that
is pro-Richard, and their complete rejection of any
work that is either anti-Richard or even suggests he
may responsible for the Princes' death has been
counter productive. I actually find some comments not
just regarding Weir and Seward, but also Hicks and
Ross an insult to my intelligence. I am now somewhat
more anti-Richard than what I was 12 months
ago.<br><br>I still don't know if the Princes were murdered,
but if they were I find it very difficult to be
convinced that someone other than Richard was ultimately
reponsible<br><br>Sorry about the rant, but I am genuinely interested in
Richard, and felt I needed to say it.

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-06 00:14:10
islanddreamzzz
Ann,<br><br>As the person who mentioned
Scarisbrick's book I feel an obligation to provide more details
regarding this great volume from the Yale English Monarchs
series.<br><br>HENRY VIII was first published in 1969. The edition I
referred to was the 'new' one of 1997 from Yale Univ.
Press. When I last checked on the Amazon web site this
edition was still available for sale.<br><br>Now on to
the references. The story concerning the supposed
burning of Henry's corpse is to be found in the chapter
titled 'The Last Months' on page 497 (paperback
edition). Scarisbrick gives two sources for the story:
CHURCH HISTORY OF BRITAIN etc (1665) by Fuller and
CERTAMEN ECCLESIAE ANGLICANAE by Persons (refer to Simon's
edition of Certamen, p 273.)<br><br>I'll not read these
two, but I do look forward to reading Halford's ESSAYS
& ORATIONS: AN ACCOUNT OF THE OPENING OF THE TOMB
OF THE TOMB OF KING CHARLES I IN THE VAULT OF KING
HENRY VIII.<br><br>Cheers, and thanks to the St.
George's volunteer for the information.<br><br>Shaun

The Worth of Weir

2002-01-06 03:59:50
islanddreamzzz
Alison Weir has been mentioned a few times
recently, mostly in a negative way.<br><br>My earlier
criticism of her lack of proper referencing has been
somewhat tempered by someone who quite rightly remarked
that Weir's books are intended for public consumption.
This is THE crucial point to note.<br><br>To dismiss
her as anti-Ricardian or pro-Ricardian or a 'light'
historian is unfair.<br><br>I believe her books have their
worth and merit a place. Yes, there are points of
contention and there are times when she places herself out
on a limb - something a proper medieval historian
would rarely do. But it would help if we put Weirs's
works in their proper context and consider them as
springboards to 'heavier' reading matter. As with introductory
level books on history, or any subject for that matter,
the subject is only briefly touched upon, and some
details are excluded altogether - that is the nature of
'popular' books. If lack of referencing is the sin, her
compelling style is the redemption. <br><br>I like to think
of Weir as the first course at dinner with say,
Scarisbrick or Saul as the main course - horrible metaphor,
but you see what I'm getting at.<br><br>Weir's secret
weapon is that she understands her subjects and is able
to express her thoughts in a simple but effective
way. I am still amazed that she clarified (in a single
paragraph) for me an issue in her CHILDREN OF ENGLAND what
it took Scarisbrick in his HENRY VIII a good number
of pages to do. This is definitely not a critiscm of
Scarisbrick - he is an excellent writer/historian with a deep
knowledge of his field - it is to be expected, nay,
demanded that a person of his calibre justify his writing.
That Weir does not fall into the same category as
Scarisbrick and therefore does not feel the need to reference
her very point should not be held against
her.<br><br>Just as I look forward to reading the next few
installments in the Yale English Monarchs series:<br>HENRY II,
QUEEN ANNE and EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, I also look
forward to reading Weir's ELEANOR OF
AQUITAINE.<br><br>Shaun

Re: The Worth of Weir

2002-01-06 05:09:46
brontewcat
I quite agree with what you say.<br><br>Alison
Weir writes in a very easy style. She is great as an
introduction to an historical period. As for any inaccuracies,
I thought her bio. on Elizabeth as Queen was good,
and a much better introduction to Elizabeth than the
film:-) Now there were inaccuracies.

Re: The Worth of Weir

2002-01-06 20:16:39
ukaflyer
I agree with much of what has been said about
Weir. Her easy style can present a good introduction to
history and encourage people to read more into the
subject - which is always a good thing. However, having
read her 'Princes in the Tower', I feel that there is
no excuse for inaccuracies and putting so much
emphasis on a limited range of sources - More being her
main one. Another of Weir's downfall is her arrogance
and I can say this, having met the lady in question.
She is totally convinced that she is correct and that
other, more pro-Ricardians are incorrect and she hasn't
changed or altered her arguments in the years since she
wrote her book on Richard III, despite other historians
revising their views.<br><br>I'm all for coffee-table
'popular' books and they don't all have to be pro-Ricardian
in tone but I do feel sound historical research is
as necessary for these books as for heavier works -
Tony Pollard's 'Richard III and the Princes in the
Tower' is a good example of this.<br><br>A more suitable
'easy' book is Anthony Cheetham's 'Richard III' in
Antonia Frazer's 'Kings & Queens' series. It is possible
to read that book in an evening and it is more
history than historical novel.

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-07 00:12:25
nikita2224
If the princes were murdered, which is not
proved, and if Richard was ultimately responsible, why
stop there? What about Warwick, Clarences son?
Untouched by Richard, but executed by Henry VII. When Henry
VII won Bosworth and gained the keys to the Tower of
London, where the boys were last seen, why didn't he take
it apart brick by brick looking for the bodies. To
produce them would have been his trump card, bearing in
mind he had no real right to the throne. The silence
was deafening. Of some 13/14 Plantagenet Heirs to the
throne still alive at Bosworth, Henry VII killed most of
them. Henry VIII finished the rest, including Clarences
daughter Margaret then a lady in her 70's. Read the
account of her death to see the Tudors in all their
glory. Yet Richard is the one that is villified to this
day!

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-07 00:14:56
nikita2224
If the princes were murdered, which is not
proved, and if Richard was ultimately responsible, why
stop there? What about Warwick, Clarences son?
Untouched by Richard, but executed by Henry VII. When Henry
VII won Bosworth and gained the keys to the Tower of
London, were the boys were last seen, why didn't he take
it apart brick by brick looking for the bodies. To
produce them would have been his trump card, bearing in
mind he had no real right to the throne. The silence
was deafening. Of some 13/14 Plantagenet Heirs to the
throne still alive at Bosworth, Henry VII killed most of
them. Henry VIII finished the rest, including Clarences
daughter Margaret then a lady in her 70's. Read the
account of her death to see the Tudors in all their
glory. Yet Richard is the one that is villified to this
day!

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-07 00:17:27
nikita2224
If the princes were murdered, which is not
proved, and if Richard was ultimately responsible, why
stop there? What about Warwick, Clarences son?
Untouched by Richard, but executed by Henry VII. When Henry
VII won Bosworth and gained the keys to the Tower of
London, were the boys were last seen, why didn't he take
it apart brick by brick looking for the bodies. To
produce them would have been his trump card, bearing in
mind he had no real right to the throne. The silence
was deafening. Of some 13/14 Plantagenet Heirs to the
throne still alive at Bosworth, Henry VII killed most of
them. Henry VIII finished the rest, including Clarences
daughter Margaret then a lady in her 70's. Read the
account of her death to see the Tudors in all their
glory. With a track record like that, I know where I
look for the boys murderer, and its not Richard.

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-07 06:58:05
margaretofyork
This correspondence mentions the cardinal
difficulty about the Princes in the Tower: the silence over
their fate. Elizabeth Jenkins insists in her book that
Richard III killed these boys and then maintained silence
so that they would be forgotten, a position that is
intrinsically improbable. She points out that deposed kings
were murdered, citing in particular Edward II and
Richard II, but she fails to point out that announcements
were made of their deaths, albeit unconvincing
announcements, and they were buried. We know what happened and
where they are buried. That Richard should have killed
his nephews and then assumed that everyone would
forget them is highly unlikely, but there are veils on
veils here. The silence in general is most puzzling and
suggests something happened under the surface and was
cleverly concealed; but what? Richard's character does not
suggest, does it,that he was particularly secretive. He
was under tremendous pressure, of course, faced with
many problems, some of which must be unknown to us.
His brother bequeathed him an absolute nightmare and
it was difficult to imagine just what he could have
done, given the position of the Woodvilles. It was
Edward IV's failure, and the undoing of his whole house,
that this family gained such an ascendency and became
a self-seeking party in the land.

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-07 12:31:46
hiraeth2
I have heard that Henry VII, though accusing Richard of all sorts of crimes through his propoganda, never actually accused him of the murder of the princes. Is this correct?

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-07 20:43:53
tmc\_dale
Firstly there was only one Plantagenet alive (if
we assume that Edward V and<br>Richard Duke of York
and Norfolk were dead) after the Battle of Bosworth
-<br>Edward Plantagenet Earl of Warwick (who survived until
the 1490's).<br><br>I assume that you are also
including the heirs general of the House of<br>Plantagenet
- the principal members being the chief heir
general of Edward<br>III - Elizabeth of York (who as we
know survived to die of natural causes)<br>as did all
of her sisters. Next in line comes Margaret
Plantagenet daughter<br>of George of Clarence who like her
cousins was married beneath her but<br>survived well into
the reign of Henry VIII - in fact it was he who
created<br>her Countess of Salisbury and returned her any
Salisbury lands that were<br>still in the crown's hands -
she and her offspring survived the fall
of<br>Buckingham (who's son was married to Margaret's daughter)
and eventually<br>fell foul of Henry over religion
and met her rather grisly end. Next in<br>line comes
Anne St Leger (daughter of Edward's eldest sister the
Duchess of<br>Exeter) who married and whose descendent
are still living today (the Duke's<br>of Rutland),
then come the De La Pole children of Edward IV's
sister<br>Elizabeth - John De La Pole was the principal originally
serving Henry VII<br>(indeed he was along with his wife
at Prince Arthur's christening) then<br>rebelling
and being killed at Stoke. The rest of the family
managed to<br>survive when the Duke of Suffolk died they
were demoted to Earls of Suffolk<br>and eventually all
fell foul of Henry largely through their own
stupidity<br>than any concerted policy to remove them.<br><br>Then
you can add in the Bourchier descendents of Edward
IV's aunt Isabel<br>Countess of Essex - survived but
become extinct in the male line during the<br>early 16th
C - among the descendents you can of course include
the Devereux<br>Earls of Essex. That takes care of
the York Branch of the House of<br>Plantagenet (the
Bourchiers were of course doubly descended from Edward
III<br>through Isabel of York and Anne only daughter of Thomas
of Woodstock)<br><br>After them the only one's that
count are the Buckingham descendents of<br>Thomas of
Woodstock (and of course John of Gaunt) - Buckingham
managed to<br>upset Henry VIII and lose his head but his
children survived and hung around<br>the lower reaches of
the Aristocracy until well after the Tudor's
reign.<br><br>Henry VIII' may have got rid of a few distant cousins
but that had far more<br>to do with his own inability
to reproduce than any great fear of a<br>Plantagenet
revival by some one of the half blood.<br><br>When
Elizabeth Tudor died in 1603 there were numerous members of
the English<br>Aristocracy descended from Edward III
- do you really believe that if for a<br>century
Tudor Royal Policy was the extermination of any
possible Plantagenet<br>rivals there would have been so
many left.

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-08 07:57:12
ludbrook2000
In fact news of the boys deaths was spread about
at the time of the Buckingham rebellion in Oct 1483.
As a result the focus of the rebellion switched from
liberating the princes and restoring Edward to the throne to
Henry Tudor. News of the deaths was "informally
broadcast by sources to Richard III" (to paraphrase Tony
Pollard). <br>If he had murdered the princes (which I
believe is likely), then this was the best course for
Richard to take - by making people believe they were dead
he hoped to defuse the rebellion, but could hardly
publically announce that he had murdered them, and since
there were 2 of them any announcement that they had
died of natural causes would not be likely to be
believed. Any public announcement would have brought huge
public opprobrium down on his head.

The Princes

2002-01-08 10:39:37
cj6271215
The supposed execution of the princes should be
viewed as a purely political move by a government.
Serious historians have long discounted the vivid and
dramatic portrayal of Richard III by Shakespeare as purely
theatrical invention and in tune with the political age he
lived in. Common sense tells one that such a monster of
pure evil only really existed in the playright's
mind.<br> Political executions are effective means of
ridding one of rivals, only if they are broadcast by the
government at hand. Such as the executions of Henry VI and
the Duke of Clarence in the reign of Richard's
brother Edward IV. Although Henry VI's demise was
explained as of natural causes, it was widely believed and
not discouraged by the government that he was
executed by royal decree and the council's agreement. Also
his body was shown to the public, thus effectively
ending his use and effect as a political rival to the
throne of England. Although brother to the reigning
monarch, George of Clarence's death was broadcast and
acknowledged by the government effectively removing any threat
that Edward IV saw from his treasonous brother.<br>
Such is not the case with this supposed execution. If
it was done by Richard III and his government it
would have been done to ensure the throne's stability
and announced, perhaps as in the case of Henry VI, as
natural causes.This effectively leading to the removal of
any risings or political factions backing the return
of Edward V to the throne. Such never happened. This
has led to the groundswell of rumors and theories
that have lasted to this day on the fate of these
princes.The exact opposite of what would have been the reason
for this execution, which leads many historians to
believe that it never happened. Given the more balanced
picture that has emerged of Richard III's character, his
undeniable leadership qualities, and the sheer and
unbelievable political stupidity of such an wanton execution,
it can not be seriously considered to have happened.

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-08 21:36:10
nikita2224
Henry VII executed Warwick, Clarence's son. In
Nov. 1538, Henry VIII arrested Lady Exeter, Cardinal
Poles brother Lord Montague-Lady Salisbury (Clarence's
daughter) and the young sons of Exeter and Montague who
were all sent to the Tower. On Dec 9th Exeter,
Montague and Sir Edward Neville were beheaded. Lady Exeter
was pardoned but her son Edward Courtney and Henry
Pole remained in the Tower along with Lady Salisbury,
who with the rest of her family was attainted for
Treason in 1539. Pope Paul III was so shocked at Henry's
treatment of his Plantagenet Kinsmen he excommunicated him.
Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury was still in the
Tower in 1542. Henry ordered her execution on the
excuse of being involved in a rebellion in Yorkshire
against his religious policies-which she had nothing to
do with-she was 68 years old and the executioner so
inept she was in effect butchered. It was said after
that "None of the royal race are left-except a nephew
of Cardinal Pole and the son of the Marquess of
Exeter"-both children and in prison and condemned. Tudor
policy clearly siezed every opportunity to remove the
male Plantagenet line.

Re: The Princes

2002-01-08 22:37:43
ozsomerset
Why is it always assumed that the Princes were murdered? I dont know what the child mortality rates were but couldn't both boys have died of other causes such as sickness or accident?

Re: The Princes

2002-01-09 01:36:01
cj6271215
I agree entirely with that, but the sheer
coincidence and their importance makes it highly unlikely and
against the odds that both died of natural causes at the
same time. An announcement of that would have been
immmediately made by the government as in a government
execution, thus allowing the risk of risings in their name
die with them. I find a lot of support for the idea
that they were neither murdered or both died of
natural causes. The idea that they survived the reign of
Richard III is one that needs more thought and research.
After all, their murder would not benefit their uncle
Richard III, the rumors and insinuations during and after
his lifetime has proved that. They were not a threat
to him at the time of their supposed death. It is
forgotten by most that at the time Richard III's son and
heir was still alive,his wife and he were both young,
both in their early thirties. More children were still
a possibility in their minds.In any case, the House
of York had other possible heirs. If they survived
the reign of Richard III, the man who had the most
reason, the only real reason to do away with them, since
he reversed the illegitmacy of the children of
Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville making them once again
inheritable to the throne he now occupied, is Henry VII. A
man whose silence upon their deaths and lack of
trying to find evidence, bodies etc. to condemn his
predecessor speaks volumes. Would almost be the setting for a
perfect crime since Richard III was already tried and
condemned in the court of public opinion and has been for
centuries afterwards.

Re: The Princes

2002-01-09 03:24:42
ludbrook2000
THere are several problems with this argument
that the Princes survived Richard's reign. Firstly why
were they never seen again by anyone after August
1483? Secondly why did their mother, Elizabeth of
Woodville agree to the proposed marriage between her
daughter Elizabeth and Henry Tudor in late 1483, and
support Henry's bid for the throne? She can only have
done so if she believed the Princes were dead.
Thirdly, why did Richard not produce them in late 1483
when he was being widely condemned for the murder and
many of his former supporters were deserting him as a
result? Fourthy why did the speaker of the French
Parliament mention Richard as the murderer of the children
in January 1484 in a way that implied it was a
commonly-known fact? Fifthly why did many former ardent Yorkists
switch their support to Henry Tudor - again something
they would never have done had the boys been alive.
Finally, if the bones found in 1674 are indeed those of
the Princes (and there is strong evidence that they
are), then the likely ages at death preclude their
death from occurring after August 1485 (ie at the hands
of Henry Tudor).<br>Whilst a definitive solution to
this mystery is unlikely to ever emerge, the theory
that Henry VII had the Princes murdereed is to my mind
one of the least likely solutions.

Re: The Princes

2002-01-09 14:04:55
willison2001
Richard was between a rock and a hard place. If
he left the princes alive they were a serious threat
to himself & his family. If he killed them he could
be accused of killing 'innocents' (not that anyone
ever is entirely) and children who many saw as the
rightful heirs to Edward IV.<br><br>Richard may have taken
the view that the death of the princes was a removal
of an immediate threat given the fact that the
rebellion of 1483 was designed to release them & kill him.
He would try to deal with the consequences of this
action later, which of course he failed to do by 1485.

Re: The Princes

2002-01-09 19:03:45
aelyon2001
I have been following the latest correspondence
with interest.<br><br>It is not entirely impossible
that they could have died of natural causes. There was
plague in London every summer, and measles was quite
often fatal in those days. Sweating sickness was also
frequently fatal. (There is a debate as to whether it had
actually appeared in England at this time, and it is
possible that the Tudor writer (was it More? - I haven't
got anything to hand) who said that Lord Stanley
excused himself from Bosworth on the grounds of sweating
sickness was being anachronistic.) All these were highly
infectious and might easily have carried off two at the same
time.<br><br>However, had they died of natural causes, the obvious
thing to do would have been to produce the corpses,
hold a suitable funeral and brazen out the inevitable
accusations of skullduggery.<br><br>Certainly the boys were a
danger to Richard while they remained alive, perhaps not
in the immediate short-term, but definitely as they
grew older. Remember that maturity came earlier in the
15th century, and Edward IV had fought his way to the
throne at 18. Killing them off was likely to produce a
backlash - the society of the time would not have seen
them as the sweet little boys of Victorian
sentimentality, but would have seen them as innocent of personal
responsibility in recent events. However, murder, sooner rather
than later, was highly likely. <br><br>But, as noted,
all the previous royal murders had been announced, if
the deaths implausibly attributed to natural causes,
and the deposed kings concerned publicly buried.
Indeed, a point was made of putting their bodies on
display in order to pre-empt rumours that they were still
alive (this didn't work in Richard II's case). That no
announcement was made is very odd. If they were still alive
when rumours started to proliferate, then the obvious
thing to do was produce them, and hope that the fuss
would gradually die down. <br><br>There is no simple
answer. I am inclined to think that they were murdered,
and that Richard was responsible, simply because it
was in keeping with the practices of the age.
Remember also that Richard had the personal experience, in
his formative years, of Edward IV's deposition and
Henry VI's readeption. There was never any danger of
Henry plotting in his own right - he seems to have been
a completely passive figure long before then. He
had been a disaster as a monarch, and was wholly
discredited as an individual, except for his piety, but he
still had the prestige and semi-sacredness of a king,
and that made him dangerous. That he had been
restored must have been a lesson to Richard that no person
in a similar position could be permitted to
live.<br><br>Ruthless, I know, but the realities of the age. Had Richard
survived Bosworth, and Henry Tudor been killed, I suspect
we would now be viewing him in a completely
different light. There is relatively little condemnation of
Henry IV, who after deposing and murdering his
predecessor hung on to the throne in the face of several
rebellions. Henry V was the son of this usurper, and after an
initial flurry of rebellion following his accession,
established himself as a successful and apparently popular
king. Richard's big problem was that one of the
rebellions was successful.

Re: The Princes

2002-01-09 22:49:41
nikita2224
There is no evidence the princes were still alive
at the time of Bosworth-but only rumours that they
were dead. I think it highly unlikely a trained
soldier like Richard left them in the Tower at such a
time, they would probably have been in Yorkshire where
Richard could be sure of them, with their sisters and
Clarence cousins. You cite the behaviour of Elizabeth
Woodville. In 1484 she reconciled with Richard putting
herself and her daughters in his hands and writing to her
son the Marquess of Dorset urging him to abandon the
Tudor cause. Hard to believe she would do this with
someone who had murdered two of her sons, but plausible
if she had evidence they were alive. By contrast
shortly after her daughter became Henry 7's Queen-Henry
stripped her of all her wealth and in Feb 1487 locked her
in Bermondsey Abbey-incommunicado for the rest of
her life! Just prior to that in June and July 1486 2
royal pardons had been issued to James Tyrell-More and
Polydore Virgil both name him as the murderer. 2 such
pardons are very unusual, one has to ask what he had done
in that month to earn them. Incidentally in Sept
1486 Henry 7's son Arthur was born! Richard was not
"widely condemned" for the murder as you put it.
Certainly rumours sprang up in various places, always after
a visit by John Morton-he of Morton's Fork, as in
the example you quote of the Chancellor not the
Speaker of France, to the States-General at Tours. This
was after a visit by Morton. The Frence Regency sent
an embassy to Richard 6 months after that, so they
probably found the rumour wasn't true. Richard signed a
safe conduct for their visit, and he wouldn't if they
were still calling him a murderer. It is untrue that
he was so unpopular the nobility of England deserted
him en masse, at Bosworth more than half the nobility
of military age are known to have fought for
Richard, more may well have done so, not one joined Henry
Tudor between his landing and the battle. When the
bones found in 1674 were dug up they were put in the
kitchen scrap heap in the Tower for several days before
it was realised what they might be and attempts made
to rescue them, kitchen waste and animal bones had
been added to the pile in that time which must
contaminate them forensically. Despite repeated requests for
access to these bones with modern technology
Westminister Abbey- which is a "royal peculiar" subject only
to the Queen-so far refuses. A definite solution
therefore is not forthcoming to the mystery- but the very
secrecy around it epitomizes Henry 7th-cold, cautious and
calculating to the last.

Re: The Princes

2002-01-10 00:24:00
willison2001
It is true that all the previous royal murders
had been announced, but announcing the death of two
children & his own nephews, who were relatively innocent
with a very good claim to the throne which Richard
himself had previously recognised, was very difficult for
Richard. And yet he had clear and pressing reasons to
anounce to the World that they, who would've certainly
sanctioned his death, were dead.<br><br>The insider
Croyland, cryptic as usual, does say that news of the
prince's death (1483) 'was given out.' Whether this was
from Richard or his former crony Buckingham, this
clearly suggests that Richard's power base, who had the
princes imprisoned, was involved in their death. If
Buckingham did this for Tudor, which would've been equally
useful for Richard or himself, yet Richard had chosen
Buckingham as a close friend & should take responsibility,
quite apart from his transparent responsibility for the
deposition of Edward V. Buckingham's move to support Tudor
suggests that he knew the princes were dead for had they
had lived, Tudor's plan to marry their sister
would've been invalid. Who was better placed to know the
fate of the princes than Buckingham: Richard's closest
confidant?<br><br>Richard could've produced the princes to scupper Tudor's
plan or at least contradict the damaging rumours, but
he didn't because, it seems, he couldn't, as he knew
they were dead. He showed no such reticence over
denying the rumour that he planned to marry their sister
and, again, why was this important if the boys still
lived? Again, this suggests that all of the actors knew,
but didn't like to say, that they were indeed
dead.<br><br>Tudor's Act of Attainder refers to the 'shedding of
children's blood' as one of Richard's offences as though
this was widely believed.<br><br>Elizabeth Woodville
positioned herself to survive whether under Richard or
Tudor, but,under Tudor, her place was taken by Margaret
Beaufort.<br><br>By the end of 1483, Richard had removed his enemies:
the Woodvilles, the Yorkist & Lancastrian rebels
(including his own brother-in-law, St. Leger,) the princes,
Buckingham and Tudor, who had swiftly returned into exile.
Richard had used brute force as he had at Barnet &
Tewkesbury, which he had condoned for the deaths of Henry VI
& Clarence & which he was to personally display in
his killing of at least three men at Bosworth.
Richard may have felt satisfied, but a calm is often
followed by a storm and the death of his son, his Neville
wife and the disaffection of Stanley, Northumberland
and it appears many other of his subjects, was to
lead to his death & mutilation at Bosworth!

The Princes

2002-01-10 02:39:59
cj6271215
While there are many valid theories to answer the
vexing question of these children's fate, I still find
Richard III murdering the least compelling.<br>Unless
murder is committed in the heat of the moment, in a fit
of passion, planned murder is done for profit to
oneself. This doesn't fit into the scenerio of the
supposed crime from Richard's point of view. No profit, no
gain, only a loss of political and personal prestige
would result.<br>If he was so threatened by their
continued existence and bent on murder, the wisest course
and the one he would have logically followed was to
play the waiting game. Once the princes reached the
age of maturity (noticeably younger than in these
days)a supposed plot or uprising in the Tower would
result in their deaths and/or executions. The difference
between the putting to death of an adult of 17 or 18 in
those days (as in the death at Wakefield of Edmund of
York or the death of Edward of Lancaster at the age of
17 each both which were not commented on as far as
age), would not have the same effect on people and
Richard's prestige and throne as the death of a 13 and 10
year old. Much as Henry VII played the waiting game
till Edward, Duke of Warwick was of age to be
eliminated.<br>The idea of a public parade of the boys, in an age of
practically no security measures and making that an occassion
for a concerted effort for the rescue and use of
these children afterwards to further the many and
various parties that seemed to think their candidate was
the appropriate choice for the throne is not to my
mind viable. It would have been in the interests of
the children's safety, public safety, the very
stability of the government not to do this. The practical
policy of the government would be to downplay the
signifigance of these children's continued existence not
broadcast it along with the very real threat they might
pose to the very stability and current existence of
the governemnt, not to parade two children who not
only had their own considerable following based on the
tenderness of their youth, the sense, how ever misguided
that they were cheated of their rightful inheritance
and the loyalty they inherit from their extremely
popular father Edward IV, especially in London throughout
the capital and countryside.<br>The sources of
contemporary information is alas thin at best for this time
period.And of course the victor in any struggle for power
gets to write history his own way after, especially in
the totalitarian state of the governments of those
days. To cite the Croyland Chronicle and the government
of France, the traditional enemy of England and a
government very hostile to Richard as impartial observers
and commentators is not fair to Richard or the times
he lived in. It is a pity that we don't have a fair
sampling of unbiased contemporary opinions to draw upon.

Re: The Princes

2002-01-10 09:43:24
willow2vicky
perhaps elizabeth was afraid of richard. if he had killed her sons could he not also kill her?

Re: The Princes

2002-01-10 12:08:38
cj6271215
I find Elizabeth Woodville's behavior during and
after the reign of Richard III as engimatic. If Richard
had her sons put to death, why did she leave
sanctuary and put herself and her daughters into his
custody? With no Salic law effective in England, her
eldest daughter was the next heir of the line of Edward
IV, of course which she maintained was the true line
of descent. There are many concession people will
make for the sake of political gain and power, but the
making amends with the murderer of ones children is not
one any mother would make. She has come down to us as
a cold and calculating character, but it is against
everything in human nature, not to mention a mother's
nature, to make peace with the murderer of one's own
children. And then to trust the fate of your remaining
children is unbelieveable, if she felt that her sons were
dead at the hands of Richard III.<br>Also her
involvement in the rising against Henry VII are troubling.
While it resulted in her imprisonment in the notorious
Bermondsey Abbey and she still kept her life, why would she
take that chance? He was her supposed savior, the
avenging angel of her supposedly murdered children and
falsely tainted line. She was once again recognized as
Queen Dowager, her eldest daughter Queen consort of
England. Why would she turn against Henry VII, surely not
for personal gain, she was at the highest pinnacle
she could reach of success and power she could hope
to attain.Her honor was vindicated with the
recognition of the validation of her marriage to Edward IV.
No one could offer her more power or prestige. And
in a rising in the name of one of her supposedly
dead sons? Unless she was unsure of their fates, or
had realized that their fates were decided at the
hands of Henry VII.

Re: The Princes

2002-01-10 17:06:15
tmc\_dale
I have posted in the past on Elizabeth Wydeville
however you may have missed it. Traditionally there is
little wrong with what you have stated however there are
a few issues to address. Firstly Elizabeth's
decision in 1484 to quit sanctuary is perhaps
understandable - given that Richard's regime looked relatively
secure, that Elizabeth had received no income that we are
aware of since entering sanctuary (her receivers on her
estates ceased paying her agents - as did those for her
brother Lord Rivers before Richard's accession to the
throne and before River's death) - hardly surprising
therefore that she came to an accommodation probably on the
verge of being unable to support herself or her
daughters. The suggestion that she contacted Dorset is
frequently repeated and any letter doesn't survive.
Certainly the public oath sworn by Richard at the time
shows that she either struck the best deal she could
get and nor does it suggest that she was his new best
friend. In many ways the presence of her elder two
daughters would be a constant and more persistant reminder
of their brothers to society in general. Broke, with
little prospects she may well have decided to get the
best deal she could whether she believed her sons were
dead at Richard's hands or not. Certainly Henry VII
was devestated by the news particularly the fear that
Elizabeth and her sister Cecily of York would be married
off by Richard dashing his own hopes (at the time
there is evidence he started looking for an alternative
wife). After Bosworth the repeal of Titulus Regius
restored Elizabeth Wydeville to her position as Queen
Dowager and her daughter's to legitimacy (with the clause
provided this does not prejudice Henry's claim or title) -
however her dower estates were not restored to her in
full - instead she was given a life interest in
certain properties and estates many of which had been
part of her original dower holdings. She took a lease
on a house at this time which does survive which
suggests that she may well have never intended living in
her daughter and son in law's pockets at Court. In
1486 she was present at Arthur's christening and
played a significant and prominant role in the
proceedings. Before Lincoln's rebellion which ended in Stoke -
she was stripped of those properties which were
transferred to her daughter the Queen Consort on the grounds
of her coming to an agreement with Richard III back
in 84, however shortly thereafter she was granted a
yearly annuity in lieu of those lands. The reason may
well have been a spurious one however the incident
certainly had been damaging to Henry's attempts to provide
a credible alternative to Richard back in 84. He
may have bore her a grudge. She is believed to have
entered Bermondsey at about the time. <br><br>Other
reasons are also suggested firstly that she was unhappy
with her daughter's status (the delay of a coronation
for Elizabeth of York which the council was also
pressing for for example) also she may well have
complained about her daughter Elizabeth's income, and I
doubt she got on particularly well with Henry either.
<br><br>She certainly wasn't incommunicado though - in the
same year Henry was treating for the marriage of the
Queen Dowager (to James the III) and one her younger
daughter's (to the future James IV) with the Scots, and in
1488 she was present along with the Queen her
daughter, and the Countess of Richmond and Derby (the
King's mother) when they received the French Ambassador
(who was a St Pol relation of the Queen).<br><br>The
Queen Dowager died in 1492 and was buried privately
with Edward IV at Windsor in accordance with her
wishes as expressed in her will.<br><br>Had she been in
real trouble with Henry then Bermondsey down the river
from the Royal Court was hardly the safest and most
suitable place. Elizabeth as the widow of a man descended
from the Abbey's founder would have been a welcome
guest and from memory the Abbot at that time was a man
who was known to Elizabeth and E

Re: The Princes

2002-01-10 23:33:10
willison2001
Richard was not one for the 'waiting game.' In
his arrest of the Woodvilles, his execution of
Hastings without trial, his seizure of the Crown, his
charge at Bosworth, he showed an impulsive nature, much
like his Father, but not like Edward IV or Henry VII.
If he felt threatened he acted with great celerity
and decisiveness. The Rebellion to release the
princes in 1483 was of the utmost danger to Richard, who
may well have thought his claim to the throne
doubtful and his popularity even more so, so, if he moved
to kill the immediate danger of the princes, this
would fit his known personality. The dead have no
friends!

Re: The Princes

2002-01-11 12:39:41
cj6271215
Much is being made of the Buckingham rebellion,
and while it is true it was raised in the Princes
name, it's objective was totally different. Buckingham
was aiming for the throne himself. Through his
descent from Edward III, he felt himself the next
descendant after the House of York. His involvement in the
Princes fate is one that is plausible as well. As having
charge of the Tower, he had the means and the
availability to do away with the children. Having helped
spread the rumors of their premature demise at the hands
of Richard III, he perhaps planned to make rumor
reality and take the throne for himself after his victory
and subsequent "discovery" of the Princes' deaths.
<br>No other scenario fits his behavior. If he truly
wanted the Princes to be reinstated, his power in the
administration of the new government would be the same, probably
less given the rapacity of the Woodvilles for power
that he enjoyed under Richard III. Under the regime of
Richard III he was second authority and prestige to the
king. Second place was not what he was seeking again. A
man of limitless ambition and unstable character, he
has often been compared to George, Duke of Clarence,
his natural inclination would be to aim for the
throne for himself. He also had motive and opportunity
for the murder of the princes.<br>Also the rebellion
was an abortive attempt it must be remembered, never
reaching London and over very quickly. It was effectively
quelled by Richard's forces and the weather itself. It
was not the massive and far reaching rebellion that
had been portrayed. While a threat, it was not the
far reaching and country raising rebellion that it
has been portrayed here. The Tower was never in
danger of being breached and the custody of the Princes
challenged.<br>As for Richard's character, he was a brilliant
commander of armed forces, trusted and trained by his
brother Edward IV. His decision to charge the Tudor, may
appear to be rash, but the reasoning is sound. With
Henry dead, the fight was over. It was plausible,until
that last moment of treason on the part of Stanley
that it would succeed. It very nearly did. Hasting's
execution and it's circumstances have been much maligned.
There is substantial evidence that has relatively
recently been uncovered by historians that the execution
did not take place on June 13th, but later in private
as with the execution of Clarence. Hastings' widow
and children were well provided for by Richard,
unheard of for attained traitors, which is what he most
certainly was. As for his taking of the throne as a rash
and quick act, he was petition by parliament itself,
urged by the nobles and accepted by the country at
large, weary of minority reigns and fearful of the
Woodvilles' power.He had a well attended and planned
coronation in that July, not a rushed affair and was by and
large accepted as the true ruler of England at the
time.His subsequent progress to York proves that the
country was by and large accepting of his assumption of
power. To portray him as a hair trigger character is I
believe in accurate. His foreign policy decisions, the
drafting and planned changes to the legal code during his
brief reign show a contemplative and patient man, not a
man who makes decisions and acts on the spur of the
moment. It must be remembered too, that until the
revelation of the Princes' illegitmacy, he had acted and
made plans according to his position, as the Protector
for lack of a better word, since that position didn't
exist at that time, plans that were for a cornation of
Edward V and positions for the new government planned
etc. that were far reaching, for the future, not the
act of a man who implusively was grasping at the
throne.

Re: The princes

2002-01-11 22:01:15
brontewcat
If you look at track records for judicial murder
Richard's is not so good - Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings
- thats 4 or5 within weeks of his brother's death.
And Hastings didn't even get the pretence of a trial.
The others may not have had a trial
either.<br><br>Richard was not a monster, but he was
ruthless.<br><br>Henry VII may have also arranged the judicial murder of
some of his rivals, but not as quickly or as with as
little pretence of judicial fairness as Richard.

Re: Henry VIII - His ultimate fate?

2002-01-11 22:13:23
brontewcat
Even so the person who arranged for most of these
deaths was Henry VIII, not his father. It is hardly an
arguement to support your theses that given track records
it was more than likely it was Henry rather than
Richard who arranged for the death of the
Princes.<br><br>In fact Henry's removal of Warwick argues the other
way, Henry waited until Warwick was an adult before
moving against him. Then he used entrapment to trick
Warwick into committing an arguable treason so he could
murder Warwick judicially. He did not use secret
murder.<br><br>In fact (and I am not absolutley sure of this) - he
may not have moved against Warwick at all, but did so
to satisfy the Catholic Sovereigns of the security
of his tenure so they would agree to the marriage of
their daughter Catherine to Arthur.

Re: The Princes

2002-01-11 22:17:51
brontewcat
Yes, it is quite possible that they did die of
natural causes, and because of the rumours Richard did
not dare announce the fact because everyone would
assume he had murdered them.<br><br>I have alaways
thought this is a reasonable possibilty.

Re: The Princes

2002-01-11 22:39:44
brontewcat
As hard as it may be for us moderns to understand
a mother putting her daughters into the hands of
someone who had murdered one of her children this is
exactly what Elizabeth Woodville did.<br><br>Richard
murdered her second eldest son Grey, when he ordered the
executions of of Grey, Rivers and Vaughan. It is not clear
that these men had any form of trial - Croyland says
not, Rous hints that they may have. But their deaths
were ordered by Richard, and ther is little evidence
that they had committed any crime.<br><br>It is also
very clear that Richard was not popular with the
nobility of southern England - if you read Croyland and
Mancini - that is very clear. I also suggest you read
Charles Ross's study of Richard in which he analyses very
carefully just who supported Richard, and who joined the
rebellions against Richard.<br><br>Henry VII landed at Mill
Bay with about 2,000 men, and ended up at Bosworth
with about 5,000. He obviously picked up a few
supporters on the way.<br><br>Richard had probably nearly
10,000 men. His support base was heavily reliant on
Norfolk and Northumberland, and the Stanleys. Very few of
the nobles of England appeared willing to committ
themselves to either side.<br><br>When the battle came
Northumberland did not move, however this could have been due to
the terrain. The Stanleys deserted Richard, and
joined thieir step-son and step-nephew. If Richard was
so popular - why did he have to take Stanley's son a
hostage to try to get the father to support
him?<br><br>So essentially Richard went into battle with he
support of one major noble - Norfolk.<br><br>Then if you
look at the battle of Stoke - quite a few nobles again
stayed home. What I think was happening was in both
cases - many of the nobles and gentry were hedging
their bets and not getting involved

Re: The Princes

2002-01-11 23:57:18
brontewcat
The evidence that suggests Hastings was murdered
(whoops thats a Freudian slip) on 20 June, not 13 June is
extemely speculative, and ambigious - it depends very much
on interpretation and assumptions about how people
are supposed to behave. This is a debate that has
been ongoing since the 1970s. <br><br>The theory of
Hastings being killed on 20 June, not 13 June rests on a
record of a meeting held by the London Mercers Company.
The merchants are told of a conversation between
Hastings, Russell and Morton, (overheard by a servant of
Hastings) in which the participants wondered why London
merchants did not lobby the royal council with the same
efficiency as their foreign counterparts. The merchants on
hearing this, took the hint and resolved to speak to
Morton that afternoon to test the truth of the report
and to enquire as to whether it would be worthwhile
to send a delegation. (Note there is no sugestion of
sending to Hastings)<br><br>The record indicates this
meeting took place on 15 June 1483, and you will recall
the traditional date of Hastings's execution and
Morton and Stanley's arrest was on 13
June.<br><br>Alison Hanahan, who raised the issue, thought it very
unlikely that the merchants would be unaware of the events
of 13 June, the implication being the merchants
wouldn't be sending messages to someone who is under
arrest.<br><br>However I did not find it at all surprising - I am a
lawyer. My organisation gives free legal advice. On 12
Sept 2001 one of our lawyers saw several people for
advice, only one person even mentioned what had happened
a few hours earlier (I am in Australia - so 12 Sept
is 11 Sept in the US). A friend of mine told me of
how she had one of her co workers on her back that
morning about certain items that he considered to be
urgent and important, and that he thought should be put
on the agenda of a meeting that afternoon, with the
Minister of the Enviroment. He did not seem to understand
why it was not business as usual. He apparently
looked very sheepish, when the minister that afternoon
also suggested the meeting not go ahead, because of
the events in the US.<br><br>For some people their
own concerns are more important than what is going on
in the world around them. If Morton was only under
house arrest, as prisoners in the Tower often were I am
told, then it is quite possible the merchants could
have still sent a message to Morton, and may well have
considered their items of business to be important enough
(in their eyes) to have done so.<br><br>The other
piece of evidence used by Hanahan is one of the Paston
letters dated 21 June 1483, in which the writer refers to
Hastings being executed on "Friday last". So it really
depends on whether you interprete "Friday last" as
yesterday or Friday last week.<br><br>Against this another
historian named Coleman has checked a source called the
Black Book of the Exchequer. Apparently Hastings was a
chamberlain of the exchequer, and his death is recorded in
that book, clearly and unambigiuosly as having occured
on 13 June 1483. This is a contemporanous record of
events. For Hastings to ahve been executed on another
date - it would mean the record had have been
deliberately falsified - and during Richard's reign.<br><br>I
cannot see what advantage there would have been to
Richard to change the dates, if Hastings had really been
executed privately a week later.

Re: The Princes

2002-01-12 00:12:47
willison2001
I agree that Buckingham was all for himself &
didn't give two pins about Richard or Tudor. To clear
away the princes for himself, Tudor or Richard are all
equally possible, but we don't have proof. Richard's
silence over the matter is puzzling. He denied that he
was planning to marry their sister, yet said nothing
about the widespread rumour that he had done away with
them, i.e. Mancini & in France. A denial of guilt
would've been better than silence! But of course he had
both motive and opportunity to eliminate these two
deep enemies, who would've been far more formidable
than Buckingham & Tudor had they broken from the Tower
& would've wreacked revenge on the man who toppled
Edward V from his throne & killed his Uncle &
half-brother. There clearly was no love lost between these
two!<br><br>The 1483 Rebellion turned out to be a damp squid, but
Richard wasn't to know that at the start. He'd seen many
changes of fortune in a violent World & seems to have
acted quickly in life- threatening & terminating
situations, almost in an anxious way. Aggressive individuals
are usually so because they fear more than
most!<br><br>Richard's charge of course failed & he did this in front of
the Stanley forces who he knew were no friends of
his. A strategic retreat might've been wiser!<br><br>I
agree that Hastings was a traitor from Richard's point
of view, as was everyone who opposed him, but
Richard wasn't King when Hastings was executed & didn't
accord Hastings a fair trial. Hastings was of course
loyal to the memory of Edward IV & to his
children.<br><br>As for the petition by parliament & the nobles,
these may have been fearful of opposing Richard & his
Northern army. Sadaam Hussain is probably given adulation
by his ministers, but who is going to criticise him
there?<br><br>Richard supported by his Council was able to conduct
sensible domestic and foreign policy, but when faced with
potential trouble he seems to have been explosive, which he
amply demonstrated at Bosworth where he cut down three
men with his own hand!

Re: The Princes

2002-01-12 13:15:59
aelyon2001
This correspondence is proving extremely
interesting, and raising all sorts of issues to do with the
paucity of the evidence, and matters of motive which can
never be answered conclusively, but are wonderful to
discuss.<br><br>I'm not sure that we should take Richard's killing
three men by his own hand in the thick of battle as
evidence of explosive tendencies. Few of us today (thank
heavens!) can have any idea what it was like to be in the
midst of a medieval battle, where it was literally a
case of kill or be killed in various unpleasant
fashions. I would imagine that in the thick of things most
men would be in a state of frenzy from rage and
terror, and what they might do in that state is not
necessarily indicative of what they were like normally.
<br><br>That being said, Richard does seem to have had a very
short fuse and been prone to acting impulsively, as
witness the events of June 1483, from the death of
Hastings onwards, which seem to me to be reactions to
immediate circumstances, or his own not necessarily 100%
accurate view of immediate circumstances, rather than part
of a deep-laid plan.

Re: The Princes

2002-01-12 14:04:03
willison2001
Richard's killing three men by his own hand in
the thick of battle certainly indicated that this
man, unlike Henry VII, was capable of overt
aggression; to fight & kill at least three men in a battle
showed a personality capable of direct homocide, so in
giving an order for the death of, say, the princes, it
would've been so easy for someone like Richard, who most
certainly did not confuse them as sentimental, fluffy
'innocents.' That would be if we didn't already know that he
ordered the execution of Rivers, Edward V's half brother:
Grey ( a possible precedent for the execution of
Edward V himself,) and Hastings & assorted others,
without trial. 'Kill or be killed' of course was the
problem once Richard had decided that he could not
tolerate a Woodville dominated Edward V and those
Yorkists, most certainly including Hastings, who would've
supported him.<br><br>The tragedy lay in the selfish,
greedy nature of these individuals. Edward V had been
educated by Earl Rivers & was naturally perceived by
Richard to be one of that clan and there is evidence that
Edward V was less than pleased about being parted from
his half-brother & Uncle Rivers when Richard,
ironically upon the instruction of Hastings, intercepted
them! Indeed, Hastings, because of his hatred for
Dorset & the overweening power of the Woodvilles,in
suggesting to Richard - not a very easy-going personality I
would suggest - that he arrest the Woodvilles set the
ball rolling which was to lead to the deposition of
Edward V & Richard taking the only apparently safe place
for himself: the Kingship!<br><br>There is no
conspiracy, only a natural reaction to events, which someone
for instance like Edward IV did not foresee. It seems
he knew some of his Council didn't get along, but a
violent overthrow of his son probably wasn't imaginable,
especially coming from his seemingly able and loyal brother:
Richard.

Richard III's perception of the Princes

2002-01-12 15:53:38
willison2001
How did Richard perceive the princes after he
took the throne in July, 1483?<br><br>We know that he
fell out with Edward V over his arrest of Rivers &
Grey, we know that he saw the princes as bastards and
we know that, without trial, he had ordered the
decapitation of their Uncle Rivers & half brother Richard Grey
and various supporters such as Hastings. So now he
was presented with an alarming rebellion which was
intended to restore Edward V, just as Edward IV & Henry VI
had been restored, and undoubtedly lead to the death
of Richard. To leave the princes alive at this time
would have been an act of utmost folly from a man who
was not squeamish about killing enemies. And these
enemies he may have convinced himself were not even
legitimate, unlike their half brother Grey and what happened
to him?

Buckingham's betrayal

2002-01-12 19:37:17
willison2001
Buckingham absconding as second to Richard to
become second to Tudor has puzzled some, but the answer
may lie in the fact that Tudor had promised to marry
Elizabeth and restore the lineage of the extremely
successful and popular, despite his obvious faults, Edward
IV. In any case, Tudor had a better claim than
Buckingham, whose lack of popularity (for supporting
Richard?) was shown by the way his army deserted
him!<br><br>Buckingham was a selfish individual who must've noticed that
the reception of Richard as monarch was less than
enthusiastic. The deposition & likely death of Edward V & his
brother was likely to make his subjects uninclined to
fight for Richard, which, as Vergil indicated, appeared
to be the case at Bosworth. Richard was only able to
rely on his own henchmen, such as Norfolk, who had
been raised to the Duchy by Richard & who noticeably
got himself killed by Oxford's force! Mancini's
account of men bursting into tears because they believed
that Richard had murdered the princes was a
groundswell of opinion which Buckingham tried to duck out
of!<br><br>Any idea that he could've got rid of Richard & then
Tudor would've made him seem lower than mud & not
likely to endear the populace to someone who never seems
to have been 'a hit' with anyone, apart from
Richard, who must've felt desperate indeed to rely upon
someone untried & as it turned out extremely
untrustworthy like 'deep-revolving' Buckingham! Edward IV never
employed Buckingham & seems to have shown more insight
than Richard.<br><br>Incidentally, if Edward IV had
lived & if Richard had been presented with the
pre-contract story illegitimising Edward's children, does
anyone seriously think that Richard would've challenged
Edward over this?

Re: Buckingham's betrayal

2002-01-13 13:20:47
aelyon2001
I doubt that Richard would have made any direct
public challenge to Edward IV had he been presented with
the pre-contract story during Edward's lifetime.
After all, it did not affect Edward's legitimacy as
king, but his sons' rights of succession. It did,
however, reflect badly on Edward's judgement and would
have made a very useful weapon against the Woodvilles.
My feeling is that he might well have raised the
matter with Edward privately, and possibly have tried to
wring some advantage from it in return for keeping
quiet, but not gone further at that stage.<br><br>To my
mind the pre-contract story is not implausible in the
context of Edward IV's known character and actions, but
the timing when it emerged is deeply suspicious. If
it was genuine, and known to Stillington to be
genuine, surely he would have gone to Richard as soon as
he reached London at the beginning of May. That
would be the natural time to make the story known. No
doubt someone is going to suggest that Stillington
might have preferred to wait and see, and only acted
when the 'Woodville problem' became acute. But my
feeling is that the Woodville danger had largely been
defused - at any rate the immediate and pressing danger
was past - by the time Stillington is supposed to
have gone to Richard around 22nd June. <br><br>As to
Richard's actions at Bosworth and his propensity for
homicide, what I find infinitely more strange is that Henry
Tudor, with Richard and his followers within feet and
intent on killing him, his own people busy trying to
defend him and being killed, apparently did nothing.
Surely even the coldest of cold fish would have his
blood up at that point and either pitched in or shoved
his spurs into his horse's flanks and fled! Very odd.

Re: Buckingham's betrayal

2002-01-13 14:04:59
willison2001
I'm sure Richard would not have challenged Edward
IV about the pre-contract story during Edward's
lifetime. Another butt of Malmsey may have been awaiting
him. Edward would've denied the pre-contract no doubt.
As with any intimate goings-on, how does anyone
prove it any of the time? Even in this Age of videos,
it's not the type of thing that people normally like
to publicise!<br><br>The pre-contract story is
plausible in the context of Edward IV's known character and
actions, but its appearance at a time when Richard wanted
an excuse for getting rid of the princes appears to
be too convenient. Would Richard have been happy to
loyally support Edward V if this story had not been
around? I think not; he'd clearly already fallen out with
him by that time; this may have been due to a
personality clash or Richard's arrest of Rivers & Grey, whom
Edward V favoured. There was no way back & Richard
wasn't going to risk his neck under a Edward V regime,
especially when the large Woodville brood swung back into
power.<br><br>I agree that Tudor was the coldest of cold fish,
but individuals like him are better survivors. Edward
IV knew the benefit of wait & see, as his exile &
return indicated. Tudor at Bosworth was probably waiting
for the Stanleys to move as he'd already stitched a
deal with them, Thomas was after all his
Stepfather.<br><br>Richard rushed into the situation - he clearly had a very
aggressive, impulsive nature - and he was the one to be
killed & his body humiliated!

Re: The Princes

2002-01-13 16:50:47
nikita2224
Taking your points one by one, nothing about
Elizabeth Woodville surprises, this was a most calculating,
haughty lady, who made her own mother Jaquetta Bedford
approach her on her knees when she became Queen. <br>
Grey, Rivers and Vaughan had 2000 men with them to
Richards 300,why if they were up to nothing? Richard was
joined at Northampton by Buckingham with 300 men, so 600
to their 2000! Grey, Rivers and Vaughan were
attempting to get Edward V to London and crown him, and rule
through the boy, and cut Richard out of the picture, who
had been declared protector of the realm, in Edward
IV's will, yet you say they had done nothing wrong.
They were executed without a proper trial, but was
this Buckingham? Bear in mind Richard was mourning a
much loved brother, who had died totally
unexpectedly.<br> There is still a North/South divide in England as
there was in Richard's time. Richard was not popular in
the South because he was unknown......but Richard was
much loved in the North. Read the minutes of the City
records of York written with much courage as they knew
they would have to live with his successor "This day
our good King Richard, piteously slain and murdered
to the great heaviness of this city" With all due
respect Ross wasn't there at the time, the citizens of
York were and would have to live with the
repercussions of the above!<br> Henry VII landed with 2000
mercenaries paid for from French money-any picked up along
the way were Welsh like he purported to be!<br> The
attitude of the Nobility was characteristic of the age,
people changed sides all the time, this was not peculiar
to Bosworth.<br> The Stanleys provide an outstanding
example of family on the make, in an age of Civil war,
betrayal, broken causes in which many were ruined or
killed, they thrived. What does that tell you about them?
Turned coat so often, I am amazed Richard stopped at
taking Stanley's son hostage. If he was such a villain,
because they certainly finished him!<br> The Duke of
Norfolk was a southern noble, yet I thought Richard had
no support in the south? "Jockey of Norfolk be not
so bold<br> Dickon thy master is bought and
sold"<br>So who was doing the buying and selling??<br> Again
characteristic of the age the nobility were hedging their bets.
Nothing in human nature changes does it?

Re: The Princes

2002-01-13 17:07:11
nikita2224
Taking your points in order. I am curious why you
call her Elizabeth Wydeville,an affectation surely,
since there was no set spelling in those days? Did
Elizabeth Woodville/Wydeville enter Bermondsey willingly?
Hardly likely since she had been at Winchester for
Arthurs birth until November 1486, yet by February 1487
she was put away in the Abbey, stripped of all her
wealth.<br> Tell me how many people did get on well with
Henry VII?<br> Of course the upstart Tudor dynasty
would have to put on the best show it could for the
French, it would have looked odd if she hadn't shown,
with her daughter being Queen-but did she come
willingly?? No Scottish marriage was ever arranged for her,
Bermondsey being so close to the Royal court, while not
quite the Tower was close enough for Henry VII if needs
be.<br> You do not address Edward IV's pre-contract to
Eleanor Butler which brings Elizabeth Woodville's
marriage and all her children's status into question. Nor
the 2 pardons to James Tyrell in June and July 1486.
What had he done to earn them? Yet Henry VII did not
accuse him of anything until 1502, when Arthur had died
and the Tudor dynasty was in trouble again, and he
wanted Katherine of Aragon to marry Henry VIII, Arthur's
brother. Did the King of Spain demand an answer to the
riddle?

Re: Buckingham's betrayal

2002-01-13 17:07:54
aelyon2001
You are absolutely right that calculating cold
fish of Tudor's type make better survivors, but the
romantic in me says that Richard, for all his faults, was
the better man. He didn't simply rely on other people
to do his fighting!

Re: The Princes

2002-01-13 17:15:27
nikita2224
Richard had executed one of Elizabeth Woodville's
sons from her first marriage, Lord Grey, he was not
royal, but he was trying to get Edward V, his half
brother to London and crowned, before Richard could get
there, against the terms of Edward IV's will.This meant
the Woodvilles could then rule through the boy.This
was against the terms of Edward IV's will who had
named Richard as protector of the realm and guardian of
both boys. If Elizabeth was afraid of Richard as you
ask, why on earth should she put herself and her
daughters in his hands, if she thought he had killed the
two princes, she was a very haughty lady with an eye
out to the main chance,and a large family of greedy,
grasping relatives.

Re: Buckingham's betrayal

2002-01-13 17:23:41
willison2001
In fact, I do admire Richard for fighting like a
real man to the last, but, because of his evident
unpopularity because of the way he took the throne (which I
think he felt forced to do in order to survive against
a Woodville dominated Edward V,) it seems to me
that he probably didn't feel that he had much choice.
Buckingham deserted him, Norfolk wasn't able to defeat
Oxford, Stanley & Northumberland were more of a hindrance
than a help. Richard could only rely upon his narrow
bevy of mainly Northern followers.<br><br>The ghost of
Edward IV was Richard's main problem. This King was
personally popular - a charming rogue type, whose love of
food & lust is not unknown in many other people - and
highly competent; he had laid the basis for the Monarchy
that Tudor was able to maintain, which lasted until a
complete incompetent like Charles I took over. Edward
would not have approved of what Richard did, despite
the fact that his Woodville wife's family apparently
generated hatred & I'm sure that Richard would've been
another one for a nose-dive into a butt of Malmsey, which
we are told his brother Clarence took!

Elizabeth Woodville - the real ruler?

2002-01-13 17:48:31
willison2001
I'm fascinated by the actual power that Elizabeth
exercised over Edward IV. For those who think that women
were not liberated until Germaine Greer wrote her
book, Elizabeth's role suggests
otherwise.<br><br>Elizabeth certainly managed to get her large Family into
highly exhalted positions. Richard Gloucester & Hastings
were clearly fuming underneath that the 'old Royal
blood' was being superseded by someone who had been
married to a Lancastrian mediocrity, as they rather
proudly saw it.<br><br>When Richard challenged Elizabeth
she was forced to compromise with a man whom she
must've hated; he killed her brother & son & many think
her two other sons.<br><br>But was Elizabeth the real
reason why Edward IV turned to drink?

Did Henry VII kill the princes?

2002-01-13 19:35:39
willison2001
He probably would've if someone or thing hadn't
got to them first, but there's no proof. His pardon
for Tyrell may have been one of many to shore up his
throne.<br><br>It was well known that he arranged the judicial
murder of Warwick in 1499, so why didn't something leak
out about his murder of the princes? Something did
leak out about their deaths, from Mancini, Croyland,
from Tudor's interest in their sister (irrelevant if
they were still alive,) from Buckingham, who should've
been in the know as Richard's closest ally at one
time, who supported Tudor's claim based on marriage to
the prince's sister, from the Chancellor of France,
from the London Chronicles, from Vegil & More, who
wasn't afraid of the truth as he gave his life for what
he thought it was! All sources think Richard was
capable of and motivated to, murder the princes, which is
hardly surprising from someone who had killed their
Uncle & half-brother.

Re: Elizabeth Woodville - the real ruler

2002-01-13 21:17:08
nikita2224
Answering your points in order. I don't know what
power Elizabeth exercised over Edward IV, because he
wasn't faithful to her once they were married. Read the
life of Jane Shore-the Goldsmith's wife whom he shared
with Hastings. Women had no power beyond the bedroom
then, which says rather more about Edward than
Elizabeth Woodville, women couldn't vote, declare war as
such,or sit in council. The Salic law didn't apply as on
the continent, but beyond that they were baby
machines and no more.<br> Richard Gloucester as you call
him, was up in Yorkshire and rarely came to court, if
he could avoid it. Hastings on the other hand, being
in London may well have felt threatened by the
rapacious Woodvilles.<br> Richard did not challenge
Elizabeth, he merely implemented the terms of his brother
King Edward's will. Edward IV could have given all to
the Woodvilles in that will, but didn't, so certainly
Elizabeth Woodville hated Richard. It was the Woodvilles
scheming-her family that cost her, her brother and son, no
blood relations to Richard, unlike the two other sons
who were his blood, and blood counted to Richard
whose motto was "Loyaulte me lie"-Loyalty binds me.
Those two boys were the sons of the brother he had
idolised since childhood.

Re: Elizabeth Woodville - the real ruler

2002-01-14 02:21:19
margaretofyork
Very true that loyalty bound King Richard and
that the nephews he is accused of murdering were his
brother's children. Saying that women had no power beyond
the bedroom, however, belies the considerable
complexity of life.Margaret of Anjou, just to mention an
example at random from the period we are discussing,
certainly exercised power beyond the bedroom. Stating that
women had no power because they did not appear much in
public affairs has always seemed to me like saying that
an event has not happened if it has not been viewed
on television. It is as well to try to stay clear of
the propaganda of one's own age, and we live in an
age of lies and confusion.<br>The situation of King
Richard in 1483 was genuinely tragic. Politically it is
very like what is going in on Afghanistan, where war
lords switch sides and power is bargaining, and loyalty
is to local groups. <br>Another point, about this
correspondence in general: Kings, by virtue of their office,
should be spoken of with respect, even when their
actions cannot be endorsed: to call King Charles I a
complete incompetent is historically wrong, and offensive.
Finally, facts in discussion and debate should be
carefully checked.

Re: Elizabeth Woodville - the real ruler

2002-01-14 12:02:12
willison2001
Richard was loyal to Edward IV as far a we know,
but I doubt if Edward V thought of him as loyal.
Their blood tie would not have prevented Edward V from
executing Richard if he'd escaped from the Tower and I very
much doubt if someone with Richard's track record
would've failed to reciprocate.<br><br>I do think it's a
travesty to suggest that women were ever treated like baby
machines. The worship of Our Lady during that time gave
some indication of the high regard they were held in!
Margaret of Anjou and Joan of Arc both showed exceptional
ability in leadership. David Starkey in his series on the
wives of Henry VIII indicated the considerable power of
patronage and influence over a King which a Queen could
wield. That women could command respect in their own
right became apparent later with Elizabeth I!<br><br>As
for Elizabeth Woodville, she may have produced a
large family - creating a new generation after all is
the most important & necessary act of all - but that
doesn't mean that she was not the puppet master behind
her son Dorset when they tried to relegate Richard
from his rightful position at the start of Edward V's
reign. Men, like Edward IV, who run from woman to woman
may have an underlying sense of insecurity about
women and who better than his arrogant wife Elizabeth
to generate that?<br><br>Regarding Charles I, I
would accord him respect as a man, but I've yet to
discover anything which would suggest that he was
competent as King. He seems to have mismanaged the
situation from the start!

Re: Elizabeth Woodville - the real ruler

2002-01-14 12:11:23
willison2001
I've already answered much of this on a different
posting, but only to say that NO-ONE voted in those days
of either gender, but this doesn't mean that women
were simply passive baby machies!<br><br>Putting our
pathetic crosses on a piece of paper to vote for tweedle
de or tweedle dum who, in terms of policies, could
often well belong to the same party doesn't give us
anymore power than a medieval peasant and it doesn't
prevent 'King' Bush or Blair or 'Queen' Thatcher from
launching military campaigns like their medieval
predecessors. Does Human nature change?

Re: Elizabeth Woodville - the real ruler

2002-01-14 12:59:30
nikita2224
Curious as to how Charles I entered this discussion, how does he tie in with Richard III? Facts in discussion and debate should be carefully checked....on all sides!

Re: Elizabeth Woodville - the real ruler

2002-01-14 15:40:37
willison2001
'Richard was loyal to Edward IV as far as we
know.'<br><br>There is evidence, however, that Richard's patience
with Edward was wearing thin. Richard's Titulus Regius
indicates that Richard felt that Edward had been corrupted
by his Woodville connection. Edward's wife had
managed to get her very large brood promoted to very high
positions which may have stoked jealousy in Hastings,
Richard, Howard (who became the Duke of Norfolk under
Richard III) & others.<br><br>Edward IV died early & had
sought comfort in excessive alcohol, food & womanising.
It may well be that Richard thought that the power
crazed Elizabeth Woodville & her puppet family had
driven him to this!

Re: Buckingham's betrayal

2002-01-14 15:55:31
nikita2224
You say Edward IV laid the basis for the monarchy
that Tudor was able to maintain. In Richard's 2 year
reign, he gave large sums for the building of King's
College Chapel, Cambridge, and the completion of St.
George's Chapel at Windsor, both now so covered in Tudor
roses and Beaufort emblems it's hard to find any
acknowledgement of Richard. He founded 10 colleges or chantries,
was a great benefactor at Cambridge and encouraged
education generally. Richard founded the Council of the
North, the Court of Requests for poor Litigants and the
College of Arms. William Caxton who Richard patronised
dedicated his book "Order of Chivalry" to Richard, his
company of scholars was encouraged, and the music at his
court was famous throughout Europe. There was a
programme of Law reform which included measures to correct
injustice in the ownership and transfer of land, measures
to safeguard the individual against abuses of the
law in matters affecting juries and bail, measures to
prevent the seizure of goods of those arrested but not
yet found guilty, abolition of much resented tax
known as benevolenses. Richard insisted on fair dealing
in the law courts, which had been notoriously
lacking in a period when the nobility flounted the law
and took it into their own hands. This policy of
protecting the weak against the strong made him unpopular
with some of the nobility but not with the ordinary
people. Can as much be said for Edward IV? In Henry
VIII's reign, Lord Dacre warden of the west march
complained to Wolsey that he should not be expected to rival
Richard's achievements, Wolsey replied he must provide the
same effective rule. Another exchange happened between
Wolsey and the Mayor and Aldermen of London in 1525.
They were protesting about his demand for a
benevolence contravening Richard III's statute "I marvel you
speak of Richard III which was a usurper and murderer
of his own nephews" he reprimanded them "Although he
did evil" they replied "Yet in his time were many
good acts made". Was the same ever said about Edward
IV?

Re: Elizabeth Woodville - the real ruler

2002-01-14 16:02:21
nikita2224
Agree with you entirely...re Richard's view of the Woodvilles and their malign influence over Edward IV.

Re: Buckingham's betrayal

2002-01-14 16:06:34
willison2001
Richard probably would've continued to be an able
ruler had he lived longer, but I think his unpopularity
in removing Edward IV's sons was a serious problem,
which, tragically, he couldn't overcome. <br><br>Edward
IV & Henry VII were both competent rulers, whatever
faults they had, but none of them, including Richard,
were Saints. In fact, to rule a country does require a
sharp edge, something which Henry VI could never work
out!

Edward lV

2002-01-14 23:30:57
ozsomerset
Edward may have been a competent ruler in some
cases but foresight was not one of his strengths. He
must have known that he would be making Richard regent
if something happened to him so then why didn't he
make sure his son and brother spent more time together
and develop a relationship. He also must have known
of Richards' dislike of the Woodville clan, why then
leave his son solely in their hands?<br>Wonder what
would have happened if Richard was Edward V's favourite
uncle? Would we be having this discussion?

Re: Edward lV

2002-01-15 00:41:11
hiraeth2
Probably not! In fact in Betram Fields' book Royal Blood he gives an interesting (if rather far-fetched) and imaginative account of what might have happened had Richard not become king.

Re: Edward lV

2002-01-15 00:58:37
willison2001
Foresight isn't easy.<br><br>It may be that
Edward IV wasn't aware of how Richard, mainly in the
North and Edward, Prince of Wales, most of the time in
Ludlow, would get on. It wasn't easy to predict that
Richard was so opposed to the Woodvilles that he would
execute two of them, execute Hastings, a supposed friend
& bastardize Edward's children. Richard crucially
saw Edward V as heavily influenced by the Woodvilles;
Earl Rivers was responsible for Edward's education &
naturally Edward may have formed a bond of friendship with
his half-brother.<br><br>Edward IV saw his brother
Richard as loyal, but perhaps he didn't realise that
Richard was keeping a lid on a volcano of resentment.
Edward had an easy ability in government, but was also
preoccupied with personal pleasure. His too easy promotion of
his wife's, probably by her suggestion, large family
- her sons & brother's - was sloppy, as they were
seen as grasping mediocrities by Richard, Buckingham
(who resented his marriage to one of the Woodville
clan,) Hastings & Howard! You may recall that Warwick:
Richard's Father-in-Law and Richard's brother Clarence were
also less than impressed by Edward's marriage to the
widow of a low ranking Lancastrian which didn't have
the benefit of a powerful, say, foreign alliance and
whose children offended against the ideal virginity
that was expected of brides of Kings!<br><br>Richard's
view in Titulus Regius of Elizabeth Woodville as
guilty of witchcraft seems strange to modern minds, but
perhaps he was referring to the evil influence she had on
the formerly golden Sun of York? Maybe Richard
should've reflected that all that glisters is not gold &
Edward's own weakness - he had weakness for a wily
beautiful woman, like Elizabeth & was probably a hen-pecked
husband with a tendency to like to live it up with wine,
women and general gluttony - was part of the problem.
From Elizabeth's viewpoint she naturally wanted her
own way & she ensured that her progeny succeeded.
But...how could Richard point out to a dictator like Edward
that his submission to his wife's whims and hedonistic
way of life wasn't wise, without losing his life?

Re: The Princes

2002-01-15 09:25:53
brontewcat
Hi Nikita<br>If you read TMC Dale's message on 10
Jan, I think he made it very clear as to why Elizabeth
Woodville surrendered herself and her daughters into
Richard's hands. She was a practical lady.<br><br>You seem
to have moved the goalposts with your arguments.
Originally your point was she would have not done this, if
she believed he had killed her children. I pointed
she did come out of sanctury knowing Richard had
extra judicially killed at least one of her children.
Now you seem to be makking personal attacks on the
woman. Making a person speak to a monarch on their knees
was the custom for all royality at the time. Queen
Elizabeth I (as in Tudor) did it all the time - in fact on
one occasion she asked for a stool for William Cecil,
and the fact so much was made of this indicates
observers thought she was being very kind. So why is
Elizabeth Woodville given so much stick about doing what
kings and queens have done for centuries.<br><br>The
point I was making is nothing can be read into the
Queen Elizabeth coming out of sanctury as you were
trying to do.<br><br>As I understand it the 2,000
entourage that accompanied Edward V to London was not
considered excessive. They were accompanying the King of
England (note they were accompanying the King, not Rivers
et al) to his capital on his assumption of the
throne after all. Further most of them were probably
servants. Nothing sinister or suspicious in it at
all.<br><br>I did not say Rivers, Grey and Vaughan did nothing
wrong - I said there was no evidence they had committed
a crime. <br><br>Further the fact Richard may have
been declared Protector does not mean he had the same
status as his nephew. Also he was not Protector until
the Royal council declared him to be so. There was no
legal requirement for the Council to follow Edward IV's
wishes.<br><br>Even if there was a plot against him, by the
Woodvilles to rule through the King - that was not treason.
In fact there is no evidence there was such a plot
and is no evidence there was any such plot.
<br><br>On what evidence do you base a claim Buckingham was
responsible for Rivers et al's deaths. Richard ordered their
deaths and so is responsible. Unless you believe he was
weak and malleable? You cannot have it both ways.
Either Richard is responsible for all his acts - both
good and bad. Or he is not responsible for his acts at
all - including those we admire him for - including
his good governance.<br><br>I know Ross was not
there, but he has reseached the era well, and you have
also made definate statements that Richard was
popular. You were not there either. The contemporary
evidence suggests Richard was not popular in the
south.<br>Ask yourself why? It is very easy to say he was not
known. But after 2 years of government - by the time of
Bosworth - he was still not popular. Why? As I said the
only important noble who supported him was Norfolk. I
also believe Francis Lovell was from the south _ but
these were the only 2 supporters he gained from the
south. It is not much support. Please note I did not say
he had no support in the
south.<br><br>Northumberland was from the north and failed him at Bosworth -
so it could be said Richard was not universally
popular in the north either.<br><br>Henry was Welsh - he
was born and spent his formative years in Wales. In
Australia today, a person with a simalar background who
claimed to be Autralian would be considered to be
Australian. We are not snobbish about such things - we allow
people to be who they wish to identify themselves
as.<br>Finally you have read far more into what I posted than
what I actually said - I never said or written Richard
was a villian. Please read what I post carefully

Re: Buckingham's betrayal

2002-01-19 00:10:10
brontewcat
When you say Henry VII did nothing what do you
mean? Are you implying Henry just say on his horse and
let others do his fighting?<br><br>If so I am not
quite sure where you get this belief. There are very
few accounts of Bosworth, but none of them suggest
Henry did nothing. In fact they suggest the reverse and
that Henry fought well when being pressed by Richard.
Chrimes says, in his biography of Henry - and I have seen
this written elsewhere from a contemporary account -
he did a lot better than most of his his followers
had expected given his lack of experience. In fact he
and his band bore the brunt much longer than his
soldiers could have expected. His soldiers had begun to
give up hope, but Henry's stand at the end obviously
gave the Stanleys the time to intervene and turn the
tide<br><br>Much is made of Richard being a good soldier, and some
Richardians take every opportunity to belittle Henry, often
bending the truth to do so. <br><br>It was Henry's first
real battle, and he acqitted himself well. However
Henry later prefered to make peace not war. An attitude
which from 21st century eyes I would suggest is
enlightened and modern.

Re: Buckingham's betrayal

2002-01-20 18:58:07
aelyon2001
I am indeed saying that Henry Tudor let other
people do his fighting. The only writer who states that
he was actually involved in the fighting was
Polydore Vergil, who was more or less his official
historian. I find it remarkably interesting that all the
accounts of the battle praise Richard for his bravery, but
all but Vergil pass over Tudor. <br><br>It was indeed
Henry Tudor's first battle, but in those days there was
very little chance of a gentle introduction to war,
and it was the norm for princes of the blood to be
put at least nominally in command of a major element
of the army and at a very early age. We only have to
think about the Black Prince at Crecy, aged 16, and
Henry V at Shrewsbury, aged 15. Both Edward IV and
Richard III fought their first battles at 18, and seem to
have been heavily involved.<br><br>Admittedly, there
was a good reason for Henry Tudor to stay in the rear
out of the way, since he was literally the only male
Lancastrian heir, and it was sensible for someone with no
experience to leave command to Oxford, but it was not in
keeping with the times.

Re: Buckingham's betrayal

2002-01-21 09:38:28
brontewcat
So the basis of your statement is that you have
not read any accounts that set out exactly what Henry
did. As there are no reliable contemporary accounts of
Bosworth it is a bit rash to assume he did
nothing.<br><br>I would be interested to see your sources for your
statement Henry did nothing ie on what contemporary source
do you rely?<br><br>As I understand it the Ballard
of Bosworth Field is about the only source that is a
near contemporary account, and was probably written by
a Stanley partisan.<br><br>Vergil is another near
contemporary account. Vergil praises Henry's courage - which
is to be expected, but that does not make it
untrue.<br><br>It is not surprising that Richard's bravery is most
often mentioned - most modern accounts are written from
Richard's side. Someone such as Kendall is hardly going to
offer any praise to Henryin a biography on Richard.

The Ricardian 1989-1996

2002-01-21 16:13:57
JSRothstein
I am selling my collection of The Ricardian and
Ricardian Registers, from June, 1989 through December, 1996
(but excluding September, 1993). I have listed them on
eBay if anyone is interested:
<a href=http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1504645197. target=new>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1504645197.</a> I'd like to find them a home where they will be
valued.<br><br>Jeff

Re: Buckingham's betrayal

2002-01-21 18:38:57
aelyon2001
Michael Bennett ('The Battle of Bosworth' 1985)
sets out the primary sources in an appendix. The
Crowland Chronicler wrote in the early months of 1486, as
did Diego de Valera, a Castilian who made use of an
eyewitness account by a Spaniard who was in Richard's
entourage. There are also various accounts from the 1490s,
none of which are very detailed, but are
contemporary.<br><br>Crowland's account is the most detailed, and he was
certainly no partisan of Richard's, but he makes no mention
of Henry Tudor doing any actual fighting - from what
he says it was Oxford who was in command of Henry's
army. He describes Henry as 'the glorious victor' and
attributes his success to God's aid, but doesn't say
anything about his role in the battle.<br><br>You are
quite correct that Kendall is partisan, but the
emphasis in the contemporary accounts is on Richard, and
it is his bravery which is praised, not Henry's. I
may be relying somewhat on silence here, but I do
find this revealing.

Elizabeth Woodville

2002-01-21 23:46:19
willison2001
Not only do the historical records seem doubtful
over whether Henry Tudor ever raised a weapon in
anger, also, his life (& portrait) also suggests a
crafty, shifty type, who seemed to be more interested in
accounts than anything else, apart from the odd Judicial
murder! Really, much of his domestic and foreign policy
was purloined from his Yorkist
predecessors!<br><br>As someone once said: 'If you are boring,
unimaginative and dull, become an accountant!' No wonder his
people rejoiced when Henry popped his
clogs!<br><br>Perhaps we shouldn't read too much into portraits, but
I've been studying Elizabeth Woodville's. Pretty,
undoubtedly! But...she reminds me of my sister-in-law, who was
smug and self-willed. This was the face that launched
a thousand enemies, led by Richard. It seems to me
that this Lancastrian widow who probably couldn't
believe her luck, became rather arrogant, as
nouveau-riche often do, in thrusting her family forward for
promotion. It must've been galling for Hastings, Howard and
Buckingham, of old aristocratic blood, to feel forced to
cow-tow to Elizabeth & her family. Hastings & Howard had
fought hard campaigns against the Lancastrians and
Edward IV then goes and marries one of the low rank
ones, whom they have to defer to as Queen of England!
Edward's judgement was questionable over this match! And,
clearly, judging by his actions, Richard was their leader,
who was only too happy to take the Woodville
escutcheon down a peg or two! It may be that Richard was
influenced by his wife into accepting her Father's (Warwick)
view & through her sister's marriage to Clarence, his
shared view, that Edward IV could've made a wiser
choice!

Re: Bosworth + Henry

2002-01-22 09:03:07
brontewcat
Many Richardians rely on the argument that
Richard could not be convicted in a court of law of the 2
princes murder on the evidence that exists.<br><br>If you
apply legal principles to the debate then you will
realise that no inference can be drawn from silence - a
doctrine that has sadly been revoked in the UK, but still
thankfully exists in Australia and the US. <br><br>There are
good logical reasons for the doctrine - namely that we
are not mind readers and we cannot deduce motive or
reasons from people's behaviour. I submit nothing can be
read into Croyland's failure to mention Henry's
actions at Bosworth. Richard was obviously very brave at
Bosworth, even his foes mention this, and so warrents the
praise he has been given.<br><br>Henry was inexperienced
and put the command of his armies under Oxford -
which was a wise move. But none of this remotely
implies he did nothing, but sit on his horse when Richard
charged him towards the end. Self preservation would
indicate he would have fought.<br><br>The only persons who
would not do so are persons such as myself who take the
injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount reasonably literally.
My religious principles dictate that I should allow
myself to be cut down, rather than raise a sword to kill
another. Even so who knows what I would would actually do
if I had a sword in my hand with another man bearing
down on me.<br><br>Are you sure you have not drawn a
picture of Henry in your own mind, and then interpreted
the contemporary accounts and facts to suit your
picture of Henry. This is what many 16th century
chroniclers did to Richard, and many such as More actually
believed what how they depicted Richard and what they
wrote.<br><br>The irony is many of Richard's partisans today do
exactly the same thing that they accuse the 16th century
historians of doing in relation to Richard. To my mind it is
not necessary to denigrate Henry to restore Richard's
reputation. A truly unbiased view recognises the worth of
both men.

Re: Elizabeth Woodville

2002-01-22 19:17:00
aelyon2001
I wonder whether perhaps we underestimate the
extent to which marriage to Elizabeth Woodville went
against established practice. With one exception very
English king and heir apparent from Henry I in 1100 down
to Henry VI married a lady from a leading foreign
family, and they tended to get grander rather than the
reverse. Younger brothers usually married great English
heiresses, though there were some exceptions. <br><br>The
exception to the rule regarding kings and heirs apparent
was the Black Prince, who married Joan of Kent in
1361. Joan's origins were a good deal more elevated
than those of Elizabeth Woodville, since she was a
granddaughter of Edward I (her father was the younger son of
Edward I's second marriage), and a great heiress. Even
so, the Black Prince's marriage created something of
a sensation, and he apparently defied his father in
marrying Joan. What is rather interesting is that Joan,
like Elizabeth, was a widow, and at the time of the
marriage she already had two sons and two daughters,
though her various brothers and suisters had died off by
then. There was also a decided breath of scandal around
her. As I understand it, she had as a young girl been
betrothed to William Montagu, Earl of Salisbury, but then
entered into a pre-contract with his steward, Sir Thomas
Holland, which was consummated and so became an effective
marriage. Holland then went off to the wars, in his absence
Montagu married Joan himself, after which Holland
petitioned the Pope for annulment of the marriage to
Montagu, and got a decree in his favour. Holland died
about 1360, after which the Black Prince married Joan.
Another interesting point is that suggestions were made
in 1399 of impugning the marriage between the Black
Prince and Joan as a pretext for Richard II's
deposition.<br><br>Richard II behaved generously to his Holland
half-brothers and half-sisters to a degree which may have
aroused some jealousy, though I'm not sure - will need to
do some checking. However, even if there was
jealousy, it would be nothing like as bad as that aroused
by the Woodvilles, since their father was a
distinguished military man, and there were only four of them,
not a dozen.<br><br>This is a long-winded way of
saying that the Woodville marriage was quite
spectacularly galling according to the ideas of the day, and
then to have all these parvenu relations grabbing
every benefit that was going must have really taken the
biscuit!

Re: Elizabeth Woodville

2002-01-22 20:15:50
willison2001
'This is a long-winded way of saying that the
Woodville marriage was quite spectacularly galling
according to the ideas of the day, and then to have all
these parvenu relations grabbing every benefit that was
going must have really taken the biscuit!'<br><br>Thank
you for that; an interesting side-light on the issue.
Of course, it's possible that the snobbishness of
the parvenu Woodvilles engendered a similar attitude
from their foes, from individuals such as Hastings &
Howard, who had actually done something to put Edward IV
on the throne.<br><br>And, then, there was Richard
who was only to happy to blow the Woodville house of
cards down! Who can blame him, even if it did mean that
the princes had to go, even unto death, who clearly
would not have been fans of Richard?<br><br>Perhaps,
Edward IV was one can short of a six pack concerning
this marriage? He seems to have acted like a stallion
who had been kept from the mares for months regarding
pretty women. Perhaps, his acheivements need to be
reviewed? His Treaty with France, 1475, is seen as sensible
& as a money-making adventure, but wasn't it
starkly obvious after the disasterous French adventure of
Henry V which had gone so dramatically wrong? Was
Edward a great warrior or did he depend on those around
him? The peace he sort blew up thanks to his slovenly
marriage venture.<br><br>I'm left with the image of a
rather mediocre man, drooling over women and dribbling
with drink and food. Goodbye, golden Sun of York...
Perhaps, Richard knew this all along....?!

Edward V

2002-01-24 22:17:18
willison2001
Having decided to take the Woodville arrogance
down a peg or two, it became apparent that Edward V
was one of them!<br><br>Richard deposed Edward and
together with his brother imprisoned him.<br><br>If
Richard felt that Edward would've killed him, the
question arises: 'Was Richard morally wrong to kill Edward
first?' What comes first, an abstract morality or
survival?

Re: Elizabeth Woodville

2002-01-24 23:40:49
tmc\_dale
As always am amazed at the willingness of so many
to rely on second hand and non factual information
about anyone other than Richard himself of
course.<br><br>On the Wydevilles - firstly Jacquetta St Pol was
from one of Europe's leading families with connections
in France and Burgundy - in fact her blood was a
dammed sight more Royal than Edward's mother Cecily and
most of his court. During the 1440's her dower would
have provided handsomely for her growing brood of
offspring - John of Bedford probably left her an income
something in the range of four times the qualifying level
of an Earldom despite the vast fine she paid for
marrying Richard Wydeville. To say the family was parvenu
may be true on the paternal side although they were
of country gentry rank and therefore rather similar
in background to many of the nobility. Making
yourself by marriage was hardly a crime in medieval
england it was de rigour as the Neville's exemplify so
well for us.<br>During the 1450's the families wealth
would have declined as much of her dowery was made up
of crown annuities (frequently unpaid) and French
lands lost by the ineptitude of Henry VI's government.
Although Richard Wydeville seems to have made himself -
gaining a Barony and a Council seat under Henry VI -
largely due to his military service under York in France
and elsewhere. They were among the early lancastrian
side switchers in 60/61 as evidenced by the dates of
their pardons (from Edward IV). In rank the Wydevilles
were on a par with many of the New Yorkist
Nobility.<br>More in next message as this is probably going to be a
long one

Re: Elizabeth Woodville

2002-01-25 00:00:12
tmc\_dale
Among the many things mentioned is the
munificence Edward bestowed on his wife's family. In fact the
largest beneficiary of Royal Patronage during the 1460's
was the Earl of Warwick. Also of course George Duke
of Clarence, Edward's Bourchier cousins and people
such as Hastings and Herbert Earl of Pembroke. In fact
the Wydeville's were too late on the scene by the
date of the marriage most attainted Lancastrian
holdings had already been dished out. Elizabeth's father
was raised to an Earldom and gained an office
(probably designed to support the Earldom financially as
the office was reserved for Anthony Lord Scales on
Rivers death) that took place two years after Edward's
marriage to Elizabeth. Her brother Anthony received some
small land grants but little else until after the
readeption of Henry VI.<br>On the marriages made between 64
and 69 - by 64 the family had already arranged
reasonable marriages for three of their offspring - Anthony
married by 60/61 Elizabeth heiress of Lord Scales,
Jacquetta married in infancy to John Lord Strange, and
Elizabeth of course to Grey the son and heir of Elizabeth
Baroness Ferrers of Groby. Following the marriage - new
matches were made for the remaining children probably
with the King's tacit approval - but many of them were
with new Yorkist peers such as Pembroke, Grey of Kent,
Bourchier of Essex who may have been just as keen to ally
themselves with the Queen's family. In two cases the family
already had connections - Elizabeth's first husband was a
cousin of Lord Grey of Ruthyn now Earl of Kent, her
sister in law (Elizabeth Scales) was a Bourchier widow,
and her own mother in law had married the Earl of
Essex's brother. The marriage of John Wydeville to
Catherine Dowager of Norfolk in her sixties was unusual but
we don't know if the lady was bothered or rather
pleased with her young husband - she herself was rather a
termagent and not an easy aunt to Warwick or grandmother to
the Duke of Norfolk. The marriage of the Queen's
sister Catherine to Buckhingham wasn't surprising given
that the family hadn't really been on Edward's side he
was probably hoping to tie the young Duke to the
Yorkist cause and he was the Queen's ward (incidentally
he gained his majority earlier than usual - hardly
the behaviour of a grasping Queen Consort). The
marriage of the Queen's son Thomas Grey to the King's
niece Anne Holland gained him the Exeter inheritance
(although didn't due to her early death) but seems to have
been the King's idea and the Duchess of Exeter doesn't
appear to have objected (the King loaned the Queen he
cash for the marriage several thousand by the way). In
fact you could argue that Edward provided for his
wife's family on the cheap rather than endow them with
landed wealth he married them off rather well but not
spectacularly. A useful comparison is Henry VI's treatment of
his possibly illegitimate half brother's - for the
elder got a very wealthy heiress and an Earldom -
Edward appears to have done the same for his
stepson.<br>More to come.

Re: Elizabeth Woodville

2002-01-25 10:00:53
willow2vicky
wow you know your stuff.

Re: Buckingham's betrayal

2002-01-25 23:57:53
brontewcat
Actually Croyland does mention Henry taking part
in the fighting. The Chronicle says:<br><br>" There
now began a very fierce battle between the two sides:
the Earl of Richmond, with his knights, advanced
directly upon King Richard, while the Earl of
Oxford......."<br><br>Source: Keith Dockray Richard III: A Source
Book<br><br>The translation of Croyland on the American website
for Richard III Society expresses it slightly
differently:<br><br>"A battle of the greatest severity now ensuring
between the two sides, the earl of Richmond, together
with his knights, made staight for king Richard; while
the earl of Oxford......"<br><br>But the effect of
both translations would suggest that Henry did take
part in the actual fighting.<br><br>Many of the
accounts I have read of Bosworth are being told as part of
his history, and it is natural for them to emphasis
him, particularly as he did distinguish himself with
bravery. I do not think any conclusion can be drawn from
their failure to mention Henry's role.

Re: Edward V

2002-01-26 00:09:48
brontewcat
If you accept ther is a moral right to kill
someone before they kill you - then Richard would only
have a moral right to kill Edward if there was
conclusive evidence that Edward was likely to kill you.
There is very little evidence that Richard's life was
in danger from the Woodvilles, there is absolutely
no evidence he was in any danger from Edward at
all.<br><br>The only real risk Richard faced, I would suggest, is
that the Woodvilles may have been able to use their
influence with Edward to shoulder Richard's power aside.
This is quite a different proposition to Richard's
life being at risk.

Re: Elizabeth Woodville

2002-01-26 02:00:20
willison2001
Given the fact that you concede that the
Woodvilles (or Wydevilles) were parvenu on the paternal side
and, given their relative meteoric rise (which you
illustrate,) also the fact that they were turncoat former
Lancastruan supporters, it only needed a squabble, such as
the one between Dorset & Hastings over a mistress or
arrogant behaviour, such as Dorset's declaration that a
Woodville dominated Council could take precedence over
Richard of Gloucester, who appears to have been appointed
Protector, to spark off the trouble over power which
ensued.<br><br>What causes trouble is the fundamental differences in
personality and character of people. Dorset, in particular,
seemed to have an ability to rub people up the wrong way
& Elizabeth Woodville, clearly, had never been
popular with Warwick the Kingmaker, Clarence & Richard.
Richard referred to her as a witch; clearly, her
personality left a lot to be desired!

Re: Edward V

2002-01-26 02:07:20
willison2001
'If you accept ther is a moral right to kill
someone before they kill you - then Richard would only
have a moral right to kill Edward if there was
conclusive evidence that Edward was likely to kill you.
There is very little evidence that Richard's life was
in danger from the Woodvilles, there is absolutely
no evidence he was in any danger from Edward at
all.'<br><br>Richard certainly stated that his life was in danger from
the Woodville clan, in his letter to the North,
because Richard had dared to assert his rightful
authority, as suggested by Hastings (a supporter of Edward
V.) Is there any doubt that Edward V would've killed
Richard if he had escaped from the Tower to lead the
Rebellion in his name? Edward would have seen Richard as a
traitor and usurper and there was only one thing to do
with someone like that: get real!

Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-01-26 02:18:37
willison2001
" There now began a very fierce battle between
the two sides: the Earl of Richmond, with his
knights, advanced directly upon King Richard, while<br>
the Earl of Oxford......."<br><br>But, did Tudor do
any hand to hand fighting himself, like
Richard?<br><br>When Tudor executed William Stanley, the real victor
of the battle (1495), he whinged about Stanley
almost leaving it too late to rescue him. Not very
convincing from a brave man!

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-01-27 01:03:51
bailey11354
By all accounts that I have read Tudor was
watching from the sidelines. While Richard fought fiercly
but was cut down by Stanley. Surely Henry Tudor
lacked experience, never fighting a battle in his life.
Also, getting back to the protecership, it is
interesting that Edward IV entrusted his heir to Anthony
Woodville, but named Richard protecter on his deathbed.

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-01-27 16:53:56
aelyon2001
I think we have to look at the appointments of
Richard as Protector and Anthony Woodville as Governor to
Edward V entirely separately and in their own
contexts.<br><br>Edward IV appointed Woodville as Governor to the then
Prince of Wales in November 1473, at a time when no one
could have predicted that he would die when his son was
a minor. Politically speaking, his throne was
secure; the only serious fly in the ointment was
Clarence. Edward IV was at the time 31 and came from very
robust stock with good life expectancy. In predicting
how long he might expect to live we are handicapped
by the high incidence of violent death among his
male relations, but here
goes:-<br><br>Father<br>Killed in battle aged 49<br><br>Mother<br>Died of
natural causes aged about 80<br><br>Paternal grandfather
(Richard, Earl of Cambridge)<br>Beheaded aged about
40<br><br>Paternal grandmother (Anne Mortimer)<br>Died aged 21,
possibly in childbirth<br><br>Maternal grandfather (Ralph
Neville, Earl of Westmorland)<br>Died aged 62 or
more<br><br>Maternal grandmother (Joan Beaufort)<br>Died aged around
60<br><br>Paternal great-grandfather (Edmund, Duke of York)<br>Died
aged about 60<br><br>His eldest maternal uncle of the
whole blood, the Earl of Salisbury, was 60 when he was
killed, and those Nevilles who avoided the axe or death
in battle seem to have been fairly
long-lived.<br><br>On that basis, Edward IV had a reasonable
expectation, the hazards of the age aside, of living to around
60, and he presumably appointed Anthony Woodville as
Governor to a Prince of Wales who would presumably be a
mature adult by the time he succeeded.<br><br>The
appointment of Richard as Protector was done under the
emergency conditions of the king's approaching death, when
provision had to be made for running the country while the
heir was a minor.<br><br>Regarding the parvenu origins
of the Woodvilles, I suspect the lowly origins of
her father would tend in the eyes of the day to
cancel out her mother's illustrious foreign ancestry,
and in the eyes of the time Richard Woodville would
be guilty of an astonishing degree of effrontery in
marrying such an exalted widow. I think we can also make a
distinction between the Woodvilles and the Nevilles. Yes, the
latter made themselves in the fifteenth century through
advantageous marriages, but they started off from a much
higher base, since they were already a significant
family in the north well before Ralph Neville married
Joan Beaufort in the 1390s and brought them to
national prominence.

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-01-27 19:47:01
willison2001
Try though I may I fail to be convinced that
Tudor wasn't a wimp! Apart from the fact that no record
exists of him fighting hand to hand & his 1495 fearful
comment about coming close to death, there's his
behaviour in 1483. His didn't exactly make a Custer's Last
Stand against Richard or behave as Richard bravely,
even if unwisely, did in 1485. Did he stay in support
of the Lancastrian/Yorkist/Buckingham rebellion? No,
he soon fled into exile again.<br><br>When at
Bosworth his knights went forward, I can imagine Tudor
hanging back. Guile is written across his portrait. His
mind was probably already in the 'counting house.'

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-01-28 08:28:59
mhill968
In 1485 Tudor's intention was to take the throne. While leading from the rear may not have been very heroic, it was the more rational course of action.

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-01-28 15:24:07
willison2001
True enough. Richard was the last monarch to
engage in serious personal fighting. After what happened
to him, perhaps, this is not surprising.<br><br>I
imagine Richard knew he wasn't immensely popular, so he
HAD to fight, which was, in any case, traditional.
Henry Tudor, more an accountant than a warrior, broke
this tradition. He soon ran away in 1483, there's no
evidence of personal fighting at Bosworth or during his
reign. <br><br>Didn't Richard show reluctance to take
the throne at Baynard's castle; he suspected what
would happen? But what choice did he have: to serve
under a Woodville dominated Edward V: the Woodvilles
had already shown themselves to be grasping and
vicious? There is evidence that they had bayed for the
blood of Richard's older brother: Clarence, so Richard
knew what to expect under them!

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-01-29 19:50:02
aelyon2001
One thing we do have to bear in mind is that
medieval kings were expected to fight - indeed from very
early times the first function of a king was to protect
his people. The military function is symbolised in
the coronation regalia, which includes various
swords, and in the great seal, one side of which depicts
the king fully armoured and astride a charging horse
(this is even true of Edward VI) who was only nine at
his accession! The only medieval kings were were not
front-line fighting men were the unsuccessful ones.
<br><br>From Henry VII onwards things changed. As far as I am
aware, Henry VIII, for all his bluster, never came close
to the enemy, and was not present in any of the
battles of his reign, though he did lead a campaign in
France in 1513. Kings still went to war, but they were
present on battlefields rather than participating
directly, though that tradition lasted until 1742, when
George II was the last reigning British monarch to be
present at a pitched battle (Dettingen). He had also
taken part in the War of the Spanish Succession as a
young man.

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-01-30 01:14:05
willison2001
'The only medieval kings were were not front-line
fighting men were the unsuccessful ones.'<br><br>This
didn't preclude strategic retreats though, such as that
by Edward IV, along with Richard, who re-ascended
the throne in 1471. <br><br>'From Henry VII onwards
things changed. As far as I am aware, Henry VIII, for
all his bluster, never<br>came close to the
enemy,'<br><br>That's my understanding. Henry VIII, over-rated in
general in my view, was more into Judicial murder of his
enemies, witness the slaughter of his two wives and the
daughter of Clarence.<br><br>It's on record that over 7000
people were executed during his reign. And yet this
syphilic Head of the Church of England has had a far
better Press than Richard III!

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-02-02 02:50:39
brontewcat
As far as I am aware there are very few, if any
reliable accounts for the battle of Bosworth. None of tham
say Henry watched from the sidelines.<br><br>I would
be interested in the accounts to which you
refer.<br><br>The main part of the battle was actually conducted
between Norfolk and Oxford. The contemporary accounts do
not suggest that either Richard or Henry took part in
that of the battle. The accounts seem to suggest that
the only part of the battle that Richard took part in
was the direct attack on Henry, and Henry did
participate.

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-02-02 02:59:07
brontewcat
Sorry. I think I should clarify my last post -
Henry + Bosworth. I edited it several times and I
deleted a sentence referring to Richard. The histories to
which I refer were those of Richard. It was to Richard
I meant when I referred to the person who was
distinguished by bravery.<br><br>However I do think Henry was
probably quite brave in standing his ground when Richard
was coming for him - given it was his first battle
(It was hardly his fault he had no battle experience
previously)

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-02 03:14:22
brontewcat
I think the fact the Woodvilles may have been
looked down upon in their time is more of a judgement on
those nobles who did so, than the
Woodvilles.<br><br>Perhaps Edward did so as well, as he may have realised a
more modern monarchy needed fresh blood and talent. It
seems to me he was trying to build up the monarchy's
standing and power by creating a court faction dependant
on him for favour, as opposed to their
bloodlines.<br><br>He may also have recognised that as the gentry and
maybe even the middle classes had became more educated,
they had abilities that would be needed in the future.

Re: henry Viii

2002-02-02 03:22:12
brontewcat
How many of the 7000 executed were for political
or religious offences, and how many were for
criminal offences?<br><br>If the United States does not
abolish the death penalty then I expect far more than
7000 persons will be executed in the 37 years from say
1990 to 2027.

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-02-02 07:54:29
lilith82200
Brontewcat wrote:<br><br>However I do think Henry
was probably quite brave in standing his<br> ground
when Richard was coming for him - given it was his
first battle (It<br> was hardly his fault he had no
battle experience previously) <br><br>I would have been
brave too considering I had Percy bought and paid for.

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-02-02 11:00:17
willison2001
'However I do think Henry was probably quite
brave in standing his ground when Richard was coming
for him - given it was his first battle (It was
hardly his fault he had no battle experience
previously)'<br><br>It's strange that Richard was on record for killing
three men with his own hand at Bosworth, but Tudor
doesn't get a mention, even from his own
historians.<br><br>Tudor soon fled in 1483 from Richard's advancing army
and during his long reign there's not a mention of
him fighting hand to hand. It may be he stood his
ground as long as he could at Bosworth, because he'd
stitched a deal with Stanley & Northumberland to betray
Richard!

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-02 11:11:26
willison2001
I agree with you that people should not be judged
by bloodlines. Caesar's family produced Nero &
Caligula, who appear to have been mentally unbalanced &
their bloodline didn't save them from that. It seems to
be the acquisition of power that causes corruption
in some. Regardless of bloodline, I would include
Richard II & the 'Woodville' sprig: Dorset in
this.<br><br>Dorset seems to have been dissolute and arrogant and,
therefore, unsuitable for government. This together with the
greed of his clan sparked a confrontation with Richard,
Hastings, Buckingham & Howard.<br><br>Dorset indulging in
womanising was no more than what Edward IV & Hastings were
doing, but his announcement, reported by Hastings to
Richard, that he & the Council could over-rule Richard,
who was rightful Protector and with a far better
track record of government, was the last straw!

Re: Henry VIII

2002-02-02 11:19:45
willison2001
I was comparing Henry VIII & Richard III. The way
he rigged the trial and execution of Anne Boleyn,who
he had so loved at one time and the spiteful
execution of Clarence's daughter who was a harmless old
lady, showed him as an arrogant, vindictive
type!<br><br>Henry decided to dump Catholicism which had been the
religion of England for centuries & which was socially
popular (there was an uprising in its support & Catholic
Mary was welcomed back,) to suit his marriage &
political plans, but Henry was as suitable for the role of
Head of the Church of England as Mike Tyson is for
Pope!

Re: Henry VIII

2002-02-03 05:41:59
brontewcat
I agree that Henry's behaviourto his political
enemies was appalling, and his treatment of Catherine of
Aragon and Anne Boleyn was reprehensible.<br><br>I was
however asking a genuine question - how many of the 7,000
executed were political executions. Were they all
political executions or were they in large part criminal
executions?

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-03 07:01:19
brontewcat
Under English law Edward could not actually
dictate how the country was to be governed after his
death.<br><br>Richard was NOT the rightful Protector until apppointed
so by Council. The generally accepted view was that,
during a minority, royal authority fell to the Council,
who of course would decide who was to and how to
govern the realm.<br><br>Richard's appointment as
Protector could only happen if the Royal Council agreed.
The Royal Council could override Edward IV's wishes,
and make their own arrangements. Note the Royal
Council did this in 1547, when it overrode Henry VIII's
wishes as set out in his will, and appointed Edward V's
uncle - Edward Seymour as Protector.<br><br>The fact
Edward seems to have appointed Richard Protector in his
will gave Richard a persuasive argument he should be
so appointed, but not a legally binding argument.
<br><br>I would suggest that Richard also knew there was a
very good chance Council would not appoint him so,
apart from anything Dorset may have been saying. In the
recent past, the Royal Council of Henry V had blocked
the Duke of Gloucester becoming Regent during Henry
VI's minority. If Mancini is to be believed it seems
the Council of Edward IV had already voted against
Richard having the full powers of a Regent - to avoid the
situation where one man having the entire governance could
usurp the sovereignty. Rather prophetic I would have
thought.<br><br>But the Council was no Woodville puppet as it also
stopped Rivers bringing the King to London with
effectively an army. It was also concerned that the
Woodvilles should not dominate.<br><br>Dorset was stating
the no more than the law actually was in saying
Council could make and enforce decisions, even without
the King's brother.

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-02-03 07:17:35
brontewcat
I am aware Henry had stiched up a deal with his
stepfather - although Stanley showed no signs of hououring
the deal when Richard charged at Henry. <br><br>As
far as I am aware there was no such deal with
Northumberland. As far as I am aware Northumberland had always
resented Richard - particularly after Richard became such
a dominant force in the North, by taking Warwick's
place in the 1470s. Northumberland had thought he would
be the major influence in the North after Warwick's
death. After he became King Richard appointed his nephew
as president of the Council of the North, rather
than Northumberland.<br><br>I suggest that was the
reason Northumberland failed to engage his forces for
Richard.

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-03 10:43:59
aelyon2001
We have to be careful before stating
categorically what bodies and individuals could and could not
do. Fifteenth-century England did not have a written
constitution (the United Kingdom in 2002 still does not!), and
the limits of the powers of the various organs of
government had yet to be tested. That testing took place in
the seventeenth century - hence a Civil War, the
execution of one king and deposition of a
second.<br><br>Essentially, any body or office-holder had as much power as
any other body or office-holder was prepared to
allow. The relationship between different bodies was
undefined, so that which took precedence in cases of dispute
was unclear.<br><br>Further, we need to be careful
not to interpolate backwards from the known text and
contents of Henry VIII's will to the unknown text and
largely unknown contents of Edward IV's. Essentially,
Henry VIII gave the Council he appointed full authority
during his son's minority (one of his Succession Acts
had already provided that royal minorities lasted up
to age 18 - an innovation). That Council were acting
entirely within the powers given to them by the will in
appointing a Protector to act on their behalf.<br><br>We do
not have the text of Edward IV's will. All we know is
that he appointed Richard as Protector. On the
precedent of Henry VI's reign, the Council would have power
to overrule the appointment of a Protector, but it
is always possible that that power came from Henry
V's will. I do not know the text of Henry V's will -
does anybody? <br><br>Bear in mind that Edward IV,
unlike either of the Henries, died unexpectedly after a
few days' illness. Henry V's fatal illness lasted
about six weeks, and Henry VIII's health was so poor in
his later years that it must have been very clear
that his son would succeed as a minor. They and their
immediate advisors therefore had time to work out balanced
arrangements for the minority whereas Edward IV did not.

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-03 13:23:22
brontewcat
What you are saying is correct - but it all
points to one thing - Richard was only Protector if the
Royal Council allowed him to be Protector.<br><br>While
England has never had a single document which comprises
its constitution, it does have a constitution. Some
of its constitution is unwritten, eg conventions
such as the convention the Government should resign if
it loses the confidence of the House of Commons.
<br><br>I would suggest that by the 15th century certain
conventions and practices were well established - eg the
supremacy of parliamentary law was clearly established in
the late 15th century<br><br>Council's role in
government had been strengthened by the minority of Henry
VI. Edward IV had established a strong Council, to
create a strong central government. The Council no
longer was dominated by the magnates of the country, but
became a means of carrying out the king's
policies.<br><br>I agree the relationships between the arms of
government were complex, but I think it is quite safe to say
by Edward IV's death the Council was an established
and important arm of government ie the executive arm
- along with the Courts and Parliament.<br><br>The
Council itself regarded itself as having the power of
royal authority during a minority (see Ross Richard III
quoting J S Roskell "The Office and Dignity of the
Protector of England" EHR lxviii (1953)

Re: Henry VIII

2002-02-03 13:59:55
willison2001
My understanding is that these were political
executions brought about by Henry's Reformation against
Catholics. No doubt the arrogant Henry saw his enemies as
criminal - he would - but changing Religion just because
you want a son seems a supremely arrogant thing to
do!

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-03 14:06:05
willison2001
Remember it was Hastings, a leading member of the
Council, who warned Richard to take control of Edward V,
but Hastings, a Edward IV & Edward V loyalist, saw
clearly what the Woodville faction was aiming
for.<br><br>Richard was appointed Protector by Edward IV's Will &
with an excellent record of service, deserved respect,
but what he got from the Woodville cabal was an
attempt to relegate him. Why, after his record of
service? I think I can understand why he was nettled by
this bunch of grasping, arrogant individuals!

Re: Was Tudor a wimp?

2002-02-03 14:19:43
willison2001
'I am aware Henry had stiched up a deal with his
stepfather - although Stanley showed no signs
of<br>hououring the deal when Richard charged at
Henry.'<br><br>The Stanleys, as slippery as eels, were edging their
bets, but, in fact, did decide the battle with their
late betrayal of Richard. <br><br>I'm sure
Northumberland was jealous, but I recall reading that Tudor was
in treasonable correspondence with him and consider
how lightly Northumberland got off: imprisoned for a
short time & restored to high office, unlike Catesby
who was beheaded! Northumberland was killed a few
years later by some people in the North, which suggests
he was less than popular!<br><br>It's possible that
Northumberland misread the situation at Bosworth. The Stanley
charge could've been for Richard, but his inactivity
later suggests betrayal on behalf of Tudor!

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-03 18:07:11
aelyon2001
My typo - I should indeed have said WRITTEN
constitution.<br><br>It sounds as though we are going to continue to
disagree on fifteenth century government. My view, having
devoted a good deal of my time as an academic lawyer to
constitutional history in the last few years, is that it was
established before 1460 that extra-ordinary revenues could
not be raised without the authority of a parliament.
Equally, it had been the practice since 1326 for those
deposing a monarch and those usurping the throne to call a
parliament as a means of legitimating their actions. These
were areas in which it was recognised that a
parliament had supreme authority. However, parliament in
those days was very much the king's instrument -
parliaments were summoned and dissolved at pleasure, and to a
considerable extent acted according to the king's will. It was
not until 1689 that the King in Parliament acquired
unambiguous and unchallenged supremacy over the King acting
alone.<br><br>As to the Council, yes it had become an established
instrument of government under Edward IV, and intermittently
somewhat earlier, and Edward IV left a good deal of
day-to-day government to his Council. But this does not mean
that the Council's authority was fully defined, still
less that its authority was fully accepted. Certainly
the Council regarded itself as having the power of
royal authority during a minority, but that does not
mean that others accepted it as having such authority.
And if there was disagreement over who or what had
authority during a minority, there was no independent
judiciary then to whom the issue could be referred to be
sorted out in a peaceful fashion. We have to look to the
eighteenth century and later for its emergence.

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-03 21:33:55
div2sig
That is the best reply to the argument re
Richards claim to the Throne that has been put forward so
far.The power was the King's as richard was made
protector the he had to assume the powers of a King the
council were there at the Kings behest.I do not see where
Richard dissolved the Council.

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-03 23:41:05
willison2001
I get the impression that Law is often invented
to suit people in power. The Nazis certainly did
this with their Nuremburg Laws which subverted the
status of Jews in the Reich. The recent invasion of
Afghanistan, because the country was harbouring terrorists,
was probably a violation of International Law, but
when Might thinks it is Right, then it does what it
does! An invasion of Ireland because they were
apparently harbouring the IRA would've surprised many before
September 11th!<br><br>The legal situation for the Council
& Parliament was fluid - it still can be changed
today (indeed, was recently with the ousting of
heriditary peers,)- so Richard, with a formidable background
of power, naturally thought himself a main mover in
action for change. Richard, as I've said before, HAD to
take the throne to survive. Survival is the real name
of the game! He, for various reasons, did not like
the Woodville clan & egged on by Hastings took Edward
V under his protection, but, in so doing, alienated
him, who clearly remonstrated about his affection for
his Uncle Rivers & half brother, Grey. The need to
seize the throne for Richard was sown & for a survivor
& military man like Richard, who didn't want to go
the way of Clarence, inevitable!

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-04 00:24:52
tmc\_dale
I am surprised that you seem so convinced about
the antipathy between Richard of Gloucester and the
Queen's family. There is very little evidence for any
such antipathy. Almost all Richard's anti Wydeville
statement come after he took the throne rather than before.
On the other hand prior to Edward IV's death Richard
was clearly not adverse to at least getting on
reasonably well with his sister in law and her family. It is
quite likely that Richard has some involvement with
Rivers over his book, Richard was steward for some of
the Queen's dower lands (a salaried position which
she was free to appoint whom she liked), it is highly
likely that she supported Richard against Clarence over
his marriage, Richard knighted her brother Edward
during the Scots campaign, and Rivers was writing asking
Richard to arbitrate a local dispute only months before
Edward IV's death, Richard was one of the major guests
at his nephew's wedding to Anne Mowbray while
incidentaly his brother George languished in the tower. Now
that suggests more than Richard paying lip service to
his brother's wish for family harmony surely - it
means one of two things Richard was the greatest
dissembler for the best part of two decades or simply saw an
opportunity and took it.

The Protectorate

2002-02-04 00:35:18
tmc\_dale
Firstly everyone is making one single assumption
- that Edward IV ammended or altered his will in
his final weeks of life. The only evidence for such
is Crowland who mentions codicils in passing but not
their contents. There is no surviving contemporary
evidence that Richard was so named that pre dates his
arrival in London with the King by which time with Edward
V in his power he was de facto Protector by then
whether the council liked it or not. It's quite clear
that the Council decided to govern in the boy king's
name without making any appointment of that nature.
That in itself is unsurprising since the boy was
nearly of age anyway - even feeble Henry VI managed to
declare himself of age relatively young and if Edward was
a precocious as has been suggested then he may well
have begun ruling within 18 months or so of his
accession.<br>the early council meetings suggest that there was a
few snipes about the Queen's family and an arguement
with Hastings - although Crowland points out that the
Queen's compromise that saved the day so to speak.
Nothing more than a few settling of scores and Dorset
playing the big I am. Apart from that the Council played
by the book - they confirmed the appointments of
virtually everyone in the realm barring those in Richard's
sphere of influence waiting his arrival before
confirming them on his advice, they arranged and set a date
for the Coronation and so on. In other words they had
apparently decided to dispense with the services of a regent
or protector preferring instead to retain power to
the council - presumably had things continued in that
way then Richard and Rivers would probably have been
the leading lights of that council.

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-04 01:34:53
willison2001
'I am surprised that you seem so convinced about
the antipathy between Richard of Gloucester
and<br>the Queen's family.'<br><br>Given the fact that
Richard executed Rivers & Grey, two leading members of
the Woodville clan & others fled into exile or
sanctuary, I would say that it was fairly obvious that
Richard wasn't overly keen on the Woodville
group.<br><br>Richard probably was inclined to respect Edward IV's
wishes regarding his elevation of the Woodvilles. To
have done otherwise would've been suicide, as Clarence
found out, but the truth over Richard's feelings
concerning the Woodvilles became apparent when he tried to
wrest power from them in taking control of Edward V.
The Hasting's led Council appears to have applauded
this, but did Edward V? Edward is on record as being
extremely upset about being parted from Rivers & Grey & no
doubt Richard saw a slippery slope for himself opening
up. What else could he do, but take the throne, in
order to survive & try to ensure the survival of his
family & friends?

Re: The Protectorate

2002-02-04 17:59:46
aelyon2001
You are entirely correct that the only evidence
for Richard's appointment as Protector comes from
Crowland, but Crowland is particularly well-informed, by no
means pro-Richard, and apparently a member of the
Council, so that what he has to say ought to be taken
seriously. Further, in a situation which had suddenly become
one of emergency, it seems entirely natural to make a
specific appointment of a Protector, just as Henry V had
done.<br><br>I agree entirely that Edward V's minority was
unlikely to last all that long. Henry VI, born in December
1421, declared himself of age in 1437, aged 15. I think
I am right in saying that James IV of Scots, who
succeeded at 15 following his father's murder in 1488,
ruled without any form of regency from the start
(unlike all the other Jameses except James VII and II!).
All the evidence suggests that Edward V, (leaving
aside the question mark over his physical health raised
by the Westminster Abbey bones) was intellectually
precocious (much like his great-nephew Edward VI) and would
have been eager to start ruling in his own right by
the time he too reached 15. Therefore Richard, if he
was going to remove Edward, for whatever reason,
valid or no, was going to have to move quickly. And, of
course, he did!

Re: The Protectorate

2002-02-05 13:32:20
tmc\_dale
I think you miss read my post or I phrased it
badly. Crowland does not state that Edward created a
protectorate in his will. What Crowland states is that Edward
added codicils to his will but that they were not acted
upon. Crowland's references to Richard's arrival and
appointment do not state that this was Edward's intention.
Crowland also states that the Council did not fall over
backwards to cave into Richard once he arrived in London -
Crowland for instance mentions that the Council were
unhappy with the arrests of Rivers and Grey and the
continuing presence of the Queen and her other children in
sanctuary. <br>While it may have been sensible for Edward to
have named a protector it is by no means guaranteed
that he did so - the only evidence that he did name
Richard post dates Richard's appointments and is
mentioned by Mancini and later Vergil. It suits both
traditionalists and Ricardians to assume Edward's intentions -
for the traditionalists it makes Richard even blacker
that he betrayed his brothers trust in such a way and
for Ricardians it gives an added impetous to their
allegation that Richard was being cut out of things. When
discussing these issues it is important to avoid jumping to
conclusions.

Re: The Protectorate

2002-02-05 18:42:47
aelyon2001
I had assumed that it was Crowland who referred specifically to a protectorate, which just goes to prove that I should check my sources a bit better!

Re: 'The Protector' of whom?

2002-02-06 00:12:25
willison2001
Mancini makes clear that it was Hastings who
suggested that Richard take control of Edward V & arrest
Rivers & Grey, as Hastings was a long-standing enemy to
the Woodvilles, particularly Dorset. They had argued
over a mistress, amongst other things. Mancini also
states that it was felt that the Woodvilles had done
Richard an injury in trying to relegate his Protector
role and, also, that he might revenge himself because
they had been behind the death of Richard's brother
Clarence.<br><br>It is hardly likely that the Council was dismayed
about Richard's arrest of Rivers & Grey in view of the
fact that Hastings was a leading light of this and an
ardent supporter of Edward V. Only those with Woodville
sympathies would be suspicious of
Richard.<br><br>Ironically, Hastings had suggested this course of action, but
probably did not anticipate Edward V's response against
Richard, which made Richard feel that he & his affinity
would not be safe under this monarch. Hastings was to
be a victim of his own miscalculation. If we accept
that the remains found in 1674 are those of Edward V,
we know that an examination showed jaw disease,
which would have made him very moody and, therefore,
all the more alarming for Richard, who did not know
about the illness.<br><br>Richard faced with a hostile
King who favoured his enemies: the Woodville bunch,
was left with no alternative, but the take the crown
himself. The Protector had to protect himself & his family
& friends, who would've included Hastings had he
gone along with the idea. Legal niceties can be swept
away if we feel threatened, as with America versus
Afhganistan & the 'axis of evil.'<br><br>I'm sure the
Woodvilles saw Richard as evil, just as he thought they
were!

Re: 'The Protector' of whom?

2002-02-06 20:41:32
aelyon2001
If we assume that the Westminster Abbey remains
are those of Edward V, then the evidence of jaw
disease becomes highly significant, and perhaps
insufficient has been made of it. Tanner and Wright, who
examined the bones in 1933, were of the view that the
elder of the two individuals had for some time suffered
from extensive chronic bone disease, affecting both
sides of the lower jaw. They identified this as
osteomyelitis, an infection which occurs as a complication of
compound fractures and also arises spontaneously,
particularly in adolescents. Their opinion merits taking very
seriously, as osteomyelitis was far from uncommon in the
1930s and both would have seen many cases. Crucially,
in my view, in the days before antibiotics the
disease was notoriously difficult to treat and led to
long-term hospitalisation (John Vaizey, author of 'Scenes
from Institutional Life', had osteomyelitis of the
spine as a teenager in the 1940s and was bedridden for
about three years).<br><br>If the bones are indeed
those of Edward V, then we can presume that he was in a
very poor state of health, dragged down by constant
pain - like permanent toothache all around I would
imagine! - and the infection itself, and probably unable
to eat properly, which would only make things worse.
As you say, it is only to be expected that he would
be moody and difficult to deal with. Further, his
state of health might well call into question his
fittedness to reign in an age when kings were expected to be
active rulers. I suspect that if Edward indeed had
osteomyelitis then Richard would have known about his nephew's
ill-health, if only in general terms. Although Richard seems
to have had little to do with Edward before Edward
IV's death, he had, I believe, been in London as
recently as Christmas 1482, and would presumably have
become aware of the position through catching up on
events with his brother.<br><br>All this can be taken in
several ways , of course. That nothing was apparently
made of Edward V's health by Richard and his
supporters may indicate that the bones are not those of
Edward V at all.

Re: 'The Protector' of whom?

2002-02-06 22:22:52
willison2001
'All this can be taken in several ways , of
course. That nothing was apparently made of Edward V's
health by Richard and his supporters may indicate that
the bones are not those of Edward V at all.'
<br><br>This is very hypothetical, but there is quite strong
circumstancial evidence that the Westminster bones are those of
Edward V. It may be that Richard, who had been ill
himself as a child, thought that any illness might be
transient or he may have not perceived the seriousness of
the illness & been more stung by Edward's difficult
nature towards him. It is on record that Edward spoke
strongly on behalf of his Uncle Rivers & half-brother Grey
and we know that the young don't always show respect
or understanding to their elders. There may have
been an arrogance from the young King, a brattishness
in a 12 year old, which didn't recognise Richard's
merits & record, which, very annoyingly, supported the
Woodvilles, who Richard, through Hasting's enmity, & their
scheming, e.g. against Richard's brother Clarence, opposed.
Richard may have felt that Edward V was likely to support
them against himself, as they had, according to
Mancini, attacked Clarence. Richard may've felt that
Clarence was a fool, but whether he deserved death was
questionable and Richard had no desire to follow his path to
the butt of Malmsey or worse.

Re: 'The Protector' of whom?

2002-02-07 18:26:29
aelyon2001
I'm being academic and cautious about the
identity of the bones! I agree that the circumstantial
evidence is quite strong, but it is not
conclusive.<br><br>I've now had an opportunity to consult my mother, who
met a fair number of cases of osteomyelitis while
working in a long-stay children's hospital in the 1940s
and 1950s, and has fortuitously kept her textbooks.
Apparently, osteomyelitis is an bacterial infection which
causes pus to develop within bones. The periosteum (the
membrane enclosing a bone) usually prevents the pus
escaping, so that the patient rapidly becomes dangerously
ill, and will die unless promptly treated.
Alternatively, a cavity (sinus) may develop that allows the pus
an outlet and the disease then develops a less
severe form, which is presumably what happened with
Edward V (assuming for the moment that we are dealing
with him). In either case the only effective treatment
is surgical removal of the infected bone, plus,
nowadays, heavy doses of antibiotics. I suspect that
operative treatment of Edward V would not have been a
realistic possibility, since it would probably involve
removing the entire lower jaw, so we are left with a
condition which would ultimately prove fatal. Meanwhile,
his general health would seriously undermined; he
would be in constant pain and probably unable to eat
normal food, leading to malnutrition. In addition, he
would probably have lost a good many teeth and would be
progressively disfigured as a result of further sinuses
developing and bits of bone breaking off. My mother tells me
she once dealt with a boy whose entirely collar bone
had been left exposed, and it was not a pretty sight.
All extremely unpleasant! <br><br>You may be right
that Richard, having apparently been sickly as a boy,
might have under-estimated the seriousness of his
nephew's condition. and, if Edward behaved towards him in
a fashion remotely similar to the anonymous
14-year-old witness in the Damilola Taylor murder trial, the
brattishness is what would register more than anything else!
However, Richard had 6 weeks or more between his initial
encounter with Edward and the deposition, which ought to
have been time for a more considered view to
emerge.<br><br>We could speculate for ever!

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-07 22:57:58
ozsomerset
A lot of the discussion of late has been that
Richard had to take the throne because he feared for his
life or that of his family. I thought the only reason
was becasue he was convinced that his brothers
children were bastards and therfore unfit for the crown.
Is there any evidence that he was concerned about
his safety???

Re: Woodvilles

2002-02-07 23:52:26
willison2001
'A lot of the discussion of late has been that
Richard had to take the throne because he feared for his
life or that of his family. I thought the<br> only
reason was becasue he was convinced that his brothers
children were bastards and therfore unfit for the crown.
Is there any evidence that he was concerned about
his safety???'<br><br>Richard's letter to the North
expresses fear that the Woodvilles were plotting his death,
it is also on record that THEIR King: Edward V,
clearly had supported them and then there is their record
of power grabbing & plotting, e.g. the downfall of
Richard's brother: Clarence.

Re: 'The Protector' of whom?

2002-02-07 23:59:26
willison2001
What would've weighed most with Richard was the
open support of Edward V for the Woodvilles; it was
perhaps natural that a 12 year old would care for his
Mother & her kin, but this was no consolation to
Richard.<br><br>Edward's brattishness & moodiness may've added to an
alienation and, if there was an underlying illness of the
type you interestingly described, this could've
inflamed the relationship! Richard may not've been aware
of the serious nature of the illness & cared even
less!

Titulus Regius

2002-02-08 10:22:18
willison2001
'I thought the only reason was becasue he was
convinced that his brothers children were bastards and
therfore unfit for the crown.'<br><br>Richard's legal
title to the Crown was born more from necessity than
veracity. The idea of the pre-contract of Edward IV to some
vaguely known lady who was dead, the fact of the relative
isolation of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville &
Richard's claim that she was a witch, seems thin, but
Richard, whether he'd got these reasons or not, did not
feel that survival was likely under a Woodville regime
given their record.<br><br>Richard's legal title was
shaped to suit his interests, but what was legal then
would we agree with anyway? To be hung, drawn &
quartered was legal then, but was it humane? Or is gassing
or dropping napalm on men, women & children humane?

Re: Titulus Regius

2002-02-08 20:04:00
mhill968
'Richard's letter to the North expresses fear
that the Woodvilles were plotting his
death'<br><br>But wasn't he trying to raise troops? In which case
something along the lines of 'The Queen's family seem a bit
annoyed with me' just wouldn't have had the same
impact.<br><br>Richard may well have had cause to fear the Woodvilles
after the arrest of Rivers and Grey but he brought it
on himself.

Re: Titulus Regius

2002-02-08 21:44:04
willison2001
'Richard may well have had cause to fear the
Woodvilles after the arrest of Rivers and Grey but he
brought it on himself.'<br><br>According to Mancini, it
was Hastings, pro Edward V & anti-Woodville, who set
the ball rolliing by suggesting to Richard that he
arrest Rivers, Grey & co., because they & Dorset, with
the Queen spider: Elizabeth Woodville behind them,
were trying to oust Richard from power. In view of the
fact that Mancini, a relatively impartial outsider,
states that the Woodvilles had blood on their hands over
the death of Richard's brother: Clarence, perhaps,
Richard had quite a lot to fear from them, as they had
from him.

Re: Titulus Regius

2002-02-08 22:31:24
ozsomerset
"Woodvilles had blood on their hands over the
death of Richard's brother: Clarence, perhaps, Richard
had quite a lot to fear from them, as they had from
him. "<br><br>Could somebody please explain to me how
we know that the Woodvilles had any part of
Clarences' execution?

Re: Titulus Regius

2002-02-08 22:50:08
mhill968
'Could somebody please explain to me how we know
that the Woodvilles had any part of Clarences'
execution?'<br><br>As far as I am aware, we don't. They did do nicely
out of it, Dorset in particular, but so did others,
Richard included.

Clarence's death.

2002-02-09 00:26:08
willison2001
Both Mancini and More indicate that the spider
Queen herself: Elizabeth Woodville, urged her husband:
Edward IV to eliminate Clarence, because he had
threatened her son's succession. Some have suggested that
Clarence originated the pre-contract story illegitimizing
her children, which Richard later used.

Re: Edward V

2002-02-10 12:13:17
jpearcey
It occurs to me that, had Woodville really be
intending to ensure that Richard never reached London, a
decision of the magnitude to kill a senior Duke, Prince of
the Realm and the Protector is one that could only be
made with the full agreement of the King (young though
he was). The political fall-out would be too great,
unless the King agreed with it and hence protected those
involved.<br><br>If there was an intended ambush (and the Woodville
faction never did explain what the weapons were doing
there, if they really were meant to be used against the
Scots), then Edward V seemed ready to strike the first
blow.<br><br>At 12, he may well have decided that he didn't need
a Protector at all.

Re: Edward V

2002-02-10 13:19:34
willison2001
If the Woodvilles were not planning a coup, why
did Hastings, a Edward V loyalist, warn Richard to
arrest Rivers? Edward V clearly was on the side of
Rivers & had the most to benefit from a consolidation of
his position based upon the Woodville power base.

Re: Edward V

2002-02-10 16:39:30
jpearcey
That was my point - Edward V is too often
portrayed as a passive participant in the events. He may
well have been rather more pro-active in at least
agreeing to preventing Richard from becoming
Protector.<br><br>In that light, the executions of Grey, Vaughan and
Woodville make a bit more sense. In those days, the King
was never wrong, if he made a mistake, it was because
he had been badly advised and the advisors were
punished (usually fatally). Arresting, trying and
executing those three was very much what should have been
done if Edward V had, in fact, decided (or agreed)
that his Uncle should not reach London alive. Killing
his main advisors was very much the standard way of
telling a King that he'd made a wrong decision, and
probably would have been interpreted that way by the
others at Court.

Re: Edward V

2002-02-10 18:58:24
ozsomerset
Even though at 12 Edward V was in those day no
longer a child don't you think that Rivers etc would
have thought themselves as the leading men of the
kingdom, after all they were the kings relatives and
mentors/advisors. Couldn't they have just made the decsion and then
Edward went along with it or was pushed into it because
of this relationship???

Edward V

2002-02-10 19:17:24
mhill968
The previous postings all assume that there was a
plot against Richard. <br><br>I'd suggest that,
although Richard may have been persuaded that this was the
case, it wasn't. However, once Grey, Rivers and Vaughan
had been arrested and executed (without a proper
trial)Richard was indeed in danger and therefore had no other
course of action but that we he took.

Re: Edward V

2002-02-10 21:43:29
jpearcey
They may have considered themselves the leading
men, but killing the person widely considered to be
the Protector (albeit in advance of his formal
installation as such) was only one step down from regicide - a
decision which, ultimately must have the agreement of a
King, else those who do it get thrown to the wolves.
Those contemplating such an action must be very sure of
their King's protection!<br><br>Hence, Edward must have
agreed to any such plot, were such a plot in existence.
It also leads to a disturbing thought - maybe Edward
thought that at 12 he was too old to need a Protector -
who may be difficult to persuade to step down when
the boy thought that he was old enough to rule alone
(if the Protector thought that the boy was still too
young). He may have thought that with a Council of
Regency, he might end up ruling earlier than if there was
a powerful man in charge. Now, he might have been
persuaded of this by his Uncle Rivers, in whose interest
such a view would be, but he may well also have come
to that conclusion himself and been all to willing
to dispose of his father's brother.

Re: Was there a Woodville plot?

2002-02-10 23:09:07
willison2001
Was there a Woodville plot to subvert Richard's
position as Protector? The Woodvilles had a history of
power grabbing, had schemed against Clarence ( who had
invited trouble) & Hastings warned Richard to arrest
Rivers & Co.,<br><br>If there wasn't a plot for the
Woodvilles to seize power immediately after Edward IV's
death, obviously, they would've had their eye on the
main chance at some stage, and, of course, everyone
knew that a power struggle would ensue. Even Ross, not
especially pro-Richard, said that a struggle between
Richard's power base & that of the Woodville clique was
inevitable!<br><br>It was like putting dogs & cats together in the same
room!

Re: Was there a Woodville plot?

2002-02-11 08:13:52
jpearcey
If there wasn't a plot, then the Woodvilles
managed to engineer the situation so that it looked like
there was one! The very quick date set for the
coronation and their statements that the role of Protector
ends with coronation (for which there was no legal
precedent - Henry VI was crowned at the age of 9, but that
didn't mean the end of the regency, Richard II ws
crowned at 10 and the same applied) indicates that they
wanted to stop Richard becoming Protector.<br><br>The
fact that the rendevous had been agreed at
Northampton, to which Richard seemed to be proceeding at a
reasonable rate with his small escort, yet when he got
there, the King's part had moved 14 miles down the road
is very suspicious. To people used to the politics
of the day, the sudden departure of the group he
thought that he was meeting up with and the realisation
that just a few miles down the road was an army which
outnumbered his own escort more than fourfold, this would
have looked like a potentially deadly plot, even if it
wasn't. Similar arrangements of numbers and changes of
sides had ended up with him going into exile
previously. It must have set off alarm bells and, given that
Woodville had been with them when they'd had to go into
exile, Woodville must have realised how serious it would
look to Richard. So, either Woodville was an idiot
(unlikely), or there was a plot.

Re: Was there a Woodville plot?

2002-02-11 17:50:31
willison2001
I think there was a Woodvile plot. As you state,
they were quick to try to get Edward V crowned & in a
hurry to move to London. It's unlikely that Hastings
warned Richard to arrest Rivers, unless something was
afoot &, then, it's on record that Dorset had been
shouting his mouth off about ruling without
Richard!<br><br>The Woodville who was responsible for the plot was,
undoubtedly, she who went, guiltily, into Sanctuary with her
son, Richard of York.

Edward V's health

2002-02-11 18:29:25
jpearcey
Apart from the bones (the origin of which are
very much a topic for dispute), was there any
contemporary evidence for the bone disease which Edward V is
supposed to have suffered from in his jaw?<br><br>It
strikes me that, had Edward's health been considered
dodgy, then his father would have made similar
arrangements for his younger son's education as he did for the
elder, once the elder's condition seemed potentially
fatal. The lack of any such arrangements suggest that he
did not have this painful and almost certainly
disfiguring disease. The doctors of the day (and the lad
would have had the best of the time available to him)
would almost certainly recognised it as a condition for
which there was then no cure and which was ultimately
fatal to a patient. They would have been obliged to
tell the King that his son had such a
condition.<br><br>Which leads to another question. The bone disease which
Edward V had would have made it difficult and painful
for him to eat and would almost certainly have shown
in his features, were it at a noticeable stage. This
was an era when a facial disfigurement (other than
those inflicted by accident / battle) was seen as a
sign of divine disfavour. If the boy's face was slowly
becoming disfigured, wouldn't the crowds have noticed and
commented upon it? Or else, if such a disease did take
hold, would not the boy himself be unwilling to expose
himself to any sort of public scrutiny?<br><br>Of course,
if Edward V had no such disease, it would weigh
against the bones being his, if there was other evidence,
then it would increase the odds of the bones being his
(though not, of course who or exactly when).

Re: Edward V's health

2002-02-11 20:35:41
aelyon2001
I'm not aware of any contemporary comments about
Edward V's health, which is the main reason for my
caution about the identity of the bones. We have a
description of him from Mancini, who has a great deal to say
about his intelligence and high educational
attainments, but nothing about his health or looks. According
to Alison Weir, there is also a draft speech by John
Russell for the opening of the planned post-coronation
parliament, which praises Edward's intelligence and virtuous
disposition, but I think this comes under the heading of
conventional sentiments (no one is likely to say anything
unpleasant about the monarch when making a speech on a state
occasion!) Mancini, as a foreigner with no obvious axe to
grind, is likely to be reasonably reliable.<br><br>The
disfigurement point is a good one. If my university library has
a copy of the Tanner & Wright article, I will see
what they have to say. According to my mother, who is
a radiographer, the signs they noticed in the bones
would be the sinuses which would develop as a result of
chronic osteomyelitis, and the degree of disfigurement at
the time of death would presumably reflect the number
and size of the sinuses. Unfortunately, the secondary
commentators are all interested in the age and sex of the
individuals represented by the bones, not their state of
health.<br><br>I think we have to be a little cautious in
speculating on whether Edward V would have been unwilling to
show himself in public, because he seems to have
appeared in public very little after he went to Ludlow at
the age of two. Once he was lodged in the Tower from
the beginning of May 1483, there was no reason for
him to appear in public. <br><br>As far as Edward
IV's reaction to the potentially fatal illness of his
heir apparent is concerned, there is the possibility
that Edward IV and his Queen could have been 'in
denial', to use the modern idiom, as I believe is not
uncommon with parents whose children have terminal
illnesses such as cancer. Further, we do not really know
what sort of education the young Duke of York was
having, since we know very little of his life. Obviously,
he was not being raised in the same way as the
Prince of Wales, but he could be expected to receive a
conventional nobleman's education, perhaps similar to that
which Edward IV himself had.

Re: Edward V's health

2002-02-11 22:15:13
jpearcey
Good points - I think we're thinking along the
same lines here. However, in terms of Edward V's
education, his was exceptional in that he had his own
household set up for him from the age of 3, with tutors
appointed by the king, a Council and his daily routine very
tightly constrained. This was unusual by the standards of
his own time and there is no doubt that the boy
received a very high level of education.<br><br>However,
in those days from about the age of 7-10 onwards,
most Noble-born boys were placed in a household of a
major Lord for education and training. Edward IV was
educated along with his brother in Ludlow, Richard was,
under Warwick the Kingmaker, yet young Richard of York
didn't seem to have any such arrangements made - and he
was very much of the age by which this could have
been expected to have happened. Or, to put it another
way, he wasn't being treated as though there was a
very realistic prospect of his replacing his brother
as heir. This doesn't indicate that there were
serious worries about the elder boy's health while Edward
was alive. The King and Queen had lost some of their
children, so it wouldn't have been something unthinkable
that a child may not mature to adulthood, they were
horribly only too aware of the fact. Yet, their spare
wasn't treated much like a spare who might
inherit!<br><br>Edward V very much appeared in public when he was
paraded through London by his Uncles and taken to the
Bishop's Palace before being moved to the apartments that
kings traditionally occupy before their coronation.
Presumably, the London crowds would have noticed any facial
deformity or anything that stopped him looking like his
father (and noses are particularly important in such
familial recognition), yet no reports suggest
this.<br><br>It is an interesting point to speculate whether or
not, were Edward suddenly looking deformed, if Richard
would have wished to show the boy in public, if he was
looking appalling. The rumours that this would have given
arise to may have added fuel to the notions of poison
or other issues.

Re: Edward V's health

2002-02-11 23:47:49
willison2001
Assuming Edward V was suffering from this sinus
disease, it may be that the illness was not so advanced as
to result in disfigurement.<br><br>As for medical
opinion of the time, I shouldn't think this was of much
use. Even by the 17th century, diagnosis, re. Bubonic
plague, and treatment, e.g. the excessive use of
bleeding, was crude to say the least. During the 17th
century there were cases of the liver being removed
because it was thought to be the cause of crime! Edward
IV may've been in denial about his son's health, but
he was more likely to have been in the dark about
prognosis.<br><br>Dr. Argentine is recorded as being Edward V's
physician and one of the last to leave him. Interesting
that Edward needed a physician in attendance, which
may suggest that Edward was suffering from the jaw
complaint. Argentine reported that the young King was sunk
in melancholy, unlike his brother who, elsewhere,
was described as happy. Edward's melancholia may have
been due to fear for his future or the disease he
appears to have suffered from!

The curse of the Gloucester's.

2002-02-11 23:52:13
willison2001
Apart from Hasting's warning about a Woodville
plot, their very suspicious behaviour and history,
Richard probably was aware of the fate of two previous
Dukes of Gloucester, under Richard II & Henry VI. Both
were executed through power struggles. Richard was
bound to be watching his back!

Re: Tanner & Wright re.Edward V's health

2002-02-12 00:26:44
willison2001
I've a copy of Tanner & Wright (1935.) Chronic
osteomyelitis isn't mentioned, as far as I read! The lower jaw
indicated, it was stated, 'effects of disease in the region
of the molar teeth.' It was said that 'the disease
was of a chronic nature and could not fail to have
affected his general health.' It was reported that one
reason why his mother agreed to part with her younger
son was because of the depression which Edward is
said to have suffered, which the disease in part may
well have accounted for!<br><br>For those who doubt
that these were the princes, Tanner & Wright refer to
'consanguinity' 'of no small significance' in the teeth and
crania. 'Lamboid sutures, Wormian bones, absence of upper
second premolars & lower second deciduous' were
identical with both. So, we have right ages, probablity of
kinship, expensive velvet found with the bones which
suggests that these were well-born and right location,
secretly buried under a staircase, for these remains to be
the princes. Who else could they have
been?<br><br>The report of Tanner & Wright is quite long, but my
time is short, so I may have missed something
relevant.

Re: The curse of the Gloucester's.

2002-02-12 13:28:29
jpearcey
More to the point, each of those previous Dukes
had been appointed in a Protector's role and had
subsequently been destroyed by their charges, once their
charges were ruling in their own
right.<br><br>Interestingly enough, the Duke of Somerset managed to loes his
head over Edward VI - Protector doesn't seem to be a
job with any hope of a good life expectancy, and I
suspect that Richard knew that well enough!

Re: Tanner & Wright re.Edward V's health

2002-02-12 13:36:53
jpearcey
Except that the velvet was subsequently reported,
but not found with the bones, bodies dating back to
Roman times have been found in and around the Tower
(and Thomas More was definite that the bodies had been
moved from under a staircase, so unless the priest
doing the moving decided to dig under a different
staircase rather than in the graveyard a few yards away, it
suggests that the bodies cannot be the Princes because
they were found under a stair) and it was unclear
whether or not the features found were due to restricted
earlier diets or were hereditary. For instance, losing
the same teeth doesn't run in families (but may be
due to a shared environment, especially if it's a one
bad for teeth!) and nobody knows how common the
Wormian bone feature was then. Additionally, they didn't
bother sexing the skeletons and due to differences in
diet, the estimates of the ages, or even the relative
ages of the children may be out by up to 5 years
either way (which gives a high degree of chance that
they cannot have been the boys).<br><br>Edward was 3
years old when his household was set up - a bit young
for his parents to decide that the boy wasn't much
fun to have around so they could get rid of his!

Re: Tanner & Wright re.Edward V's health

2002-02-12 16:14:43
willison2001
Regarding the velvet, it may've been purloined as
were parts of the skeleton for souvenirs.<br><br>One
view is that the remains were moved to this staircase
because it opened up to the Tower Keep chapel! Richard
seemed to like moving bodies as a recompense, as with
Henry VI who was moved to Windsor.<br><br>The fact that
the bodies were buried under a staircase suggest
something underhand about the deaths. Remember, Buckingham
is a candidate as executioner.<br><br>Reviews of the
dental evidence since 1935 have certainly been
suggestive that these were the boys.

Re: Edward V's health

2002-02-12 20:19:56
aelyon2001
I have now been able to read the Tanner & Wright
article, which, as David Willison has said since your
posting, does not mention osteomyelitis specifically (I
got the osteomyelitis suggestion from Alison Weir,
and assumed that Tanner & Wright had made it). The
relevant paragraph (p.18 of their article) reads as
follows:-<br><br>'There is undoubted evidence of "Edward" having suffered
from extensive disease affecting almost equally both
sides of the lower jaw, originating in or around the
molar teeth, from the sockets of which the
inter-radicular septa had been entirely absorbed. On the left
side the disease had spread to such an extent that it
had destroyed the inter-dental septum between the
first and second molar teeth. The disease was of a
chronic nature and could not fail to have affected his
general health. It may well have accounted, in part at
least, for the depression which he is said to have
suffered...'<br><br>Looking at the relevant photograph (Fig.1) the two
rearmost tooth sockets on the left side have become one,
considerably enlarged by comparison with the two on the right,
and the edges have been smoothed out. I am not
qualified to comment on the ones on the right - not knowing
what normal molar sockets look like!<br><br>I wonder
where Weir gets her 'probably osteomyelitis' from? Did
she consult any experts? If she is correct, then all
we have said about the individual concerned remains
valid - we are dealing with something very serious,
though probably less advanced than we had
assumed.<br><br>As to the Duke of York's education, the fact that he
does not seem to have been sent to any other household
may mean nothing. According to Michael Hicks, whose
book 'False, Fleeting Perjur'd Clarence was based on
his Ph.D thesis so presumably thoroughly researched,
Clarence, who was Edward IV's heir presumptive at the time,
essentially had his own establishment at Greenwich until he
was declared of age in 1466, when he was 17. Tutors
etc. were assigned to him, as shown in official
records of expenses. I wonder if anyone has done a comb
through the records for evidence on the Duke of York's
upbringing, or indeed that of Edward IV's daughters.

Re: Tanner & Wright re.Edward V's health

2002-02-12 21:03:06
div2sig
If as you state Buckingham was a candidate for
the murder of the princes,why say that Richard moved
the bodies.<br>Why not say Richard did the murders
personaly and carried the bodies around with him under his
cloak so that shakespear would be able to describe him
as a hunchback.<br>Richard may not have known where
the bodies were or that a murder had taken place
unless he ordered it or was told of it.

Re: Tanner & Wright re.Edward V's health

2002-02-13 00:28:02
willison2001
If Buckingham, not Richard, had the princes murdered, it's possible Richard found out & had them buried closer to sanctified ground!

Re: Tanner & Wright re.Edward V's health

2002-02-13 08:07:45
jpearcey
The More story said that when Richard found out
that they'd been buried under a stair, he ordered that
they be moved from "so vile a corner, as they were a
King's sons." It would be perverse, should somebody
interpret that order as to move them to under a different
staircase! Besides, it is far easier to dig in a graveyard
(soil, earth etc., plus of course, consecrated ground),
or even just open somebody's tomb and toss the
little bodies in, than dig under a stair, which tends to
have solid foundations, or at least been packed with
rubble etc., to stop it sinking and wobbling.
Additionally, they'd have had to dig under a stair and not
leave the surface obviously disturbed, and not be
spotted while doing it, although stairways in the Tower
were fairly busy routes for people at all times of the
day and night. The account of the bodies is clear
that they were found under the stair itself, deep in
the ground, not merely hidden "under the stairs" in
any space in the stairwell. So, if the stair was
there when they'd been buried, it would have been quite
a job to bury them there.<br><br>So, if the More
account is to have any credence (which is the account
leaned on by those who believe that the bones were those
of the boys), the fact that they were found under a
stairway counts against them being the
Princes.<br><br>Burying under a stair makes no sense anyway - it's the
difference between somebody being "buried in concrete" by
being added to the mix when a bridge is being built, or
somebody attempting to bury somebody in concrete by
chipping a hole in a bridge support and putting a body in
there. The former is feasible, the latter unlikely,
except for the perverse.<br><br>I would be very
interested to know what year the stair in question had been
built. My suspicions are that the bodies came from the
period of the stair being built, as that's when it would
make more sense to hide a body underneath it. If the
stair was built in 1483, then that would strongly
suggest that they were the bodies in question. If built,
say, 100 years earlier, then it's unlikely.<br><br>It
should easily be possible to date the bones to at least
the Century in which they died by radioisotopic
methods. The Tower occupies a site which has been in
continuous occupation for over 2,000 years. One skeleton dug
up there relatively recently turned out to be Roman.
The velvet is an extra which was added to the tale
later - for some reason it seems that those who found
the bones didn't immediately think that this was
important (erm just how often did they dig up chests
stuffed with the corpses of children in those days?) but
threw them onto the midden, from which they were
retrieved. There was no velvet found in the exhumation in
the 1930s and it may well have been added to the
story when people got the idea that it may have been
the Princes. Stories grow in the telling. Scraps may
also have been found on the same midden heap and got
mixed up with them along with the animal bones and fish
bones in there.

Re: Tanner & Wright re.Edward V's health

2002-02-13 11:24:08
willison2001
I'm sure that More was dependant on a ragbag of
gossip going about concerning where the princes had been
buried. One view was that they'd been buried under a
staircase (which was physically possible if time was
allowed) and someone else had to account for the fact that
no remains had been found. It seems that no-one
wanted to dig up every staircase in the Tower (I'm not
surprised.) However, if the Tyrell confession was genuine &
he knew where the bodies were, why didn't Henry
Tudor give them a proper burial; brothers to his wife?!
It would've scuppered reports of pretenders,
possibly, too. Other theories about what happened to the
princes abound. It's possible that Richard or Buckingham
did away with them, but Tyrell wasn't the agent, but
someone who died a violent death a little
later.<br><br>The reference to the velvet says that the bones were
discovered with 'pieces of rag and velvet about them.' So, a
connection between the bones & velvet is made, if we believe
this account.<br><br>A modern examination,
particularly carbon dating & comparison with a sister
(Elizabeth lies not far away in Westminster Abbey), would
help, but the Authorities perhaps don't want to start
an avalanche of digging up Royal remains & they
think the evidence to identify the princes is
sufficient.

The death of Edward V

2002-02-13 11:38:59
willison2001
Both Buckingham and Tudor acted in 1483 as though
marriage to Elizabeth of York was of importance and so did
Richard in his public declaration that he would not harm
her, her sisters & Mother, if they came out of
Sanctuary.<br><br>Elizabeth wasn't significant if Edward V or his brother
were still alive, so why didn't Richard produce them
to scupper Tudor and why did he act as though they
were dead?

Re: Tanner & Wright re.Edward V's health

2002-02-14 21:32:52
jpearcey
It strikes me that the authorities might be
concerned that the bones turn out to have nothing to do
with any Royalty, after 300+ years of reverent
burial!<br><br>The problem with a stairway burial is that it's so
much harder than the obvious alternatives. Opening up
a tomb in the nearby graveyard would be so much
easier and as hard to detect, as many families were
buried together, so an extra couple of child bones would
not be noticed.<br><br>Burying under an existing
stair requires being able (presumably in the course of
a night), to remove part of a stair, dig a deep
hole, disposing of the bodies, filling in the hole,
then replacing the stairs so that nobody would notice
the disturbance and then get rid of the surplus soil.
All without any servant or somebody attempting to use
the stair in question and catching them. The Tower
was a busy place with a lot of
residents.<br><br>Frankly, it doesn't make sense that anybody would bury
somebody there, when far easier and harder to detect
alternatives were at hand!<br><br>That the bodies were deep
under the stair indicates that either the stair was
built over the already buried bodies, or the bodies
were put there during the construction. Seamlessly
hiding them under an existing stair, in the manner
described by their discovery would be a very tall order to
manage in a single night in such a fashion that it would
not be obvious what happened.

Re: Tanner & Wright

2002-02-14 23:31:17
willison2001
The Westminster Abbey authorities would perhaps
feel that the wrongful burial of, say, Roman bones
would appear silly, so this being exposed would be
undesirable.<br><br>'The problem with a stairway burial is that it's so
much harder than the obvious
alternatives.'<br><br>It's possible that the people responsible didn't have
your sense of logic over a graveyard burial or felt
that taking the bodies out of the White Tower
structure was dangerous in that someone outside would've
noticed! Digging up the graveyard of the Chapel of St.
Peter ad Vincula might've raised a few
eyebrows.<br><br>I'm not sure that burial during 1483 can be
completely ruled out, although your idea that either the
stair was built over the already buried bodies, or the
bodies were put there during the construction, also,
seem possible. I'm not sure that anyone would inspect
the rear of a staircase for disturbance. Tudor & his
lackeys would not've known what was new or old & death
may've intervened with those who would've thought twice.
Brackenbury, Richard's Constable of the Tower, died with his
King.<br><br>Anyway, whether Richard killed the princes or not, we are
talking about tragedy indeed. An able and courageous man
faced with an impossible situation & so he fought
against his enemies, including Edward V I would say, to
the bitter end & why not?<br><br>'What is rule, reign
& pomp, but earth & dust,<br>And live how we can,
yet die we must!' <br> <br><br> This Is a Reply to:
Msg 828 by willison2001

Re: Tanner & Wright

2002-02-18 14:51:12
div2sig
The picture of Richard actually killing the
Princes was the one described to me when at school.<br>A
hunch backed figure with just the light from a small
lantern digging a hole on some steps in the tower.
Covering the the bodies (the teacher had already told us
that he had suffocated them in their beds)with the
soil repalcing the stone step with the help of the
other conspiritors them stabbing them and throwing
their bodies into the Thames. That is the picture that
we the Supporters of Richard dont beleive,Well I
don't anyhow

NEW BOY CHECKING IN.

2002-02-21 21:49:57
gwandad2002
Hello fellow seekers after truth.<br><br>My
handle is gwandad2002 and my special interest is
military history. I have written a number of books on the
Wars of the Roses, which is a particular interest,
and, through them, have come to new conclusions on the
death of the Princes in the Tower.<br><br>In brief, I
do NOT believe that they were killed by their
"wicked uncle", but were put down by Buckingham, who was
brainwashed, and working under the influence of, the
undoubtedly wicked John Morton [he of The Fork] aided and
abetted by Margaret Beaufort and her ever-loving spouse,
the Arch-trimmer, Thomas Stanley.<br><br>Does anybody
want to compare views on this fascinating area of
study? If not, what else is there to talk
over??<br><br>Best to you all,<br><br>Gwandad2002

Landed safely

2002-02-21 23:28:23
yorkistbushboy
so I've arrived safely once more back in the fifteenth, this time by modern means <g>!<br>Looking forward to some great debating.

Landed safely

2002-02-21 23:28:23
yorkistbushboy
so I've arrived safely once more back in the fifteenth, this time by modern means <g>!<br>Looking forward to some great debating.

Re: The Richard III Society Elections.

2002-02-22 19:30:56
ukaflyer
It is with regret that I have to remove this
message from the Forum. The Forum is a vehicle for
discussing issues relating to Richard and the Fifteenth
Century - see Founder's Message on the Home Page. It is
not a vehicle for discussing political issues
pertaining to the Richard III Society.<br><br>I would like
to point out that the appointment of a new Society
Chairman is in the gift of the Committee only and is not
for general election by the members. (The Society can
be likened to a big corporation where the Chairman
is elected by the Board and not the shareholders.)
It is up to the Committee to elect the right person
for the job. Manifestos were requested to be sent
direct to the Committee and were not not meant to be for
public consumption. The Committee has received two
manifestos for this post.<br><br>I hope this will clear up
any misconceptions.

Re: Bodies under staircases

2002-02-23 04:28:44
brontewcat
The fact More says that the bodies were moved
from the staircase later may not count for much.
Richard may well have ordered the bodies to be moved, but
that does not mean they actually were
moved.<br><br>Note Hastings was beheaded on a block of wood, said to
have beeen left by workmen. If that is so it suggests
construction work, which could have included the staircase. I
think the idea of checking when the staircase was
constucted is an excellent idea.<br>If the bodies were
buried and a staircase constructed over them it would
sugest a reason why the bodies were not moved - it would
have been too difficult. Therefore those responsible
for moving the bodies could have simply told Richard
the bodies had been moved.

Re: Bodies under staircases

2002-02-23 04:41:33
brontewcat
Correction to previous post - the block of wood
is described as being a piece of timber(by the Great
Chronicle and More)- ie a milled piece of wood generally
used for construction, as opposed to a piece of wood
for burning. This suggests construction work within
the Tower

Katherine Plantagenet

2002-02-23 05:56:18
islanddreamzzz
On a different topic now, can anyone tell me
where Katherine Plantagenet, bastard daughter of
Richard is buried? I recall reading that she was married
at some stage to a minor(?) nobleman. Any info on
this shadowy woman would be appreciated.<br><br>Shaun

Re: Bodies under staircases

2002-02-23 10:07:18
jpearcey
Good points - there must be records somewhere in the Tower archives which show what was being constructed and approximately when.

Re: Katherine Plantagenet

2002-02-23 11:02:31
ukaflyer
Katherine Plantagenet was married to William
Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon in 1484 as Richard III's way
of winning his support. Charles Ross implies that he
accepted the King's bastard daughter as his second wife
due to his lack of funds. (He had been treated very
unfairly by Edward IV - the earldom of Pembroke being
taken from him and replaced with the inferior earldom
of Huntingdon.) Richard settled on them property
worth 1,000 marks (about ý666) plus a cash annuity of
ý150 which was very generous. I think Katherine died
in childbirth in 1485.<br><br>I'm afraid I don't
know where she was buried.

Re: Katherine Plantagenet

2002-02-23 15:42:44
ukaflyer
Further to my previous comments about Katherine
Plantagenet, Rosemary Horrox, in her book 'Richard III: A
Study in Service', states that one Katherine Haute, a
kinswoman of Queen Elizabeth Woodville, received an annuity
of ý5 from the Duke of Gloucester throughout the
1470's. There is no explanation of why she should be
receiving this money from the duke and Rosemary Horrox
speculates that it could be because she had been the duke's
mistress and the mother of Katherine - hence the name.

Re: Bodies under staircases

2002-02-23 23:38:51
div2sig
Once again it is there "Richard may well have
ordered the bodies to be moved". What prove that Richard
knew about the bodies. If there is prove when what is
the purpose of the society in defending him and
making out that Shakespear was wrong and that he was as
bad as he has been painted.

Re: Bodies under staircases

2002-02-24 10:21:13
aelyon2001
I'm not sure that we are here solely to defend
Richard. What we are seeking to do, I think, is to balance
the one-sided view of him as a monster of villainy
which has come down from Shakespeare and More. This
does not mean seeking to portray Richard as a saint,
but to establish what he did and did not do (on a
balance of probabilities, as proof is impossible), and to
set him in the context of his own time. In any case,
there is more to Richard than the fate of his
nephews.<br><br>As far as the bodies are concerned, we do not know
who did or ordered what, and, given the unreliability
of the sources, can never know. My feeling is that,
given the obvious difficulty of burying corpses
secretly inside an existing staircase, it is more likely
that the bodies were put there during the
construction, so that we do need to establish when the
staircase was built. I have read that it was not unknown
for corpses to be deliberately placed in the
foundations of buildings during construction for
superstitious reasons. Perhaps this was a survival of pagan
practice, though I have no idea whether this was(a) a
common practice, or (b) a complete myth analogous to
that of droit de seigneur.

Re: Bodies under staircases

2002-02-24 18:34:28
jpearcey
I wonder if some far future archaeologists will
wonder if inserting bodies in concrete was a sacrificial
practice that was occasionally part of our rituals for
ensuring that the bridges or foundations were guarded and
secure...<br><br>I suspect that as long as people have had a small
percentage amongst them who have unlawfully killed bodies to
dispose of, freshly dug foundations of something intended
to be solid and there for a long time would have
been regarded as a useful location for their
disposal.<br><br>The Tower was under almost continuous construction in
one part or another for hundreds of years, it was
always being added to, bits being demolished and
rebuilt. Most of the changes are quite well logged in the
records of the Tower (guides can usually tell visitors
when various parts were built and by whom), so there
must be some information somewhere as to when that
particular staircase was constructed.<br><br>Jackie

Re: Bodies under staircases

2002-02-24 20:45:05
div2sig
Perhaps more investigation into when the staircase was built may be more successful than tying to get the bones DNA tested.

Re: The staircase

2002-02-24 23:43:16
willison2001
Even if the staircase in question was built in
1066 that doesn't preclude the possibility that
someone excavated a grave into its foundation.<br><br>The
1674 bones appear to be the right ages, have family
relationship & the velvet seen on one of them suggest post
1400.<br><br>Mancini, Croyland, London Chronicle & More all point the
finger at Richard, whose attention moved from Edward V
to Tudor's proposed marriage to Edward V's sister in
1483, which suggests that both brothers had
died.<br><br>Richard had motive (the scare over the 1483 rebellion in
the name of Edward V) & opportunity (the princes were
imprisoned by him) to kill them.<br><br>What if he did? What
if More was right & Richard's conscience was
affected? Didn't Richard have Grey, Edward V's half
brother, executed? If Edward V was a threat & he most
certainly would've been had he escaped, wasn't it normal
practice to eliminate such individuals? Does this prevent
Richard from being a basically good & able man?

Re: The staircase

2002-02-25 16:11:50
ptb2002uk
"Richard had motive (the scare over the 1483
rebellion in the name of Edward V) & opportunity (the
princes were imprisoned by him) to kill them."<br><br>But
please remember that Richard was highly intelligent, so
the last thing he would have done had he had his
nephews killed, < which I am certain he did NOT,>
would be to chuck them in a hole in such a highly
populated and busy place as the Tower. He would have
followed precedent and had the bodies displayed, then
buried, after having given out that they "died from some
disease or illness". This is what his brother had done
with the corpses of Henry VI and Edward of Lancaster
so that no doubt would be left in anyone's minds
that Lancaster was no more.

Re: The staircase

2002-02-25 16:53:08
willison2001
'But please remember that Richard was highly
intelligent, so the last thing he would have done had he had
his nephews killed, < which I am certain he did
NOT,'<br><br>It depends what you mean when you say 'highly.' We
aren't suggesting genius level? How come you are so
certain that Richard didn't kill his nephews? He
certainly got rid of Rivers, Grey & Hastings to protect
himself & he had the motive & opportunity to rid himself
of Edward V & his brother.<br><br>' He would have
followed precedent and had the bodies displayed, then
buried, after having given<br> out that they "died from
some disease or illness". This is what his brother had
done with the corpses of Henry VI and Edward of
Lancaster.'<br><br>Fine doing this with obvious enemies, but Richard, who
I agree was no fool, may have realised that he was
skating on thin ice in taking his brother's son's throne
& killing them, if indeed he did, in terms of this
was likely to court unpopularity, which, incidently,
proved to be the case.

Re: The staircase

2002-02-25 19:17:59
ptb2002uk
"It depends what you mean when you say 'highly.'
We aren't suggesting genius level? "<br><br>of
course not, but certainly as clever, if not more so,
than his brother who he emulated so often<br><br>"How
come you are so certain that Richard didn't kill his
nephews? "<br><br>When you've studied a subject for as
long as I have you get a feeling for the man, and
murdering the boys, who legally were no longer a threat
thanks to Titulus Regius, was just not something he
would have done, or indeed feel the need to do. I
disagree with you when you say he had the
motive.<br><br>"' He would have followed precedent and had the
bodies displayed, then buried, after having given<br>out
that they "died from some disease or illness". This is
what his brother had done with the corpses of Henry VI
and Edward of Lancaster.'<br><br>Fine doing this with
obvious enemies, but Richard, who I agree was no fool,
"<br><br>thank you<br><br>"may have realised that he was skating
on thin ice in taking his brother's son's throne &
killing them,"<br><br>so he wouldn't have right? you are
arguing against yourself here aren't you?<br><br> "if
indeed he did, "<br><br>careful now!<br><br>"in terms of
this was likely to court unpopularity, which,
incidently, proved to be the case. "<br><br>so he wouldn't
have just killed them and dumped them in a hole would
her if as you now say, he knew it would court
unpopularity. He would either have kept them alive to bring out
in case of questions being asked, or had them die of
a diplomatic illness so that everyone would know
once he buried them publicly that they were no more

Re: The staircase

2002-02-25 21:52:48
willison2001
I accept that Richard was clever & basically a
good man, but good men have to do bad things to their
enemies sometimes!<br><br>'murdering the boys, who
legally were no longer a threat thanks to Titulus Regius,
was just not something he would have
done,'<br><br>Edward V would hardly have accepted Titulus Regius as
anything other than a fabrication. Edward V was very much
a threat in 1483, he was pro-Woodville (Richard's
competitors for power) & he'd been deposed & imprisoned by
Richard. A rebellion exploded in 1483 which intended to
release Edward. What do you think Edward V would've done
with Richard if this rebellion had succeeded?<br><br>
"may have realised that he was skating on thin ice in
taking his brother's son's throne & killing
them,"<br><br>'so he wouldn't have right? you are arguing against
yourself here aren't you?'<br><br>No! Richard was in a
cleft stick. The princes were extremely dangerous given
that they wanted power back, but killing them wasn't
likely to endear people to Richard ( they were young,
his nephews & Edward IV had been largely popular,) so
a private killing - a vanishing - made more sense.
Richard may've wanted them dead, but he wasn't likely to
want to broadcast their death, if it was due to his
order, to the world.<br><br>Courting unpopularity was
probably worth it as against courting certain death if
Edward V had been released.<br><br>' kept them alive to
bring out in case of questions being
asked,'<br><br>Questions were asked in England & France, but the princes
didn't emerge; probably because they were dead. And why
did Tudor & Richard focus on the question of their
sister's marriage if the princes still lived?<br><br>'or
had them die of a diplomatic illness so that everyone
would know once he buried them publicly that they were
no more'<br><br>A diplomatic death of both young
boys was improbable! News of their deaths was 'given
out' in 1483, according to Croyland. Mancini, More,
Vergil, the London Chronicles & Uncle Tom Cobley all said
that the feeling was that Richard had decided,
probably with great conscience( because he was a basically
decent man,) to remove what would've been ever growing
thorns in his side, just as earlier deposed monarchs had
been 'diplomatically' slaughtered: Edward 2, Richard
2, Henry 6!

Re: The staircase

2002-02-25 22:09:21
div2sig
I cannot beleive that if the princes were
murdered by Richard and accomplices that someome did'nt
let the secret out,it would be almost impossible to
keep quiet about it for long.Ok you can argue that the
treatment of the Jews by Hitler was not common knowledge in
Germany ,but in the court of England and even more in the
Tower, in what must have been a close knit community
,that the Prince's disappearance would not have gone
unoticed.

Re: The staircase

2002-02-25 23:42:46
willison2001
'I cannot beleive that if the princes were
murdered by Richard and accomplices that someome did'nt
let the secret out,it would be almost<br> impossible
to keep quiet about it for long.Ok you can argue
that the treatment of the Jews by Hitler was not
common knowledge in Germany ,but in the court of England
and even more in the Tower, in what must have been a
close knit community ,that the Prince's disappearance
would<br> not have gone unoticed.'<br><br>But Croyland, a
contemporary, states that in 1483 it was 'given out' that the
princes were dead; he doesn't suggest that they died from
natural causes. Mancini another contemporary felt that
Richard was capable of killing them. Richard himself
denied that he would harm Elizabeth if she came out of
sanctuary, which gives the impression that the threat of her
marriage to Tudor was now significant, because her
brothers were no more. The French Chancellor condemned
Richard for killing his nephews, which Richard never
denied.<br><br>If we take Richard Grey, half brother to Edward V,
it's on public record that Richard perceived him as a
threat & he was executed. Was his half brother Edward V
any less of a threat? Considerably more, so death was
Richard's way in dealing with enemies: Hastings, Rivers,
Vaughan, Buckingham, Collingbourne. He condoned the death
of Clarence & Henry VI (& his son.)<br><br>This
doesn't make him evil or a saint, just a man dealing with
a den of vipers!

Re: The staircase

2002-02-26 22:52:05
ozsomerset
"He condoned the death of Clarence & Henry VI (& his son.)"<br><br>How do you know this????

Re: The staircase

2002-02-26 23:38:47
willison2001
"He condoned the death of Clarence & Henry VI (&
his son.)"<br><br> How do you know this????
<br><br>Re. Henry VI's son, Richard fought on the opposing
side, so wasn't likely to break sweat over
that.<br><br>Re. Henry 6, according to a contemporary Chronicle,
Richard was present in the Tower when Henry was killed,
so Edward IV seems to have given the supervision of
this execution to his brother. Supervising a situation
= condoning.<br><br>Re. Clarence, Richard didn't
raise rebellion against brother Edward & seems to have
remained stumb...seems like condoning to me!

Re: The staircase

2002-02-27 20:13:29
aelyon2001
To mis-quote Professor Huxley of the Brains
Trust, 'It all depends what you mean by
condoning.'<br><br>As to Henry VI's son, Edward of Lancaster, there is
no firm evidence that he was killed in any way other
than in the course of battle, and I see no particular
reason to think that he was murdered. Tewkesbury was a
hard-fought battle, and Lord Wenlock, who was nominally
Lancaster's second-in-command, but in reality the commander
of his division, was killed in the fighting. If we
discount the later tale that the Duke of Somerset went
berserk and set about Wenlock with a battle axe, that
implies that there was fierce fighting in the immediate
vicinity of Lancaster, and no reason why he should not
have pitched in with enthusiasm and got killed.
Granted his entourage might have tried to get him away,
but that is just the sort of thing a hot-headed young
man filled with battle fury would resist. Certainly
his death was convenient for Edward IV, but that ofd
itself does not mean that he was deliberately murdered.
Once he was dead all reason to spare his father
evaporated, and killing Henry VI then made excellent
political sense. <br><br>As to Clarence, Richard found
himself between the devil and the deep blue sea, and the
fact that he did not raise a rebellion to prevent the
killing does not of itself imply that he was happy about
it.

Re: The staircase

2002-02-28 23:29:35
willison2001
'It all depends what you mean by
condoning.'<br><br>I think that Richard chose to overlook the deaths
of these three.<br><br>This was hardly surprising
concerning Henry VI & his son, who were
enemies.<br><br>Regarding brother Clarence, Richard appears to have been
involved in a major argument with him over Richard's
marriage to a Neville heiress, Clarence behaved foolishly
& Richard knew he wasn't likely to win a battle
against Edward IV, who he may've disliked more than he
was letting on. Edward left a lot to be desired with
his excessive womanising & gluttony.<br><br>What
probably worried Richard more directly was that an older
brother could be pulled down by a baying pack of
Woodvilles. He didn't intend to go the same way. His Father &
brother's deaths reminded him how dangerous life can be.

Re: Condoning

2002-03-01 18:14:39
aelyon2001
What we have to remember is that in the period
1460-90 those in high places were very hard-boiled and
unsentimental, not least about family affections, simply because
they had to be. <br><br>Possibly Edward IV's biggest
mistake was that although he was capable of extremes of
ruthlessness on occasion, he was insufficiently hard-boiled
with his wife. Edward IV as a hen-pecked husband? It
explains a good deal.

Re: Condoning

2002-03-02 13:14:55
willison2001
I agree totally with Edward IV as a hen-pecked
husband: the promotion of Elizabeth Woodville's family,
Edward's decline into alcohol & excessive sexual licence,
Richard's & other's obvious annoyance with the situation.
If Edward was happy in his marriage why did he seek
satisfaction with so many other women?<br><br>People who think
that women in relationships don't usually exert
considerable influence over their partners have never been in
a relationship. A woman can make or mar a man. In
the case of Edward IV the evidence speaks for itself.

Re: New photos in American Gallery

2012-11-12 17:24:19
blancsanglier1452
This sounds good. Did anybody ever see the pic?

--- In , patriotUK wrote:
>
> I brought up the subject of a model of Middleham
> Castle in chat one Sunday. The model was featured in a
> magazine called "Military Modelling" in March 1984 and was
> built by Ian Weekley to 20mm scale. It was exhibited at
> Middleham Castle during the 500th anniversary celebrations
> in 1983 and was even inspected by the present Duke
> of Gloucester. If anybody wants any further details
> of the article, construction or pictures I will
> happily supply them just leave an offline message on
> messenger or catch me online. Regards PatriotUK (Eddie)
>