Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-03-16 22:55:40
Whilst digging around on Bosworth I stumbled across this in the NA:
A. 4790. Indenture whereby Francis, viscount Lovell, desires that his undermentioned feoffees shall convey to Anne Lovell, his wife, in fee, the manor of Halse and Brakley, which he had together with the manors of Thorp-Watrefeld, Duston, and Tysshemershe, formerly granted to them, viz. to Thomas, lord Scrope, of Upsale, Richard Ratclyf, William Catysby and Thomas Malyverer, knights, George Fitzhugh, clerk, Geoffrey and Edward Franke, Thomas Metcalf and James Walton, in trust for his said wife, if she should survive him, for her life; for which the said Anne is to find two fit priests to celebrate for the soul of the said Francis &c. in the University of Oxford or of Cambridge, for thirty years &c. Woborn, 10 June, 2 Richard III.
Looking at the date I am wondering whether
a. it's a typical 'will' of someone contemplating battle and transferring their prime property to their wife to avoid attainder (Titchmarsh is the original Lovell homeland, Brackley and Woodford Halse are in Northants)
b. a 'seaman's will' since he was off to intercept HT at sea
c. an indication that he wasn't over-confident that HT could be defeated i.e. that he was more than a nuisance rebel who would be easily put down so he was putting his affairs in order
Or none of those things.
Anyone any idea. Would make a good exam question wouldn't it? :) :) H (who doesn't know the answer)
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-18 20:48:54
Hilary wrote:
Whilst digging around on Bosworth I stumbled across this in the NA:
A. 4790. Indenture whereby Francis, viscount Lovell, desires that his undermentioned feoffees shall convey to Anne Lovell, his wife, in fee, the manor of Halse and Brakley, which he had together with the manors of Thorp-Watrefeld, Duston, and Tysshemershe, formerly granted to them, viz. to Thomas, lord Scrope, of Upsale, Richard Ratclyf, William Catysby and Thomas Malyverer, knights, George Fitzhugh, clerk, Geoffrey and Edward Franke, Thomas Metcalf and James Walton, in trust for his said wife, if she should survive him, for her life; for which the said Anne is to find two fit priests to celebrate for the soul of the said Francis &c. in the University of Oxford or of Cambridge, for thirty years &c. Woborn, 10 June, 2 Richard III.Looking at the date I am wondering whether
a. it's a typical 'will' of someone contemplating battle and transferring their prime property to their wife to avoid attainder (Titchmarsh is the original Lovell homeland, Brackley and Woodford Halse are in Northants)
b. a 'seaman's will' since he was off to intercept HT at sea
c. an indication that he wasn't over-confident that HT could be defeated i.e. that he was more than a nuisance rebel who would be easily put down so he was putting his affairs in order
Or none of those things.
Anyone any idea. Would make a good exam question wouldn't it? :) :) H (who doesn't know the answer)
Doug here:
Personally, I'd go with a combination of a and b, if that's allowed. I'm basing that on my scant knowledge of dating records by the years of a reign. Presumably 1 Richard III would refer to the period between Richard's coronation and the anniversary of that event. So, 2 Richard III would be between July 1484 and July 1485? There was already plenty of evidence that Tudor, if he could get French backing, would attempt an invasion and, if/when that did occur, the odds were that Lovell would be with Richard resisting it. And all sorts of things can happen during war-tine, let alone during the actual fighting! Then, when one Considers the craft that were employed in the Channel, simply in trying to cross to France or the Low Countries, one was placing one's life in jeopardy.
And we must never forget is that, without Stanley's undoubted treason, and Northumberland's likely treason, Richard would have been victorious at Bosworth.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 10:27:40
Doug it's 10 June 1485; it's at the end of the second para after Woburn. That's why it attracted me because it's so close to Bosworth.
I tend to agree with you but Lovell to me is one of the foggier characters in this story, mainly because he's been turned by a lot of fiction authors into Richard's oldest buddy. In fact he was 4 years' younger than Richard which is an enormous age difference when you're in your teens. It's questionable whether their training at Middleham ever co-incided, he would be arriving at about the time Richard was leaving and he would be 12 to Richard's 16. So he was too young to fight at Tewkesbury and Barnet and doesn't really crop up again until he gets mention in the York House Books and then goes on to the Scottish Wars. Was he dropping by for Sunday lunch at Middleham all these years, or was their relationship more distant until Scotland? The only other thing I think we have is that he and Richard were admitted to the same Guild (can't remember whether it was York or Durham).After Scotland he seems to have come to the fore, but not on the scale of Buckingham. I often wonder what he thought of Buckingham. Incidentally, if Morton could convert Buckingham one wonders how many others he was working on in that heady summer of 1483. So we get to 1485 and there are a number of fairly questionable things.First, he lets HT's fleet slip round him to Milford Haven - well fair enough that can be forgiven. Then we assume he was at Bosworth but as Richard's closest friend why didn't he join him in the charge? He's then able to escape both from the battle and Catesby's fate and finally, having helped engineer the rebels towards Stoke, they are killed but he just vanishes into thin air and even his wife doesn't know what happened. In a period of very strange things this is yet another one and I'm not sure. What if this agreement was to protect him from attainder, not by HT (who as you say nobody would then have thought as a likely victor) but by Richard? H
(sorry I know I'll offend some with this, but sometimes it's interesting to think outside the box)
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 18 March 2017, 20:48
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary wrote: Whilst digging around on Bosworth I stumbled across this in the NA: A. 4790. Indenture whereby Francis, viscount Lovell, desires that his undermentioned feoffees shall convey to Anne Lovell, his wife, in fee, the manor of Halse and Brakley, which he had together with the manors of Thorp-Watrefeld, Duston, and Tysshemershe, formerly granted to them, viz. to Thomas, lord Scrope, of Upsale, Richard Ratclyf, William Catysby and Thomas Malyverer, knights, George Fitzhugh, clerk, Geoffrey and Edward Franke, Thomas Metcalf and James Walton, in trust for his said wife, if she should survive him, for her life; for which the said Anne is to find two fit priests to celebrate for the soul of the said Francis &c. in the University of Oxford or of Cambridge, for thirty years &c. Woborn, 10 June, 2 Richard III. Looking at the date I am wondering whether a. it's a typical 'will' of someone contemplating battle and transferring their prime property to their wife to avoid attainder (Titchmarsh is the original Lovell homeland, Brackley and Woodford Halse are in Northants) b. a 'seaman's will' since he was off to intercept HT at sea c. an indication that he wasn't over-confident that HT could be defeated i.e. that he was more than a nuisance rebel who would be easily put down so he was putting his affairs in order Or none of those things. Anyone any idea. Would make a good exam question wouldn't it? :) :) H (who doesn't know the answer) Doug here: Personally, I'd go with a combination of a and b, if that's allowed. I'm basing that on my scant knowledge of dating records by the years of a reign. Presumably 1 Richard III would refer to the period between Richard's coronation and the anniversary of that event. So, 2 Richard III would be between July 1484 and July 1485? There was already plenty of evidence that Tudor, if he could get French backing, would attempt an invasion and, if/when that did occur, the odds were that Lovell would be with Richard resisting it. And all sorts of things can happen during war-tine, let alone during the actual fighting! Then, when one Considers the craft that were employed in the Channel, simply in trying to cross to France or the Low Countries, one was placing one's life in jeopardy. And we must never forget is that, without Stanley's undoubted treason, and Northumberland's likely treason, Richard would have been victorious at Bosworth. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I tend to agree with you but Lovell to me is one of the foggier characters in this story, mainly because he's been turned by a lot of fiction authors into Richard's oldest buddy. In fact he was 4 years' younger than Richard which is an enormous age difference when you're in your teens. It's questionable whether their training at Middleham ever co-incided, he would be arriving at about the time Richard was leaving and he would be 12 to Richard's 16. So he was too young to fight at Tewkesbury and Barnet and doesn't really crop up again until he gets mention in the York House Books and then goes on to the Scottish Wars. Was he dropping by for Sunday lunch at Middleham all these years, or was their relationship more distant until Scotland? The only other thing I think we have is that he and Richard were admitted to the same Guild (can't remember whether it was York or Durham).After Scotland he seems to have come to the fore, but not on the scale of Buckingham. I often wonder what he thought of Buckingham. Incidentally, if Morton could convert Buckingham one wonders how many others he was working on in that heady summer of 1483. So we get to 1485 and there are a number of fairly questionable things.First, he lets HT's fleet slip round him to Milford Haven - well fair enough that can be forgiven. Then we assume he was at Bosworth but as Richard's closest friend why didn't he join him in the charge? He's then able to escape both from the battle and Catesby's fate and finally, having helped engineer the rebels towards Stoke, they are killed but he just vanishes into thin air and even his wife doesn't know what happened. In a period of very strange things this is yet another one and I'm not sure. What if this agreement was to protect him from attainder, not by HT (who as you say nobody would then have thought as a likely victor) but by Richard? H
(sorry I know I'll offend some with this, but sometimes it's interesting to think outside the box)
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 18 March 2017, 20:48
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary wrote: Whilst digging around on Bosworth I stumbled across this in the NA: A. 4790. Indenture whereby Francis, viscount Lovell, desires that his undermentioned feoffees shall convey to Anne Lovell, his wife, in fee, the manor of Halse and Brakley, which he had together with the manors of Thorp-Watrefeld, Duston, and Tysshemershe, formerly granted to them, viz. to Thomas, lord Scrope, of Upsale, Richard Ratclyf, William Catysby and Thomas Malyverer, knights, George Fitzhugh, clerk, Geoffrey and Edward Franke, Thomas Metcalf and James Walton, in trust for his said wife, if she should survive him, for her life; for which the said Anne is to find two fit priests to celebrate for the soul of the said Francis &c. in the University of Oxford or of Cambridge, for thirty years &c. Woborn, 10 June, 2 Richard III. Looking at the date I am wondering whether a. it's a typical 'will' of someone contemplating battle and transferring their prime property to their wife to avoid attainder (Titchmarsh is the original Lovell homeland, Brackley and Woodford Halse are in Northants) b. a 'seaman's will' since he was off to intercept HT at sea c. an indication that he wasn't over-confident that HT could be defeated i.e. that he was more than a nuisance rebel who would be easily put down so he was putting his affairs in order Or none of those things. Anyone any idea. Would make a good exam question wouldn't it? :) :) H (who doesn't know the answer) Doug here: Personally, I'd go with a combination of a and b, if that's allowed. I'm basing that on my scant knowledge of dating records by the years of a reign. Presumably 1 Richard III would refer to the period between Richard's coronation and the anniversary of that event. So, 2 Richard III would be between July 1484 and July 1485? There was already plenty of evidence that Tudor, if he could get French backing, would attempt an invasion and, if/when that did occur, the odds were that Lovell would be with Richard resisting it. And all sorts of things can happen during war-tine, let alone during the actual fighting! Then, when one Considers the craft that were employed in the Channel, simply in trying to cross to France or the Low Countries, one was placing one's life in jeopardy. And we must never forget is that, without Stanley's undoubted treason, and Northumberland's likely treason, Richard would have been victorious at Bosworth. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 12:19:13
Third attempt to post this..I hope the others don't pop up now. Regardng Lovell..what on earth did become of him? Would really love to know. I don't buy into the skeleton found at Minster Lovell at all. You have raised some interesting questions Hilary..however I will stay with my long held ..and perhaps romanticised .. perceptions of Lovell, that he was a loyal and trustworthy friend of Richard's. MAybe time to delve a bit deeper. I do hope that he did indeed survive Stoke and died an old man, peacefully in his bed.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 14:42:56
Interesting points Hilary and a possibility as is everything to do with this period. Could the delightful Thomas Stanley and his even more delightful wife have subverted Lovell? Though equally it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he did escape from Bosworth. If I remember rightly there were reports that he was in Scotland and then in Burgundy with Margaret but I suppose he could also have been killed at Stoke.
Mary
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 15:03:29
Am I being a little dense here? If Lovell had gone over', surely Henry Tudor would have acknowledged the fact after Bosworth? Crowed about it, even. Instead Lovell fled, and then fought with Lincoln at Stoke Field (apparently escaping by swimming his
horse across the Trent). Or is there some doubt about his presence at this battle?
Why, if Lovell had been a traitor to Richard (as were the Stanleys and others) was he not rewarded? The fact that he wasn't, and then turned up at Stoke, persuades me that he was on Richard's side all along.
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Interesting points Hilary and a possibility as is everything to do with this period. Could the delightful Thomas Stanley and his even more delightful wife have subverted Lovell? Though equally it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he did escape from Bosworth. If I remember rightly there were reports that he was in Scotland and then in Burgundy with Margaret but I suppose he could also have been killed at Stoke.
MaryRe: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 15:15:26
I agree, Sandra. Loyaulte me lie
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 10:03 AM, "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Am I being a little dense here? If Lovell had gone over', surely Henry Tudor would have acknowledged the fact after Bosworth? Crowed about it, even. Instead Lovell fled, and then fought with Lincoln at Stoke Field (apparently escaping by swimming his horse across the Trent). Or is there some doubt about his presence at this battle? Why, if Lovell had been a traitor to Richard (as were the Stanleys and others) was he not rewarded? The fact that he wasn't, and then turned up at Stoke, persuades me that he was on Richard's side all along. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:41 PM To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth Interesting points Hilary and a possibility as is everything to do with this period. Could the delightful Thomas Stanley and his even more delightful wife have subverted Lovell? Though equally it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he did escape from Bosworth. If I remember rightly there were reports that he was in Scotland and then in Burgundy with Margaret but I suppose he could also have been killed at Stoke. Mary
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 10:03 AM, "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Am I being a little dense here? If Lovell had gone over', surely Henry Tudor would have acknowledged the fact after Bosworth? Crowed about it, even. Instead Lovell fled, and then fought with Lincoln at Stoke Field (apparently escaping by swimming his horse across the Trent). Or is there some doubt about his presence at this battle? Why, if Lovell had been a traitor to Richard (as were the Stanleys and others) was he not rewarded? The fact that he wasn't, and then turned up at Stoke, persuades me that he was on Richard's side all along. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:41 PM To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth Interesting points Hilary and a possibility as is everything to do with this period. Could the delightful Thomas Stanley and his even more delightful wife have subverted Lovell? Though equally it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he did escape from Bosworth. If I remember rightly there were reports that he was in Scotland and then in Burgundy with Margaret but I suppose he could also have been killed at Stoke. Mary
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 15:47:38
Just read on Wiki that in June 1485 Lovell was appointed to guard the south coast to prevent HT landing. However HT landed in Wales, nr Milford Haven to avoid the stronger defences on the south coast. Hmmm. Hope this helps put Francis in the clear on that score. To be honest I dont know much about that ..maybe someone could give more detail..?
You see..dont want to bang on but we do cover a lot on here dont we?
You see..dont want to bang on but we do cover a lot on here dont we?
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 15:59:39
Yes, as I commented, amazing research, was interesting bits, and some major information imparted.
On Mar 19, 2017, at 10:47 AM, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
You see..dont want to bang on but we do cover a lot on here dont we?
On Mar 19, 2017, at 10:47 AM, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
Just read on Wiki that in June 1485 Lovell was appointed to guard the south coast to prevent HT landing. However HT landed in Wales, nr Milford Haven to avoid the stronger defences on the south coast. Hmmm. Hope this helps put Francis in the clear on that score. To be honest I dont know much about that ..maybe someone could give more detail..?
You see..dont want to bang on but we do cover a lot on here dont we?
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 16:07:05
Who was in charge of the south coast when HT made his first, unsuccessful, attempt to invade via the south coast in the late autumn of 1483? He sensed danger and made off. Is this being muddled with Francis Lovell overseeing the south coast in in 1485?
Or was Lovell in charge on both occasions?
On Mar 19, 2017, at 10:47 AM, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2017, at 10:47 AM, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
Just read on Wiki that in June 1485 Lovell was appointed to guard the south coast to prevent HT landing. However HT landed in Wales, nr Milford Haven to avoid the stronger defences on the south coast. Hmmm. Hope this helps put Francis in the clear on that score. To be honest I dont know much about that ..maybe someone could give more detail..?
You see..dont want to bang on but we do cover a lot on here dont we?Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 16:10:07
(I'm having no end of trouble posting this if it comes through multiple times, please forgive me!)
Who was in charge of the south coast when HT made his first, unsuccessful, attempt to invade via the south coast in the late autumn of 1483? He sensed danger and made off. Is this being muddled with Francis Lovell overseeing the south coast in in 1485?
Or was Lovell in charge on both occasions?
From:
mailto:
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 3:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Just read on Wiki that in June 1485 Lovell was appointed to guard the south coast to prevent HT landing. However HT landed in Wales, nr Milford Haven to avoid the stronger defences on the south coast. Hmmm. Hope this helps put Francis in the clear on that score. To be honest I dont know much about that ..maybe someone could give more detail..?
You see..dont want to bang on but we do cover a lot on here dont we?Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 16:16:41
Who was in charge of the south coast when HT made his first, unsuccessful, attempt to invade via the south coast in the late autumn of 1483? He sensed danger and made off. Is this being muddled with Francis Lovell overseeing the south coast in in 1485?
Or was Lovell in charge on both occasions?
From:
mailto:
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 3:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Just read on Wiki that in June 1485 Lovell was appointed to guard the south coast to prevent HT landing. However HT landed in Wales, nr Milford Haven to avoid the stronger defences on the south coast. Hmmm. Hope this helps put Francis in the clear on that score. To be honest I dont know much about that ..maybe someone could give more detail..?
You see..dont want to bang on but we do cover a lot on here dont we?Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 16:22:21
Wasn't there some discussion last year about William Herbert, Richard's son in law being responsible for guarding the South coast?
Mary
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 16:45:41
How did William Herbert do under HT..wasn't he someone who run wth the foxes and played with hounds.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 16:51:12
So many questions so little time...I'm trying to cook dinner..
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 17:02:59
Yes, and Richard's daughter Katherine died conveniently as far as the new reign was concerned. Not that I'm insinuating anything. Just making the observation. Aw, go on, yes! I admit it - I'm insinuating!
From:
mailto:
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:45 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
How did William Herbert do under HT..wasn't he someone who run wth the foxes and played with hounds.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 17:13:06
One of the most trustworthy of them all died with his king at Bosworth...John Howard.. There were others of course.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 22:35:58
Sandra, would Henry really have crowed? It would be useful to have a mole in the other camp for however long that would last and it could last for years before you totally got rid of the opposition.
A few other points. Lovell's father was attainted as a Lancastrian traitor and Francis became Warwick's ward. As such he was made to marry Anna Fitzhugh by whom he had no children - a great medieval failure. The majority of his lands in Oxfordshire and Northants just happened to be adjacent t those of De Vere, whom we so often neglect. But at least one of Francis's' sisters did pretty well under the Tudors.
And he could indeed have been rewarded, but not in England. H
From: "Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2017, 15:15
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
I agree, Sandra. Loyaulte me lie
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 10:03 AM, "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Am I being a little dense here? If Lovell had gone over', surely Henry Tudor would have acknowledged the fact after Bosworth? Crowed about it, even. Instead Lovell fled, and then fought with Lincoln at Stoke Field (apparently escaping by swimming his horse across the Trent). Or is there some doubt about his presence at this battle? Why, if Lovell had been a traitor to Richard (as were the Stanleys and others) was he not rewarded? The fact that he wasn't, and then turned up at Stoke, persuades me that he was on Richard's side all along. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:41 PM To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth Interesting points Hilary and a possibility as is everything to do with this period. Could the delightful Thomas Stanley and his even more delightful wife have subverted Lovell? Though equally it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he did escape from Bosworth. If I remember rightly there were reports that he was in Scotland and then in Burgundy with Margaret but I suppose he could also have been killed at Stoke. Mary
A few other points. Lovell's father was attainted as a Lancastrian traitor and Francis became Warwick's ward. As such he was made to marry Anna Fitzhugh by whom he had no children - a great medieval failure. The majority of his lands in Oxfordshire and Northants just happened to be adjacent t those of De Vere, whom we so often neglect. But at least one of Francis's' sisters did pretty well under the Tudors.
And he could indeed have been rewarded, but not in England. H
From: "Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2017, 15:15
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
I agree, Sandra. Loyaulte me lie
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 10:03 AM, "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Am I being a little dense here? If Lovell had gone over', surely Henry Tudor would have acknowledged the fact after Bosworth? Crowed about it, even. Instead Lovell fled, and then fought with Lincoln at Stoke Field (apparently escaping by swimming his horse across the Trent). Or is there some doubt about his presence at this battle? Why, if Lovell had been a traitor to Richard (as were the Stanleys and others) was he not rewarded? The fact that he wasn't, and then turned up at Stoke, persuades me that he was on Richard's side all along. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:41 PM To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth Interesting points Hilary and a possibility as is everything to do with this period. Could the delightful Thomas Stanley and his even more delightful wife have subverted Lovell? Though equally it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he did escape from Bosworth. If I remember rightly there were reports that he was in Scotland and then in Burgundy with Margaret but I suppose he could also have been killed at Stoke. Mary
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 22:51:21
He didn't live long - he died in 1491! An interesting find in one Welsh genealogical site describes Katherine as someone who 'died very young' . Does that imply that she was a child on her marriage, which has all sorts of implications? Sorry, not being provocative. H
From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2017, 17:03
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Yes, and Richard's daughter Katherine died conveniently as far as the new reign was concerned. Not that I'm insinuating anything. Just making the observation. Aw, go on, yes! I admit it - I'm insinuating! From: mailto: Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:45 PM To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth How did William Herbert do under HT..wasn't he someone who run wth the foxes and played with hounds.
From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2017, 17:03
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Yes, and Richard's daughter Katherine died conveniently as far as the new reign was concerned. Not that I'm insinuating anything. Just making the observation. Aw, go on, yes! I admit it - I'm insinuating! From: mailto: Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:45 PM To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth How did William Herbert do under HT..wasn't he someone who run wth the foxes and played with hounds.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-19 22:59:01
I think the only certainty we have is that those who died with Richard, like Howard, Ratcliffe, Kendall and many others, were loyal to him.
Incidentally it's good in my research to see those families who did have ancestors who died with Richard are now proud to proclaim it. The world has indeed moved on and I doubt it would have happened before he was 're-discovered'. Olivier's version is dead. It really is quite choking when you read it. H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2017, 17:13
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
One of the most trustworthy of them all died with his king at Bosworth...John Howard.. There were others of course.
Incidentally it's good in my research to see those families who did have ancestors who died with Richard are now proud to proclaim it. The world has indeed moved on and I doubt it would have happened before he was 're-discovered'. Olivier's version is dead. It really is quite choking when you read it. H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2017, 17:13
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
One of the most trustworthy of them all died with his king at Bosworth...John Howard.. There were others of course.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 00:31:04
Mary wrote:
"Wasn't there some discussion last year about William Herbert, Richard's son in law being responsible for guarding the South coast?"
Carol responds:
William Herbert was guarding the part of Wales that Tudor chose not to enter (whether it was north or south I don't know without doing a bit of research). It was, of course, Rhys ap Thomas, not Herbert, who let Tudor enter. Francis Lovell would have been guarding the south coast of England, not Wales.
For what it's worth, I think Richard's daughter Katherine (who was probably about sixteen when she married--could not have been much older given that Richard himself was only about thirty-one at the time) probably came to London with her husband (summoned by Tudor?) after Bosworth and died there of the sweating sickness. She could not have been happy about her father's fate, whatever the case, nor do I think her husband was. Richard had always been good to him. But I don't think Tudor would have wanted to alienate the Herberts by treating him as a traitor (i.e., loyal to his king and father-in-law rather than a French-backed invader), and he may not have wanted to do so in any case as (I think) they knew each other as boys. (I can see Herbert wanting to stay out of the battle, but not siding with Tudor as other Herberts did. His father, if I recall correctly, had been loyal to Edward IV but murdered by Warwick and George of Clarence or their supporters when they took the Lancastrian side.
At any rate, I see no reason to question the loyalty of either Lovell or Herbert. Richard did, after all, have charisma, if not so famously as Edward, and more important, he did have real friends.
Carol
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 00:40:45
Hilary wrote:
I tend to agree with you but Lovell to me is one of the foggier characters in this story [Big snip] What if this agreement was to protect him from attainder, not by HT (who as you say nobody would then have thought as a likely victor) but by Richard? H
Earlier, she quoted this passage:
"A. 4790. Indenture whereby Francis, viscount Lovell, desires that his undermentioned feoffees shall convey to Anne Lovell, his wife, in fee, the manor of Halse and Brakley, which he had together with the manors of Thorp-Watrefeld, Duston, and Tysshemershe, formerly granted to them, viz. to Thomas, lord Scrope, of Upsale, Richard Ratclyf, William Catysby and Thomas Malyverer, knights, George Fitzhugh, clerk, Geoffrey and Edward Franke, Thomas Metcalf and James Walton, in trust for his said wife, if she should survive him, for her life; for which the said Anne is to find two fit priests to celebrate for the soul of the said Francis &c. in the University of Oxford or of Cambridge, for thirty years &c. Woborn, 10 June, 2 Richard III."
Carol responds:
Certainly, he thought his life was in some danger, and with good reason. But look at the people he names as Feoffees: Lord Scrope, Richard Ratcliffe, William Catesby, Thomas Metcalf--all supporters of Richard III. (Yes, we know Catesby got cold feet before his execution, but Lovell could not have guessed that.) I don't know about the others, but I'd bet that they were also supporters and possibly friends of Richard III and that not one was a Tudor supporter.
BTW, I wonder whether Richard also wrote a will, which was lost or destroyed after Bosworth. I doubt we'll ever know.
Carol
I tend to agree with you but Lovell to me is one of the foggier characters in this story [Big snip] What if this agreement was to protect him from attainder, not by HT (who as you say nobody would then have thought as a likely victor) but by Richard? H
Earlier, she quoted this passage:
"A. 4790. Indenture whereby Francis, viscount Lovell, desires that his undermentioned feoffees shall convey to Anne Lovell, his wife, in fee, the manor of Halse and Brakley, which he had together with the manors of Thorp-Watrefeld, Duston, and Tysshemershe, formerly granted to them, viz. to Thomas, lord Scrope, of Upsale, Richard Ratclyf, William Catysby and Thomas Malyverer, knights, George Fitzhugh, clerk, Geoffrey and Edward Franke, Thomas Metcalf and James Walton, in trust for his said wife, if she should survive him, for her life; for which the said Anne is to find two fit priests to celebrate for the soul of the said Francis &c. in the University of Oxford or of Cambridge, for thirty years &c. Woborn, 10 June, 2 Richard III."
Carol responds:
Certainly, he thought his life was in some danger, and with good reason. But look at the people he names as Feoffees: Lord Scrope, Richard Ratcliffe, William Catesby, Thomas Metcalf--all supporters of Richard III. (Yes, we know Catesby got cold feet before his execution, but Lovell could not have guessed that.) I don't know about the others, but I'd bet that they were also supporters and possibly friends of Richard III and that not one was a Tudor supporter.
BTW, I wonder whether Richard also wrote a will, which was lost or destroyed after Bosworth. I doubt we'll ever know.
Carol
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 00:51:32
Eileen wrote:
"Regardng Lovell..what on earth did become of him? Would really love to know. I don't buy into the skeleton found at Minster Lovell at all. You have raised some interesting questions Hilary..however I will stay with my long held ..and perhaps romanticised .. perceptions of Lovell, that he was a loyal and trustworthy friend of Richard's. MAybe time to delve a bit deeper. I do hope that he did indeed survive Stoke and died an old man, peacefully in his bed."
Carol responds:
I'm with you. I think his joining with Margaret of York and John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln (Margaret's and Richard's nephew) in rebelling against Tudor speaks most loudly in his favor. My favorite theory is that he escaped to Scotland after Stoke.
BTW, that will or whatever the document was seems to show that Sharon Kay Penman was wrong in depicting the Lovells' marriage as unhappy (though she seems right that it was childless).
Carol
"Regardng Lovell..what on earth did become of him? Would really love to know. I don't buy into the skeleton found at Minster Lovell at all. You have raised some interesting questions Hilary..however I will stay with my long held ..and perhaps romanticised .. perceptions of Lovell, that he was a loyal and trustworthy friend of Richard's. MAybe time to delve a bit deeper. I do hope that he did indeed survive Stoke and died an old man, peacefully in his bed."
Carol responds:
I'm with you. I think his joining with Margaret of York and John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln (Margaret's and Richard's nephew) in rebelling against Tudor speaks most loudly in his favor. My favorite theory is that he escaped to Scotland after Stoke.
BTW, that will or whatever the document was seems to show that Sharon Kay Penman was wrong in depicting the Lovells' marriage as unhappy (though she seems right that it was childless).
Carol
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lo
2017-03-20 05:03:08
Hilary
wrote:
Doug it's 10 June 1485; it's at
the end of the second para after Woburn. That's why it attracted me because it's
so close to Bosworth.
Doug here:
Well, to be factual, historically speaking,
everything that occurred during Richard's reign was close to Bosworth
(I couldn't figure how to do one of those smiley faces)! It's just possible
that, with our knowledge of what happened, we weave events into patterns that
really weren't there, and do so because we're trying to figure out just what
did happen? The timing is interesting, but I favor the
idea Lovell wrote his will the way he did because, while he expected to return,
he might not; and while he expected Richard to defeat Tudor, the opposite might
occur. The will, as written, seems to me to simply be hus way of ensuring his
wife's security regardless of what happened in the following months.
Hilary continued:
I tend to agree with you
but Lovell to me is one of the foggier characters in this story, mainly because
he's been turned by a lot of fiction authors into Richard's oldest buddy. In
fact he was 4 years' younger than Richard which is an enormous age difference
when you're in your teens. It's questionable whether their training at Middleham
ever co-incided, he would be arriving at about the time Richard was leaving and
he would be 12 to Richard's 16. So he was too young to fight at Tewkesbury and
Barnet and doesn't really crop up again until he gets mention in the York House
Books and then goes on to the Scottish Wars. Was he dropping by for Sunday lunch
at Middleham all these years, or was their relationship more distant until
Scotland? The only other thing I think we have is that he and Richard were
admitted to the same Guild (can't remember whether it was York or Durham).
After Scotland he seems to
have come to the fore, but not on the scale of Buckingham. I often wonder what
he thought of Buckingham. Incidentally, if Morton could convert Buckingham one
wonders how many others he was working on in that heady summer of 1483. So we
get to 1485 and there are a number of fairly questionable things.
Doug here:
As the only fiction I've read about
Richard is Daughter of Time, I can't really comment on Lovell's
portrayals, but I do agree their age difference would make it unlikely for them
to have become closely acquainted until after Lovell had left Middleham. By the
way, and I'm presuming the guild membership was an honorary one, were Richard and Lovell admitted at the same time, or was it
simply a case of their being honored by the same guild at different
times?
I wonder if it wasn't so much a case of
Lovell being superseded by Buckingham in the spring and summer of 1483, as his
retaining his position in the North? After all, when Richard wrote for
assistance, even if the letter was addressed to the Council (or whatever) at
York, there'd have to be someone to organize the mustering of the
troops, see they were properly supplied and led, wouldn't there? From his
actions, it appears that Richard didn't expect any problems concerning
his nephew's assumption of the throne, but any inter-regnum
could quickly get messy. So, Lovell was Richard's insurance in case there was
any trouble.
As for Morton, I wonder. Perhaps we've been tricked into taking the
good Bishop at his own valuation, rather than what he actually did? Anyone with
an ego as apparently as large as Stafford had, would have easily been open to
subtle hints about why Richard had banished Buckingham to the Welsh Marches.
We have to remember that power was very personal and one way to show that one
had power was by how intimately linked one was to the king in his
day-to-day governing of the kingdom. Buckingham had been given titles, but he
was denied what I really think he likely viewed as his rightful position as the
king's premier advisor/consultant. And that's what Morton worked
on.
Whether others would have also fallen for
Morton's spiel, I really wonder...
Hilary concluded:
First, he lets HT's fleet slip round him to Milford Haven - well
fair enough that can be forgiven. Then we assume he was at Bosworth but as
Richard's closest friend why didn't he join him in the charge? He's then able to
escape both from the battle and Catesby's fate and finally, having helped
engineer the rebels towards Stoke, they are killed but he just vanishes into
thin air and even his wife doesn't know what happened. In a period of very
strange things this is yet another one and I'm not sure. What if this agreement
was to protect him from attainder, not by HT (who as you say nobody would then
have thought as a likely victor) but by Richard? H
(sorry I know I'll offend some with this, but sometimes it's
interesting to think outside the box)
Doug here:
Was Lovell at Plymouth, Portsmouth or
Southampton? Although, to a certain extent, it doesn't matter because any wind
that allowed Tudor to leave the French port/s, would keep the English bottled up
in their ports. Even Drake was almost caught by the Spanish because of
the wind, and William of Orang e made it to Torbay because the winds that
propelled his ships, kept James' ships in port.
As for Lovell's actions at Bosworth;
well, if things went wrong, someone had to look after Richard of
Eastham, didn't they? Which would explain why Lovell wasn't captured/killed at
Bosworth: he'd been given an assignment that kept out of the fighting? It might
also help explain why he disappeared after Stoke: he knew where Edward either
was or recently had been.
Doug
(who also finds it interesting to
sometimes think outside the box...)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 12:47:46
Just remembered why I thought William Herbert may have been a bit 'dodgy'. I had made some notes! shock and disbelief. As already mentioned his mother, Anne Devereaux had been responsible for HT's upbringing following the purchase of his wardship by Lord Herbert. So William may have spent some of his childhood with HT.
HT also proposed an alternative marriage with one of Herbert's sisters should the marriage with EoY not take place.
In 1484, a brother Walter was targetted by HT as a possible ally in Wales along with a sister Maud both of whom were identified as agents who could negotiate the alternative marriage.
Which begs the question did Richard arrange the marriage between William and his daughter Katherine to bring William on onto his side? Well thats a no brainer as they say..of course he did. Was this marriage unsatisfactory. Katherine was very young. William requested in his Will dated 21 July 1483 (admittedly before his marriage to Katherine) to be buried 'in as near as maybe the same where my dear and best beloved wife resteth buried'. He was indeed eventually buried next to his wife, Mary Wydeville in Tintern Abbey.
Hmmmm.
HT also proposed an alternative marriage with one of Herbert's sisters should the marriage with EoY not take place.
In 1484, a brother Walter was targetted by HT as a possible ally in Wales along with a sister Maud both of whom were identified as agents who could negotiate the alternative marriage.
Which begs the question did Richard arrange the marriage between William and his daughter Katherine to bring William on onto his side? Well thats a no brainer as they say..of course he did. Was this marriage unsatisfactory. Katherine was very young. William requested in his Will dated 21 July 1483 (admittedly before his marriage to Katherine) to be buried 'in as near as maybe the same where my dear and best beloved wife resteth buried'. He was indeed eventually buried next to his wife, Mary Wydeville in Tintern Abbey.
Hmmmm.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lo
2017-03-20 12:54:18
Good points Doug..once again ..especially about the wind and the ports. I don't know much about these things but that certainly makes perfect sense. And that would surely clarify any doubts about Lovell's loyalty i.e. in letting HT slip through.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 12:59:06
Sandra..your not implying what I think your implying..yes..and you know I think you may have a point there..
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell andth
2017-03-20 13:20:50
So, Eileen, you know what I know, and I know what you know. I think.
From:
mailto:
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 12:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Sandra..your not implying what I think your implying..yes..and you know I think you may have a point there..
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 13:29:47
I don't think you can draw a conclusion about the marriage based on this. Most medieval marriages were nothing to do with happiness but with keeping lands within the family. And a childless marriage is a medieval disaster. The alternative would have been to leave them to his sisters and their husbands, not really a good idea. But his nephew did of course become a great favourite of Henry VIII, that is until he was framed with Anne Boleyn. H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 0:51
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Eileen wrote:
"Regardng Lovell..what on earth did become of him? Would really love to know. I don't buy into the skeleton found at Minster Lovell at all. You have raised some interesting questions Hilary..however I will stay with my long held ..and perhaps romanticised .. perceptions of Lovell, that he was a loyal and trustworthy friend of Richard's. MAybe time to delve a bit deeper. I do hope that he did indeed survive Stoke and died an old man, peacefully in his bed."
Carol responds:
I'm with you. I think his joining with Margaret of York and John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln (Margaret's and Richard's nephew) in rebelling against Tudor speaks most loudly in his favor. My favorite theory is that he escaped to Scotland after Stoke.
BTW, that will or whatever the document was seems to show that Sharon Kay Penman was wrong in depicting the Lovells' marriage as unhappy (though she seems right that it was childless).
Carol
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 0:51
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Eileen wrote:
"Regardng Lovell..what on earth did become of him? Would really love to know. I don't buy into the skeleton found at Minster Lovell at all. You have raised some interesting questions Hilary..however I will stay with my long held ..and perhaps romanticised .. perceptions of Lovell, that he was a loyal and trustworthy friend of Richard's. MAybe time to delve a bit deeper. I do hope that he did indeed survive Stoke and died an old man, peacefully in his bed."
Carol responds:
I'm with you. I think his joining with Margaret of York and John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln (Margaret's and Richard's nephew) in rebelling against Tudor speaks most loudly in his favor. My favorite theory is that he escaped to Scotland after Stoke.
BTW, that will or whatever the document was seems to show that Sharon Kay Penman was wrong in depicting the Lovells' marriage as unhappy (though she seems right that it was childless).
Carol
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 13:38:29
Hilary: He didn't live long - he died in 1491! An interesting find in one Welsh
genealogical site describes Katherine as someone who 'died very
young' . Does that imply that she was a child on her marriage, which has
all sorts of implications? Sorry, not being provocative.
I think Lovell's actions post Bosworth confirm his loyalty, but I suspect Herbert's were more divided. He was from a family with strong loyalties to Edward IV and York, but there were strong links to Henry too, who was in the care of the Herbert family for many years and a marriage to Maud Herbert had been planned.
Which was the Welsh genealogical site that you used? The problem with a lot of Welsh genealogies is that some of them are confusing and sometimes inaccurate, including Bartrum. As for 'died very young,' how young was 'very young' back then? The phrase has a ring about it that suggests childhood, but it could imply early teens maybe. If she was born in 1472/73 - the latest time possible without Richard being unfaithful to Anne, she would have been 11 or 12 at the time of her marriage and would have been no older than 16 or 17 when she died by 1487. She could also have died not long after Bosworth aged 12 or 13. The burial at St. James' Garlickhythe, with its connection to the Stanley family makes me wonder if she was still quite young and in the care of Margaret Beaufort. If she was born after the marriage to Anne, she could have been as young as 7 when she married (no dispensation required) and 8 or 9 when she died - more in keeping with 'very young' in Tudor times. The younger she was, the better for Herbert as life would be easier for him if she were pressured to repudiate a marriage that was no longer convenient for him.
I don't really understand why Richard's sex life can be so sensitive a topic. There certainly has been some speculation about it that I find quite bizarre, such as Rowse saying that he wasn't interested in sex. How would he know something like that - he wasn't there! We don't know much about Anne, from what little we do know they do seem to have had a genuine affection for each other and a committed partnership, but how long did the mutual love and respect take to develop? I'm not convinced by the Paul Murray Kendall view of their courtship, and it the motive for the marriage was probably mostly transactional at the outset - like most upper class marriages. He is on record as having disapproved of adultery, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was never a dalliance with someone else, especially at a time when it was common practice with the nobility. That said, even if there was the odd lapse, I do think his morality was sound and sincere for its time, and he wouldn't have indulged in the same excesses as Edward (whose sharing women with Hastings and Dorset is distasteful even by today's standards.)
Nico
On Monday, 20 March 2017, 2:27, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
What did become of Lovell? I would love to know. Really love to know. I just cannot buy into the story about the skeleton being found at minster Lovell. You've made interesting points Hilary..but I think I will stick with my old long held perceptions of Lovell..maybe delve deeper..and hopefully he did indeed survived Stoke and died of old age in his bed.
I think Lovell's actions post Bosworth confirm his loyalty, but I suspect Herbert's were more divided. He was from a family with strong loyalties to Edward IV and York, but there were strong links to Henry too, who was in the care of the Herbert family for many years and a marriage to Maud Herbert had been planned.
Which was the Welsh genealogical site that you used? The problem with a lot of Welsh genealogies is that some of them are confusing and sometimes inaccurate, including Bartrum. As for 'died very young,' how young was 'very young' back then? The phrase has a ring about it that suggests childhood, but it could imply early teens maybe. If she was born in 1472/73 - the latest time possible without Richard being unfaithful to Anne, she would have been 11 or 12 at the time of her marriage and would have been no older than 16 or 17 when she died by 1487. She could also have died not long after Bosworth aged 12 or 13. The burial at St. James' Garlickhythe, with its connection to the Stanley family makes me wonder if she was still quite young and in the care of Margaret Beaufort. If she was born after the marriage to Anne, she could have been as young as 7 when she married (no dispensation required) and 8 or 9 when she died - more in keeping with 'very young' in Tudor times. The younger she was, the better for Herbert as life would be easier for him if she were pressured to repudiate a marriage that was no longer convenient for him.
I don't really understand why Richard's sex life can be so sensitive a topic. There certainly has been some speculation about it that I find quite bizarre, such as Rowse saying that he wasn't interested in sex. How would he know something like that - he wasn't there! We don't know much about Anne, from what little we do know they do seem to have had a genuine affection for each other and a committed partnership, but how long did the mutual love and respect take to develop? I'm not convinced by the Paul Murray Kendall view of their courtship, and it the motive for the marriage was probably mostly transactional at the outset - like most upper class marriages. He is on record as having disapproved of adultery, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was never a dalliance with someone else, especially at a time when it was common practice with the nobility. That said, even if there was the odd lapse, I do think his morality was sound and sincere for its time, and he wouldn't have indulged in the same excesses as Edward (whose sharing women with Hastings and Dorset is distasteful even by today's standards.)
Nico
On Monday, 20 March 2017, 2:27, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
What did become of Lovell? I would love to know. Really love to know. I just cannot buy into the story about the skeleton being found at minster Lovell. You've made interesting points Hilary..but I think I will stick with my old long held perceptions of Lovell..maybe delve deeper..and hopefully he did indeed survived Stoke and died of old age in his bed.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 13:40:08
My money would indeed be on survival and Scotland seems to offer the quickest way out, given that he'd served there and lived in the vicinity for most of his life.
I wish we knew more about the Scottish campaign. You see if you trust Lovell for his loyalty to Richard there, then you also have to trust Percy, who was his deputy. Both have families who have dabbled in treason in the past, both seemed to be loyal in Scotland, yet poor old Percy gets all the flack whilst Lovell is the cuddly friend - such is the power of novelists!:) At least we know Percy was in the Leicester area at Bosworth, which is more than we can say for Lovell.
As for the point about the witnesses to the document raised by Carol, I think you would expect that. They are the legacy of Middleham so would have been common to Lovell and Richard. And Edward Franke was the High Sheriff of Northants put in by Richard, who incidentally did turn up at Bosworth. I'm not condemning Lovell - I just have a question-mark against him.
At least this controversy has upped the traffic on the website :) :) H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 2:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
What did become of Lovell? I would love to know. Really love to know. I just cannot buy into the story about the skeleton being found at minster Lovell. You've made interesting points Hilary..but I think I will stick with my old long held perceptions of Lovell..maybe delve deeper..and hopefully he did indeed survived Stoke and died of old age in his bed.
I wish we knew more about the Scottish campaign. You see if you trust Lovell for his loyalty to Richard there, then you also have to trust Percy, who was his deputy. Both have families who have dabbled in treason in the past, both seemed to be loyal in Scotland, yet poor old Percy gets all the flack whilst Lovell is the cuddly friend - such is the power of novelists!:) At least we know Percy was in the Leicester area at Bosworth, which is more than we can say for Lovell.
As for the point about the witnesses to the document raised by Carol, I think you would expect that. They are the legacy of Middleham so would have been common to Lovell and Richard. And Edward Franke was the High Sheriff of Northants put in by Richard, who incidentally did turn up at Bosworth. I'm not condemning Lovell - I just have a question-mark against him.
At least this controversy has upped the traffic on the website :) :) H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 2:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
What did become of Lovell? I would love to know. Really love to know. I just cannot buy into the story about the skeleton being found at minster Lovell. You've made interesting points Hilary..but I think I will stick with my old long held perceptions of Lovell..maybe delve deeper..and hopefully he did indeed survived Stoke and died of old age in his bed.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 13:52:13
Come on, Hilary. You can't blame novelists for Lovell's reputation as Richard's great friend. Novelists also portray Richard himself in a good light...would you hint that this is wrong because novelists write it?
From:
mailto:
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
My money would indeed be on survival and Scotland seems to offer the quickest way out, given that he'd served there and lived in the vicinity for most of his life.
I wish we knew more about the Scottish campaign. You see if you trust Lovell for his loyalty to Richard there, then you also have to trust Percy, who was his deputy. Both have families who have dabbled in treason
in the past, both seemed to be loyal in Scotland, yet poor old Percy gets all the flack whilst Lovell is the cuddly friend - such is the power of novelists!:) At least we know Percy was in the Leicester area at Bosworth, which is more than we can say for Lovell.
As for the point about the witnesses to the document raised by Carol, I think you would expect that. They are the legacy of Middleham so would have been common to Lovell and Richard. And Edward Franke
was the High Sheriff of Northants put in by Richard, who incidentally did turn up at Bosworth. I'm not condemning Lovell - I just have a question-mark against him.
At least this controversy has upped the traffic on the website :) :) H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 2:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
What did become of Lovell? I would love to know. Really love to know. I just cannot buy into the story about the skeleton being found at minster Lovell. You've made interesting points Hilary..but I think
I will stick with my old long held perceptions of Lovell..maybe delve deeper..and hopefully he did indeed survived Stoke
and died of old age in his bed.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lo
2017-03-20 13:58:59
Re your first para Doug, yes I agree everything was relatively near. It would have worried me a lot more if it had been written in June 1484 though and I do tend towards it having something to do with potentially going to sea. In fact am I right in thinking that Warwick's death left a great hole in our seafaring capacity which had to be picked up by Daubeny down the line?
Ricardian 'women's literature' (sorry!) tends to start with some sort of blissful scene at Middleham with Lovell, Anne and Richard - the childhood friends. In fact Lovell and Anne were about the same age so he probably knew her better than he did Richard. Then Richard goes off to do heroic things, Anne is dragged into marriage with the dreadful EOL and Francis vanishes to re-appear after Richard returns to Middleham. His place is usually taken in the interim by Tom Parr, who dies at Barnet. Tom Parr was actually about 29 to Richard's 17. That should fill you in.
Re Morton, well as you say we don't even know where Lovell was at that point and I can't actually see Morton and Hastings hitting it off. Morton is I reckon a deceptive character. I think it was Geoffrey Richardson who said he was always known as the jovial parson - someone who'd seen the world and in whom you could confide; someone you could explode to if you'd had a bad day. That could, I imagine, be very useful. But I agree with you, Buckingham's immense ego made him particular prey to that, I reckon this was a time when others would have been more circumspect.
Re your last para - yes indeed. In fact you're almost echoing Baldwin except he has HT in on the plot. I didn't go with that at the time but it does make it all the more interesting.... H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 5:03
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary wrote: Doug it's 10 June 1485; it's at the end of the second para after Woburn. That's why it attracted me because it's so close to Bosworth. Doug here: Well, to be factual, historically speaking, everything that occurred during Richard's reign was close to Bosworth (I couldn't figure how to do one of those smiley faces)! It's just possible that, with our knowledge of what happened, we weave events into patterns that really weren't there, and do so because we're trying to figure out just what did happen? The timing is interesting, but I favor the idea Lovell wrote his will the way he did because, while he expected to return, he might not; and while he expected Richard to defeat Tudor, the opposite might occur. The will, as written, seems to me to simply be hus way of ensuring his wife's security regardless of what happened in the following months. Hilary continued: I tend to agree with you but Lovell to me is one of the foggier characters in this story, mainly because he's been turned by a lot of fiction authors into Richard's oldest buddy. In fact he was 4 years' younger than Richard which is an enormous age difference when you're in your teens. It's questionable whether their training at Middleham ever co-incided, he would be arriving at about the time Richard was leaving and he would be 12 to Richard's 16. So he was too young to fight at Tewkesbury and Barnet and doesn't really crop up again until he gets mention in the York House Books and then goes on to the Scottish Wars. Was he dropping by for Sunday lunch at Middleham all these years, or was their relationship more distant until Scotland? The only other thing I think we have is that he and Richard were admitted to the same Guild (can't remember whether it was York or Durham). After Scotland he seems to have come to the fore, but not on the scale of Buckingham. I often wonder what he thought of Buckingham. Incidentally, if Morton could convert Buckingham one wonders how many others he was working on in that heady summer of 1483. So we get to 1485 and there are a number of fairly questionable things. Doug here: As the only fiction I've read about Richard is Daughter of Time, I can't really comment on Lovell's portrayals, but I do agree their age difference would make it unlikely for them to have become closely acquainted until after Lovell had left Middleham. By the way, and I'm presuming the guild membership was an honorary one, were Richard and Lovell admitted at the same time, or was it simply a case of their being honored by the same guild at different times? I wonder if it wasn't so much a case of Lovell being superseded by Buckingham in the spring and summer of 1483, as his retaining his position in the North? After all, when Richard wrote for assistance, even if the letter was addressed to the Council (or whatever) at York, there'd have to be someone to organize the mustering of the troops, see they were properly supplied and led, wouldn't there? From his actions, it appears that Richard didn't expect any problems concerning his nephew's assumption of the throne, but any inter-regnum could quickly get messy. So, Lovell was Richard's insurance in case there was any trouble. As for Morton, I wonder. Perhaps we've been tricked into taking the good Bishop at his own valuation, rather than what he actually did? Anyone with an ego as apparently as large as Stafford had, would have easily been open to subtle hints about why Richard had banished Buckingham to the Welsh Marches. We have to remember that power was very personal and one way to show that one had power was by how intimately linked one was to the king in his day-to-day governing of the kingdom. Buckingham had been given titles, but he was denied what I really think he likely viewed as his rightful position as the king's premier advisor/consultant. And that's what Morton worked on. Whether others would have also fallen for Morton's spiel, I really wonder... Hilary concluded: First, he lets HT's fleet slip round him to Milford Haven - well fair enough that can be forgiven. Then we assume he was at Bosworth but as Richard's closest friend why didn't he join him in the charge? He's then able to escape both from the battle and Catesby's fate and finally, having helped engineer the rebels towards Stoke, they are killed but he just vanishes into thin air and even his wife doesn't know what happened. In a period of very strange things this is yet another one and I'm not sure. What if this agreement was to protect him from attainder, not by HT (who as you say nobody would then have thought as a likely victor) but by Richard? H (sorry I know I'll offend some with this, but sometimes it's interesting to think outside the box) Doug here: Was Lovell at Plymouth, Portsmouth or Southampton? Although, to a certain extent, it doesn't matter because any wind that allowed Tudor to leave the French port/s, would keep the English bottled up in their ports. Even Drake was almost caught by the Spanish because of the wind, and William of Orang e made it to Torbay because the winds that propelled his ships, kept James' ships in port. As for Lovell's actions at Bosworth; well, if things went wrong, someone had to look after Richard of Eastham, didn't they? Which would explain why Lovell wasn't captured/killed at Bosworth: he'd been given an assignment that kept out of the fighting? It might also help explain why he disappeared after Stoke: he knew where Edward either was or recently had been. Doug (who also finds it interesting to sometimes think outside the box...)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Ricardian 'women's literature' (sorry!) tends to start with some sort of blissful scene at Middleham with Lovell, Anne and Richard - the childhood friends. In fact Lovell and Anne were about the same age so he probably knew her better than he did Richard. Then Richard goes off to do heroic things, Anne is dragged into marriage with the dreadful EOL and Francis vanishes to re-appear after Richard returns to Middleham. His place is usually taken in the interim by Tom Parr, who dies at Barnet. Tom Parr was actually about 29 to Richard's 17. That should fill you in.
Re Morton, well as you say we don't even know where Lovell was at that point and I can't actually see Morton and Hastings hitting it off. Morton is I reckon a deceptive character. I think it was Geoffrey Richardson who said he was always known as the jovial parson - someone who'd seen the world and in whom you could confide; someone you could explode to if you'd had a bad day. That could, I imagine, be very useful. But I agree with you, Buckingham's immense ego made him particular prey to that, I reckon this was a time when others would have been more circumspect.
Re your last para - yes indeed. In fact you're almost echoing Baldwin except he has HT in on the plot. I didn't go with that at the time but it does make it all the more interesting.... H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 5:03
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary wrote: Doug it's 10 June 1485; it's at the end of the second para after Woburn. That's why it attracted me because it's so close to Bosworth. Doug here: Well, to be factual, historically speaking, everything that occurred during Richard's reign was close to Bosworth (I couldn't figure how to do one of those smiley faces)! It's just possible that, with our knowledge of what happened, we weave events into patterns that really weren't there, and do so because we're trying to figure out just what did happen? The timing is interesting, but I favor the idea Lovell wrote his will the way he did because, while he expected to return, he might not; and while he expected Richard to defeat Tudor, the opposite might occur. The will, as written, seems to me to simply be hus way of ensuring his wife's security regardless of what happened in the following months. Hilary continued: I tend to agree with you but Lovell to me is one of the foggier characters in this story, mainly because he's been turned by a lot of fiction authors into Richard's oldest buddy. In fact he was 4 years' younger than Richard which is an enormous age difference when you're in your teens. It's questionable whether their training at Middleham ever co-incided, he would be arriving at about the time Richard was leaving and he would be 12 to Richard's 16. So he was too young to fight at Tewkesbury and Barnet and doesn't really crop up again until he gets mention in the York House Books and then goes on to the Scottish Wars. Was he dropping by for Sunday lunch at Middleham all these years, or was their relationship more distant until Scotland? The only other thing I think we have is that he and Richard were admitted to the same Guild (can't remember whether it was York or Durham). After Scotland he seems to have come to the fore, but not on the scale of Buckingham. I often wonder what he thought of Buckingham. Incidentally, if Morton could convert Buckingham one wonders how many others he was working on in that heady summer of 1483. So we get to 1485 and there are a number of fairly questionable things. Doug here: As the only fiction I've read about Richard is Daughter of Time, I can't really comment on Lovell's portrayals, but I do agree their age difference would make it unlikely for them to have become closely acquainted until after Lovell had left Middleham. By the way, and I'm presuming the guild membership was an honorary one, were Richard and Lovell admitted at the same time, or was it simply a case of their being honored by the same guild at different times? I wonder if it wasn't so much a case of Lovell being superseded by Buckingham in the spring and summer of 1483, as his retaining his position in the North? After all, when Richard wrote for assistance, even if the letter was addressed to the Council (or whatever) at York, there'd have to be someone to organize the mustering of the troops, see they were properly supplied and led, wouldn't there? From his actions, it appears that Richard didn't expect any problems concerning his nephew's assumption of the throne, but any inter-regnum could quickly get messy. So, Lovell was Richard's insurance in case there was any trouble. As for Morton, I wonder. Perhaps we've been tricked into taking the good Bishop at his own valuation, rather than what he actually did? Anyone with an ego as apparently as large as Stafford had, would have easily been open to subtle hints about why Richard had banished Buckingham to the Welsh Marches. We have to remember that power was very personal and one way to show that one had power was by how intimately linked one was to the king in his day-to-day governing of the kingdom. Buckingham had been given titles, but he was denied what I really think he likely viewed as his rightful position as the king's premier advisor/consultant. And that's what Morton worked on. Whether others would have also fallen for Morton's spiel, I really wonder... Hilary concluded: First, he lets HT's fleet slip round him to Milford Haven - well fair enough that can be forgiven. Then we assume he was at Bosworth but as Richard's closest friend why didn't he join him in the charge? He's then able to escape both from the battle and Catesby's fate and finally, having helped engineer the rebels towards Stoke, they are killed but he just vanishes into thin air and even his wife doesn't know what happened. In a period of very strange things this is yet another one and I'm not sure. What if this agreement was to protect him from attainder, not by HT (who as you say nobody would then have thought as a likely victor) but by Richard? H (sorry I know I'll offend some with this, but sometimes it's interesting to think outside the box) Doug here: Was Lovell at Plymouth, Portsmouth or Southampton? Although, to a certain extent, it doesn't matter because any wind that allowed Tudor to leave the French port/s, would keep the English bottled up in their ports. Even Drake was almost caught by the Spanish because of the wind, and William of Orang e made it to Torbay because the winds that propelled his ships, kept James' ships in port. As for Lovell's actions at Bosworth; well, if things went wrong, someone had to look after Richard of Eastham, didn't they? Which would explain why Lovell wasn't captured/killed at Bosworth: he'd been given an assignment that kept out of the fighting? It might also help explain why he disappeared after Stoke: he knew where Edward either was or recently had been. Doug (who also finds it interesting to sometimes think outside the box...)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 14:07:14
Speculation here but re the marriages of Herbert. If Katherine was very young and no affection/sexual attraction had developed and he still missed and loved his first wife..a Wydeville..might those lead to William backing the Wydevilles and thus HT also he may have had some type of allegiance to from his childhood. Whomknows what prOmises were made..
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 14:07:24
That is interesting Eileen. I reckon it's questionable whether the Herberts ever got over the dreadful carnage of Edgcote and whether psychologically they somehow tied Richard in with that because of his closeness to Warwick. That's even despite the fact that he sided with Edward at the time.
And then there are also grudges against Edward which probably went deeper than he thought, like when he dabbled in land disputes. One of my 'Bosworth guys' had been the subject of Edward's interference in his land dispute right back in 1462 - he was winning until Edward crashed in. These things are usually down to selfishness in the end.
I wish I could remember the phrase in the Welsh genealogy about Katherine, but it implied that she was a child and still a child when she died i.e. not the 17 or so we think her to have been. H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 12:47
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Just remembered why I thought William Herbert may have been a bit 'dodgy'. I had made some notes! shock and disbelief. As already mentioned his mother, Anne Devereaux had been responsible for HT's upbringing following the purchase of his wardship by Lord Herbert. So William may have spent some of his childhood with HT.
HT also proposed an alternative marriage with one of Herbert's sisters should the marriage with EoY not take place.
In 1484, a brother Walter was targetted by HT as a possible ally in Wales along with a sister Maud both of whom were identified as agents who could negotiate the alternative marriage.
Which begs the question did Richard arrange the marriage between William and his daughter Katherine to bring William on onto his side? Well thats a no brainer as they say..of course he did. Was this marriage unsatisfactory. Katherine was very young. William requested in his Will dated 21 July 1483 (admittedly before his marriage to Katherine) to be buried 'in as near as maybe the same where my dear and best beloved wife resteth buried'. He was indeed eventually buried next to his wife, Mary Wydeville in Tintern Abbey.
Hmmmm.
And then there are also grudges against Edward which probably went deeper than he thought, like when he dabbled in land disputes. One of my 'Bosworth guys' had been the subject of Edward's interference in his land dispute right back in 1462 - he was winning until Edward crashed in. These things are usually down to selfishness in the end.
I wish I could remember the phrase in the Welsh genealogy about Katherine, but it implied that she was a child and still a child when she died i.e. not the 17 or so we think her to have been. H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 12:47
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Just remembered why I thought William Herbert may have been a bit 'dodgy'. I had made some notes! shock and disbelief. As already mentioned his mother, Anne Devereaux had been responsible for HT's upbringing following the purchase of his wardship by Lord Herbert. So William may have spent some of his childhood with HT.
HT also proposed an alternative marriage with one of Herbert's sisters should the marriage with EoY not take place.
In 1484, a brother Walter was targetted by HT as a possible ally in Wales along with a sister Maud both of whom were identified as agents who could negotiate the alternative marriage.
Which begs the question did Richard arrange the marriage between William and his daughter Katherine to bring William on onto his side? Well thats a no brainer as they say..of course he did. Was this marriage unsatisfactory. Katherine was very young. William requested in his Will dated 21 July 1483 (admittedly before his marriage to Katherine) to be buried 'in as near as maybe the same where my dear and best beloved wife resteth buried'. He was indeed eventually buried next to his wife, Mary Wydeville in Tintern Abbey.
Hmmmm.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lo
2017-03-20 14:11:57
Yes it is a good point and came up in the 1066 programme. William lost a considerable amount of his fleet the first time he tried and it got blown back into St Valery, which was not in Normandy. I seem to recall that the harbourmaster of Milford Haven was a St John and related to MB. I'll have to look it up again. H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 12:54
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Good points Doug..once again ..especially about the wind and the ports. I don't know much about these things but that certainly makes perfect sense. And that would surely clarify any doubts about Lovell's loyalty i.e. in letting HT slip through.
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 12:54
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Good points Doug..once again ..especially about the wind and the ports. I don't know much about these things but that certainly makes perfect sense. And that would surely clarify any doubts about Lovell's loyalty i.e. in letting HT slip through.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 14:21:47
Nah - I blame the Victorians, I've taken to blaming them for everything as a change from Shakespeare and More!
I have to admit it makes a good read as long as you take it as just that. And I will admit that novelists have been Richard's good friend and a very positive way of getting people interested in him for decades. Not all of them are though. Some have him turn into a monster halfway through.
Perhaps someone should romanticise poor old misunderstood Percy or William Stanley? There's a challenge for you!
Have I crawled enough?:) :) I read those novels, of course. H
From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 13:52
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Come on, Hilary. You can't blame novelists for Lovell's reputation as Richard's great friend. Novelists also portray Richard himself in a good light...would you hint that this is wrong because novelists write it? From: mailto: Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:40 PM To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth My money would indeed be on survival and Scotland seems to offer the quickest way out, given that he'd served there and lived in the vicinity for most of his life. I wish we knew more about the Scottish campaign. You see if you trust Lovell for his loyalty to Richard there, then you also have to trust Percy, who was his deputy. Both have families who have dabbled in treason in the past, both seemed to be loyal in Scotland, yet poor old Percy gets all the flack whilst Lovell is the cuddly friend - such is the power of novelists!:) At least we know Percy was in the Leicester area at Bosworth, which is more than we can say for Lovell. As for the point about the witnesses to the document raised by Carol, I think you would expect that. They are the legacy of Middleham so would have been common to Lovell and Richard. And Edward Franke was the High Sheriff of Northants put in by Richard, who incidentally did turn up at Bosworth. I'm not condemning Lovell - I just have a question-mark against him. At least this controversy has upped the traffic on the website :) :) H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 2:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
What did become of Lovell? I would love to know. Really love to know. I just cannot buy into the story about the skeleton being found at minster Lovell. You've made interesting points Hilary..but I think I will stick with my old long held perceptions of Lovell..maybe delve deeper..and hopefully he did indeed survived Stoke and died of old age in his bed.
I have to admit it makes a good read as long as you take it as just that. And I will admit that novelists have been Richard's good friend and a very positive way of getting people interested in him for decades. Not all of them are though. Some have him turn into a monster halfway through.
Perhaps someone should romanticise poor old misunderstood Percy or William Stanley? There's a challenge for you!
Have I crawled enough?:) :) I read those novels, of course. H
From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 13:52
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Come on, Hilary. You can't blame novelists for Lovell's reputation as Richard's great friend. Novelists also portray Richard himself in a good light...would you hint that this is wrong because novelists write it? From: mailto: Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:40 PM To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth My money would indeed be on survival and Scotland seems to offer the quickest way out, given that he'd served there and lived in the vicinity for most of his life. I wish we knew more about the Scottish campaign. You see if you trust Lovell for his loyalty to Richard there, then you also have to trust Percy, who was his deputy. Both have families who have dabbled in treason in the past, both seemed to be loyal in Scotland, yet poor old Percy gets all the flack whilst Lovell is the cuddly friend - such is the power of novelists!:) At least we know Percy was in the Leicester area at Bosworth, which is more than we can say for Lovell. As for the point about the witnesses to the document raised by Carol, I think you would expect that. They are the legacy of Middleham so would have been common to Lovell and Richard. And Edward Franke was the High Sheriff of Northants put in by Richard, who incidentally did turn up at Bosworth. I'm not condemning Lovell - I just have a question-mark against him. At least this controversy has upped the traffic on the website :) :) H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 2:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
What did become of Lovell? I would love to know. Really love to know. I just cannot buy into the story about the skeleton being found at minster Lovell. You've made interesting points Hilary..but I think I will stick with my old long held perceptions of Lovell..maybe delve deeper..and hopefully he did indeed survived Stoke and died of old age in his bed.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 14:37:31
Nico I will try and find it. I know exactly what you mean about Welsh genealogical sites- they are like something out of game of thrones.
Re the ages when married children no longer became children, I would normally go for about 14? I think everyone acknowledges that MB was very young and John of Gaunt criticised Bolingbroke very strongly for getting his 12 year old wife Mary Bohun pregnant at 12. The child died.
I agree with your point about mistresses being acceptable as long as they were treated discreetly and not as an indulgence. After all, being a medieval wife must have been pretty awful. Some had children year after year after year; that's if they survived. They must have welcomed their husband sometimes going elsewhere. There's no evidence to say that Richard and Anne didn't get on; even Hicks gives details of the gifts he showered on her. And if he did occasionally find affection elsewhere, as has been alleged re the Hopper ring, then he wouldn't go down in my estimation.
The people who do surprise me are the clergy. I found that one future Bishop of London and friend of Thomas More was actually paying the organist of an Oxford college for the 'use' of his wife. H
(who will now shut up!)
From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 13:38
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary: He didn't live long - he died in 1491! An interesting find in one Welsh genealogical site describes Katherine as someone who 'died very young' . Does that imply that she was a child on her marriage, which has all sorts of implications? Sorry, not being provocative.
I think Lovell's actions post Bosworth confirm his loyalty, but I suspect Herbert's were more divided. He was from a family with strong loyalties to Edward IV and York, but there were strong links to Henry too, who was in the care of the Herbert family for many years and a marriage to Maud Herbert had been planned.
Which was the Welsh genealogical site that you used? The problem with a lot of Welsh genealogies is that some of them are confusing and sometimes inaccurate, including Bartrum. As for 'died very young,' how young was 'very young' back then? The phrase has a ring about it that suggests childhood, but it could imply early teens maybe. If she was born in 1472/73 - the latest time possible without Richard being unfaithful to Anne, she would have been 11 or 12 at the time of her marriage and would have been no older than 16 or 17 when she died by 1487. She could also have died not long after Bosworth aged 12 or 13. The burial at St. James' Garlickhythe, with its connection to the Stanley family makes me wonder if she was still quite young and in the care of Margaret Beaufort. If she was born after the marriage to Anne, she could have been as young as 7 when she married (no dispensation required) and 8 or 9 when she died - more in keeping with 'very young' in Tudor times. The younger she was, the better for Herbert as life would be easier for him if she were pressured to repudiate a marriage that was no longer convenient for him.
I don't really understand why Richard's sex life can be so sensitive a topic. There certainly has been some speculation about it that I find quite bizarre, such as Rowse saying that he wasn't interested in sex. How would he know something like that - he wasn't there! We don't know much about Anne, from what little we do know they do seem to have had a genuine affection for each other and a committed partnership, but how long did the mutual love and respect take to develop? I'm not convinced by the Paul Murray Kendall view of their courtship, and it the motive for the marriage was probably mostly transactional at the outset - like most upper class marriages. He is on record as having disapproved of adultery, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was never a dalliance with someone else, especially at a time when it was common practice with the nobility. That said, even if there was the odd lapse, I do think his morality was sound and sincere for its time, and he wouldn't have indulged in the same excesses as Edward (whose sharing women with Hastings and Dorset is distasteful even by today's standards.)
Nico
On Monday, 20 March 2017, 2:27, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
What did become of Lovell? I would love to know. Really love to know. I just cannot buy into the story about the skeleton being found at minster Lovell. You've made interesting points Hilary..but I think I will stick with my old long held perceptions of Lovell..maybe delve deeper..and hopefully he did indeed survived Stoke and died of old age in his bed.
Re the ages when married children no longer became children, I would normally go for about 14? I think everyone acknowledges that MB was very young and John of Gaunt criticised Bolingbroke very strongly for getting his 12 year old wife Mary Bohun pregnant at 12. The child died.
I agree with your point about mistresses being acceptable as long as they were treated discreetly and not as an indulgence. After all, being a medieval wife must have been pretty awful. Some had children year after year after year; that's if they survived. They must have welcomed their husband sometimes going elsewhere. There's no evidence to say that Richard and Anne didn't get on; even Hicks gives details of the gifts he showered on her. And if he did occasionally find affection elsewhere, as has been alleged re the Hopper ring, then he wouldn't go down in my estimation.
The people who do surprise me are the clergy. I found that one future Bishop of London and friend of Thomas More was actually paying the organist of an Oxford college for the 'use' of his wife. H
(who will now shut up!)
From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 13:38
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary: He didn't live long - he died in 1491! An interesting find in one Welsh genealogical site describes Katherine as someone who 'died very young' . Does that imply that she was a child on her marriage, which has all sorts of implications? Sorry, not being provocative.
I think Lovell's actions post Bosworth confirm his loyalty, but I suspect Herbert's were more divided. He was from a family with strong loyalties to Edward IV and York, but there were strong links to Henry too, who was in the care of the Herbert family for many years and a marriage to Maud Herbert had been planned.
Which was the Welsh genealogical site that you used? The problem with a lot of Welsh genealogies is that some of them are confusing and sometimes inaccurate, including Bartrum. As for 'died very young,' how young was 'very young' back then? The phrase has a ring about it that suggests childhood, but it could imply early teens maybe. If she was born in 1472/73 - the latest time possible without Richard being unfaithful to Anne, she would have been 11 or 12 at the time of her marriage and would have been no older than 16 or 17 when she died by 1487. She could also have died not long after Bosworth aged 12 or 13. The burial at St. James' Garlickhythe, with its connection to the Stanley family makes me wonder if she was still quite young and in the care of Margaret Beaufort. If she was born after the marriage to Anne, she could have been as young as 7 when she married (no dispensation required) and 8 or 9 when she died - more in keeping with 'very young' in Tudor times. The younger she was, the better for Herbert as life would be easier for him if she were pressured to repudiate a marriage that was no longer convenient for him.
I don't really understand why Richard's sex life can be so sensitive a topic. There certainly has been some speculation about it that I find quite bizarre, such as Rowse saying that he wasn't interested in sex. How would he know something like that - he wasn't there! We don't know much about Anne, from what little we do know they do seem to have had a genuine affection for each other and a committed partnership, but how long did the mutual love and respect take to develop? I'm not convinced by the Paul Murray Kendall view of their courtship, and it the motive for the marriage was probably mostly transactional at the outset - like most upper class marriages. He is on record as having disapproved of adultery, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was never a dalliance with someone else, especially at a time when it was common practice with the nobility. That said, even if there was the odd lapse, I do think his morality was sound and sincere for its time, and he wouldn't have indulged in the same excesses as Edward (whose sharing women with Hastings and Dorset is distasteful even by today's standards.)
Nico
On Monday, 20 March 2017, 2:27, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
What did become of Lovell? I would love to know. Really love to know. I just cannot buy into the story about the skeleton being found at minster Lovell. You've made interesting points Hilary..but I think I will stick with my old long held perceptions of Lovell..maybe delve deeper..and hopefully he did indeed survived Stoke and died of old age in his bed.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 14:42:09
Crawl accepted, of course. But creating a cuddly William Stanley is a challenge too far!
From:
mailto:
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 2:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Nah - I blame the Victorians, I've taken to blaming them for everything as a change from Shakespeare and More!
I have to admit it makes a good read as long as you take it as just that. And I will admit that novelists have been Richard's good friend and a very positive way of getting people interested in him for
decades. Not all of them are though. Some have him turn into a monster halfway through.
Perhaps someone should romanticise poor old misunderstood Percy or William Stanley? There's a challenge for you!
Have I crawled enough?:) :) I read those novels, of course. H
From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 13:52
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Come on, Hilary. You can't blame novelists for Lovell's reputation as Richard's great friend. Novelists also portray Richard himself in a good light...would you hint that this is wrong because novelists write
it?
From:
mailto:
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
My money would indeed be on survival and Scotland seems to offer the quickest way out, given that he'd served there and lived in the vicinity for most of his life.
I wish we knew more about the Scottish campaign. You see if you trust Lovell for his loyalty to Richard there, then you also have to trust Percy, who was his deputy. Both have families who have dabbled
in treason in the past, both seemed to be loyal in Scotland, yet poor old Percy gets all the flack whilst Lovell is the cuddly friend - such is the power of novelists!:) At least we know Percy was in the Leicester area at Bosworth, which is more than we can
say for Lovell.
As for the point about the witnesses to the document raised by Carol, I think you would expect that. They are the legacy of Middleham so would have been common to Lovell and Richard. And
Edward Franke was the High Sheriff of Northants put in by Richard, who incidentally did turn up at Bosworth. I'm not condemning Lovell - I just have a question-mark against him.
At least this controversy has upped the traffic on the website :) :) H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 2:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
What did become of Lovell? I would love to know. Really love to know. I just cannot buy into the story about the skeleton being found at minster Lovell. You've made interesting points Hilary..but
I think I will stick with my old long held perceptions of Lovell..maybe delve deeper..and hopefully he did indeed survived Stoke
and died of old age in his bed.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 16:26:52
When I said that William Herbert had done quite well under HT Marie corrected me and said it was Walter Herbert. Presumably the said Walter, William's brother. If so he was in contact with HT long before Bosworth while his brother was guarding the South Wales coast for Richard.
Sir Matthew Craddock, who owned or was Steward of castles along the South Wales Coast and just inland and married Katherine Gordon fought for in Rhys ap Thomas's retinue at Bosworth. I have recently discovered that Rhys ap Thomas married Jane Stradling (nee Matthew) in 1480. Jane Stradling was the widow of Thomas Stradling who held the seat of St Donats and St Donats' castle on the South Wales coast ( now Atlantic College). Thomas' father was Henry Stradling who was married to Elizabeth Herbert of Raglan. His father Edward married Cardinal Beaufort's daughter Jane. They were descended from another Edward Stradling who had married Gwenllian Berkerolles daughter of Sir Roger Berkerolles.
He then became the guardian of Edward, the young heir to St Donats, and in 1485 Jane died presumably leaving Rhys completely in charge. What I am trying to get at here is that I thought that as Sir Matthew Craddock was connected to William Herbert he had fought for Richard at Bosworth but what if Walter had persuaded him to turn traitor. After Bosworth Walter gave stewardships and land to Matthew and Matthew in turn would have known the Stradlings because his castle of Candleston was just up the coast from St Donats. Sir Matthew was descended from the Newtons who are connected to Stillington. Hilary do you have any thoughts on those connections? Could mummy have been stirring the pot even more than we think because after all HT was born at Pembroke castle and I think that William and Walter's father was his guardian.
Sir Matthew Craddock, who owned or was Steward of castles along the South Wales Coast and just inland and married Katherine Gordon fought for in Rhys ap Thomas's retinue at Bosworth. I have recently discovered that Rhys ap Thomas married Jane Stradling (nee Matthew) in 1480. Jane Stradling was the widow of Thomas Stradling who held the seat of St Donats and St Donats' castle on the South Wales coast ( now Atlantic College). Thomas' father was Henry Stradling who was married to Elizabeth Herbert of Raglan. His father Edward married Cardinal Beaufort's daughter Jane. They were descended from another Edward Stradling who had married Gwenllian Berkerolles daughter of Sir Roger Berkerolles.
He then became the guardian of Edward, the young heir to St Donats, and in 1485 Jane died presumably leaving Rhys completely in charge. What I am trying to get at here is that I thought that as Sir Matthew Craddock was connected to William Herbert he had fought for Richard at Bosworth but what if Walter had persuaded him to turn traitor. After Bosworth Walter gave stewardships and land to Matthew and Matthew in turn would have known the Stradlings because his castle of Candleston was just up the coast from St Donats. Sir Matthew was descended from the Newtons who are connected to Stillington. Hilary do you have any thoughts on those connections? Could mummy have been stirring the pot even more than we think because after all HT was born at Pembroke castle and I think that William and Walter's father was his guardian.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 16:31:51
Very interesting, Mary.
From:
mailto:
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 4:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
When I said that William Herbert had done quite well under HT Marie corrected me and said it was Walter Herbert. Presumably the said Walter, William's brother. If so he was in contact with HT long before Bosworth while his brother was guarding the South Wales coast for Richard.
Sir Matthew Craddock, who owned or was Steward of castles along the South Wales Coast and just inland and married Katherine Gordon fought for in Rhys ap Thomas's retinue at Bosworth. I have recently discovered that Rhys ap Thomas married Jane Stradling (nee Matthew) in 1480. Jane Stradling was the widow of Thomas Stradling who held the seat of St Donats and St Donats' castle on the South Wales coast ( now Atlantic College). Thomas' father was Henry Stradling who was married to Elizabeth Herbert of Raglan. His father Edward married Cardinal Beaufort's daughter Jane. They were descended from another Edward Stradling who had married Gwenllian Berkerolles daughter of Sir Roger Berkerolles. He then became the guardian of Edward, the young heir to St Donats, and in 1485 Jane died presumably leaving Rhys completely in charge. What I am trying to get at here is that I thought that as Sir Matthew Craddock was connected to William Herbert he had fought for Richard at Bosworth but what if Walter had persuaded him to turn traitor. After Bosworth Walter gave stewardships and land to Matthew and Matthew in turn would have known the Stradlings because his castle of Candleston was just up the coast from St Donats. Sir Matthew was descended from the Newtons who are connected to Stillington. Hilary do you have any thoughts on those connections? Could mummy have been stirring the pot even more than we think because after all HT was born at Pembroke castle and I think that William and Walter's father was his guardian.Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lo
2017-03-20 16:56:51
Hilary
wrote:
//snip//
agree with your point about mistresses being acceptable as long as they
were treated discreetly and not as an indulgence. After a ll, being a medieval
wife must have been pretty awful. Some had children year after year after year;
that's if they survived. They must have welcomed their husband sometimes going
elsewhere. There's no evidence to say that Richard and Anne didn't get on; even
Hicks gives details of the gifts he showered on her. And if he did occasionally
find affection elsewhere, as has been alleged re the Hopper ring, then he
wouldn't go down in my estimation.
Doug here:
So much depends on the manner of Richard and Anne becoming
acquainted(?), doesn't it? FWIW, and it's again only my personal view, but
frankly if I was Anne and faced with the prospect my sister's husband, George,
Duke of Clarence, controlling my life, and probable future, my
attitude, in today's parlance, would have been I'm outta here! We have nothing
that says Isabel and Anne didn't get along well, why has no one ever considered
that Anne's escape wasn't a joint venture, planned by the two sisters?
Of course, that would tend to increase the chances that Richard and Anne
married for reasons other than love and that doesn't make for as good a
scenario. And if Anne and Richard had married for the usual,
boring Medieval reason/s, while it certainly doesn't preclude a genuine
affection developing, it would, at least IMO, be more
believable. Such a marriage would also make any lapses on Richard's part, both
understandable, and forgivable, by Anne. And us, of course.
Hilary concluded:
The people who do surprise me are the clergy. I found that
one future Bishop of London and friend of Thomas More was actually paying the
organist of an Oxford college for the 'use' of his wife.
(who will now shut up!) Doug here: Again it's my personal opinion, but I rather wonder if it wasn't as much the premediation as it was the action itself that Richard, and others, found so objectionable in Edward's behavior? It was one thing to be imperfect and suffer lapses in conduct - and quite another to, well, celebrate the lapse. As for the clergy; well, when one considers that large numbers of the clergy were originally there for material reasons, aka money/power, the lack in spiritual qualities is much more explainable. Not necessarily more excusable, though... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
(who will now shut up!) Doug here: Again it's my personal opinion, but I rather wonder if it wasn't as much the premediation as it was the action itself that Richard, and others, found so objectionable in Edward's behavior? It was one thing to be imperfect and suffer lapses in conduct - and quite another to, well, celebrate the lapse. As for the clergy; well, when one considers that large numbers of the clergy were originally there for material reasons, aka money/power, the lack in spiritual qualities is much more explainable. Not necessarily more excusable, though... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-03-20 17:02:09
Eileen
wrote
Good
points Doug..once again ..especially about the wind and the ports. I don't
know much about these things but that certainly makes perfect sense. And
that would surely clarify any doubts about Lovell's loyalty i.e. in letting HT
slip through.
Doug
here:
I
first came across that problem with the winds reading one of Sir Arthur Bryant's
volumes on Samuel Pepys where the major cause of the failure by James' ships to
meet and oppose William's transports was laid down to the English not being able
to get out of port because the winds that so helped William down the Channel had
kept the English in ports. I presume the same would have applied to Lovell, and
Herbert, in opposing Tudor two centuries earlier.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell andth
2017-03-20 17:27:33
Me too...I think?
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 17:30:02
I'm being lazy here Hilary..but what happened..was he outed? As in had the chop? There were so many I lose track..
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-20 18:11:29
He literally had the chop Eileen. He was one of AB's 'lovers' - at the ripe old age of 54. Henry Norreys
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 17:30
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
I'm being lazy here Hilary..but what happened..was he outed? As in had the chop? There were so many I lose track..
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 17:30
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
I'm being lazy here Hilary..but what happened..was he outed? As in had the chop? There were so many I lose track..
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-21 02:03:25
Ive not long ago finished Wolf Hall on Audible..13 hours long so I should be au fait..having said that so many got the chop its hard to keep up. Poor man. Presumably he was framed.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-21 14:04:13
Hi Mary, I do indeed have thoughts! Mathew Cradock fought for HT at Bosworth.
I still have trouble linking him to Sir John (Craddock) Newton, the father-in-law of Stillington's grandchildren. Some websites have them as brothers but Mathew is younger. Mathew is down on most as the son of Richard Cradock and Jenet Horton, whereas Sir John is the some of another Richard and Emmota Perrot. Richard 1 is listed as the son of Gwilym ap Evan Cradoc whereas Richard 2 is the son of John Cardoc, Lord of Newton Powys. Both then go back through the Caradoc line, which of course supposedly links to the Tudors. Then some websites also have Richard 2 as the father of Sir Richard Newton of Beverstone, whose son Peter was Governor to Prince Arthur . It's mighty confusing but all I can say is that that corner of Somerset seems to be a powder-keg of plotting. Lots of Morton relations there as well. Even Bray was related to the Seymours through his wife
If Stillington didn't know about all this then he was either blind or senile but then he supposedly never visited? Yes I think by 1485 the MB camp had gone into full activation mode. I wish I was better at Welsh genealogy, I can only look at it in small bursts. H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 16:26
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
When I said that William Herbert had done quite well under HT Marie corrected me and said it was Walter Herbert. Presumably the said Walter, William's brother. If so he was in contact with HT long before Bosworth while his brother was guarding the South Wales coast for Richard.
Sir Matthew Craddock, who owned or was Steward of castles along the South Wales Coast and just inland and married Katherine Gordon fought for in Rhys ap Thomas's retinue at Bosworth. I have recently discovered that Rhys ap Thomas married Jane Stradling (nee Matthew) in 1480. Jane Stradling was the widow of Thomas Stradling who held the seat of St Donats and St Donats' castle on the South Wales coast ( now Atlantic College). Thomas' father was Henry Stradling who was married to Elizabeth Herbert of Raglan. His father Edward married Cardinal Beaufort's daughter Jane. They were descended from another Edward Stradling who had married Gwenllian Berkerolles daughter of Sir Roger Berkerolles.
He then became the guardian of Edward, the young heir to St Donats, and in 1485 Jane died presumably leaving Rhys completely in charge. What I am trying to get at here is that I thought that as Sir Matthew Craddock was connected to William Herbert he had fought for Richard at Bosworth but what if Walter had persuaded him to turn traitor. After Bosworth Walter gave stewardships and land to Matthew and Matthew in turn would have known the Stradlings because his castle of Candleston was just up the coast from St Donats. Sir Matthew was descended from the Newtons who are connected to Stillington. Hilary do you have any thoughts on those connections? Could mummy have been stirring the pot even more than we think because after all HT was born at Pembroke castle and I think that William and Walter's father was his guardian.
I still have trouble linking him to Sir John (Craddock) Newton, the father-in-law of Stillington's grandchildren. Some websites have them as brothers but Mathew is younger. Mathew is down on most as the son of Richard Cradock and Jenet Horton, whereas Sir John is the some of another Richard and Emmota Perrot. Richard 1 is listed as the son of Gwilym ap Evan Cradoc whereas Richard 2 is the son of John Cardoc, Lord of Newton Powys. Both then go back through the Caradoc line, which of course supposedly links to the Tudors. Then some websites also have Richard 2 as the father of Sir Richard Newton of Beverstone, whose son Peter was Governor to Prince Arthur . It's mighty confusing but all I can say is that that corner of Somerset seems to be a powder-keg of plotting. Lots of Morton relations there as well. Even Bray was related to the Seymours through his wife
If Stillington didn't know about all this then he was either blind or senile but then he supposedly never visited? Yes I think by 1485 the MB camp had gone into full activation mode. I wish I was better at Welsh genealogy, I can only look at it in small bursts. H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 16:26
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
When I said that William Herbert had done quite well under HT Marie corrected me and said it was Walter Herbert. Presumably the said Walter, William's brother. If so he was in contact with HT long before Bosworth while his brother was guarding the South Wales coast for Richard.
Sir Matthew Craddock, who owned or was Steward of castles along the South Wales Coast and just inland and married Katherine Gordon fought for in Rhys ap Thomas's retinue at Bosworth. I have recently discovered that Rhys ap Thomas married Jane Stradling (nee Matthew) in 1480. Jane Stradling was the widow of Thomas Stradling who held the seat of St Donats and St Donats' castle on the South Wales coast ( now Atlantic College). Thomas' father was Henry Stradling who was married to Elizabeth Herbert of Raglan. His father Edward married Cardinal Beaufort's daughter Jane. They were descended from another Edward Stradling who had married Gwenllian Berkerolles daughter of Sir Roger Berkerolles.
He then became the guardian of Edward, the young heir to St Donats, and in 1485 Jane died presumably leaving Rhys completely in charge. What I am trying to get at here is that I thought that as Sir Matthew Craddock was connected to William Herbert he had fought for Richard at Bosworth but what if Walter had persuaded him to turn traitor. After Bosworth Walter gave stewardships and land to Matthew and Matthew in turn would have known the Stradlings because his castle of Candleston was just up the coast from St Donats. Sir Matthew was descended from the Newtons who are connected to Stillington. Hilary do you have any thoughts on those connections? Could mummy have been stirring the pot even more than we think because after all HT was born at Pembroke castle and I think that William and Walter's father was his guardian.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lo
2017-03-21 14:14:42
I agree about Richard and Anne Doug. People then didn't grow up on Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights, it was all to do with 'romances' which worshipped the unattainable woman from afar. But I would have thought you would have hoped to have a happy marriage and I'm sure most did. In fact they probably grew more affectionate than more modern marriages of passion because having to make it work probably did work (if you see what I mean). And yes, as far as Anne was concerned Richard was a good match. For a start he was young and now we know he was also good looking and she was from a family he knew well.
And again yes, it was the nature of what Edward was doing which was more akin to visiting brothels.
As for the clergy, well they do provide me with a bit of amusement during my dull diggings. One choirmaster in Newark was admonished for spending his spare income on ladies of the congregation. He was still singing there twenty years' later! H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 16:56
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary wrote: //snip// agree with your point about mistresses being acceptable as long as they were treated discreetly and not as an indulgence. After a ll, being a medieval wife must have been pretty awful. Some had children year after year after year; that's if they survived. They must have welcomed their husband sometimes going elsewhere. There's no evidence to say that Richard and Anne didn't get on; even Hicks gives details of the gifts he showered on her. And if he did occasionally find affection elsewhere, as has been alleged re the Hopper ring, then he wouldn't go down in my estimation. Doug here: So much depends on the manner of Richard and Anne becoming acquainted(?), doesn't it? FWIW, and it's again only my personal view, but frankly if I was Anne and faced with the prospect my sister's husband, George, Duke of Clarence, controlling my life, and probable future, my attitude, in today's parlance, would have been I'm outta here! We have nothing that says Isabel and Anne didn't get along well, why has no one ever considered that Anne's escape wasn't a joint venture, planned by the two sisters? Of course, that would tend to increase the chances that Richard and Anne married for reasons other than love and that doesn't make for as good a scenario. And if Anne and Richard had married for the usual, boring Medieval reason/s, while it certainly doesn't preclude a genuine affection developing, it would, at least IMO, be more believable. Such a marriage would also make any lapses on Richard's part, both understandable, and forgivable, by Anne. And us, of course. Hilary concluded: The people who do surprise me are the clergy. I found that one future Bishop of London and friend of Thomas More was actually paying the organist of an Oxford college for the 'use' of his wife.
(who will now shut up!) Doug here: Again it's my personal opinion, but I rather wonder if it wasn't as much the premediation as it was the action itself that Richard, and others, found so objectionable in Edward's behavior? It was one thing to be imperfect and suffer lapses in conduct - and quite another to, well, celebrate the lapse. As for the clergy; well, when one considers that large numbers of the clergy were originally there for material reasons, aka money/power, the lack in spiritual qualities is much more explainable. Not necessarily more excusable, though... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
And again yes, it was the nature of what Edward was doing which was more akin to visiting brothels.
As for the clergy, well they do provide me with a bit of amusement during my dull diggings. One choirmaster in Newark was admonished for spending his spare income on ladies of the congregation. He was still singing there twenty years' later! H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 16:56
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary wrote: //snip// agree with your point about mistresses being acceptable as long as they were treated discreetly and not as an indulgence. After a ll, being a medieval wife must have been pretty awful. Some had children year after year after year; that's if they survived. They must have welcomed their husband sometimes going elsewhere. There's no evidence to say that Richard and Anne didn't get on; even Hicks gives details of the gifts he showered on her. And if he did occasionally find affection elsewhere, as has been alleged re the Hopper ring, then he wouldn't go down in my estimation. Doug here: So much depends on the manner of Richard and Anne becoming acquainted(?), doesn't it? FWIW, and it's again only my personal view, but frankly if I was Anne and faced with the prospect my sister's husband, George, Duke of Clarence, controlling my life, and probable future, my attitude, in today's parlance, would have been I'm outta here! We have nothing that says Isabel and Anne didn't get along well, why has no one ever considered that Anne's escape wasn't a joint venture, planned by the two sisters? Of course, that would tend to increase the chances that Richard and Anne married for reasons other than love and that doesn't make for as good a scenario. And if Anne and Richard had married for the usual, boring Medieval reason/s, while it certainly doesn't preclude a genuine affection developing, it would, at least IMO, be more believable. Such a marriage would also make any lapses on Richard's part, both understandable, and forgivable, by Anne. And us, of course. Hilary concluded: The people who do surprise me are the clergy. I found that one future Bishop of London and friend of Thomas More was actually paying the organist of an Oxford college for the 'use' of his wife.
(who will now shut up!) Doug here: Again it's my personal opinion, but I rather wonder if it wasn't as much the premediation as it was the action itself that Richard, and others, found so objectionable in Edward's behavior? It was one thing to be imperfect and suffer lapses in conduct - and quite another to, well, celebrate the lapse. As for the clergy; well, when one considers that large numbers of the clergy were originally there for material reasons, aka money/power, the lack in spiritual qualities is much more explainable. Not necessarily more excusable, though... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-21 14:16:54
As were they all, including Anne herself.H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2017, 2:03
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Ive not long ago finished Wolf Hall on Audible..13 hours long so I should be au fait..having said that so many got the chop its hard to keep up. Poor man. Presumably he was framed.
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2017, 2:03
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Ive not long ago finished Wolf Hall on Audible..13 hours long so I should be au fait..having said that so many got the chop its hard to keep up. Poor man. Presumably he was framed.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-21 14:23:35
Anne doesn't appear to have been endearing..however that was taking things a bit far...
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-21 14:25:57
I do like Mantel's portrayal of More - much closer to the reality. H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2017, 14:24
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Anne doesn't appear to have been endearing..however that was taking things a bit far...
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2017, 14:24
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Anne doesn't appear to have been endearing..however that was taking things a bit far...
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lo
2017-03-21 14:33:51
What else was Anne going to do? I don't know about the 'hiding her as a kitchen maid" story but surely they both wanted to avoid being forced to marry Woodvilles.
Anne was the Yorkshire girl. I think Richard owed a lot to her.
On Mar 21, 2017 10:14 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
I agree about Richard and Anne Doug. People then didn't grow up on Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights, it was all to do with 'romances' which worshipped the unattainable woman from afar. But I would have thought you would have hoped to have a happy marriage and I'm sure most did. In fact they probably grew more affectionate than more modern marriages of passion because having to make it work probably did work (if you see what I mean). And yes, as far as Anne was concerned Richard was a good match. For a start he was young and now we know he was also good looking and she was from a family he knew well.
And again yes, it was the nature of what Edward was doing which was more akin to visiting brothels.
As for the clergy, well they do provide me with a bit of amusement during my dull diggings. One choirmaster in Newark was admonished for spending his spare income on ladies of the congregation. He was still singing there twenty years' later! H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 16:56
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary
wrote:
//snip//
agree with your point about mistresses being acceptable as long as they
were treated discreetly and not as an indulgence. After a ll, being a medieval
wife must have been pretty awful. Some had children year after year after year;
that's if they survived. They must have welcomed their husband sometimes going
elsewhere. There's no evidence to say that Richard and Anne didn't get on; even
Hicks gives details of the gifts he showered on her. And if he did occasionally
find affection elsewhere, as has been alleged re the Hopper ring, then he
wouldn't go down in my estimation.
Doug here:
So much depends on the manner of Richard and Anne becoming
acquainted(?), doesn't it? FWIW, and it's again only my personal view, but
frankly if I was Anne and faced with the prospect my sister's husband, George,
Duke of Clarence, controlling my life, and probable future, my
attitude, in today's parlance, would have been I'm outta here! We have nothing
that says Isabel and Anne didn't get along well, why has no one ever considered
that Anne's escape wasn't a joint venture, planned by the two sisters?
Of course, that would tend to increase the chances that Richard and Anne
married for reasons other than love and that doesn't make for as good a
scenario. And if Anne and Richard had married for the usual,
boring Medieval reason/s, while it certainly doesn't preclude a genuine
affection developing, it would, at least IMO, be more
believable. Such a marriage would also make any lapses on Richard's part, both
understandable, and forgivable, by Anne. And us, of course.
Hilary concluded:
The people who do surprise me are the clergy. I found that
one future Bishop of London and friend of Thomas More was actually paying the
organist of an Oxford college for the 'use' of his wife.
(who will now shut
up!)
Doug here:
Again it's my personal opinion, but I
rather wonder if it wasn't as much the premediation as it was the
action itself that Richard, and others, found so objectionable in Edward's
behavior? It was one thing to be imperfect and suffer lapses in conduct - and
quite another to, well, celebrate the lapse.
As for the clergy; well, when one
considers that large numbers of the clergy were originally there for
material reasons, aka money/power, the lack in spiritual
qualities is much more explainable.
Not necessarily more excusable,
though...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-21 17:32:16
Have the DVD of wolf hall..have watched it over and over,..mark Rylance as More..mesmerising!
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lo
2017-03-21 17:34:54
I'm not sure Karen but if you are responding to my message about 'Anne' I'm referring to .Anne Boleyn..not Neville.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-22 01:33:23
Apologies if part of this post shows up earlier. I seem to have lost what I was typing when I looked at another page.
With regard to the age of Richard's daughter Katherine when she married, it may be helpful to remember his oath to EW regarding his illegitimized nieces, which reads in part, "And if I shall, do marry *such of them as now be marriageable* to gentlemen born . . . and likewise the other daughters *when they come to lawful age of marriage* if they live . . . ."
We know that he made arrangements only for Elizabeth and Cecily, both of whom of lawful age by the standards of the time. If he took care not to marry off Anne, Catherine, or Bridget while they were too young, surely he would have done the same for his own illegitimate daughter.
She must for that reason have been at least twelve (the legal age of consent in the fifteenth century) but no more than about sixteen unless Richard (who was about thirty-one when Katherine married) had a mistress and conceived a child with her before age fourteen, which strikes me as unlikely.
Carol
With regard to the age of Richard's daughter Katherine when she married, it may be helpful to remember his oath to EW regarding his illegitimized nieces, which reads in part, "And if I shall, do marry *such of them as now be marriageable* to gentlemen born . . . and likewise the other daughters *when they come to lawful age of marriage* if they live . . . ."
We know that he made arrangements only for Elizabeth and Cecily, both of whom of lawful age by the standards of the time. If he took care not to marry off Anne, Catherine, or Bridget while they were too young, surely he would have done the same for his own illegitimate daughter.
She must for that reason have been at least twelve (the legal age of consent in the fifteenth century) but no more than about sixteen unless Richard (who was about thirty-one when Katherine married) had a mistress and conceived a child with her before age fourteen, which strikes me as unlikely.
Carol
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-03-22 02:59:34
Hilary
wrote:
I agree about Richard and
Anne Doug. People then didn't grow up on Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights, it was
all to do with 'romances' which worshipped the unattainable woman from afar. But
I would have thought you would have hoped to have a happy marriage and I'm sure
most did. In fact they probably grew more affectionate than more modern
marriages of passion because having to make it work probably did work (if you
see what I mean). And yes, as far as Anne was concerned Richard was a good
match. For a start he was young and now we know he was also good looking and she
was from a family he knew well.
And again yes, it was the
nature of what Edward was doing which was more akin to visiting brothels.
As for the clergy, well
they do provide me with a bit of amusement during my dull diggings. One
choirmaster in Newark was admonished for spending his spare income on ladies of
the congregation. He was still singing there twenty years' later!
Doug here:
Most people I know seem to want to make
the best of what they're given in life, as best I can tell anyway; and I see no
reason why those sentiments shouldn't have been around in the 15th century as
well.
As for the Choirmaster; and what's wrong
with singing for one's supper ?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-22 07:20:47
Excellent reasoning, Carol. I'll go with it.
From:
mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Apologies if part of this post shows up earlier. I seem to have lost what I was typing when I looked at another page.
With regard to the age of Richard's daughter Katherine when she married, it may be helpful to remember his oath to EW regarding his illegitimized nieces, which reads in part, "And if I shall, do marry *such of them as now be marriageable* to gentlemen born
. . . and likewise the other daughters *when they come to lawful age of marriage* if they live . . . ."
We know that he made arrangements only for Elizabeth and Cecily, both of whom of lawful age by the standards of the time. If he took care not to marry off Anne, Catherine, or Bridget while they were too young, surely he would have done the same for his own
illegitimate daughter.
She must for that reason have been at least twelve (the legal age of consent in the fifteenth century) but no more than about sixteen unless Richard (who was about thirty-one when Katherine married) had a mistress and conceived a child with her before age fourteen,
which strikes me as unlikely.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-22 11:21:17
A very good point, Carol. He did betroth Anne to Thomas Howard in 1484 when she would have been 9 or 10, but he was only a couple of years older than her and the marriage didn't take place for another 10 years. It probably is the Welsh genealogy site being vague when it said that Katherine died 'very young.'
Nico
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017, 7:20, "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Excellent reasoning, Carol. I'll go with it. From: mailto: Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:33 AM To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth Apologies if part of this post shows up earlier. I seem to have lost what I was typing when I looked at another page.
With regard to the age of Richard's daughter Katherine when she married, it may be helpful to remember his oath to EW regarding his illegitimized nieces, which reads in part, "And if I shall, do marry *such of them as now be marriageable* to gentlemen born . . . and likewise the other daughters *when they come to lawful age of marriage* if they live . . . ."
We know that he made arrangements only for Elizabeth and Cecily, both of whom of lawful age by the standards of the time. If he took care not to marry off Anne, Catherine, or Bridget while they were too young, surely he would have done the same for his own illegitimate daughter.
She must for that reason have been at least twelve (the legal age of consent in the fifteenth century) but no more than about sixteen unless Richard (who was about thirty-one when Katherine married) had a mistress and conceived a child with her before age fourteen, which strikes me as unlikely.
Nico
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017, 7:20, "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Excellent reasoning, Carol. I'll go with it. From: mailto: Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:33 AM To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth Apologies if part of this post shows up earlier. I seem to have lost what I was typing when I looked at another page.
With regard to the age of Richard's daughter Katherine when she married, it may be helpful to remember his oath to EW regarding his illegitimized nieces, which reads in part, "And if I shall, do marry *such of them as now be marriageable* to gentlemen born . . . and likewise the other daughters *when they come to lawful age of marriage* if they live . . . ."
We know that he made arrangements only for Elizabeth and Cecily, both of whom of lawful age by the standards of the time. If he took care not to marry off Anne, Catherine, or Bridget while they were too young, surely he would have done the same for his own illegitimate daughter.
She must for that reason have been at least twelve (the legal age of consent in the fifteenth century) but no more than about sixteen unless Richard (who was about thirty-one when Katherine married) had a mistress and conceived a child with her before age fourteen, which strikes me as unlikely.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-22 17:42:19
Sandra wrote:
"Excellent reasoning, Carol. I'll go with it."
Carol responds:
Thanks, Sandra. I can't remember (and can't check now without losing my post) whether this oath is in our Files. If it isn't, it should be. Meanwhile, it's in most biographies of Richard, starting with Caroline Halstead's, if anyone wants to read the whole thing."
Carol
From: mailto:Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:33 AMTo: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
"Excellent reasoning, Carol. I'll go with it."
Carol responds:
Thanks, Sandra. I can't remember (and can't check now without losing my post) whether this oath is in our Files. If it isn't, it should be. Meanwhile, it's in most biographies of Richard, starting with Caroline Halstead's, if anyone wants to read the whole thing."
Carol
From: mailto:Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:33 AMTo: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Apologies if part of this post shows up earlier. I seem to have lost what I was typing when I looked at another page.
With regard to the age of Richard's daughter Katherine when she married, it may be helpful to remember his oath to EW regarding his illegitimized nieces, which reads in part, "And if I shall, do marry *such of them as now be marriageable* to gentlemen born
. . . and likewise the other daughters *when they come to lawful age of marriage* if they live . . . ."
We know that he made arrangements only for Elizabeth and Cecily, both of whom of lawful age by the standards of the time. If he took care not to marry off Anne, Catherine, or Bridget while they were too young, surely he would have done the same for his own
illegitimate daughter.
She must for that reason have been at least twelve (the legal age of consent in the fifteenth century) but no more than about sixteen unless Richard (who was about thirty-one when Katherine married) had a mistress and conceived a child with her before age fourteen,
which strikes me as unlikely.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-22 18:02:39
Nico wrote :
"A very good point, Carol. He did betroth Anne to Thomas Howard in 1484 when she would have been 9 or 10, but he was only a couple of years older than her and the marriage didn't take place for another 10 years."
Carol responds:
Thanks, Nico. I'd forgotten about that. But, of course, a betrothal is not a marriage. Cecily, who actually did marry Richard's follower Ralph Scrope, was fifteen at the time.
Interesting that Henry VII followed through with Richard's plans in this regard. If I recall correctly, he wanted to have the Howard brothers under his watchful eye and kept at least the two eldest at court, presumably to convert them into supporters (their father and grandfather had fought for Richard)--and to keep a tight rein on their father once he got out of the Tower.
(If the elder Thomas is, as many people suspect, the author of Hearne's Fragment, he remained a secret Yorkist even while serving Henry VII. Too bad the pages relating to Richard's reign are lost or were never written.)
Carol
"A very good point, Carol. He did betroth Anne to Thomas Howard in 1484 when she would have been 9 or 10, but he was only a couple of years older than her and the marriage didn't take place for another 10 years."
Carol responds:
Thanks, Nico. I'd forgotten about that. But, of course, a betrothal is not a marriage. Cecily, who actually did marry Richard's follower Ralph Scrope, was fifteen at the time.
Interesting that Henry VII followed through with Richard's plans in this regard. If I recall correctly, he wanted to have the Howard brothers under his watchful eye and kept at least the two eldest at court, presumably to convert them into supporters (their father and grandfather had fought for Richard)--and to keep a tight rein on their father once he got out of the Tower.
(If the elder Thomas is, as many people suspect, the author of Hearne's Fragment, he remained a secret Yorkist even while serving Henry VII. Too bad the pages relating to Richard's reign are lost or were never written.)
Carol
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-22 18:43:29
Off at a tangent here, sorry. But does anyone else find the Scrope marriage for Cicely/Cecily a little odd? Richard must have arranged it, but why? Surely a king's daughter was a good bargaining chip, and Scrope wasn't exactly a dazzling match. Could
it have been one of those rare medieval things, a love match? And then, as soon as HT comes to power, he sets the Scrope marriage aside and bundles her into the arms of his half-uncle, Sir John Welles, who wasn't even a viscount at the time and who never amounted
to any great shakes. Yet HT let the grander marriage between Anne and Thomas Howard proceed. Why did Cicely only get lower' matches?
From:
mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 6:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Carol responds:
Thanks, Nico. I'd forgotten about that. But, of course, a betrothal is not a marriage. Cecily, who actually did marry Richard's follower Ralph Scrope, was fifteen at the time.
Interesting that Henry VII followed through with Richard's plans in this regard. If I recall correctly, he wanted to have the Howard brothers under his watchful eye and kept at least the two eldest at court, presumably to convert them into supporters (their father and grandfather had fought for Richard)--and to keep a tight rein on their father once he got out of the Tower.
(If the elder Thomas is, as many people suspect, the author of Hearne's Fragment, he remained a secret Yorkist even while serving Henry VII. Too bad the pages relating to Richard's reign are lost or were never written.)
Carol .
Nico wrote :
Carol responds:
Thanks, Nico. I'd forgotten about that. But, of course, a betrothal is not a marriage. Cecily, who actually did marry Richard's follower Ralph Scrope, was fifteen at the time.
Interesting that Henry VII followed through with Richard's plans in this regard. If I recall correctly, he wanted to have the Howard brothers under his watchful eye and kept at least the two eldest at court, presumably to convert them into supporters (their father and grandfather had fought for Richard)--and to keep a tight rein on their father once he got out of the Tower.
(If the elder Thomas is, as many people suspect, the author of Hearne's Fragment, he remained a secret Yorkist even while serving Henry VII. Too bad the pages relating to Richard's reign are lost or were never written.)
Carol .
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-23 08:20:22
I think she softened him a lot. in Reality he was not a vey nice man, beating the servants, imposing a very strict regime on his daughter etc. And of course intractable about certain issues.Paul
Richard Liveth Yet
On 21 Mar 2017, at 15:25, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I do like Mantel's portrayal of More - much closer to the reality. H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <@... m>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2017, 14:24
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Anne doesn't appear to have been endearing..however that was taking things a bit far...
Richard Liveth Yet
On 21 Mar 2017, at 15:25, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I do like Mantel's portrayal of More - much closer to the reality. H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <@... m>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2017, 14:24
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Anne doesn't appear to have been endearing..however that was taking things a bit far...
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-23 10:24:12
Sorry, but who softened whom?
It is often difficult, at least for me,to find out, which answer fits to which post.
And there are no distinct Topics as well. Am I the only one who would prefer a little more order
on this forum, which i love read and sometimes participate in?
Eva
It is often difficult, at least for me,to find out, which answer fits to which post.
And there are no distinct Topics as well. Am I the only one who would prefer a little more order
on this forum, which i love read and sometimes participate in?
Eva
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-23 12:37:55
Hilary Mantel softened Thomas More! Sorry for confusion.Paul
Richard Liveth Yet
On 23 Mar 2017, at 11:24, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:
Richard Liveth Yet
On 23 Mar 2017, at 11:24, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:
Sorry, but who softened whom?
It is often difficult, at least for me,to find out, which answer fits to which post.
And there are no distinct Topics as well. Am I the only one who would prefer a little more order
on this forum, which i love read and sometimes participate in?
Eva
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-23 13:02:54
Ah Sir Thomas More...well she did show him torturing people in his own home, rather unkind to his wife preferring his daughter although he did love his rabbit,
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-23 13:04:58
Not to mention hectoring people while they were being burnt to death...
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-23 13:36:36
A vile man who should not have been sanctified.
From:
mailto:
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 1:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Not to mention hectoring people while they were being burnt to death...
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-23 13:44:58
ANton Lessor..my favourite actor.. played him marvellously well...
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-23 13:46:16
Yes he did, and yes it did soften him a bit.
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 8:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
ANton Lessor..my favourite actor.. played him marvellously well...
Discussions hard to follow
2017-03-23 16:33:25
Eva wrote:
"Sorry, but who softened whom? It is often difficult, at least for me,to find out, which answer fits to which post. And there are no distinct Topics as well. Am I the only one who would prefer a little more order on this forum, which i love read and sometimes participate in?"
Carol responds:
Hi, Eva. I agree with you. All of us, I think, need to pay more attention to changing the subject line as needed. It also hopes to quote the relevant portion of the post we're responding to, along with the poster's name or user ID. Failing that, we can address the person directly and make the point and context clear in our own message. Also, we can use names instead of personal pronouns in the first part of the message to avoid raising questions like yours. (I had the same question.)
Forgive me, Neil, for making this suggestion. I hope I'm not stepping on your toes as moderator!
Carol
"Sorry, but who softened whom? It is often difficult, at least for me,to find out, which answer fits to which post. And there are no distinct Topics as well. Am I the only one who would prefer a little more order on this forum, which i love read and sometimes participate in?"
Carol responds:
Hi, Eva. I agree with you. All of us, I think, need to pay more attention to changing the subject line as needed. It also hopes to quote the relevant portion of the post we're responding to, along with the poster's name or user ID. Failing that, we can address the person directly and make the point and context clear in our own message. Also, we can use names instead of personal pronouns in the first part of the message to avoid raising questions like yours. (I had the same question.)
Forgive me, Neil, for making this suggestion. I hope I'm not stepping on your toes as moderator!
Carol
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-23 20:55:14
Thank you Paul for your clarification!
Eva
Eva
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-23 21:23:06
Yes..l,now remember reading somewhere that More bashed his servants..he sounds as if he were a right little charmer,,
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-23 22:30:47
Eileen, Anton Lesser, I do so agree. I've watched him since he was a young Bolingbroke. Yes, More and some of his colleagues were not nice - look at any Protestant website. John Stokesley, Bishop of London and protoge of MB (he who rented the organist's wife) boasted on his deathbed that he had put to death 39 heretics. In fact their actions were so bad that a young Henry VIII had to intervene. There was more carnage created by the Church than by Henry; and that says a lot! H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 March 2017, 13:45
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
ANton Lessor..my favourite actor.. played him marvellously well...
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 March 2017, 13:45
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
ANton Lessor..my favourite actor.. played him marvellously well...
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-23 22:38:02
Carol I agree with the others that your reasoning is very good and it is the Welsh site, not me, who implied she was a child.
However, Katherine, as the current king's illegitimate daughter, could have more currency than the illegitimate daughters of a dead and if you had to use her ....
One further thought. Percy was married to a Herbert. Could this have influenced Richard's choice?. Which could suggest he was nearer to Percy than we perhaps think? H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 March 2017, 18:02
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Nico wrote :
"A very good point, Carol. He did betroth Anne to Thomas Howard in 1484 when she would have been 9 or 10, but he was only a couple of years older than her and the marriage didn't take place for another 10 years."
Carol responds:
Thanks, Nico. I'd forgotten about that. But, of course, a betrothal is not a marriage. Cecily, who actually did marry Richard's follower Ralph Scrope, was fifteen at the time.
Interesting that Henry VII followed through with Richard's plans in this regard. If I recall correctly, he wanted to have the Howard brothers under his watchful eye and kept at least the two eldest at court, presumably to convert them into supporters (their father and grandfather had fought for Richard)--and to keep a tight rein on their father once he got out of the Tower.
(If the elder Thomas is, as many people suspect, the author of Hearne's Fragment, he remained a secret Yorkist even while serving Henry VII. Too bad the pages relating to Richard's reign are lost or were never written.)
Carol
However, Katherine, as the current king's illegitimate daughter, could have more currency than the illegitimate daughters of a dead and if you had to use her ....
One further thought. Percy was married to a Herbert. Could this have influenced Richard's choice?. Which could suggest he was nearer to Percy than we perhaps think? H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 March 2017, 18:02
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Nico wrote :
"A very good point, Carol. He did betroth Anne to Thomas Howard in 1484 when she would have been 9 or 10, but he was only a couple of years older than her and the marriage didn't take place for another 10 years."
Carol responds:
Thanks, Nico. I'd forgotten about that. But, of course, a betrothal is not a marriage. Cecily, who actually did marry Richard's follower Ralph Scrope, was fifteen at the time.
Interesting that Henry VII followed through with Richard's plans in this regard. If I recall correctly, he wanted to have the Howard brothers under his watchful eye and kept at least the two eldest at court, presumably to convert them into supporters (their father and grandfather had fought for Richard)--and to keep a tight rein on their father once he got out of the Tower.
(If the elder Thomas is, as many people suspect, the author of Hearne's Fragment, he remained a secret Yorkist even while serving Henry VII. Too bad the pages relating to Richard's reign are lost or were never written.)
Carol
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lo
2017-03-23 22:45:07
One small further thought on this topic.
Both Catesby and Lovell had much better knowledge of Northamptonshire than the northern Edward Franke. It was hot traitor territory because it was so close to that of De Vere. Why did he not make one of them High Sheriff? Is it a sign of Richard's innocence when it came to the ambitions of others?
What you see in all this is the huge hole left by Hastings, who had been close to the politics of Westminster for some 20 years. Perhaps we shouldn't neglect the Stanleys when it comes to his downfall? After all, they were good at stabbing people in the back? H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 16:56
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary wrote: //snip// agree with your point about mistresses being acceptable as long as they were treated discreetly and not as an indulgence. After a ll, being a medieval wife must have been pretty awful. Some had children year after year after year; that's if they survived. They must have welcomed their husband sometimes going elsewhere. There's no evidence to say that Richard and Anne didn't get on; even Hicks gives details of the gifts he showered on her. And if he did occasionally find affection elsewhere, as has been alleged re the Hopper ring, then he wouldn't go down in my estimation. Doug here: So much depends on the manner of Richard and Anne becoming acquainted(?), doesn't it? FWIW, and it's again only my personal view, but frankly if I was Anne and faced with the prospect my sister's husband, George, Duke of Clarence, controlling my life, and probable future, my attitude, in today's parlance, would have been I'm outta here! We have nothing that says Isabel and Anne didn't get along well, why has no one ever considered that Anne's escape wasn't a joint venture, planned by the two sisters? Of course, that would tend to increase the chances that Richard and Anne married for reasons other than love and that doesn't make for as good a scenario. And if Anne and Richard had married for the usual, boring Medieval reason/s, while it certainly doesn't preclude a genuine affection developing, it would, at least IMO, be more believable. Such a marriage would also make any lapses on Richard's part, both understandable, and forgivable, by Anne. And us, of course. Hilary concluded: The people who do surprise me are the clergy. I found that one future Bishop of London and friend of Thomas More was actually paying the organist of an Oxford college for the 'use' of his wife.
(who will now shut up!) Doug here: Again it's my personal opinion, but I rather wonder if it wasn't as much the premediation as it was the action itself that Richard, and others, found so objectionable in Edward's behavior? It was one thing to be imperfect and suffer lapses in conduct - and quite another to, well, celebrate the lapse. As for the clergy; well, when one considers that large numbers of the clergy were originally there for material reasons, aka money/power, the lack in spiritual qualities is much more explainable. Not necessarily more excusable, though... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Both Catesby and Lovell had much better knowledge of Northamptonshire than the northern Edward Franke. It was hot traitor territory because it was so close to that of De Vere. Why did he not make one of them High Sheriff? Is it a sign of Richard's innocence when it came to the ambitions of others?
What you see in all this is the huge hole left by Hastings, who had been close to the politics of Westminster for some 20 years. Perhaps we shouldn't neglect the Stanleys when it comes to his downfall? After all, they were good at stabbing people in the back? H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017, 16:56
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary wrote: //snip// agree with your point about mistresses being acceptable as long as they were treated discreetly and not as an indulgence. After a ll, being a medieval wife must have been pretty awful. Some had children year after year after year; that's if they survived. They must have welcomed their husband sometimes going elsewhere. There's no evidence to say that Richard and Anne didn't get on; even Hicks gives details of the gifts he showered on her. And if he did occasionally find affection elsewhere, as has been alleged re the Hopper ring, then he wouldn't go down in my estimation. Doug here: So much depends on the manner of Richard and Anne becoming acquainted(?), doesn't it? FWIW, and it's again only my personal view, but frankly if I was Anne and faced with the prospect my sister's husband, George, Duke of Clarence, controlling my life, and probable future, my attitude, in today's parlance, would have been I'm outta here! We have nothing that says Isabel and Anne didn't get along well, why has no one ever considered that Anne's escape wasn't a joint venture, planned by the two sisters? Of course, that would tend to increase the chances that Richard and Anne married for reasons other than love and that doesn't make for as good a scenario. And if Anne and Richard had married for the usual, boring Medieval reason/s, while it certainly doesn't preclude a genuine affection developing, it would, at least IMO, be more believable. Such a marriage would also make any lapses on Richard's part, both understandable, and forgivable, by Anne. And us, of course. Hilary concluded: The people who do surprise me are the clergy. I found that one future Bishop of London and friend of Thomas More was actually paying the organist of an Oxford college for the 'use' of his wife.
(who will now shut up!) Doug here: Again it's my personal opinion, but I rather wonder if it wasn't as much the premediation as it was the action itself that Richard, and others, found so objectionable in Edward's behavior? It was one thing to be imperfect and suffer lapses in conduct - and quite another to, well, celebrate the lapse. As for the clergy; well, when one considers that large numbers of the clergy were originally there for material reasons, aka money/power, the lack in spiritual qualities is much more explainable. Not necessarily more excusable, though... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] - regarding Henry Percy.
2017-03-24 07:41:22
Hilary, are you wondering if, over the centuries, Percy could have been as maligned as Richard? Well, not
as maligned, but painted badly for all that? It's certainly a thought, and he
was arrested after Bosworth. But he was soon released, retaining all his lands, titles, etc. After that, HT seems to have trusted him, which, given Henry's character, says a lot. HT was usually suspicious of those who had turned traitor to Richard,
apparently believing that if they betrayed their king once, they could do it again. Which William Stanley was indeed to do. In Percy's case, this suspicion doesn't seem to have lasted long.
Perhaps Henry knew from his days in Brittany that Percy would be on his side, and the only reason for the short-lived arrest was a suspicion that Percy had bottled it and decided to fence-sit at Bosworth? Maybe fence-sitting wasn't the sole preserve of
the Stanleys. Whatever, Percy must have had a convincing story to explain himself. The same story he would no doubt have spun to Richard had the battle gone the other way. Or, of course, Percy had been loyal to Richard and events just unfolded badly.
It's for puzzles like this that we always long for the discovery of an old, old tower in a dark, dark forest, and in a cobwebbed corner of its topmost room, an old, old chest stuffed full of lovely, lovely lost documents. Every one of them vital.
Sandra
From:
mailto:
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 10:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Carol I agree with the others that your reasoning is very good and it is the Welsh site, not me, who implied she was a child.
However, Katherine, as the current king's illegitimate daughter, could have more currency than the illegitimate daughters of a dead and if you had to use her ....
One further thought. Percy was married to a Herbert. Could this have influenced Richard's choice?. Which could suggest he was nearer to Percy than we perhaps think? H
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-24 08:46:57
I remember Anton as Gloucester in the RSC Henry VI trilogy and thought what a wonderful Richard he'd make in the big play, but when he did it it just didn't happen for him. As if he was cowed by the part. Pity as he is a terrific actor.AS for Hilary Mantel, like most authors they alter things to suit their own feelings. She turned Desmoulins into a tragic Bryonic hero in her French Revolution novel, not the simpering blubbering idiot he was at the end, even refusing Robespierre's offer of clemency and going to the guillotine with Danton crying and screaming.But then anybody who has read any of Alison Weir'e novels know how she changes facts to suit her own opinions. Not that I think Weir is in the same league as Mantel as a writer, but you get what I mean!Hilary division One; Weir division amateur.Paul
Richard Liveth Yet
On 23 Mar 2017, at 23:30, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Eileen, Anton Lesser, I do so agree. I've watched him since he was a young Bolingbroke. Yes, More and some of his colleagues were not nice - look at any Protestant website. John Stokesley, Bishop of London and protoge of MB (he who rented the organist's wife) boasted on his deathbed that he had put to death 39 heretics. In fact their actions were so bad that a young Henry VIII had to intervene. There was more carnage created by the Church than by Henry; and that says a lot! H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 March 2017, 13:45
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
ANton Lessor..my favourite actor.. played him marvellously well...
Richard Liveth Yet
On 23 Mar 2017, at 23:30, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Eileen, Anton Lesser, I do so agree. I've watched him since he was a young Bolingbroke. Yes, More and some of his colleagues were not nice - look at any Protestant website. John Stokesley, Bishop of London and protoge of MB (he who rented the organist's wife) boasted on his deathbed that he had put to death 39 heretics. In fact their actions were so bad that a young Henry VIII had to intervene. There was more carnage created by the Church than by Henry; and that says a lot! H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 March 2017, 13:45
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
ANton Lessor..my favourite actor.. played him marvellously well...
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-24 10:28:29
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-03-24 13:45:55
Hilary
wrote:
One small further thought on this topic.
Both Catesby and Lovell had much
better knowledge of Northamptonshire than the northern Edward Franke. It was hot
traitor territory because it was so close to that of De Vere. Why did he not
make one of them High Sheriff? Is it a sign of Richard's innocence when it came
to the ambitions of others?
What you see in all this
is the huge hole left by Hastings, who had been close to the politics of
Westminster for some 20 years. Perhaps we shouldn't neglect the Stanleys when it
comes to his downfall? After all, they were good at stabbing people in the
back?
Doug here:
You wrote Both Catesby and Lovell had
much better knowledge of Northamptonshire that the northern Edward Franke.
Perhaps what mattered most to Richard at that point was the he
(Richard) had a better knowledge of Franke? Given time, and once things had
quited down, it's possible there'd have been a re-shuffling of positions,
including High Sherriffs and then Catesby or Lovell would have been
rewarded and placed where their local knowledge would have been most useful?
That the area was next to De Vere territory may also have had something to do
with Richard's decision he wanted someone he knew in a position so potentially
dangerous.
As for Hastings; well, my views on
him have changed over the years. My original view was that he
was a loyal Edwardian and the actions that led to his execution were those of
someone supporting his dead friend's children, who just happened to potentially
be the next king and heir-apparent.
However, that view has morphed into one
of someone who's main raison d'etre was that of maintaining the
position and power he'd achieved as Chamberlain to Edward IV. At first, as
someone who knew the ins and outs of London/Royal politics, he undoubtedly felt
he would be absolutely necessay to Richard. And, to a degree, I agree. What
changed everything was Stillington's proofs and the likelihood Edward's
children were illegitimate. As Protector, Richard would need
all the support he could get to maintain himself against the Woodvilles, and any
other outs who might ally themselves with the King's family. However, as
King, Richard would be, rightfully, bringing in his own people;
and Hastings might, or might not, be among those included in the new regime. And
as we know, he wasn't; Buckingham replaced him.
If I remember correctly, Lord Thomas
Stanley was imprisoned briefly after Hastings' execution, so it's possible that
Richard received the information about the attempt on his life from him
and not Morton, but I don't' really know. But it is certain that Hastings' death
left a hole in local politics/affairs that the Stanleys wouldn't mind have
filling.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] - regardin
2017-03-24 13:59:26
Sandra
wrote:
Hilary, are you wondering if, over the centuries, Percy could have been as
maligned as Richard? Well, not as maligned, but painted badly for all
that? It's certainly a thought, and he was arrested after Bosworth. But
he was soon released, retaining all his lands, titles, etc. After that, HT seems
to have trusted him, which, given Henry's character, says a lot. HT was usually
suspicious of those who had turned traitor to Richard, apparently believing that
if they betrayed their king once, they could do it again. Which William Stanley
was indeed to do. In Percy's case, this suspicion doesn't seem to have lasted
long.
Perhaps Henry knew from his days in Brittany that Percy would be on his
side, and the only reason for the short-lived arrest was a suspicion that Percy
had bottled it and decided to fence-sit at Bosworth? Maybe fence-sitting wasn't
the sole preserve of the Stanleys. Whatever, Percy must have had a convincing
story to explain himself. The same story he would no doubt have spun to Richard
had the battle gone the other way. Or, of course, Percy had been loyal to
Richard and events just unfolded badly.
Doug here:
Your idea of Percy fence-sitting is an interesting way to look at what
happened. The problem for me is that, considering that Percy had mustered his
troops with Richard's, his failure to act becomes much worse; not only in any
legal sense, but also how those actions, or non-actions, are to be viewed.
It seems to me that only if Percy had never joined together with Richard
could any inaction on his part be considered fence-sitting and that once he
had committed himself and his troops to Richard's side, any failure to fully
support Richard, even if due to inexperience, became treason.
Sandra concluded:
It's for puzzles like this that we always long for the discovery of an
old, old tower in a dark, dark forest, and in a cobwebbed corner of its topmost
room, an old, old chest stuffed full of lovely, lovely lost documents. Every one
of them vital.
Doug here:
I'm still waiting for my TARDIS apparently FEDEX has lost
it...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-03-24 17:25:51
Doug wrote:
"If I remember correctly, Lord Thomas Stanley was imprisoned briefly after Hastings' execution . . . ."
Carol responds:
This is one of those constantly repeated "facts" not borne out by contemporary chronicles. Croyland mentions only Morton and Rotherham as being arrested at the time of Hastings's execution. Mancini doesn't mention him, either, nor does Stallworth's letter to Stonor. As far as I can determine (Marie, please correct me if I'm wrong), the first reference to Stanley in this connection is in the Chronicle of London, which suggests, based on after-the-fact rumors, that Stanley would also have been arrested except that Richard was afraid of Stanley's son, Lord Strange! Vergil and More, of course, make his arrest into a "fact." I forget which one mentions the scuffle in which Stanley is injured, but no contemporary source reports it.
Anyway, constant repetition turns stories into "facts" repeated even by Paul Murray Kendall and, more surprisingly, Annette Carson, who states that neither Mancini nor Croyland mentions Stanley's arrest, but "other sources do"--the earliest of those "sources" being Fabyan (and Vergil).
Would Richard, a sensible man, have trusted Stanley with the great honors he gave him if he had suspected him of being in league with Morton and Hastings on this occasion?
BTW. the Croyland Chronicle is available online. Does anyone know of plans by the R III Society or its American branch to make Mancini similarly available?
Carol
"If I remember correctly, Lord Thomas Stanley was imprisoned briefly after Hastings' execution . . . ."
Carol responds:
This is one of those constantly repeated "facts" not borne out by contemporary chronicles. Croyland mentions only Morton and Rotherham as being arrested at the time of Hastings's execution. Mancini doesn't mention him, either, nor does Stallworth's letter to Stonor. As far as I can determine (Marie, please correct me if I'm wrong), the first reference to Stanley in this connection is in the Chronicle of London, which suggests, based on after-the-fact rumors, that Stanley would also have been arrested except that Richard was afraid of Stanley's son, Lord Strange! Vergil and More, of course, make his arrest into a "fact." I forget which one mentions the scuffle in which Stanley is injured, but no contemporary source reports it.
Anyway, constant repetition turns stories into "facts" repeated even by Paul Murray Kendall and, more surprisingly, Annette Carson, who states that neither Mancini nor Croyland mentions Stanley's arrest, but "other sources do"--the earliest of those "sources" being Fabyan (and Vergil).
Would Richard, a sensible man, have trusted Stanley with the great honors he gave him if he had suspected him of being in league with Morton and Hastings on this occasion?
BTW. the Croyland Chronicle is available online. Does anyone know of plans by the R III Society or its American branch to make Mancini similarly available?
Carol
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-25 00:09:15
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-25 09:41:32
Me too these days Helen, rarely here though I check in every day.I moved to the south of France a few weeks ago and am surrounded by Cathar castles where I hope to spend many a happy hour investigating their wonders. Have done three so far. I also hope to be able to get onto the dig at Montauban where they have discovered an entire Cathar world under the ruins of the Medieval castle.Richard continues to look down on me from my French wall though!Paul
Richard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 01:05, Helen Rowe sweethelly2003@... [] <> wrote:
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
Richard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 01:05, Helen Rowe sweethelly2003@... [] <> wrote:
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] - regardin
2017-03-25 10:03:11
I reckon you make a good point about fence-sitting.
At the moment I'm looking at those sitting High Sheriffs who didn't even turn out for Bosworth. Interesting that one is Richard Burton, High Sheriff of Rutland and son to Henry VI's standard bearer. He just happened to be the friend of John Hardwick, Richard's Commissioner of Array, who betrayed him and led HT to the battlefield site. It's yet another indication of the gap caused by Hastings. He was a Leicestershire man; he would have known these people and their inclinations. I still think he was framed, I don't have him as a kingmaker.
The other thing with Percy is that he couldn't have known that the Stanleys were going to betray Richard. I reckon there were a good few who went to that battle thinking it was going to be a walkover, just crushing a pile of rebels. So if Percy was guarding the road he would think that things were being dealt with very efficiently on the battlefield. No-one could have predicted that patch of mud. H
PS How many standard bearers did a king have? I know Thirlwell was the one on the day but I've come across at least two others who claim to be R's standard bearer.
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 March 2017, 13:59
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Sandra wrote: Hilary, are you wondering if, over the centuries, Percy could have been as maligned as Richard? Well, not as maligned, but painted badly for all that? It's certainly a thought, and he was arrested after Bosworth. But he was soon released, retaining all his lands, titles, etc. After that, HT seems to have trusted him, which, given Henry's character, says a lot. HT was usually suspicious of those who had turned traitor to Richard, apparently believing that if they betrayed their king once, they could do it again. Which William Stanley was indeed to do. In Percy's case, this suspicion doesn't seem to have lasted long. Perhaps Henry knew from his days in Brittany that Percy would be on his side, and the only reason for the short-lived arrest was a suspicion that Percy had bottled it and decided to fence-sit at Bosworth? Maybe fence-sitting wasn't the sole preserve of the Stanleys. Whatever, Percy must have had a convincing story to explain himself. The same story he would no doubt have spun to Richard had the battle gone the other way. Or, of course, Percy had been loyal to Richard and events just unfolded badly. Doug here: Your idea of Percy fence-sitting is an interesting way to look at what happened. The problem for me is that, considering that Percy had mustered his troops with Richard's, his failure to act becomes much worse; not only in any legal sense, but also how those actions, or non-actions, are to be viewed. It seems to me that only if Percy had never joined together with Richard could any inaction on his part be considered fence-sitting and that once he had committed himself and his troops to Richard's side, any failure to fully support Richard, even if due to inexperience, became treason. Sandra concluded: It's for puzzles like this that we always long for the discovery of an old, old tower in a dark, dark forest, and in a cobwebbed corner of its topmost room, an old, old chest stuffed full of lovely, lovely lost documents. Every one of them vital. Doug here: I'm still waiting for my TARDIS apparently FEDEX has lost it... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
At the moment I'm looking at those sitting High Sheriffs who didn't even turn out for Bosworth. Interesting that one is Richard Burton, High Sheriff of Rutland and son to Henry VI's standard bearer. He just happened to be the friend of John Hardwick, Richard's Commissioner of Array, who betrayed him and led HT to the battlefield site. It's yet another indication of the gap caused by Hastings. He was a Leicestershire man; he would have known these people and their inclinations. I still think he was framed, I don't have him as a kingmaker.
The other thing with Percy is that he couldn't have known that the Stanleys were going to betray Richard. I reckon there were a good few who went to that battle thinking it was going to be a walkover, just crushing a pile of rebels. So if Percy was guarding the road he would think that things were being dealt with very efficiently on the battlefield. No-one could have predicted that patch of mud. H
PS How many standard bearers did a king have? I know Thirlwell was the one on the day but I've come across at least two others who claim to be R's standard bearer.
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 March 2017, 13:59
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Sandra wrote: Hilary, are you wondering if, over the centuries, Percy could have been as maligned as Richard? Well, not as maligned, but painted badly for all that? It's certainly a thought, and he was arrested after Bosworth. But he was soon released, retaining all his lands, titles, etc. After that, HT seems to have trusted him, which, given Henry's character, says a lot. HT was usually suspicious of those who had turned traitor to Richard, apparently believing that if they betrayed their king once, they could do it again. Which William Stanley was indeed to do. In Percy's case, this suspicion doesn't seem to have lasted long. Perhaps Henry knew from his days in Brittany that Percy would be on his side, and the only reason for the short-lived arrest was a suspicion that Percy had bottled it and decided to fence-sit at Bosworth? Maybe fence-sitting wasn't the sole preserve of the Stanleys. Whatever, Percy must have had a convincing story to explain himself. The same story he would no doubt have spun to Richard had the battle gone the other way. Or, of course, Percy had been loyal to Richard and events just unfolded badly. Doug here: Your idea of Percy fence-sitting is an interesting way to look at what happened. The problem for me is that, considering that Percy had mustered his troops with Richard's, his failure to act becomes much worse; not only in any legal sense, but also how those actions, or non-actions, are to be viewed. It seems to me that only if Percy had never joined together with Richard could any inaction on his part be considered fence-sitting and that once he had committed himself and his troops to Richard's side, any failure to fully support Richard, even if due to inexperience, became treason. Sandra concluded: It's for puzzles like this that we always long for the discovery of an old, old tower in a dark, dark forest, and in a cobwebbed corner of its topmost room, an old, old chest stuffed full of lovely, lovely lost documents. Every one of them vital. Doug here: I'm still waiting for my TARDIS apparently FEDEX has lost it... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] - regardin
2017-03-25 10:32:40
I'm with you on Percy situation Hilary.Looking at the positions once the fighting started, and knowing the weather, I don't think Harry could even see what was going on, let alone be able to make a decision to intervene, and Richard took the decision to go after Tudor on the spur of the moment, it wasn't a lets talk about it first discussion! Of course the north felt he let them down, but they didn't know all the ins and outs, only that Percy had been there with an army and did nothing.Not Richard's biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination, but he was undoubtedly very pleased Richard became king and was out from under his feet in the north. I think he played the long game hoping that he would be eventually asked to head the Council of the North as the leading magnate in the area. No way would he have entrusted that to happen under this unknown invader!Paul
Richard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 11:03, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I reckon you make a good point about fence-sitting.
At the moment I'm looking at those sitting High Sheriffs who didn't even turn out for Bosworth. Interesting that one is Richard Burton, High Sheriff of Rutland and son to Henry VI's standard bearer. He just happened to be the friend of John Hardwick, Richard's Commissioner of Array, who betrayed him and led HT to the battlefield site. It's yet another indication of the gap caused by Hastings. He was a Leicestershire man; he would have known these people and their inclinations. I still think he was framed, I don't have him as a kingmaker.
The other thing with Percy is that he couldn't have known that the Stanleys were going to betray Richard. I reckon there were a good few who went to that battle thinking it was going to be a walkover, just crushing a pile of rebels. So if Percy was guarding the road he would think that things were being dealt with very efficiently on the battlefield. No-one could have predicted that patch of mud. H
PS How many standard bearers did a king have? I know Thirlwell was the one on the day but I've come across at least two others who claim to be R's standard bearer.
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 March 2017, 13:59
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Sandra wrote: Hilary, are you wondering if, over the centuries, Percy could have been as maligned as Richard? Well, not as maligned, but painted badly for all that? It's certainly a thought, and he was arrested after Bosworth. But he was soon released, retaining all his lands, titles, etc. After that, HT seems to have trusted him, which, given Henry's character, says a lot. HT was usually suspicious of those who had turned traitor to Richard, apparently believing that if they betrayed their king once, they could do it again. Which William Stanley was indeed to do. In Percy's case, this suspicion doesn't seem to have lasted long. Perhaps Henry knew from his days in Brittany that Percy would be on his side, and the only reason for the short-lived arrest was a suspicion that Percy had bottled it and decided to fence-sit at Bosworth? Maybe fence-sitting wasn't the sole preserve of the Stanleys. Whatever, Percy must have had a convincing story to explain himself. The same story he would no doubt have spun to Richard had the battle gone the other way. Or, of course, Percy had been loyal to Richard and events just unfolded badly. Doug here:Your idea of Percy fence-sitting is an interesting way to look at what happened. The problem for me is that, considering that Percy had mustered his troops with Richard's, his failure to act becomes much worse; not only in any legal sense, but also how those actions, or non-actions, are to be viewed.It seems to me that only if Percy had never joined together with Richard could any inaction on his part be considered fence-sitting and that once he had committed himself and his troops to Richard's side, any failure to fully support Richard, even if due to inexperience, became treason. Sandra concluded: It's for puzzles like this that we always long for the discovery of an old, old tower in a dark, dark forest, and in a cobwebbed corner of its topmost room, an old, old chest stuffed full of lovely, lovely lost documents. Every one of them vital. Doug here:I'm still waiting for my TARDIS apparently FEDEX has lost it...Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Richard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 11:03, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I reckon you make a good point about fence-sitting.
At the moment I'm looking at those sitting High Sheriffs who didn't even turn out for Bosworth. Interesting that one is Richard Burton, High Sheriff of Rutland and son to Henry VI's standard bearer. He just happened to be the friend of John Hardwick, Richard's Commissioner of Array, who betrayed him and led HT to the battlefield site. It's yet another indication of the gap caused by Hastings. He was a Leicestershire man; he would have known these people and their inclinations. I still think he was framed, I don't have him as a kingmaker.
The other thing with Percy is that he couldn't have known that the Stanleys were going to betray Richard. I reckon there were a good few who went to that battle thinking it was going to be a walkover, just crushing a pile of rebels. So if Percy was guarding the road he would think that things were being dealt with very efficiently on the battlefield. No-one could have predicted that patch of mud. H
PS How many standard bearers did a king have? I know Thirlwell was the one on the day but I've come across at least two others who claim to be R's standard bearer.
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 March 2017, 13:59
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Sandra wrote: Hilary, are you wondering if, over the centuries, Percy could have been as maligned as Richard? Well, not as maligned, but painted badly for all that? It's certainly a thought, and he was arrested after Bosworth. But he was soon released, retaining all his lands, titles, etc. After that, HT seems to have trusted him, which, given Henry's character, says a lot. HT was usually suspicious of those who had turned traitor to Richard, apparently believing that if they betrayed their king once, they could do it again. Which William Stanley was indeed to do. In Percy's case, this suspicion doesn't seem to have lasted long. Perhaps Henry knew from his days in Brittany that Percy would be on his side, and the only reason for the short-lived arrest was a suspicion that Percy had bottled it and decided to fence-sit at Bosworth? Maybe fence-sitting wasn't the sole preserve of the Stanleys. Whatever, Percy must have had a convincing story to explain himself. The same story he would no doubt have spun to Richard had the battle gone the other way. Or, of course, Percy had been loyal to Richard and events just unfolded badly. Doug here:Your idea of Percy fence-sitting is an interesting way to look at what happened. The problem for me is that, considering that Percy had mustered his troops with Richard's, his failure to act becomes much worse; not only in any legal sense, but also how those actions, or non-actions, are to be viewed.It seems to me that only if Percy had never joined together with Richard could any inaction on his part be considered fence-sitting and that once he had committed himself and his troops to Richard's side, any failure to fully support Richard, even if due to inexperience, became treason. Sandra concluded: It's for puzzles like this that we always long for the discovery of an old, old tower in a dark, dark forest, and in a cobwebbed corner of its topmost room, an old, old chest stuffed full of lovely, lovely lost documents. Every one of them vital. Doug here:I'm still waiting for my TARDIS apparently FEDEX has lost it...Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] - regardin
2017-03-25 14:09:58
In Michael Jones' book about Bosworth, his scenario had Percy guarding the road to London. I think it is possible that is where he was. Maybe Richard had told him to make sure that Henry didn't get on his way to London. I don't know much about battle tactics but if you were Henry Tudor and you were on the road to London, which he probably would have been after he left Atherstone, why would you suddenly turn East and fight a battle? The story about Percy deserting Richard would suit the Tudor propagandists too.
Mary
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-25 14:15:24
Paul, that sounds glorious!
On Mar 25, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Richard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 01:05, Helen Rowe sweethelly2003@... [] <> wrote:
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
On Mar 25, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Me too these days Helen, rarely here though I check in every day.
I moved to the south of France a few weeks ago and am surrounded by Cathar castles where I hope to spend many a happy hour investigating their wonders. Have done three so far. I also hope to be able to get onto the dig at Montauban where they have discovered an entire Cathar world under the ruins of the Medieval castle. Richard continues to look down on me from my French wall though! PaulRichard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 01:05, Helen Rowe sweethelly2003@... [] <> wrote:
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-25 14:23:38
It is ! Then of course I'm having to put up with French wine and cooking! How I suffer ! :-)
Envoyé depuis mon Sony Xperia(TM) XA Ultra d'Orange
---- Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote ----
Richard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 01:05, Helen Rowe sweethelly2003@... [] <> wrote:
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
Envoyé depuis mon Sony Xperia(TM) XA Ultra d'Orange
---- Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote ----
Paul, that sounds glorious!
On Mar 25, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Paul Trevor Bale
bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Me too these days Helen, rarely here though I check in every day.
I moved to the south of France a few weeks ago and am surrounded by Cathar castles where I hope to spend many a happy hour investigating their wonders. Have done three so far. I also hope to be able to get onto the dig at Montauban where they have discovered an entire Cathar world under the ruins of the Medieval castle. Richard continues to look down on me from my French wall though! PaulRichard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 01:05, Helen Rowe sweethelly2003@... [] <> wrote:
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-25 14:30:02
Oh, that is so very sad.........but you need to keep your strength and shoulder on.
On Mar 25, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Bale Paul-trevor bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
Richard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 01:05, Helen Rowe sweethelly2003@... [] <> wrote:
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
On Mar 25, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Bale Paul-trevor bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
It is ! Then of course I'm having to put up with French wine and cooking! How I suffer ! :-)
Envoyé depuis mon Sony Xperia(TM) XA Ultra d'Orange
---- Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote ----
Paul, that sounds glorious!
On Mar 25, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Paul Trevor Bale
bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Me too these days Helen, rarely here though I check in every day.
I moved to the south of France a few weeks ago and am surrounded by Cathar castles where I hope to spend many a happy hour investigating their wonders. Have done three so far. I also hope to be able to get onto the dig at Montauban where they have discovered an entire Cathar world under the ruins of the Medieval castle. Richard continues to look down on me from my French wall though! PaulRichard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 01:05, Helen Rowe sweethelly2003@... [] <> wrote:
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-03-25 20:18:57
Carol wrote:
"This is one of those constantly repeated "facts" not borne out by
contemporary chronicles. Croyland mentions only Morton and Rotherham as
being arrested at the time of Hastings's execution. Mancini doesn't mention
him, either, nor does Stallworth's letter to Stonor. As far as I can
determine (Marie, please correct me if I'm wrong), the first reference to
Stanley in this connection is in the Chronicle of London, which suggests,
based on after-the-fact rumors, that Stanley would also have been arrested
except that Richard was afraid of Stanley's son, Lord Strange! Vergil and
More, of course, make his arrest into a "fact." I forget which one mentions
the scuffle in which Stanley is injured, but no contemporary source reports
it."
Doug here:
Thank you for the correction! Perhaps those "after-the-fact rumors" were
based on the idea that Stanley had been, however briefly, threatened with,
or seen to be threatened with, arrest? Do you know which of the meetings,
if any, Stanley was attending prior to that June meeting at the Tower? Was
he perhaps meeting with the Morton, Rotherham, Hastings group, rather the
the group meeting at the Tower? One could easily imagine Richard, at least
until some proofs of other intent were given, suspecting anyone in the first
group.
Carol continued:
"Anyway, constant repetition turns stories into "facts" repeated even by
Paul Murray Kendall and, more surprisingly, Annette Carson, who states that
neither Mancini nor Croyland mentions Stanley's arrest, but "other sources
do"--the earliest of those "sources" being Fabyan (and Vergil). Would
Richard, a sensible man, have trusted Stanley with the great honors he gave
him if he had suspected him of being in league with Morton and Hastings on
this occasion?"
Doug here:
The major problem with Fabyan and Vergil isn't, so far as I can see, that
they have a well-earned reputation for being pro-Tudor so much as much of
what they've written is quite often all there is to go on. Some of their
writings can be corroborated elsewhere, some can be disproven; but there's
still an awful lot left "up-in-the-air," so to speak and I don't know if
it's safe or sensible to completely rule those bits out.
As for Richard trusting Lord Stanley, perhaps that trust was based on their
shared efforts during the Scottish War/s? It seems to me that Lady Stanley,
aka Margaret Beaufort, wasn't above using the position she'd acquired via
her marriage to Lord Thomas to shield herself from the worst effects of some
of her plotting in regards to her son, Henry. IOW, during the brief period
of the Protectorate, which included the period when the Pre-Contract was
being discussed in Council, Margaret was plotting with EW to marry EoY to
Henry in return for Margaret's support in keeping Edward V on the throne.
It's only a thought, but perhaps Margaret even implied her husband was in
agreement? Needless to say, until that had been disproven, Stanley would
have been under suspicion at least, And it would also explain why Richard
later treated Lord Thomas so well - Lord Thomas hadn't been involved at all.
Carol concluded:
"BTW. the Croyland Chronicle is available online. Does anyone know of plans
by the R III Society or its American branch to make Mancini similarly
available?"
Doug here:
Hopefully in side-by-side translations!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
"This is one of those constantly repeated "facts" not borne out by
contemporary chronicles. Croyland mentions only Morton and Rotherham as
being arrested at the time of Hastings's execution. Mancini doesn't mention
him, either, nor does Stallworth's letter to Stonor. As far as I can
determine (Marie, please correct me if I'm wrong), the first reference to
Stanley in this connection is in the Chronicle of London, which suggests,
based on after-the-fact rumors, that Stanley would also have been arrested
except that Richard was afraid of Stanley's son, Lord Strange! Vergil and
More, of course, make his arrest into a "fact." I forget which one mentions
the scuffle in which Stanley is injured, but no contemporary source reports
it."
Doug here:
Thank you for the correction! Perhaps those "after-the-fact rumors" were
based on the idea that Stanley had been, however briefly, threatened with,
or seen to be threatened with, arrest? Do you know which of the meetings,
if any, Stanley was attending prior to that June meeting at the Tower? Was
he perhaps meeting with the Morton, Rotherham, Hastings group, rather the
the group meeting at the Tower? One could easily imagine Richard, at least
until some proofs of other intent were given, suspecting anyone in the first
group.
Carol continued:
"Anyway, constant repetition turns stories into "facts" repeated even by
Paul Murray Kendall and, more surprisingly, Annette Carson, who states that
neither Mancini nor Croyland mentions Stanley's arrest, but "other sources
do"--the earliest of those "sources" being Fabyan (and Vergil). Would
Richard, a sensible man, have trusted Stanley with the great honors he gave
him if he had suspected him of being in league with Morton and Hastings on
this occasion?"
Doug here:
The major problem with Fabyan and Vergil isn't, so far as I can see, that
they have a well-earned reputation for being pro-Tudor so much as much of
what they've written is quite often all there is to go on. Some of their
writings can be corroborated elsewhere, some can be disproven; but there's
still an awful lot left "up-in-the-air," so to speak and I don't know if
it's safe or sensible to completely rule those bits out.
As for Richard trusting Lord Stanley, perhaps that trust was based on their
shared efforts during the Scottish War/s? It seems to me that Lady Stanley,
aka Margaret Beaufort, wasn't above using the position she'd acquired via
her marriage to Lord Thomas to shield herself from the worst effects of some
of her plotting in regards to her son, Henry. IOW, during the brief period
of the Protectorate, which included the period when the Pre-Contract was
being discussed in Council, Margaret was plotting with EW to marry EoY to
Henry in return for Margaret's support in keeping Edward V on the throne.
It's only a thought, but perhaps Margaret even implied her husband was in
agreement? Needless to say, until that had been disproven, Stanley would
have been under suspicion at least, And it would also explain why Richard
later treated Lord Thomas so well - Lord Thomas hadn't been involved at all.
Carol concluded:
"BTW. the Croyland Chronicle is available online. Does anyone know of plans
by the R III Society or its American branch to make Mancini similarly
available?"
Doug here:
Hopefully in side-by-side translations!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-03-25 20:57:37
Hilary
wrote:
I reckon you make a good point
about fence-sitting.
At the moment I'm looking
at those sitting High Sheriffs who didn't even turn out for Bosworth.
Interesting that one is Richard Burton, High Sheriff of Rutland and son to Henry
VI's standard bearer. He just happened to be the friend of John Hardwick,
Richard's Commissioner of Array, who betrayed him and led HT to the battlefield
site. It's yet another indication of the gap caused by Hastings. He was a
Leicestershire man; he would have known these people and their inclinations. I
still think he was framed, I don't have him as a kingmaker.
Doug here:
If my understanding of mustering is
anything close to accurate, the problem was that it was fairly simple to muster
troops for local defense, but when troops were being mustered for
offensive actions elsewhere, all sorts of impediments were discovered. I wonder
how many of those High Sherrifs fell into the latter category?
Personally, I don't think Hastings was
framed so much as he got in over his head, so to speak. I don't really see him
as a political manipulator so much as power broker. He could sway events in a
certain direction, but only because he was in the position of controlling access
to Edward IV and not because he knew how to massage egos and make deals. Heaven
knows, I certainly could be wrong!
Hilary concluded:
The other thing with Percy
is that he couldn't have known that the Stanleys were going to betray Richard. I
reckon there were a good few who went to that battle thinking it was going to be
a walkover, just crushing a pile of rebels. So if Percy was guarding the road he
would think that things were being dealt with very efficiently on the
battlefield. No-one could have predicted that patch of mud. H
PS How many standard
bearers did a king have? I know Thirlwell was the one on the day but I've come
across at least two others who claim to be R's standard bearer.
Doug here:
Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but when
the Stanleys, separately or together, refused to join with Richard at Bosworth,
my immediate presumption would have been to consider them, at the very least, as
potential traitors. And act accordingly.
I do admit the Stanleys had developed a
name for trying to play both sides, but still...
Doug
Who has absolutely no idea about the
number of standard bearers! Perhaps they served in rotation?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-03-25 20:58:07
Mary
wrote:
In
Michael Jones' book about Bosworth, his scenario had Percy guarding the road to
London. I think it is possible that is where he was. Maybe Richard had told him
to make sure that Henry didn't get on his way to London. I don't know much about
battle tactics but if you were Henry Tudor and you were on the road to London,
which he probably would have been after he left Atherstone, why would you
suddenly turn East and fight a battle? The story about Percy deserting Richard
would suit the Tudor propagandists too.
Doug
here:
The
only road to London I know of, in 1485 anyway, was Watling Street and, from the
few maps I have, it appears Henry (and Richard) were both on one side of that
road, with Henry being closest!
Obviously
I'm missing something here! Could anyone provide either an up-to-date map based
on the latest findings or else a volume solely about who was where at
Bosworth?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-26 00:30:20
That does sound lovely, living in that part of France. As long as you don't write a book about moving to France!
On Sunday, 26 March 2017, 1:31, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:
Oh, that is so very sad.........but you need to keep your strength and shoulder on.
On Mar 25, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Bale Paul-trevor bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
It is ! Then of course I'm having to put up with French wine and cooking! How I suffer ! :-)
Envoyé depuis mon Sony Xperia(TM) XA Ultra d'Orange
---- Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote ----
Paul, that sounds glorious!
On Mar 25, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Me too these days Helen, rarely here though I check in every day. I moved to the south of France a few weeks ago and am surrounded by Cathar castles where I hope to spend many a happy hour investigating their wonders. Have done three so far. I also hope to be able to get onto the dig at Montauban where they have discovered an entire Cathar world under the ruins of the Medieval castle. Richard continues to look down on me from my French wall though! Paul
Richard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 01:05, Helen Rowe sweethelly2003@... [] <> wrote:
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
On Sunday, 26 March 2017, 1:31, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:
Oh, that is so very sad.........but you need to keep your strength and shoulder on.
On Mar 25, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Bale Paul-trevor bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
It is ! Then of course I'm having to put up with French wine and cooking! How I suffer ! :-)
Envoyé depuis mon Sony Xperia(TM) XA Ultra d'Orange
---- Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote ----
Paul, that sounds glorious!
On Mar 25, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Me too these days Helen, rarely here though I check in every day. I moved to the south of France a few weeks ago and am surrounded by Cathar castles where I hope to spend many a happy hour investigating their wonders. Have done three so far. I also hope to be able to get onto the dig at Montauban where they have discovered an entire Cathar world under the ruins of the Medieval castle. Richard continues to look down on me from my French wall though! Paul
Richard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 01:05, Helen Rowe sweethelly2003@... [] <> wrote:
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-03-26 08:11:34
The consensus now is that the battle took place across the Fenn Lanes with Northumberland at the rear. Part of the problem for him was that after Richard's death the route was directly through his position, probably the first time he knew what was happening, but then possibly seen as deserting his king, rather than being caught in the tsunami of the panic. Had he been called on he'd have brought his troops up to support Norfolk and Surrey, but he wasn't. Nor was he in a position to see what the Stanleys were doing through the dust of the day.I'll try and find my maps and post them for you Doug. But I still haven't sorted my Richard books out yet, and the sun is shining today, but will do my best later in the day.Paul
Richard liveth yet
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 25 mars 2017 à 21:57, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Richard liveth yet
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 25 mars 2017 à 21:57, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Mary wrote: In Michael Jones' book about Bosworth, his scenario had Percy guarding the road to London. I think it is possible that is where he was. Maybe Richard had told him to make sure that Henry didn't get on his way to London. I don't know much about battle tactics but if you were Henry Tudor and you were on the road to London, which he probably would have been after he left Atherstone, why would you suddenly turn East and fight a battle? The story about Percy deserting Richard would suit the Tudor propagandists too. Doug here: The only road to London I know of, in 1485 anyway, was Watling Street and, from the few maps I have, it appears Henry (and Richard) were both on one side of that road, with Henry being closest! Obviously I'm missing something here! Could anyone provide either an up-to-date map based on the latest findings or else a volume solely about who was where at Bosworth? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] - regardin
2017-03-26 09:48:29
That's how I took it to. From Atherstone you'd surely head straight down the A5 (Roman Watling Street), so if Percy was guarding that it would take him a while to get his men to the battlefield once a messenger reached him - that is assuming they did. Like you I reckon it's another fabrication of how hated Richard was. H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 25 March 2017, 14:10
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
In Michael Jones' book about Bosworth, his scenario had Percy guarding the road to London. I think it is possible that is where he was. Maybe Richard had told him to make sure that Henry didn't get on his way to London. I don't know much about battle tactics but if you were Henry Tudor and you were on the road to London, which he probably would have been after he left Atherstone, why would you suddenly turn East and fight a battle? The story about Percy deserting Richard would suit the Tudor propagandists too.
Mary
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 25 March 2017, 14:10
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
In Michael Jones' book about Bosworth, his scenario had Percy guarding the road to London. I think it is possible that is where he was. Maybe Richard had told him to make sure that Henry didn't get on his way to London. I don't know much about battle tactics but if you were Henry Tudor and you were on the road to London, which he probably would have been after he left Atherstone, why would you suddenly turn East and fight a battle? The story about Percy deserting Richard would suit the Tudor propagandists too.
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-03-26 10:10:57
Oh Doug you've let me down, I thought you were bound to know about standard bearers! I suppose you would need 'reserves' in case one fell on the battlefield and the standard had to be picked up? I'm useless at matters military. I have to admit I don't honestly understand how this battle worked. For example wasn't Barnet fought on foot because Warwick and Montagu chose to fight on foot to inspire their men; they died trying to reach their horses? So if Richard and his household were the only ones to do a cavalry charge what were these 72 year old gentry doing, sitting on their horses and watching, like Wellington? And presumably the Stanleys were doing the same? We know where HT was, cowering behind some pikemen. I agree with your point about mustering though; it always reminds me of that scene in Henry IV where Falstaff is out gathering troops.
As for Hastings, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. He was undoubtedly a smooth talker (and therefore a good politician) but I don't know whether he'd have the energy or the will to mount/assist in a coup. He wasn't young (53), he had quite a nice lifestyle and he had so many influential relations that with a Yorkist or Tudor regime he could have done quite well as an elder statesman. I would have said it wasn't worth the risk. He is certainly still well-liked in Leicester, every other road seems to be named after him. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 25 March 2017, 20:57
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary wrote: I reckon you make a good point about fence-sitting. At the moment I'm looking at those sitting High Sheriffs who didn't even turn out for Bosworth. Interesting that one is Richard Burton, High Sheriff of Rutland and son to Henry VI's standard bearer. He just happened to be the friend of John Hardwick, Richard's Commissioner of Array, who betrayed him and led HT to the battlefield site. It's yet another indication of the gap caused by Hastings. He was a Leicestershire man; he would have known these people and their inclinations. I still think he was framed, I don't have him as a kingmaker. Doug here: If my understanding of mustering is anything close to accurate, the problem was that it was fairly simple to muster troops for local defense, but when troops were being mustered for offensive actions elsewhere, all sorts of impediments were discovered. I wonder how many of those High Sherrifs fell into the latter category? Personally, I don't think Hastings was framed so much as he got in over his head, so to speak. I don't really see him as a political manipulator so much as power broker. He could sway events in a certain direction, but only because he was in the position of controlling access to Edward IV and not because he knew how to massage egos and make deals. Heaven knows, I certainly could be wrong! Hilary concluded: The other thing with Percy is that he couldn't have known that the Stanleys were going to betray Richard. I reckon there were a good few who went to that battle thinking it was going to be a walkover, just crushing a pile of rebels. So if Percy was guarding the road he would think that things were being dealt with very efficiently on the battlefield. No-one could have predicted that patch of mud. H PS How many standard bearers did a king have? I know Thirlwell was the one on the day but I've come across at least two others who claim to be R's standard bearer. Doug here: Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but when the Stanleys, separately or together, refused to join with Richard at Bosworth, my immediate presumption would have been to consider them, at the very least, as potential traitors. And act accordingly. I do admit the Stanleys had developed a name for trying to play both sides, but still... Doug Who has absolutely no idea about the number of standard bearers! Perhaps they served in rotation?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
As for Hastings, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. He was undoubtedly a smooth talker (and therefore a good politician) but I don't know whether he'd have the energy or the will to mount/assist in a coup. He wasn't young (53), he had quite a nice lifestyle and he had so many influential relations that with a Yorkist or Tudor regime he could have done quite well as an elder statesman. I would have said it wasn't worth the risk. He is certainly still well-liked in Leicester, every other road seems to be named after him. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 25 March 2017, 20:57
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary wrote: I reckon you make a good point about fence-sitting. At the moment I'm looking at those sitting High Sheriffs who didn't even turn out for Bosworth. Interesting that one is Richard Burton, High Sheriff of Rutland and son to Henry VI's standard bearer. He just happened to be the friend of John Hardwick, Richard's Commissioner of Array, who betrayed him and led HT to the battlefield site. It's yet another indication of the gap caused by Hastings. He was a Leicestershire man; he would have known these people and their inclinations. I still think he was framed, I don't have him as a kingmaker. Doug here: If my understanding of mustering is anything close to accurate, the problem was that it was fairly simple to muster troops for local defense, but when troops were being mustered for offensive actions elsewhere, all sorts of impediments were discovered. I wonder how many of those High Sherrifs fell into the latter category? Personally, I don't think Hastings was framed so much as he got in over his head, so to speak. I don't really see him as a political manipulator so much as power broker. He could sway events in a certain direction, but only because he was in the position of controlling access to Edward IV and not because he knew how to massage egos and make deals. Heaven knows, I certainly could be wrong! Hilary concluded: The other thing with Percy is that he couldn't have known that the Stanleys were going to betray Richard. I reckon there were a good few who went to that battle thinking it was going to be a walkover, just crushing a pile of rebels. So if Percy was guarding the road he would think that things were being dealt with very efficiently on the battlefield. No-one could have predicted that patch of mud. H PS How many standard bearers did a king have? I know Thirlwell was the one on the day but I've come across at least two others who claim to be R's standard bearer. Doug here: Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but when the Stanleys, separately or together, refused to join with Richard at Bosworth, my immediate presumption would have been to consider them, at the very least, as potential traitors. And act accordingly. I do admit the Stanleys had developed a name for trying to play both sides, but still... Doug Who has absolutely no idea about the number of standard bearers! Perhaps they served in rotation?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-26 10:11:27
Paul I am very, very envious. Enjoy! H
From: "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 25 March 2017, 14:15
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Paul, that sounds glorious!
On Mar 25, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Me too these days Helen, rarely here though I check in every day. I moved to the south of France a few weeks ago and am surrounded by Cathar castles where I hope to spend many a happy hour investigating their wonders. Have done three so far. I also hope to be able to get onto the dig at Montauban where they have discovered an entire Cathar world under the ruins of the Medieval castle. Richard continues to look down on me from my French wall though! Paul
Richard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 01:05, Helen Rowe sweethelly2003@... [] <> wrote:
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
From: "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 25 March 2017, 14:15
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Paul, that sounds glorious!
On Mar 25, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Me too these days Helen, rarely here though I check in every day. I moved to the south of France a few weeks ago and am surrounded by Cathar castles where I hope to spend many a happy hour investigating their wonders. Have done three so far. I also hope to be able to get onto the dig at Montauban where they have discovered an entire Cathar world under the ruins of the Medieval castle. Richard continues to look down on me from my French wall though! Paul
Richard Liveth Yet
On 25 Mar 2017, at 01:05, Helen Rowe sweethelly2003@... [] <> wrote:
I do not care for Thomas More but I think some people have liked him because of his belief in educating girls the same as boys. He still thought women inferior to men though.
Helen (who rarely writes here)
On Friday, 24 March 2017, 21:28, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I thought he was absolutely wonderful in the BBC Hollow Crown series as Essex, particularly Henry V. The tennis balls scene..all,he had to do was just stand there and look at the French messenger and then 'This was a merry message!' I really don't understand how he didn't win an award for that part.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] - regardin
2017-03-26 11:54:36
Hilary and Doug, I have looked at my copy of Michael Jones' book about Bosworth and while there is a map showing his scenario it doesn't show Percy's position at all. It does show that HT had to cross Watling Street to give battle. I am sure that I have seen a map with Percy's position on it. MJ came and gave a couple of talks to our R3 branch so he may have shown us the map after his initial talk when I bought my copy of his book. We also met him at Merevale Abbey and then we later drove from there through Atherstone to the Fenn Lanes. I do have recollection of discussing Percy guarding the road with other members and one of them dismissed it because HT would have known that Richard would follow him and then they would have to fight a rearguard action.
I have another book "Merevale and Atherstone 1485" written John D Austin, a local man who belongs to The Friends of Atherstone Heritage, who published the book. It gives details of local history, geographical details and oral traditions. He was inspired to write the book after reading MJ's book.
In it he says that HT "intended to march south from Shrewsbury more or less down Watling Street to London to claim the crown" and that "the last thing that he wanted to do, particularly with his puny forces and his lack of experience - he had not fought in a battle before, was to search out and attack Richard who was well skilled in warfare".
Mary
I have another book "Merevale and Atherstone 1485" written John D Austin, a local man who belongs to The Friends of Atherstone Heritage, who published the book. It gives details of local history, geographical details and oral traditions. He was inspired to write the book after reading MJ's book.
In it he says that HT "intended to march south from Shrewsbury more or less down Watling Street to London to claim the crown" and that "the last thing that he wanted to do, particularly with his puny forces and his lack of experience - he had not fought in a battle before, was to search out and attack Richard who was well skilled in warfare".
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Francis Lovell and Boswor
2017-03-26 12:42:11
I hope your cat can speak French cat language...
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] - regardin
2017-03-26 15:30:57
Very interesting Mary. I like the Jones book, I must look in it again myself. I live about 4 miles from the A5 which virtually parallels the MI to London, though of course the A5 was a lot earlier, so it would indeed have been a natural straight route. H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 26 March 2017, 11:54
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary and Doug, I have looked at my copy of Michael Jones' book about Bosworth and while there is a map showing his scenario it doesn't show Percy's position at all. It does show that HT had to cross Watling Street to give battle. I am sure that I have seen a map with Percy's position on it. MJ came and gave a couple of talks to our R3 branch so he may have shown us the map after his initial talk when I bought my copy of his book. We also met him at Merevale Abbey and then we later drove from there through Atherstone to the Fenn Lanes. I do have recollection of discussing Percy guarding the road with other members and one of them dismissed it because HT would have known that Richard would follow him and then they would have to fight a rearguard action.
I have another book "Merevale and Atherstone 1485" written John D Austin, a local man who belongs to The Friends of Atherstone Heritage, who published the book. It gives details of local history, geographical details and oral traditions. He was inspired to write the book after reading MJ's book.
In it he says that HT "intended to march south from Shrewsbury more or less down Watling Street to London to claim the crown" and that "the last thing that he wanted to do, particularly with his puny forces and his lack of experience - he had not fought in a battle before, was to search out and attack Richard who was well skilled in warfare".
Mary
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 26 March 2017, 11:54
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary and Doug, I have looked at my copy of Michael Jones' book about Bosworth and while there is a map showing his scenario it doesn't show Percy's position at all. It does show that HT had to cross Watling Street to give battle. I am sure that I have seen a map with Percy's position on it. MJ came and gave a couple of talks to our R3 branch so he may have shown us the map after his initial talk when I bought my copy of his book. We also met him at Merevale Abbey and then we later drove from there through Atherstone to the Fenn Lanes. I do have recollection of discussing Percy guarding the road with other members and one of them dismissed it because HT would have known that Richard would follow him and then they would have to fight a rearguard action.
I have another book "Merevale and Atherstone 1485" written John D Austin, a local man who belongs to The Friends of Atherstone Heritage, who published the book. It gives details of local history, geographical details and oral traditions. He was inspired to write the book after reading MJ's book.
In it he says that HT "intended to march south from Shrewsbury more or less down Watling Street to London to claim the crown" and that "the last thing that he wanted to do, particularly with his puny forces and his lack of experience - he had not fought in a battle before, was to search out and attack Richard who was well skilled in warfare".
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] - regardin
2017-03-26 16:47:14
Hilary, just been googling Percy and the other Earls of Northumberland. He was descended from " Hotspur" and his wife Elizabeth Mortimer. Wouldn't he have had a claim to the throne too because he was descended from Elizabeth who was Philippa's daughter and Lionel of Antwerp's granddaughter? Definitely a much better claim than HT.
Mary
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] - regardin
2017-03-26 18:57:49
Just wondered if anyone had read The Tudor Murder Files by James Moore? Apparently he suggests that Percy was murdered on the orders of HT. I wondered if someone had read it and whether or not it was worth buying or is it in the same category as Weirisms. He is a journalist and it was published by Pen and Sword.
Mary
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard
2017-03-26 23:40:20
Paul
wrote:
The consensus now is that the battle took place across the Fenn Lanes with
Northumberland at the rear. Part of the problem for him was that after Richard's
death the route was directly through his position, probably the first time he
knew what was happening, but then possibly seen as deserting his king, rather
than being caught in the tsunami of the panic. Had he been called on he'd have
brought his troops up to support Norfolk and Surrey, but he wasn't. Nor was he
in a position to see what the Stanleys were doing through the dust of the
day.
I'll try and find my maps and post them for you Doug.
But I still haven't sorted my Richard books out yet, and the sun is shining
today, but will do my best later in the day.
Doug here:
Thank you very much for that information! I have a sneaking suspicion I'm
going to have to do one of those reconstruction boards showing who was where
and when! Oi!
As for those maps, they can wait; a sunny day in southern France
won't!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard
2017-03-27 00:04:03
Hilary wrote:
Oh Doug you've let me down, I thought
you were bound to know about standard bearers! I suppose you would need
'reserves' in case one fell on the battlefield and the standard had to be picked
up? I'm useless at matters military.
I have to admit I don't
honestly understand how this battle worked. For example wasn't Barnet fought on
foot because Warwick and Montagu chose to fight on foot to inspire their men;
they died trying to reach their horses? So if Richard and his household were the
only ones to do a cavalry charge what were these 72 year old gentry doing,
sitting on their horses and watching, like Wellington? And presumably the
Stanleys were doing the same? We know where HT was, cowering behind some
pikemen. I agree with your point about mustering though; it always reminds me of
that scene in Henry IV where Falstaff is out gathering troops.
Doug here:
I'm sorry I disappointed you. I
served in the Navy and the only time we ever had anyone who could be
termed standard bearer was during the ceremonies when we graduated
from boot camp! It was my readings in history that led to my conclusion that
standard bearers only served one at a time, what with king only able to be in
one place at any one time.
As for Richard's cavalry charge; for some reason I've always
understood that, even if Richard rode from wherever he was stationed when the
battle began, he dismounted once he'd arrived where the fighting
actually was! Does anyone else know of where I might have gotten that idea
(because I certainly don't!)?
Your reference to Shakespeare's Henry IV is interesting
because I first discovered the perils of mustering while reading about
Elizabeth I and her quite grudging support for the Dutch rebels. Seemingly the
major reason for her stinginess in providing money for troops was that she knew
what would happen: She'd lay out money for 10,000 troops and be lucky if half
that number ever crossed the Channel! I understand Shakespeare based his
mustering scene on what he'd seen!
Hilary concluded:
As for Hastings, I think we'll
have to agree to disagree. He was undoubtedly a smooth talker (and therefore a
good politician) but I don't know whether he'd have the energy or the will to
mount/assist in a coup. He wasn't young (53), he had quite a nice lifestyle and
he had so many influential relations that with a Yorkist or Tudor regime he
could have done quite well as an elder statesman. I would have said it wasn't
worth the risk. He is certainly still well-liked in Leicester, every other road
seems to be named after him.
Doug here:
With regards to Hastings; I don't see him
as the originator, but I can see him as someone willing to lend
themselves to someone else's plot. Personally, I look on Hastings as someone who
had been in the center of things for quite some time, and quite possibly both
his ego and his purse had gotten accustomed to a position he discovered would no
longer be his if Richard became king. I do agree that, had he not
gotten involved with Morton, EW, MB, et al, he'd likely have made his way into
the sort of position he felt his due. Heaven knows Richard would have benefited
from such an outcome!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] - regardin
2017-03-27 10:45:16
Well considering, as Lucy Worsley said, HT had no claim whatsoever since the Beauforts were barred from the throne and we don't even know if Katherine of Valois actually did marry, undoubtedly yes. But to be serious Elizabeth Mortimer was indeed the great-aunt of Richard Duke of York. She had had brothers whose children would have taken precedence but their male line had also died out by 1485, so Percy would indeed have had a claim by the time most of the HOY had been wiped outUnfortunately that also included him, so yes again HT did have a motive to get rid of him. And of course Elizabeth's brother was married to the daughter of Owain Glyndwr and the Percies had long dabbled in Wales. If you go right back they are directly descended from an illegitimate line of Geoffrey of Anjou, father of Henry II so they are actually Plantagenets. Geoffrey's illegitimate daughter also married Daffyd ap Owain, Prince of Wales. H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 26 March 2017, 16:47
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary, just been googling Percy and the other Earls of Northumberland. He was descended from " Hotspur" and his wife Elizabeth Mortimer. Wouldn't he have had a claim to the throne too because he was descended from Elizabeth who was Philippa's daughter and Lionel of Antwerp's granddaughter? Definitely a much better claim than HT.
Mary
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 26 March 2017, 16:47
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary, just been googling Percy and the other Earls of Northumberland. He was descended from " Hotspur" and his wife Elizabeth Mortimer. Wouldn't he have had a claim to the throne too because he was descended from Elizabeth who was Philippa's daughter and Lionel of Antwerp's granddaughter? Definitely a much better claim than HT.
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard
2017-03-27 11:00:16
That's a good point about standard bearers. As Richard's army at Bosworth was mainly Northern perhaps that's why they chose Thirlwell? Would your idea of Richard's dismounting come from the Olivier film? It's ages since I saw it but he seems to be thrashing around on foot for a long time before shouting for a horse to escape? I think I got my knowledge on Barnet from Kendall but whether it's in the 'Arrival' I'm not sure.I have to admit my admiration for Elizabeth I has waned over the years. She treated her Armada sailors appallingly, most were left destitute. It's something I doubt her paternal grandmother would have done.
There is one link between Hastings and Buckingham. He'd been Receiver General for Dowager Duchess Anne Stafford during the 1470s and he was of course brother-in-law to De Vere. We always overlook De Vere because he wasn't there. Doesn't mean he didn't have spies and influence though and he probably commanded more respect than the rest of them put together.
Paul, thanks for the battle info. Have a good day. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017, 0:04
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary wrote: Oh Doug you've let me down, I thought you were bound to know about standard bearers! I suppose you would need 'reserves' in case one fell on the battlefield and the standard had to be picked up? I'm useless at matters military. I have to admit I don't honestly understand how this battle worked. For example wasn't Barnet fought on foot because Warwick and Montagu chose to fight on foot to inspire their men; they died trying to reach their horses? So if Richard and his household were the only ones to do a cavalry charge what were these 72 year old gentry doing, sitting on their horses and watching, like Wellington? And presumably the Stanleys were doing the same? We know where HT was, cowering behind some pikemen. I agree with your point about mustering though; it always reminds me of that scene in Henry IV where Falstaff is out gathering troops. Doug here: I'm sorry I disappointed you. I served in the Navy and the only time we ever had anyone who could be termed standard bearer was during the ceremonies when we graduated from boot camp! It was my readings in history that led to my conclusion that standard bearers only served one at a time, what with king only able to be in one place at any one time. As for Richard's cavalry charge; for some reason I've always understood that, even if Richard rode from wherever he was stationed when the battle began, he dismounted once he'd arrived where the fighting actually was! Does anyone else know of where I might have gotten that idea (because I certainly don't!)? Your reference to Shakespeare's Henry IV is interesting because I first discovered the perils of mustering while reading about Elizabeth I and her quite grudging support for the Dutch rebels. Seemingly the major reason for her stinginess in providing money for troops was that she knew what would happen: She'd lay out money for 10,000 troops and be lucky if half that number ever crossed the Channel! I understand Shakespeare based his mustering scene on what he'd seen! Hilary concluded: As for Hastings, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. He was undoubtedly a smooth talker (and therefore a good politician) but I don't know whether he'd have the energy or the will to mount/assist in a coup. He wasn't young (53), he had quite a nice lifestyle and he had so many influential relations that with a Yorkist or Tudor regime he could have done quite well as an elder statesman. I would have said it wasn't worth the risk. He is certainly still well-liked in Leicester, every other road seems to be named after him. Doug here: With regards to Hastings; I don't see him as the originator, but I can see him as someone willing to lend themselves to someone else's plot. Personally, I look on Hastings as someone who had been in the center of things for quite some time, and quite possibly both his ego and his purse had gotten accustomed to a position he discovered would no longer be his if Richard became king. I do agree that, had he not gotten involved with Morton, EW, MB, et al, he'd likely have made his way into the sort of position he felt his due. Heaven knows Richard would have benefited from such an outcome! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
There is one link between Hastings and Buckingham. He'd been Receiver General for Dowager Duchess Anne Stafford during the 1470s and he was of course brother-in-law to De Vere. We always overlook De Vere because he wasn't there. Doesn't mean he didn't have spies and influence though and he probably commanded more respect than the rest of them put together.
Paul, thanks for the battle info. Have a good day. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017, 0:04
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary wrote: Oh Doug you've let me down, I thought you were bound to know about standard bearers! I suppose you would need 'reserves' in case one fell on the battlefield and the standard had to be picked up? I'm useless at matters military. I have to admit I don't honestly understand how this battle worked. For example wasn't Barnet fought on foot because Warwick and Montagu chose to fight on foot to inspire their men; they died trying to reach their horses? So if Richard and his household were the only ones to do a cavalry charge what were these 72 year old gentry doing, sitting on their horses and watching, like Wellington? And presumably the Stanleys were doing the same? We know where HT was, cowering behind some pikemen. I agree with your point about mustering though; it always reminds me of that scene in Henry IV where Falstaff is out gathering troops. Doug here: I'm sorry I disappointed you. I served in the Navy and the only time we ever had anyone who could be termed standard bearer was during the ceremonies when we graduated from boot camp! It was my readings in history that led to my conclusion that standard bearers only served one at a time, what with king only able to be in one place at any one time. As for Richard's cavalry charge; for some reason I've always understood that, even if Richard rode from wherever he was stationed when the battle began, he dismounted once he'd arrived where the fighting actually was! Does anyone else know of where I might have gotten that idea (because I certainly don't!)? Your reference to Shakespeare's Henry IV is interesting because I first discovered the perils of mustering while reading about Elizabeth I and her quite grudging support for the Dutch rebels. Seemingly the major reason for her stinginess in providing money for troops was that she knew what would happen: She'd lay out money for 10,000 troops and be lucky if half that number ever crossed the Channel! I understand Shakespeare based his mustering scene on what he'd seen! Hilary concluded: As for Hastings, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. He was undoubtedly a smooth talker (and therefore a good politician) but I don't know whether he'd have the energy or the will to mount/assist in a coup. He wasn't young (53), he had quite a nice lifestyle and he had so many influential relations that with a Yorkist or Tudor regime he could have done quite well as an elder statesman. I would have said it wasn't worth the risk. He is certainly still well-liked in Leicester, every other road seems to be named after him. Doug here: With regards to Hastings; I don't see him as the originator, but I can see him as someone willing to lend themselves to someone else's plot. Personally, I look on Hastings as someone who had been in the center of things for quite some time, and quite possibly both his ego and his purse had gotten accustomed to a position he discovered would no longer be his if Richard became king. I do agree that, had he not gotten involved with Morton, EW, MB, et al, he'd likely have made his way into the sort of position he felt his due. Heaven knows Richard would have benefited from such an outcome! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-03-27 23:20:08
Hilary
wrote:
Well considering, as Lucy
Worsley said, HT had no claim whatsoever since the Beauforts were barred from
the throne and we don't even know if Katherine of Valois actually did marry,
undoubtedly yes. But to be serious Elizabeth Mortimer was indeed the great-aunt
of Richard Duke of York. She had had brothers whose children would have taken
precedence but their male line had also died out by 1485, so Percy would indeed
have had a claim by the time most of the HOY had been wiped out
Unfortunately that also included him, so yes again HT
did have a motive to get rid of him. And of course Elizabeth's brother was
married to the daughter of Owain Glyndwr and the Percies had long dabbled in
Wales. If you go right back they are dire ctly descended from an
illegitimate line of Geoffrey of Anjou, father of Henry II so they are actually
Plantagenets. Geoffrey's illegitimate daughter also married Daffyd ap
Owain, Prince of Wales.
Doug here:
Is there
anyone involved in all this who didn't have a better
claim than HT?
No wonder the Tudors were so
touchy...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-27 23:43:59
Hilary
wrote:
That's a good point about
standard bearers. As Richard's army at Bosworth was mainly Northern perhaps
that's why they chose Thirlwell? Would your idea of Richard's dismounting come
from the Olivier film? It's ages since I saw it but he seems to be thrashing
around on foot for a long time before shouting for a horse to escape? I think I
got my knowledge on Barnet from Kendall but whether it's in the 'Arrival' I'm
not sure.
Doug here:
Perhaps Thirlwell arrived in company with
those troops from the North? Or else, perhaps it was simply his that he was on
duty, so to speak. If I recollect correctly (which makes the odds 50/50!),
standard bearers always accompanied the monarch, whether into battle or
simply on a Royal Progress.
Hilary continued:
I have to admit my admiration
for Elizabeth I has waned over the years. She treated her Armada sailors
appallingly, most were left destitute. It's something I doubt her paternal
grandmother would have done.
Doug here:
I know some of the ships were, literally,
the monarch's, but most of the vessels involved were privately owned, weren't
they? Perhaps some of the treatment those sailors received could be put
down to a lack of experience in providing for sailors after a naval battle,
something the government hadn't been involved in for quite some time.
Then there's the possibility that money was provided privately by the Queen, for
which there may or may not be records, and that money went pffft! Which also
might help explain Elizabeth's general aversion to spending money on military
matters. Still, one would imagine it wouldn't have been that difficult to do a
bit more.
You're quite right, though, that MB would
have taken better care of those she considered her people ; possibly even going
after those who'd misappropriated her money meant for sailors' relief if that
had occurred..
Hilary concluded:
There is one link between Hastings and Buckingham. He'd been
Receiver General for Dowager Duchess Anne Stafford during the 1470s and he was
of course brother-in-law to De Vere. We always overlook De Vere because he
wasn't there. Doesn't mean he didn't have spies and influence though and he
probably commanded more respect than the rest of them put together.
Paul, thanks for the battle
info. Have a good day.
Doug here:
That bit about Hastings being De Vere's
brother-in-law is interesting. If nothing else, it might have provided a channel
of information to De Vere from someone in Hastings' household/entourage. Then
again, it mightn't. Oh, well...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-03-28 12:07:41
Absolutely! Given that Ian Mortimer reckons 80% of the population are descended from Edward III John Smith down the pub (sorry tavern) probably had a better claim.One thought about Percy though. His family had immaculate Welsh connections as well going back generations. He would be able to spot if HT was doing a bit of Arthurian invention. He was therefore potentially quite a threat if he chose to denounce that. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017, 23:20
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary wrote: Well considering, as Lucy Worsley said, HT had no claim whatsoever since the Beauforts were barred from the throne and we don't even know if Katherine of Valois actually did marry, undoubtedly yes. But to be serious Elizabeth Mortimer was indeed the great-aunt of Richard Duke of York. She had had brothers whose children would have taken precedence but their male line had also died out by 1485, so Percy would indeed have had a claim by the time most of the HOY had been wiped out Unfortunately that also included him, so yes again HT did have a motive to get rid of him. And of course Elizabeth's brother was married to the daughter of Owain Glyndwr and the Percies had long dabbled in Wales. If you go right back they are dire ctly descended from an illegitimate line of Geoffrey of Anjou, father of Henry II so they are actually Plantagenets. Geoffrey's illegitimate daughter also married Daffyd ap Owain, Prince of Wales. Doug here: Is there anyone involved in all this who didn't have a better claim than HT? No wonder the Tudors were so touchy... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017, 23:20
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary wrote: Well considering, as Lucy Worsley said, HT had no claim whatsoever since the Beauforts were barred from the throne and we don't even know if Katherine of Valois actually did marry, undoubtedly yes. But to be serious Elizabeth Mortimer was indeed the great-aunt of Richard Duke of York. She had had brothers whose children would have taken precedence but their male line had also died out by 1485, so Percy would indeed have had a claim by the time most of the HOY had been wiped out Unfortunately that also included him, so yes again HT did have a motive to get rid of him. And of course Elizabeth's brother was married to the daughter of Owain Glyndwr and the Percies had long dabbled in Wales. If you go right back they are dire ctly descended from an illegitimate line of Geoffrey of Anjou, father of Henry II so they are actually Plantagenets. Geoffrey's illegitimate daughter also married Daffyd ap Owain, Prince of Wales. Doug here: Is there anyone involved in all this who didn't have a better claim than HT? No wonder the Tudors were so touchy... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-28 12:19:23
Yes perhaps a standard bearer was another version of a squire of the body, on the same sort of rota? Richard was very thoughtful about not taking them away from home for too long. Another nice point about him.There was a very good programme on Elizabeth and how she neglected her troops. But then in the UK we're still bad at looking after veterans. You treat them much better in the States and in Australia they get most things free.But MB understood how much support mattered, even if you wouldn't need it for another few years. Elizabeth had a good dose of her father's arrogance. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017, 23:44
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary wrote: That's a good point about standard bearers. As Richard's army at Bosworth was mainly Northern perhaps that's why they chose Thirlwell? Would your idea of Richard's dismounting come from the Olivier film? It's ages since I saw it but he seems to be thrashing around on foot for a long time before shouting for a horse to escape? I think I got my knowledge on Barnet from Kendall but whether it's in the 'Arrival' I'm not sure. Doug here: Perhaps Thirlwell arrived in company with those troops from the North? Or else, perhaps it was simply his that he was on duty, so to speak. If I recollect correctly (which makes the odds 50/50!), standard bearers always accompanied the monarch, whether into battle or simply on a Royal Progress. Hilary continued: I have to admit my admiration for Elizabeth I has waned over the years. She treated her Armada sailors appallingly, most were left destitute. It's something I doubt her paternal grandmother would have done. Doug here: I know some of the ships were, literally, the monarch's, but most of the vessels involved were privately owned, weren't they? Perhaps some of the treatment those sailors received could be put down to a lack of experience in providing for sailors after a naval battle, something the government hadn't been involved in for quite some time. Then there's the possibility that money was provided privately by the Queen, for which there may or may not be records, and that money went pffft! Which also might help explain Elizabeth's general aversion to spending money on military matters. Still, one would imagine it wouldn't have been that difficult to do a bit more. You're quite right, though, that MB would have taken better care of those she considered her people ; possibly even going after those who'd misappropriated her money meant for sailors' relief if that had occurred.. Hilary concluded: There is one link between Hastings and Buckingham. He'd been Receiver General for Dowager Duchess Anne Stafford during the 1470s and he was of course brother-in-law to De Vere. We always overlook De Vere because he wasn't there. Doesn't mean he didn't have spies and influence though and he probably commanded more respect than the rest of them put together. Paul, thanks for the battle info. Have a good day. Doug here: That bit about Hastings being De Vere's brother-in-law is interesting. If nothing else, it might have provided a channel of information to De Vere from someone in Hastings' household/entourage. Then again, it mightn't. Oh, well... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017, 23:44
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary wrote: That's a good point about standard bearers. As Richard's army at Bosworth was mainly Northern perhaps that's why they chose Thirlwell? Would your idea of Richard's dismounting come from the Olivier film? It's ages since I saw it but he seems to be thrashing around on foot for a long time before shouting for a horse to escape? I think I got my knowledge on Barnet from Kendall but whether it's in the 'Arrival' I'm not sure. Doug here: Perhaps Thirlwell arrived in company with those troops from the North? Or else, perhaps it was simply his that he was on duty, so to speak. If I recollect correctly (which makes the odds 50/50!), standard bearers always accompanied the monarch, whether into battle or simply on a Royal Progress. Hilary continued: I have to admit my admiration for Elizabeth I has waned over the years. She treated her Armada sailors appallingly, most were left destitute. It's something I doubt her paternal grandmother would have done. Doug here: I know some of the ships were, literally, the monarch's, but most of the vessels involved were privately owned, weren't they? Perhaps some of the treatment those sailors received could be put down to a lack of experience in providing for sailors after a naval battle, something the government hadn't been involved in for quite some time. Then there's the possibility that money was provided privately by the Queen, for which there may or may not be records, and that money went pffft! Which also might help explain Elizabeth's general aversion to spending money on military matters. Still, one would imagine it wouldn't have been that difficult to do a bit more. You're quite right, though, that MB would have taken better care of those she considered her people ; possibly even going after those who'd misappropriated her money meant for sailors' relief if that had occurred.. Hilary concluded: There is one link between Hastings and Buckingham. He'd been Receiver General for Dowager Duchess Anne Stafford during the 1470s and he was of course brother-in-law to De Vere. We always overlook De Vere because he wasn't there. Doesn't mean he didn't have spies and influence though and he probably commanded more respect than the rest of them put together. Paul, thanks for the battle info. Have a good day. Doug here: That bit about Hastings being De Vere's brother-in-law is interesting. If nothing else, it might have provided a channel of information to De Vere from someone in Hastings' household/entourage. Then again, it mightn't. Oh, well... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-29 00:32:07
Hilary
wrote:
Yes perhaps a standard bearer
was another version of a squire of the body, on the same sort of rota? Richard
was very thoughtful about not taking them away from home for too long. Another
nice point about him.
Doug here:
I'm merely guessing here, but is it
possible that standard bearer was one of the duties of someone serving as a
squire of the body? Weren't kings always preceded by standard bearers when they
rode out from wherever they were staying? Does anyone know of just how such a
procession was organized; who went first, where the king was, etc.?
Hilary concluded:
There was a very good
programme on Elizabeth and how she neglected her troops. But then in the UK
we're still bad at looking after veterans. You treat them much better in
the States and in Australia they get most things free.
But MB understood how much
support mattered, even if you wouldn't need it for another few years. Elizabeth
had a good dose of her father's arrogance.
Doug here:
I'm currently reading The English and
Their History by Robert Tombs and in the rather small section devoted
specifically to Elizabeth I he wrote The English fleet lost in all only about
100 men killed, though many more died of disease;... , which goes along with my
recollection that most of the deaths were after the battle against the
Armada. Unfortunately, I don't know how many of those deaths from disease were
due to the conditions on board the ships or the conditions the sailors were
forced to live in afterwards. Regardless, more certainly could have been
done.
I must admit that I tend to hold the
position that, as my military service was something that I did completely of my
own free will, it should be viewed, on the whole, as just another form of
governmental service. But then again, I was fortunate enough to never be
anywhere where people were trying to kill me either, so that may have affected
my views!
I often wonder how much of that Tudor
arrogance was simply a front? An pose adopted to impress the commons and,
especially, any foreigners at Court about how strong and secure their hold on
the country, and the throne, was? Then again, it could very well have just been
a family trait.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-29 12:03:28
Doug and everybody, I have uncovered some of my Bosworth material.It consensus now, based on the archeological evidence, goes like this:-
Richard was behind Norfolk stretched out along the Fenn Lanes, with his artillery to his left and Northumberland in reserve at the rear. Evidence of canon shot has been found here, and the balls found in the field can be shown to have been shot from that position.Tudor was behind Oxford with the marsh to his right, and William Stanley to his rear, with Thomas to William's right close to Stoke Golding and therefore between the two main forces, but with Richard's artillery in a position to fire on him if he moved against the king.The battle began with artillery fire and exchange of arrows before Oxford moved forward to engage Norfolk.After a short while there was a break, and Oxford reformed his army into triangular units before attacking again. During this stage Norfolk was killed while on Oxford's left his unit of French billmen attacked Norfolk's flank with devastating results. Norfolk's men began to fall apart and men began to flee, back towards Northumberland. At that point Tudor, not knowing of the success on his left flank, moved towards the Stanleys and Richard, seeing this, charged. With Norfolk dead, and his right flank falling apart it was risky but could have succeeded, and almost did, but for the intervention of William Stanley, and the fact that there was also a unit of French billmen surrounding Tudor, cutting off access to him by mounted men.The men fleeing from the attack of the French must also have panicked Northumberland's men and some followed suit. By this time the news began to spread that Richard was dead, and that was that.You can see it very clearly from Fenn Lanes Farm, where a small hill has been built giving those interested access to a clear view without disturbing the farmer. It is also very clear where Richard was killed, now at the edge of a field by a clump of trees.Work on the area has discovered a number of marshy areas, but the one in this field dates to the fifteenth century, the only marshy area that does.If you take the modern farm as being more or less the centre right of the battle looking at it from Richard's position, follow the Fenn Lanes away from the farm towards Darlington. At the fence you can look across the field and locate the clump of trees now marking the spot where we lost the king to the usurper, his French mercenaries, and the treacherous Stanleys.Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 29 mars 2017 à 01:31, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Richard was behind Norfolk stretched out along the Fenn Lanes, with his artillery to his left and Northumberland in reserve at the rear. Evidence of canon shot has been found here, and the balls found in the field can be shown to have been shot from that position.Tudor was behind Oxford with the marsh to his right, and William Stanley to his rear, with Thomas to William's right close to Stoke Golding and therefore between the two main forces, but with Richard's artillery in a position to fire on him if he moved against the king.The battle began with artillery fire and exchange of arrows before Oxford moved forward to engage Norfolk.After a short while there was a break, and Oxford reformed his army into triangular units before attacking again. During this stage Norfolk was killed while on Oxford's left his unit of French billmen attacked Norfolk's flank with devastating results. Norfolk's men began to fall apart and men began to flee, back towards Northumberland. At that point Tudor, not knowing of the success on his left flank, moved towards the Stanleys and Richard, seeing this, charged. With Norfolk dead, and his right flank falling apart it was risky but could have succeeded, and almost did, but for the intervention of William Stanley, and the fact that there was also a unit of French billmen surrounding Tudor, cutting off access to him by mounted men.The men fleeing from the attack of the French must also have panicked Northumberland's men and some followed suit. By this time the news began to spread that Richard was dead, and that was that.You can see it very clearly from Fenn Lanes Farm, where a small hill has been built giving those interested access to a clear view without disturbing the farmer. It is also very clear where Richard was killed, now at the edge of a field by a clump of trees.Work on the area has discovered a number of marshy areas, but the one in this field dates to the fifteenth century, the only marshy area that does.If you take the modern farm as being more or less the centre right of the battle looking at it from Richard's position, follow the Fenn Lanes away from the farm towards Darlington. At the fence you can look across the field and locate the clump of trees now marking the spot where we lost the king to the usurper, his French mercenaries, and the treacherous Stanleys.Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 29 mars 2017 à 01:31, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary wrote: Yes perhaps a standard bearer was another version of a squire of the body, on the same sort of rota? Richard was very thoughtful about not taking them away from home for too long. Another nice point about him. Doug here: I'm merely guessing here, but is it possible that standard bearer was one of the duties of someone serving as a squire of the body? Weren't kings always preceded by standard bearers when they rode out from wherever they were staying? Does anyone know of just how such a procession was organized; who went first, where the king was, etc.? Hilary concluded: There was a very good programme on Elizabeth and how she neglected her troops. But then in the UK we're still bad at looking after veterans. You treat them much better in the States and in Australia they get most things free. But MB understood how much support mattered, even if you wouldn't need it for another few years. Elizabeth had a good dose of her father's arrogance. Doug here: I'm currently reading The English and Their History by Robert Tombs and in the rather small section devoted specifically to Elizabeth I he wrote The English fleet lost in all only about 100 men killed, though many more died of disease;... , which goes along with my recollection that most of the deaths were after the battle against the Armada. Unfortunately, I don't know how many of those deaths from disease were due to the conditions on board the ships or the conditions the sailors were forced to live in afterwards. Regardless, more certainly could have been done. I must admit that I tend to hold the position that, as my military service was something that I did completely of my own free will, it should be viewed, on the whole, as just another form of governmental service. But then again, I was fortunate enough to never be anywhere where people were trying to kill me either, so that may have affected my views! I often wonder how much of that Tudor arrogance was simply a front? An pose adopted to impress the commons and, especially, any foreigners at Court about how strong and secure their hold on the country, and the throne, was? Then again, it could very well have just been a family trait. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-29 14:34:07
Paul,
Thank you for taking
the time and effort to put together your post (which I've left complete below)!
It certainly makes things clearer but, as I'm rather a visual person when it
comes to such things as battlefields, do you, or anyone, know if there's
someplace on-line where I could purchase several copies of the Ordinance Survey
Map for the Bosworth area? I hadn't noticed any being offered from the Society;
would simply googling get me where I want to go?
Again, Paul, thank
you very much indeed!
Doug
Paul
wrote:
Doug and everybody, I have uncovered some of my Bosworth material.
It consensus now, based on the archeological
evidence, goes like this:-
Richard was behind Norfolk stretched out along the
Fenn Lanes, with his artillery to his left and Northumberland in reserve at the
rear. Evidence of canon shot has been found here, and the balls found in the
field can be shown to have been shot from that position.
Tudor was behind Oxford with the marsh to his right,
and William Stanley to his rear, with Thomas to William's right close to Stoke
Golding and therefore between the two main forces, but with Richard's artillery
in a position to fire on him if he moved against the king.
The battle began with artillery fire and exchange of
arrows before Oxford moved forward to engage Norfolk.
After a short while there was a break, and Oxford
reformed his army into triangular units before attacking again. During this
stage Norfolk was killed while on Oxford's left his unit of French billmen
attacked Norfolk's flank with devastating results.
Norfolk's men began to fall apart and men began to
flee, back towards Northumberland. At that point Tudor, not knowing of the
success on his left flank, moved towards the Stanleys and Richard, seeing this,
charged. With Norfolk dead, and his right flank falling apart it was risky but
could have succeeded, and almost did, but for the intervention of William
Stanley, and the fact that there was also a unit of French billmen surrounding
Tudor, cutting off access to him by mounted men.
The men fleeing from the attack of the French must
also have panicked Northumberland's men and some followed suit. By this time the
news began to spread that Richard was dead, and that was that.
You can see it very clearly from Fenn Lanes Farm,
where a small hill has been built giving those interested access to a clear view
without disturbing the farmer. It is also very clear where Richard was killed,
now at the edge of a field by a clump of trees.
Work on the area has discovered a number of marshy
areas, but the one in this field dates to the fifteenth century, the only marshy
area that does.
If you take the modern farm as being more or less the
centre right of the battle looking at it from Richard's position, follow the
Fenn Lanes away from the farm towards Darlington. At the fence you can look
across the field and locate the clump of trees now marking the spot where we
lost the king to the usurper, his French mercenaries, and the treacherous
Stanleys.
Paul
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-29 14:41:15
Just had to put this on for you Doug
ORDNANCE SURVEY Landranger 140 Leicester, Coventry & Rugby Map With Digital Version
£ 8.99 ORDNANCE SURVEY Landranger 140 Leicester, Coventry & Rugby Map With Dig... The OS Landranger Map is the ideal map for planning the perfect day out. This best known national map series pro... Don't know whether amazon.co.uk post to the US amazon.com post to us. There's a whole range. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2017, 14:34
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Paul, Thank you for taking the time and effort to put together your post (which I've left complete below)! It certainly makes things clearer but, as I'm rather a visual person when it comes to such things as battlefields, do you, or anyone, know if there's someplace on-line where I could purchase several copies of the Ordinance Survey Map for the Bosworth area? I hadn't noticed any being offered from the Society; would simply googling get me where I want to go? Again, Paul, thank you very much indeed! Doug Paul wrote: Doug and everybody, I have uncovered some of my Bosworth material. It consensus now, based on the archeological evidence, goes like this:- Richard was behind Norfolk stretched out along the Fenn Lanes, with his artillery to his left and Northumberland in reserve at the rear. Evidence of canon shot has been found here, and the balls found in the field can be shown to have been shot from that position. Tudor was behind Oxford with the marsh to his right, and William Stanley to his rear, with Thomas to William's right close to Stoke Golding and therefore between the two main forces, but with Richard's artillery in a position to fire on him if he moved against the king. The battle began with artillery fire and exchange of arrows before Oxford moved forward to engage Norfolk. After a short while there was a break, and Oxford reformed his army into triangular units before attacking again. During this stage Norfolk was killed while on Oxford's left his unit of French billmen attacked Norfolk's flank with devastating results. Norfolk's men began to fall apart and men began to flee, back towards Northumberland. At that point Tudor, not knowing of the success on his left flank, moved towards the Stanleys and Richard, seeing this, charged. With Norfolk dead, and his right flank falling apart it was risky but could have succeeded, and almost did, but for the intervention of William Stanley, and the fact that there was also a unit of French billmen surrounding Tudor, cutting off access to him by mounted men. The men fleeing from the attack of the French must also have panicked Northumberland's men and some followed suit. By this time the news began to spread that Richard was dead, and that was that. You can see it very clearly from Fenn Lanes Farm, where a small hill has been built giving those interested access to a clear view without disturbing the farmer. It is also very clear where Richard was killed, now at the edge of a field by a clump of trees. Work on the area has discovered a number of marshy areas, but the one in this field dates to the fifteenth century, the only marshy area that does. If you take the modern farm as being more or less the centre right of the battle looking at it from Richard's position, follow the Fenn Lanes away from the farm towards Darlington. At the fence you can look across the field and locate the clump of trees now marking the spot where we lost the king to the usurper, his French mercenaries, and the treacherous Stanleys. Paul
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
ORDNANCE SURVEY Landranger 140 Leicester, Coventry & Rugby Map With Digital Version
£ 8.99 ORDNANCE SURVEY Landranger 140 Leicester, Coventry & Rugby Map With Dig... The OS Landranger Map is the ideal map for planning the perfect day out. This best known national map series pro... Don't know whether amazon.co.uk post to the US amazon.com post to us. There's a whole range. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2017, 14:34
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Paul, Thank you for taking the time and effort to put together your post (which I've left complete below)! It certainly makes things clearer but, as I'm rather a visual person when it comes to such things as battlefields, do you, or anyone, know if there's someplace on-line where I could purchase several copies of the Ordinance Survey Map for the Bosworth area? I hadn't noticed any being offered from the Society; would simply googling get me where I want to go? Again, Paul, thank you very much indeed! Doug Paul wrote: Doug and everybody, I have uncovered some of my Bosworth material. It consensus now, based on the archeological evidence, goes like this:- Richard was behind Norfolk stretched out along the Fenn Lanes, with his artillery to his left and Northumberland in reserve at the rear. Evidence of canon shot has been found here, and the balls found in the field can be shown to have been shot from that position. Tudor was behind Oxford with the marsh to his right, and William Stanley to his rear, with Thomas to William's right close to Stoke Golding and therefore between the two main forces, but with Richard's artillery in a position to fire on him if he moved against the king. The battle began with artillery fire and exchange of arrows before Oxford moved forward to engage Norfolk. After a short while there was a break, and Oxford reformed his army into triangular units before attacking again. During this stage Norfolk was killed while on Oxford's left his unit of French billmen attacked Norfolk's flank with devastating results. Norfolk's men began to fall apart and men began to flee, back towards Northumberland. At that point Tudor, not knowing of the success on his left flank, moved towards the Stanleys and Richard, seeing this, charged. With Norfolk dead, and his right flank falling apart it was risky but could have succeeded, and almost did, but for the intervention of William Stanley, and the fact that there was also a unit of French billmen surrounding Tudor, cutting off access to him by mounted men. The men fleeing from the attack of the French must also have panicked Northumberland's men and some followed suit. By this time the news began to spread that Richard was dead, and that was that. You can see it very clearly from Fenn Lanes Farm, where a small hill has been built giving those interested access to a clear view without disturbing the farmer. It is also very clear where Richard was killed, now at the edge of a field by a clump of trees. Work on the area has discovered a number of marshy areas, but the one in this field dates to the fifteenth century, the only marshy area that does. If you take the modern farm as being more or less the centre right of the battle looking at it from Richard's position, follow the Fenn Lanes away from the farm towards Darlington. At the fence you can look across the field and locate the clump of trees now marking the spot where we lost the king to the usurper, his French mercenaries, and the treacherous Stanleys. Paul
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-29 14:42:21
Thank you so much Paul. I begin to understand now.
Methinks I need a trip! H
From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2017, 12:03
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Doug and everybody, I have uncovered some of my Bosworth material.It consensus now, based on the archeological evidence, goes like this:-
Richard was behind Norfolk stretched out along the Fenn Lanes, with his artillery to his left and Northumberland in reserve at the rear. Evidence of canon shot has been found here, and the balls found in the field can be shown to have been shot from that position.Tudor was behind Oxford with the marsh to his right, and William Stanley to his rear, with Thomas to William's right close to Stoke Golding and therefore between the two main forces, but with Richard's artillery in a position to fire on him if he moved against the king.The battle began with artillery fire and exchange of arrows before Oxford moved forward to engage Norfolk.After a short while there was a break, and Oxford reformed his army into triangular units before attacking again. During this stage Norfolk was killed while on Oxford's left his unit of French billmen attacked Norfolk's flank with devastating results. Norfolk's men began to fall apart and men began to flee, back towards Northumberland. At that point Tudor, not knowing of the success on his left flank, moved towards the Stanleys and Richard, seeing this, charged. With Norfolk dead, and his right flank falling apart it was risky but could have succeeded, and almost did, but for the intervention of William Stanley, and the fact that there was also a unit of French billmen surrounding Tudor, cutting off access to him by mounted men.The men fleeing from the attack of the French must also have panicked Northumberland's men and some followed suit. By this time the news began to spread that Richard was dead, and that was that.You can see it very clearly from Fenn Lanes Farm, where a small hill has been built giving those interested access to a clear view without disturbing the farmer. It is also very clear where Richard was killed, now at the edge of a field by a clump of trees.Work on the area has discovered a number of marshy areas, but the one in this field dates to the fifteenth century, the only marshy area that does.If you take the modern farm as being more or less the centre right of the battle looking at it from Richard's position, follow the Fenn Lanes away from the farm towards Darlington. At the fence you can look across the field and locate the clump of trees now marking the spot where we lost the king to the usurper, his French mercenaries, and the treacherous Stanleys.Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 29 mars 2017 à 01:31, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary wrote: Yes perhaps a standard bearer was another version of a squire of the body, on the same sort of rota? Richard was very thoughtful about not taking them away from home for too long. Another nice point about him. Doug here: I'm merely guessing here, but is it possible that standard bearer was one of the duties of someone serving as a squire of the body? Weren't kings always preceded by standard bearers when they rode out from wherever they were staying? Does anyone know of just how such a procession was organized; who went first, where the king was, etc.? Hilary concluded: There was a very good programme on Elizabeth and how she neglected her troops. But then in the UK we're still bad at looking after veterans. You treat them much better in the States and in Australia they get most things free. But MB understood how much support mattered, even if you wouldn't need it for another few years. Elizabeth had a good dose of her father's arrogance. Doug here: I'm currently reading The English and Their History by Robert Tombs and in the rather small section devoted specifically to Elizabeth I he wrote The English fleet lost in all only about 100 men killed, though many more died of disease;... , which goes along with my recollection that most of the deaths were after the battle against the Armada. Unfortunately, I don't know how many of those deaths from disease were due to the conditions on board the ships or the conditions the sailors were forced to live in afterwards. Regardless, more certainly could have been done. I must admit that I tend to hold the position that, as my military service was something that I did completely of my own free will, it should be viewed, on the whole, as just another form of governmental service. But then again, I was fortunate enough to never be anywhere where people were trying to kill me either, so that may have affected my views! I often wonder how much of that Tudor arrogance was simply a front? An pose adopted to impress the commons and, especially, any foreigners at Court about how strong and secure their hold on the country, and the throne, was? Then again, it could very well have just been a family trait. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Methinks I need a trip! H
From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2017, 12:03
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Doug and everybody, I have uncovered some of my Bosworth material.It consensus now, based on the archeological evidence, goes like this:-
Richard was behind Norfolk stretched out along the Fenn Lanes, with his artillery to his left and Northumberland in reserve at the rear. Evidence of canon shot has been found here, and the balls found in the field can be shown to have been shot from that position.Tudor was behind Oxford with the marsh to his right, and William Stanley to his rear, with Thomas to William's right close to Stoke Golding and therefore between the two main forces, but with Richard's artillery in a position to fire on him if he moved against the king.The battle began with artillery fire and exchange of arrows before Oxford moved forward to engage Norfolk.After a short while there was a break, and Oxford reformed his army into triangular units before attacking again. During this stage Norfolk was killed while on Oxford's left his unit of French billmen attacked Norfolk's flank with devastating results. Norfolk's men began to fall apart and men began to flee, back towards Northumberland. At that point Tudor, not knowing of the success on his left flank, moved towards the Stanleys and Richard, seeing this, charged. With Norfolk dead, and his right flank falling apart it was risky but could have succeeded, and almost did, but for the intervention of William Stanley, and the fact that there was also a unit of French billmen surrounding Tudor, cutting off access to him by mounted men.The men fleeing from the attack of the French must also have panicked Northumberland's men and some followed suit. By this time the news began to spread that Richard was dead, and that was that.You can see it very clearly from Fenn Lanes Farm, where a small hill has been built giving those interested access to a clear view without disturbing the farmer. It is also very clear where Richard was killed, now at the edge of a field by a clump of trees.Work on the area has discovered a number of marshy areas, but the one in this field dates to the fifteenth century, the only marshy area that does.If you take the modern farm as being more or less the centre right of the battle looking at it from Richard's position, follow the Fenn Lanes away from the farm towards Darlington. At the fence you can look across the field and locate the clump of trees now marking the spot where we lost the king to the usurper, his French mercenaries, and the treacherous Stanleys.Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 29 mars 2017 à 01:31, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary wrote: Yes perhaps a standard bearer was another version of a squire of the body, on the same sort of rota? Richard was very thoughtful about not taking them away from home for too long. Another nice point about him. Doug here: I'm merely guessing here, but is it possible that standard bearer was one of the duties of someone serving as a squire of the body? Weren't kings always preceded by standard bearers when they rode out from wherever they were staying? Does anyone know of just how such a procession was organized; who went first, where the king was, etc.? Hilary concluded: There was a very good programme on Elizabeth and how she neglected her troops. But then in the UK we're still bad at looking after veterans. You treat them much better in the States and in Australia they get most things free. But MB understood how much support mattered, even if you wouldn't need it for another few years. Elizabeth had a good dose of her father's arrogance. Doug here: I'm currently reading The English and Their History by Robert Tombs and in the rather small section devoted specifically to Elizabeth I he wrote The English fleet lost in all only about 100 men killed, though many more died of disease;... , which goes along with my recollection that most of the deaths were after the battle against the Armada. Unfortunately, I don't know how many of those deaths from disease were due to the conditions on board the ships or the conditions the sailors were forced to live in afterwards. Regardless, more certainly could have been done. I must admit that I tend to hold the position that, as my military service was something that I did completely of my own free will, it should be viewed, on the whole, as just another form of governmental service. But then again, I was fortunate enough to never be anywhere where people were trying to kill me either, so that may have affected my views! I often wonder how much of that Tudor arrogance was simply a front? An pose adopted to impress the commons and, especially, any foreigners at Court about how strong and secure their hold on the country, and the throne, was? Then again, it could very well have just been a family trait. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-29 15:34:50
Hi Doug,
In the US we can get USGS Maps on line. They used to be paper maps of each area. I have no idea about Britain, but surely their Ordinance Maps have also been digitized. Then there is Google Earth, which we use a lot. My husband and son are engineers and surveyors. We also have a drone to fly areas to be surveyed. I don't know where you are, or what is available around Bosworth, but surely someone has that information.
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 8:34 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Paul,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to put together your post (which I've left complete below)! It certainly makes things clearer but, as I'm rather a visual person when it comes to such things as battlefields, do you, or anyone, know if there's someplace on-line where I could purchase several copies of the Ordinance Survey Map for the Bosworth area? I hadn't noticed any being offered from the Society; would simply googling get me where I want to go?
Again, Paul, thank you very much indeed!
Doug
Paul wrote:
Doug and everybody, I have uncovered some of my Bosworth material.
It consensus now, based on the archeological evidence, goes like this:-
Richard was behind Norfolk stretched out along the Fenn Lanes, with his artillery to his left and Northumberland in reserve at the rear. Evidence of canon shot has been found here, and the balls found in the field can be shown to have been shot from that position.
Tudor was behind Oxford with the marsh to his right, and William Stanley to his rear, with Thomas to William's right close to Stoke Golding and therefore between the two main forces, but with Richard's artillery in a position to fire on him if he moved against the king.
The battle began with artillery fire and exchange of arrows before Oxford moved forward to engage Norfolk.
After a short while there was a break, and Oxford reformed his army into triangular units before attacking again. During this stage Norfolk was killed while on Oxford's left his unit of French billmen attacked Norfolk's flank with devastating results.
Norfolk's men began to fall apart and men began to flee, back towards Northumberland. At that point Tudor, not knowing of the success on his left flank, moved towards the Stanleys and Richard, seeing this, charged. With Norfolk dead, and his right flank falling apart it was risky but could have succeeded, and almost did, but for the intervention of William Stanley, and the fact that there was also a unit of French billmen surrounding Tudor, cutting off access to him by mounted men.
The men fleeing from the attack of the French must also have panicked Northumberland's men and some followed suit. By this time the news began to spread that Richard was dead, and that was that.
You can see it very clearly from Fenn Lanes Farm, where a small hill has been built giving those interested access to a clear view without disturbing the farmer. It is also very clear where Richard was killed, now at the edge of a field by a clump of trees.
Work on the area has discovered a number of marshy areas, but the one in this field dates to the fifteenth century, the only marshy area that does.
If you take the modern farm as being more or less the centre right of the battle looking at it from Richard's position, follow the Fenn Lanes away from the farm towards Darlington. At the fence you can look across the field and locate the clump of trees now marking the spot where we lost the king to the usurper, his French mercenaries, and the treacherous Stanleys.
Paul
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-29 18:01:05
When there last year I was able to wander unheeded around the entire battlefield area. Nobody was around, and being in the field where Richard died was very moving. It is peaceful, quiet.You'd find the trip well worth it.Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 29 mars 2017 à 15:42, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 29 mars 2017 à 15:42, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
Thank you so much Paul. I begin to understand now.
Methinks I need a trip! H
From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2017, 12:03
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Doug and everybody, I have uncovered some of my Bosworth material.It consensus now, based on the archeological evidence, goes like this:-
Richard was behind Norfolk stretched out along the Fenn Lanes, with his artillery to his left and Northumberland in reserve at the rear. Evidence of canon shot has been found here, and the balls found in the field can be shown to have been shot from that position.Tudor was behind Oxford with the marsh to his right, and William Stanley to his rear, with Thomas to William's right close to Stoke Golding and therefore between the two main forces, but with Richard's artillery in a position to fire on him if he moved against the king.The battle began with artillery fire and exchange of arrows before Oxford moved forward to engage Norfolk.After a short while there was a break, and Oxford reformed his army into triangular units before attacking again. During this stage Norfolk was killed while on Oxford's left his unit of French billmen attacked Norfolk's flank with devastating results. Norfolk's men began to fall apart and men began to flee, back towards Northumberland. At that point Tudor, not knowing of the success on his left flank, moved towards the Stanleys and Richard, seeing this, charged. With Norfolk dead, and his right flank falling apart it was risky but could have succeeded, and almost did, but for the intervention of William Stanley, and the fact that there was also a unit of French billmen surrounding Tudor, cutting off access to him by mounted men.The men fleeing from the attack of the French must also have panicked Northumberland's men and some followed suit. By this time the news began to spread that Richard was dead, and that was that.You can see it very clearly from Fenn Lanes Farm, where a small hill has been built giving those interested access to a clear view without disturbing the farmer. It is also very clear where Richard was killed, now at the edge of a field by a clump of trees.Work on the area has discovered a number of marshy areas, but the one in this field dates to the fifteenth century, the only marshy area that does.If you take the modern farm as being more or less the centre right of the battle looking at it from Richard's position, follow the Fenn Lanes away from the farm towards Darlington. At the fence you can look across the field and locate the clump of trees now marking the spot where we lost the king to the usurper, his French mercenaries, and the treacherous Stanleys.Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 29 mars 2017 à 01:31, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary
wrote:
Yes perhaps a standard bearer
was another version of a squire of the body, on the same sort of rota? Richard
was very thoughtful about not taking them away from home for too long. Another
nice point about him.
Doug here:
I'm merely guessing here, but is it
possible that standard bearer was one of the duties of someone serving as a
squire of the body? Weren't kings always preceded by standard bearers when they
rode out from wherever they were staying? Does anyone know of just how such a
procession was organized; who went first, where the king was, etc.?
Hilary concluded:
There was a very good
programme on Elizabeth and how she neglected her troops. But then in the UK
we're still bad at looking after veterans. You treat them much better in
the States and in Australia they get most things free.
But MB understood how much
support mattered, even if you wouldn't need it for another few years. Elizabeth
had a good dose of her father's arrogance.
Doug here:
I'm currently reading The English and
Their History by Robert Tombs and in the rather small section devoted
specifically to Elizabeth I he wrote The English fleet lost in all only about
100 men killed, though many more died of disease;... , which goes along with my
recollection that most of the deaths were after the battle against the
Armada. Unfortunately, I don't know how many of those deaths from disease were
due to the conditions on board the ships or the conditions the sailors were
forced to live in afterwards. Regardless, more certainly could have been
done.
I must admit that I tend to hold the
position that, as my military service was something that I did completely of my
own free will, it should be viewed, on the whole, as just another form of
governmental service. But then again, I was fortunate enough to never be
anywhere where people were trying to kill me either, so that may have affected
my views!
I often wonder how much of that Tudor
arrogance was simply a front? An pose adopted to impress the commons and,
especially, any foreigners at Court about how strong and secure their hold on
the country, and the throne, was? Then again, it could very well have just been
a family trait.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-29 20:19:11
If you use Google maps you can get in really close to the spot that Paul is talking about. YOu have to type in Fenn Lane Nuneaton...Paul can you remind us of the name of the farm please ?
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-30 08:56:30
Simple. Fenn Lanes Farm.Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 29 mars 2017 à 21:19, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 29 mars 2017 à 21:19, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :
If you use Google maps you can get in really close to the spot that Paul is talking about. YOu have to type in Fenn Lane Nuneaton...Paul can you remind us of the name of the farm please ?
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-30 09:28:00
Yes..that's it. We stood at the roadsid and could see the area where Richard lost his life but didn't actually venture in to explore. Couldn't see anybody about to ask for permission.
Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-30 15:13:26
Pamela
wrote:
In
the US we can get USGS Maps on line. They used to be paper maps of each area. I
have no idea about Britain, but surely their Ordinance Maps have also been
digitized. Then there is Google Earth, which we use a lot. My husband and son
are engineers and surveyors. We also have a drone to fly areas to be surveyed. I
don't know where you are, or what is available around Bosworth, but surely
someone has that information.
Doug
here:
I had
thought of Google Earth, but I have to admit I don't know how to save them to
a file (if that's even possible).
I
live in the US, Indiana to be precise, and the reason I thought of the Ordinance
Survey Maps was because, when I was stationed in England and Scotland, I bought
the maps for the areas I was in, partly as a souvenir, but also to help me
acclimatize myself to the areas. The detail was so great that, for example, the
farmhouse I rented in==outside Brechin in Scotland was on the map! That's why I
thought of using the Ordinance Survey Maps for the Bosworth area the details,
even though mostly modern, would help me place who was where in
1485.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-30 15:23:46
Hilary
wrote:
Just
had to put this on for you Doug
ORDNANCE
SURVEY Landranger 140 Leicester, Coventry & Rugby Map With Digital
Version
£
8.99
ORDNANCE
SURVEY Landranger 140 Leicester, Coventry & Rugby Map With
Dig...
The OS
Landranger Map is the ideal map for planning the perfect day
out. This best known national map series pro...
Don't know whether amazon.co.uk post to the US amazon.com post to us.
There's a whole range.
Doug here:
Thank you! That's exactly what I was looking for!
It even has shipping to the US; and since I've discovered I can use my credit
card for purchases in UK pounds, that makes it even easier. Apparently a
computer somewhere simply notes the exchange rate at the time of purchase and
debits my account. Or credits it, I always get those two confused.
Thank you again,
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-30 15:24:30
Doug, if you go to
http://maps.nls.uk/os/6inch-england-and-wales/index.html you will find a page that offers three choices of how to view maps, especially viewing modern maps OVER older ones, specifically 1888-1913. Choose the seamless zoomable overlay' feature. There is
a slide control on the left, enabling you to gradually see only the modern Ordnance Survey map, or go back to how the same OS area was a century or more ago. Stop halfway and you can see both together, the one showing through the other. It's a fascinating
toy, as well as useful. Granted, it won't take you back to Richard's time, but it gives a idea of how things have changed in a relatively short period.
From:
mailto:
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:13 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Pamela wrote:
In the US we can get USGS Maps on line. They used to be paper maps of each area. I have no idea about Britain, but surely their Ordinance Maps have also been digitized. Then there
is Google Earth, which we use a lot. My husband and son are engineers and surveyors. We also have a drone to fly areas to be surveyed. I don't know where you are, or what is available around Bosworth, but surely someone has that information.
Doug here:
I had thought of Google Earth, but I have to admit I don't know how to save them to a file (if that's even possible).
I live in the US, Indiana to be precise, and the reason I thought of the Ordinance Survey Maps was because, when I was stationed in England and Scotland, I bought the maps for
the areas I was in, partly as a souvenir, but also to help me acclimatize myself to the areas. The detail was so great that, for example, the farmhouse I rented in==outside Brechin in Scotland was on the map! That's why I thought of using the Ordinance Survey
Maps for the Bosworth area the details, even though mostly modern, would help me place who was where in 1485.
Doug
Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-30 15:41:23
Absolutely&&.I will do some research here, and see if I can locate a paper copy of the area. What is so fun about Google Earth is the ability of get really amazing detail, and you can get topo, birds eye, ground view etc. Since I am neither an engineer or surveyor, I have no idea how to save an area.
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:13 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Pamela wrote:
In the US we can get USGS Maps on line. They used to be paper maps of each area. I have no idea about Britain, but surely their Ordinance Maps have also been digitized. Then there is Google Earth, which we use a lot. My husband and son are engineers and surveyors. We also have a drone to fly areas to be surveyed. I don't know where you are, or what is available around Bosworth, but surely someone has that information.
Doug here:
I had thought of Google Earth, but I have to admit I don't know how to save them to a file (if that's even possible).
I live in the US, Indiana to be precise, and the reason I thought of the Ordinance Survey Maps was because, when I was stationed in England and Scotland, I bought the maps for the areas I was in, partly as a souvenir, but also to help me acclimatize myself to the areas. The detail was so great that, for example, the farmhouse I rented in==outside Brechin in Scotland was on the map! That's why I thought of using the Ordinance Survey Maps for the Bosworth area the details, even though mostly modern, would help me place who was where in 1485.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-30 15:48:17
Sandra
wrote:
Doug, if you go to http://maps.nls.uk/os/6inch-england-and-wales/index.html
you will find a page that offers three choices of how to view maps, especially
viewing modern maps OVER older ones, specifically 1888-1913. Choose the
seamless zoomable overlay' feature. There is a slide control on the left,
enabling you to gradually see only the modern Ordnance Survey map, or go back to
how the same OS area was a century or more ago. Stop halfway and you can see
both together, the one showing through the other. It's a fascinating toy, as
well as useful. Granted, it won't take you back to Richard's time, but it gives
a idea of how things have changed in a relatively short period.
Doug here:
Thank you, very much! Hilary provided me with a link where I can purchase a
Landranger Map for the area and Eileen provided some information about what to
expect from Google Earth, so between the three of you I should be able to
familiarize myself enough with the local geography so as not to get lost when we
discuss who was where!
Again, thank you Sandra! And Hilary, Paul and Eileen, too!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-03-31 09:35:27
Pleasure Doug. They put him on the front just for you! H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 30 March 2017, 15:24
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary wrote: Just had to put this on for you Doug ORDNANCE SURVEY Landranger 140 Leicester, Coventry & Rugby Map With Digital Version £ 8.99 ORDNANCE SURVEY Landranger 140 Leicester, Coventry & Rugby Map With Dig... The OS Landranger Map is the ideal map for planning the perfect day out. This best known national map series pro... Don't know whether amazon.co.uk post to the US amazon.com post to us. There's a whole range. Doug here: Thank you! That's exactly what I was looking for! It even has shipping to the US; and since I've discovered I can use my credit card for purchases in UK pounds, that makes it even easier. Apparently a computer somewhere simply notes the exchange rate at the time of purchase and debits my account. Or credits it, I always get those two confused. Thank you again, Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 30 March 2017, 15:24
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - regarding Henry Percy.
Hilary wrote: Just had to put this on for you Doug ORDNANCE SURVEY Landranger 140 Leicester, Coventry & Rugby Map With Digital Version £ 8.99 ORDNANCE SURVEY Landranger 140 Leicester, Coventry & Rugby Map With Dig... The OS Landranger Map is the ideal map for planning the perfect day out. This best known national map series pro... Don't know whether amazon.co.uk post to the US amazon.com post to us. There's a whole range. Doug here: Thank you! That's exactly what I was looking for! It even has shipping to the US; and since I've discovered I can use my credit card for purchases in UK pounds, that makes it even easier. Apparently a computer somewhere simply notes the exchange rate at the time of purchase and debits my account. Or credits it, I always get those two confused. Thank you again, Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard
2017-04-06 16:28:45
"We always overlook De Vere because he wasn't there. Doesn't mean he didn't have spies and influence though and he probably commanded more respect than the rest of them put together."
Carol responds:
Do you mean we overlook De Vere (Oxford) as a conspirator? We certainly don't overlook his role at Bosworth. Certainly, James Blount, the captain of Hammes who engineered Oxford's escape, must have been in on the conspiracy. Do you have any information on him? (Without Blount's treason against Richard, Bosworth probably could never have happened--Tudor would have been without an experienced general with a huge grudge against the House of York).
Carol
Carol responds:
Do you mean we overlook De Vere (Oxford) as a conspirator? We certainly don't overlook his role at Bosworth. Certainly, James Blount, the captain of Hammes who engineered Oxford's escape, must have been in on the conspiracy. Do you have any information on him? (Without Blount's treason against Richard, Bosworth probably could never have happened--Tudor would have been without an experienced general with a huge grudge against the House of York).
Carol
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-04-21 15:47:55
Re Katherine's Age
The marriage was agreed at the end of February 1484.
1) A grant of lands to Huntingdon in May 1484 is headed 'William Earle of Huntingdon and Kateryn his wif". Normally, lands were not settled on couples until they were old enough to cohabit (for rather obvious reasons, since child marriages weren't binding). The couple were also granted an annuity by Richard in joint names, but the date of the grant is not clear.
2) It is far more likely than not that Katherine would have remained in the royal household until she became Huntingdon's wife in the full sense. We know that she was buried in the church nearest to William Herbert's London mansion so was cohabiting with him at the time of her death.
So I see no reason to suppose that Katherine was under the age of sexual consent when she married. The age of sexual consent was established by canon law and was 12 for a girl. But the vast majority of English parents (at least in the upper echelons) liked their daughters to wait until 14 before marrying or consummating child marriages.
If Katherine died in the autumn of 1485, therefore, she was probably 15.
Anyhow, this all suggests to me that she was probably born no later than May 1470 (therefore, equally obviously, conceived no later than August 1469). Putting Richard's movements together after he left Warwick's household is therefore vital in narrowing down the possibilities regarding maternity. Can't recommend Anne Sutton's recent article on that subject in The Ricardian highly enough.
Hilary, could we know what this Welsh genealogical source is, please?
Marie
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-04-21 16:24:54
Hilary wrote:
Looking at the date I am wondering whether
a. it's a typical 'will' of someone contemplating battle and transferring their prime property to their wife to avoid attainder (Titchmarsh is the original Lovell homeland, Brackley and Woodford Halse are in Northants)
b. a 'seaman's will' since he was off to intercept HT at sea
c. an indication that he wasn't over-confident that HT could be defeated i.e. that he was more than a nuisance rebel who would be easily put down so he was putting his affairs in order
Or none of those things.
Marie replies:
In some ways this was absolutely typical; in others it isn't.
It was a religious duty to sort one's affairs before death, which included before facing battle. "Wills" were increasingly testaments, property being at this period typically dealt with by enfeoffments or instructions to existing feoffees (which might be placed in the will). This isn't a will as such. The full wording is:
Be it known by me, the said Francis, Viscount Lovell, that notwithstanding the form and gift previously made for the term of the life of the said Anne my wife, I now will and concede that, in completion of my will in this behalf, my foresaid feoffees should give, concede, transfer and deliver to the same Anne, the wife of me the foregoing Francis, my manor of Halse and Brackley, with all its appurtenances, in Northamptonshire, to have and to hold to the same Anne, her heirs and assigns for ever of the chief lords of the fee, by the services therein due and lawfully accustomed. And, truly, the foresaid Francis, Viscount Lovell, and my foresaid heirs, will warrant and for ever defend the manor with its appurtenances to the foresaid Anne, her heirs and assigns, against all persons.
And for this my gift I will that Anne, the wife of me, the foresaid Francis, Lord Lovell, should find two honest and discreet priests of good name, fame and condition to celebrate for the soul of me, of my parents and of all my benefactors, at the university of Cambridge or of Oxford at the pleasure of the said Anne, till the end and term of the full completion of thirty years. Also I will that the foresaid Anne should hold my obit once a year during her life.
In witness of which things I have set my seal of arms to each part of these indentures.
In witness whereof, Richard Ruge, Robert Ryppyngale, Edward Franke, Richard Revell and others.
You always know a proper will by the wording. They were religious documents and always start with "In dei nomine amen" and go straight on to commend soul to God and state wishes regarding burial. And they always includes charitable bequests to please the Almighty. Also, they were normally referred to as "testaments" rather than wills for the reasons stated above. So when Francis refers here to his will, he doesn't mean his last will and testament, I think, but his desire regarding these lands.
Of course the WotR had increased people's tendency to use enfeoffments to the use as it did, as you point out, avoid confiscation on attainder, but it also enabled the heir to avoid paying a fine to the king to enter into the property. In other words, it was a normal tax dodge.
It's mainly the inclusion of the request for prayers that makes the document unusual, since that really would normally be in the last will and testament. Francis does seem to have been facing the possibility of Richard's defeat here, as traitors almost never got their wills executed. But that could have been no more than common sense.
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-04-22 09:19:51
It's somewhere in my long list of favourites which I'm still going through. I came across it when looking for some of the Welshmen at Bosworth. But there are lots of Welsh genealogies and most go back to myths and magic because people like HT and his cronies want to believe they descend from the ancient rulers. I didn't set much store by it; it's very hard indeed to disentangle myth from truth. I'll keep looking though. H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 April 2017, 15:47
Subject: Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Re Katherine's Age
The marriage was agreed at the end of February 1484.
1) A grant of lands to Huntingdon in May 1484 is headed 'William Earle of Huntingdon and Kateryn his wif". Normally, lands were not settled on couples until they were old enough to cohabit (for rather obvious reasons, since child marriages weren't binding). The couple were also granted an annuity by Richard in joint names, but the date of the grant is not clear.
2) It is far more likely than not that Katherine would have remained in the royal household until she became Huntingdon's wife in the full sense. We know that she was buried in the church nearest to William Herbert's London mansion so was cohabiting with him at the time of her death.
So I see no reason to suppose that Katherine was under the age of sexual consent when she married. The age of sexual consent was established by canon law and was 12 for a girl. But the vast majority of English parents (at least in the upper echelons) liked their daughters to wait until 14 before marrying or consummating child marriages.
If Katherine died in the autumn of 1485, therefore, she was probably 15.
Anyhow, this all suggests to me that she was probably born no later than May 1470 (therefore, equally obviously, conceived no later than August 1469). Putting Richard's movements together after he left Warwick's household is therefore vital in narrowing down the possibilities regarding maternity. Can't recommend Anne Sutton's recent article on that subject in The Ricardian highly enough.
Hilary, could we know what this Welsh genealogical source is, please?
Marie
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 April 2017, 15:47
Subject: Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Re Katherine's Age
The marriage was agreed at the end of February 1484.
1) A grant of lands to Huntingdon in May 1484 is headed 'William Earle of Huntingdon and Kateryn his wif". Normally, lands were not settled on couples until they were old enough to cohabit (for rather obvious reasons, since child marriages weren't binding). The couple were also granted an annuity by Richard in joint names, but the date of the grant is not clear.
2) It is far more likely than not that Katherine would have remained in the royal household until she became Huntingdon's wife in the full sense. We know that she was buried in the church nearest to William Herbert's London mansion so was cohabiting with him at the time of her death.
So I see no reason to suppose that Katherine was under the age of sexual consent when she married. The age of sexual consent was established by canon law and was 12 for a girl. But the vast majority of English parents (at least in the upper echelons) liked their daughters to wait until 14 before marrying or consummating child marriages.
If Katherine died in the autumn of 1485, therefore, she was probably 15.
Anyhow, this all suggests to me that she was probably born no later than May 1470 (therefore, equally obviously, conceived no later than August 1469). Putting Richard's movements together after he left Warwick's household is therefore vital in narrowing down the possibilities regarding maternity. Can't recommend Anne Sutton's recent article on that subject in The Ricardian highly enough.
Hilary, could we know what this Welsh genealogical source is, please?
Marie
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-04-22 09:36:09
Thanks, that was the bit that puzzled me. He does seem to see defeat as a possibility. H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 April 2017, 16:24
Subject: Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary wrote:
A. 4790. Indenture whereby Francis, viscount Lovell, desires that his undermentioned feoffees shall convey to Anne Lovell, his wife, in fee, the manor of Halse and Brakley, which he had together with the manors of Thorp-Watrefeld, Duston, and Tysshemershe, formerly granted to them, viz. to Thomas, lord Scrope, of Upsale, Richard Ratclyf, William Catysby and Thomas Malyverer, knights, George Fitzhugh, clerk, Geoffrey and Edward Franke, Thomas Metcalf and James Walton, in trust for his said wife, if she should survive him, for her life; for which the said Anne is to find two fit priests to celebrate for the soul of the said Francis &c. in the University of Oxford or of Cambridge, for thirty years &c. Woborn, 10 June, 2 Richard III.
Looking at the date I am wondering whethera. it's a typical 'will' of someone contemplating battle and transferring their prime property to their wife to avoid attainder (Titchmarsh is the original Lovell homeland, Brackley and Woodford Halse are in Northants)b. a 'seaman's will' since he was off to intercept HT at seac. an indication that he wasn't over-confident that HT could be defeated i.e. that he was more than a nuisance rebel who would be easily put down so he was putting his affairs in orderOr none of those things.
Marie replies:
In some ways this was absolutely typical; in others it isn't.
It was a religious duty to sort one's affairs before death, which included before facing battle. "Wills" were increasingly testaments, property being at this period typically dealt with by enfeoffments or instructions to existing feoffees (which might be placed in the will). This isn't a will as such. The full wording is:
Be it known by me, the said Francis, Viscount Lovell, that notwithstanding the form and gift previously made for the term of the life of the said Anne my wife, I now will and concede that, in completion of my will in this behalf, my foresaid feoffees should give, concede, transfer and deliver to the same Anne, the wife of me the foregoing Francis, my manor of Halse and Brackley, with all its appurtenances, in Northamptonshire, to have and to hold to the same Anne, her heirs and assigns for ever of the chief lords of the fee, by the services therein due and lawfully accustomed. And, truly, the foresaid Francis, Viscount Lovell, and my foresaid heirs, will warrant and for ever defend the manor with its appurtenances to the foresaid Anne, her heirs and assigns, against all persons.And for this my gift I will that Anne, the wife of me, the foresaid Francis, Lord Lovell, should find two honest and discreet priests of good name, fame and condition to celebrate for the soul of me, of my parents and of all my benefactors, at the university of Cambridge or of Oxford at the pleasure of the said Anne, till the end and term of the full completion of thirty years. Also I will that the foresaid Anne should hold my obit once a year during her life.In witness of which things I have set my seal of arms to each part of these indentures. In witness whereof, Richard Ruge, Robert Ryppyngale, Edward Franke, Richard Revell and others.
You always know a proper will by the wording. They were religious documents and always start with "In dei nomine amen" and go straight on to commend soul to God and state wishes regarding burial. And they always includes charitable bequests to please the Almighty. Also, they were normally referred to as "testaments" rather than wills for the reasons stated above. So when Francis refers here to his will, he doesn't mean his last will and testament, I think, but his desire regarding these lands.Of course the WotR had increased people's tendency to use enfeoffments to the use as it did, as you point out, avoid confiscation on attainder, but it also enabled the heir to avoid paying a fine to the king to enter into the property. In other words, it was a normal tax dodge.It's mainly the inclusion of the request for prayers that makes the document unusual, since that really would normally be in the last will and testament. Francis does seem to have been facing the possibility of Richard's defeat here, as traitors almost never got their wills executed. But that could have been no more than common sense.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 April 2017, 16:24
Subject: Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary wrote:
A. 4790. Indenture whereby Francis, viscount Lovell, desires that his undermentioned feoffees shall convey to Anne Lovell, his wife, in fee, the manor of Halse and Brakley, which he had together with the manors of Thorp-Watrefeld, Duston, and Tysshemershe, formerly granted to them, viz. to Thomas, lord Scrope, of Upsale, Richard Ratclyf, William Catysby and Thomas Malyverer, knights, George Fitzhugh, clerk, Geoffrey and Edward Franke, Thomas Metcalf and James Walton, in trust for his said wife, if she should survive him, for her life; for which the said Anne is to find two fit priests to celebrate for the soul of the said Francis &c. in the University of Oxford or of Cambridge, for thirty years &c. Woborn, 10 June, 2 Richard III.
Looking at the date I am wondering whethera. it's a typical 'will' of someone contemplating battle and transferring their prime property to their wife to avoid attainder (Titchmarsh is the original Lovell homeland, Brackley and Woodford Halse are in Northants)b. a 'seaman's will' since he was off to intercept HT at seac. an indication that he wasn't over-confident that HT could be defeated i.e. that he was more than a nuisance rebel who would be easily put down so he was putting his affairs in orderOr none of those things.
Marie replies:
In some ways this was absolutely typical; in others it isn't.
It was a religious duty to sort one's affairs before death, which included before facing battle. "Wills" were increasingly testaments, property being at this period typically dealt with by enfeoffments or instructions to existing feoffees (which might be placed in the will). This isn't a will as such. The full wording is:
Be it known by me, the said Francis, Viscount Lovell, that notwithstanding the form and gift previously made for the term of the life of the said Anne my wife, I now will and concede that, in completion of my will in this behalf, my foresaid feoffees should give, concede, transfer and deliver to the same Anne, the wife of me the foregoing Francis, my manor of Halse and Brackley, with all its appurtenances, in Northamptonshire, to have and to hold to the same Anne, her heirs and assigns for ever of the chief lords of the fee, by the services therein due and lawfully accustomed. And, truly, the foresaid Francis, Viscount Lovell, and my foresaid heirs, will warrant and for ever defend the manor with its appurtenances to the foresaid Anne, her heirs and assigns, against all persons.And for this my gift I will that Anne, the wife of me, the foresaid Francis, Lord Lovell, should find two honest and discreet priests of good name, fame and condition to celebrate for the soul of me, of my parents and of all my benefactors, at the university of Cambridge or of Oxford at the pleasure of the said Anne, till the end and term of the full completion of thirty years. Also I will that the foresaid Anne should hold my obit once a year during her life.In witness of which things I have set my seal of arms to each part of these indentures. In witness whereof, Richard Ruge, Robert Ryppyngale, Edward Franke, Richard Revell and others.
You always know a proper will by the wording. They were religious documents and always start with "In dei nomine amen" and go straight on to commend soul to God and state wishes regarding burial. And they always includes charitable bequests to please the Almighty. Also, they were normally referred to as "testaments" rather than wills for the reasons stated above. So when Francis refers here to his will, he doesn't mean his last will and testament, I think, but his desire regarding these lands.Of course the WotR had increased people's tendency to use enfeoffments to the use as it did, as you point out, avoid confiscation on attainder, but it also enabled the heir to avoid paying a fine to the king to enter into the property. In other words, it was a normal tax dodge.It's mainly the inclusion of the request for prayers that makes the document unusual, since that really would normally be in the last will and testament. Francis does seem to have been facing the possibility of Richard's defeat here, as traitors almost never got their wills executed. But that could have been no more than common sense.
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-04-22 13:22:08
Marie, what is the name of the Anne Sutton article and is it online? As for Katherine Haute, she is probably a red herring and her annuity does go back to the Countess of Oxford.
Nico
On Saturday, 22 April 2017, 9:36, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Thanks, that was the bit that puzzled me. He does seem to see defeat as a possibility. H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 April 2017, 16:24
Subject: Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary wrote:
A. 4790. Indenture whereby Francis, viscount Lovell, desires that his undermentioned feoffees shall convey to Anne Lovell, his wife, in fee, the manor of Halse and Brakley, which he had together with the manors of Thorp-Watrefeld, Duston, and Tysshemershe, formerly granted to them, viz. to Thomas, lord Scrope, of Upsale, Richard Ratclyf, William Catysby and Thomas Malyverer, knights, George Fitzhugh, clerk, Geoffrey and Edward Franke, Thomas Metcalf and James Walton, in trust for his said wife, if she should survive him, for her life; for which the said Anne is to find two fit priests to celebrate for the soul of the said Francis &c. in the University of Oxford or of Cambridge, for thirty years &c. Woborn, 10 June, 2 Richard III.
Looking at the date I am wondering whethera. it's a typical 'will' of someone contemplating battle and transferring their prime property to their wife to avoid attainder (Titchmarsh is the original Lovell homeland, Brackley and Woodford Halse are in Northants)b. a 'seaman's will' since he was off to intercept HT at seac. an indication that he wasn't over-confident that HT could be defeated i.e. that he was more than a nuisance rebel who would be easily put down so he was putting his affairs in orderOr none of those things.
Marie replies:
In some ways this was absolutely typical; in others it isn't.
It was a religious duty to sort one's affairs before death, which included before facing battle. "Wills" were increasingly testaments, property being at this period typically dealt with by enfeoffments or instructions to existing feoffees (which might be placed in the will). This isn't a will as such. The full wording is:
Be it known by me, the said Francis, Viscount Lovell, that notwithstanding the form and gift previously made for the term of the life of the said Anne my wife, I now will and concede that, in completion of my will in this behalf, my foresaid feoffees should give, concede, transfer and deliver to the same Anne, the wife of me the foregoing Francis, my manor of Halse and Brackley, with all its appurtenances, in Northamptonshire, to have and to hold to the same Anne, her heirs and assigns for ever of the chief lords of the fee, by the services therein due and lawfully accustomed. And, truly, the foresaid Francis, Viscount Lovell, and my foresaid heirs, will warrant and for ever defend the manor with its appurtenances to the foresaid Anne, her heirs and assigns, against all persons.And for this my gift I will that Anne, the wife of me, the foresaid Francis, Lord Lovell, should find two honest and discreet priests of good name, fame and condition to celebrate for the soul of me, of my parents and of all my benefactors, at the university of Cambridge or of Oxford at the pleasure of the said Anne, till the end and term of the full completion of thirty years. Also I will that the foresaid Anne should hold my obit once a year during her life.In witness of which things I have set my seal of arms to each part of these indentures. In witness whereof, Richard Ruge, Robert Ryppyngale, Edward Franke, Richard Revell and others.
You always know a proper will by the wording. They were religious documents and always start with "In dei nomine amen" and go straight on to commend soul to God and state wishes regarding burial. And they always includes charitable bequests to please the Almighty. Also, they were normally referred to as "testaments" rather than wills for the reasons stated above. So when Francis refers here to his will, he doesn't mean his last will and testament, I think, but his desire regarding these lands.Of course the WotR had increased people's tendency to use enfeoffments to the use as it did, as you point out, avoid confiscation on attainder, but it also enabled the heir to avoid paying a fine to the king to enter into the property. In other words, it was a normal tax dodge.It's mainly the inclusion of the request for prayers that makes the document unusual, since that really would normally be in the last will and testament. Francis does seem to have been facing the possibility of Richard's defeat here, as traitors almost never got their wills executed. But that could have been no more than common sense.
Nico
On Saturday, 22 April 2017, 9:36, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Thanks, that was the bit that puzzled me. He does seem to see defeat as a possibility. H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 April 2017, 16:24
Subject: Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hilary wrote:
A. 4790. Indenture whereby Francis, viscount Lovell, desires that his undermentioned feoffees shall convey to Anne Lovell, his wife, in fee, the manor of Halse and Brakley, which he had together with the manors of Thorp-Watrefeld, Duston, and Tysshemershe, formerly granted to them, viz. to Thomas, lord Scrope, of Upsale, Richard Ratclyf, William Catysby and Thomas Malyverer, knights, George Fitzhugh, clerk, Geoffrey and Edward Franke, Thomas Metcalf and James Walton, in trust for his said wife, if she should survive him, for her life; for which the said Anne is to find two fit priests to celebrate for the soul of the said Francis &c. in the University of Oxford or of Cambridge, for thirty years &c. Woborn, 10 June, 2 Richard III.
Looking at the date I am wondering whethera. it's a typical 'will' of someone contemplating battle and transferring their prime property to their wife to avoid attainder (Titchmarsh is the original Lovell homeland, Brackley and Woodford Halse are in Northants)b. a 'seaman's will' since he was off to intercept HT at seac. an indication that he wasn't over-confident that HT could be defeated i.e. that he was more than a nuisance rebel who would be easily put down so he was putting his affairs in orderOr none of those things.
Marie replies:
In some ways this was absolutely typical; in others it isn't.
It was a religious duty to sort one's affairs before death, which included before facing battle. "Wills" were increasingly testaments, property being at this period typically dealt with by enfeoffments or instructions to existing feoffees (which might be placed in the will). This isn't a will as such. The full wording is:
Be it known by me, the said Francis, Viscount Lovell, that notwithstanding the form and gift previously made for the term of the life of the said Anne my wife, I now will and concede that, in completion of my will in this behalf, my foresaid feoffees should give, concede, transfer and deliver to the same Anne, the wife of me the foregoing Francis, my manor of Halse and Brackley, with all its appurtenances, in Northamptonshire, to have and to hold to the same Anne, her heirs and assigns for ever of the chief lords of the fee, by the services therein due and lawfully accustomed. And, truly, the foresaid Francis, Viscount Lovell, and my foresaid heirs, will warrant and for ever defend the manor with its appurtenances to the foresaid Anne, her heirs and assigns, against all persons.And for this my gift I will that Anne, the wife of me, the foresaid Francis, Lord Lovell, should find two honest and discreet priests of good name, fame and condition to celebrate for the soul of me, of my parents and of all my benefactors, at the university of Cambridge or of Oxford at the pleasure of the said Anne, till the end and term of the full completion of thirty years. Also I will that the foresaid Anne should hold my obit once a year during her life.In witness of which things I have set my seal of arms to each part of these indentures. In witness whereof, Richard Ruge, Robert Ryppyngale, Edward Franke, Richard Revell and others.
You always know a proper will by the wording. They were religious documents and always start with "In dei nomine amen" and go straight on to commend soul to God and state wishes regarding burial. And they always includes charitable bequests to please the Almighty. Also, they were normally referred to as "testaments" rather than wills for the reasons stated above. So when Francis refers here to his will, he doesn't mean his last will and testament, I think, but his desire regarding these lands.Of course the WotR had increased people's tendency to use enfeoffments to the use as it did, as you point out, avoid confiscation on attainder, but it also enabled the heir to avoid paying a fine to the king to enter into the property. In other words, it was a normal tax dodge.It's mainly the inclusion of the request for prayers that makes the document unusual, since that really would normally be in the last will and testament. Francis does seem to have been facing the possibility of Richard's defeat here, as traitors almost never got their wills executed. But that could have been no more than common sense.
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-04-22 14:37:08
Hi Nico,
The article by Anne Sutton is Richard of
Gloucester 1461-70: Income, Lands and Associates,' The Ricardian, Vol 26, 2016. It's not yet online - the plan is to put the Ricardian articles online after 5 years.
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-04-25 10:57:13
Thanks Marie,, I have found the article in the 2016 supplement.
All the info on the Burgh famiy is very interesting. I can't decipher the date on Elena's tomb, but Alice would have been considerably older than Richard though not too old to be attractive or have children. I wonder what Alice would have been doing with her life. I suppose it is possible that she could have been married for a short time with no children then widowed, so her husband wasn't recorded on the visitation, and she was still generally known as Alice Burgh. How realistic would it have been for someone like her to still be unmarried in her late 20s and what prospects woUldale there be for someine of her class.
It is a good question whether a woman with illegitimate children could beasily appointed a prioress. However, if she donated her annunity to the priory each year, then that could have worked in her favour.
Nico
All the info on the Burgh famiy is very interesting. I can't decipher the date on Elena's tomb, but Alice would have been considerably older than Richard though not too old to be attractive or have children. I wonder what Alice would have been doing with her life. I suppose it is possible that she could have been married for a short time with no children then widowed, so her husband wasn't recorded on the visitation, and she was still generally known as Alice Burgh. How realistic would it have been for someone like her to still be unmarried in her late 20s and what prospects woUldale there be for someine of her class.
It is a good question whether a woman with illegitimate children could beasily appointed a prioress. However, if she donated her annunity to the priory each year, then that could have worked in her favour.
Nico
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-04-25 12:17:42
Hi,
The earliest reference to Stanley's arrest is in Rous's Historia (completed and presented to Henry VII in 1490). It's true that no contemporaries remarked on it at the time and it doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the way Richard treated Stanley and his wife afterwards. Perhaps Stanley put this story about after Bosworth in order to cast himself as a longstanding opponent of Richard. Falsified his CV, in other words.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-04-25 13:06:06
Heaven forbid! A politician lying and changing his history? Never!Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 25 avr. 2017 à 13:17, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> a écrit :
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 25 avr. 2017 à 13:17, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> a écrit :
Hi,
The earliest reference to Stanley's arrest is in Rous's Historia (completed and presented to Henry VII in 1490). It's true that no contemporaries remarked on it at the time and it doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the way Richard treated Stanley and his wife afterwards. Perhaps Stanley put this story about after Bosworth in order to cast himself as a longstanding opponent of Richard. Falsified his CV, in other words.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
2017-04-25 14:16:35
IM trying to think where I read it..I'm not at home so can't check my book. IM wondering whether I read it in More's account which of course means zilch...So..Stanley may have made this story up..,is there no end to the man's duplicity!
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-04-25 15:31:06
Hi Nico, there is a history of Prioresses in the Conyers family which is closely allied to the Burghs. There is one nearly every generation.
As for the illegitimacy bit I suppose it depends on the status her partner and children and how much influence that would have. Priories usually like money. The rather plentiful illegitimate children of bishops always seem to do quite well. In fact I think some of the stigma about this is the nineteenth century values creeping in again. H
From: "nico11238@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 April 2017, 10:57
Subject: Re: Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Thanks Marie,, I have found the article in the 2016 supplement.
All the info on the Burgh famiy is very interesting. I can't decipher the date on Elena's tomb, but Alice would have been considerably older than Richard though not too old to be attractive or have children. I wonder what Alice would have been doing with her life. I suppose it is possible that she could have been married for a short time with no children then widowed, so her husband wasn't recorded on the visitation, and she was still generally known as Alice Burgh. How realistic would it have been for someone like her to still be unmarried in her late 20s and what prospects woUldale there be for someine of her class.
It is a good question whether a woman with illegitimate children could beasily appointed a prioress. However, if she donated her annunity to the priory each year, then that could have worked in her favour.
Nico
As for the illegitimacy bit I suppose it depends on the status her partner and children and how much influence that would have. Priories usually like money. The rather plentiful illegitimate children of bishops always seem to do quite well. In fact I think some of the stigma about this is the nineteenth century values creeping in again. H
From: "nico11238@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 April 2017, 10:57
Subject: Re: Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Thanks Marie,, I have found the article in the 2016 supplement.
All the info on the Burgh famiy is very interesting. I can't decipher the date on Elena's tomb, but Alice would have been considerably older than Richard though not too old to be attractive or have children. I wonder what Alice would have been doing with her life. I suppose it is possible that she could have been married for a short time with no children then widowed, so her husband wasn't recorded on the visitation, and she was still generally known as Alice Burgh. How realistic would it have been for someone like her to still be unmarried in her late 20s and what prospects woUldale there be for someine of her class.
It is a good question whether a woman with illegitimate children could beasily appointed a prioress. However, if she donated her annunity to the priory each year, then that could have worked in her favour.
Nico
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-04-25 16:17:01
What about her age?
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard
2017-04-26 06:59:45
Marie
wrote:
The
earliest reference to Stanley's arrest is in Rous's Historia (completed
and presented to Henry VII in 1490). It's true that no contemporaries remarked
on it at the time and it doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the way
Richard treated Stanley and his wife afterwards. Perhaps Stanley put this story
about after Bosworth in order to cast himself as a longstanding opponent of
Richard. Falsified his CV, in other words.
Doug
here:
Well,
there's being arrested and then then there's being placed in custody, with the
latter signifying something on the order of house arrest until we sort things
out. Perhaps Lord Thomas' arrest was more on the order of the latter? Sort of
a making sure on Richard's part?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard
2017-04-26 19:12:01
Doug wrote:"Well, there's being arrested and then then there's being placed in custody, with the latter signifying something on the order of house arrest until we sort things out. Perhaps Lord Thomas' arrest was more on the order of the latter? Sort of a making sure on Richard's part?"
Carol responds:
Except that, as I said before and Marie implied, no contemporary chronicler (not Mancini, not Croyland, not Simon Stallworth in his letter to Sir William Stonor) mentions Stanley at all in relation to the Hastings incident. His supposed arrest and the small fracas in which he was slightly injured appear to be fiction.
Carol
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard
2017-04-26 20:16:33
Carol wrote:
that, as I said before and Marie implied, no contemporary chronicler (not Mancini, not Croyland, not Simon Stallworth in his letter to Sir William Stonor) mentions Stanley at all in relation to the Hastings incident. His supposed arrest and the small fracas in which he was slightly injured appear to be fiction.
Marie:
Or perhaps he was slightly injured in the fracas, but not resisting arrest.
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-04-27 14:44:28
Hi Hilary,
There certainly were a lot of bishops with illegitimate children, and the royalty/nobility were quite open about them. It probably was the Victorian era where you start to see coyness about illegitimacy setting in. Henry VIII and Charles II certainly didn't find their children embarrassing nor did William IV. A lot of Victorian sentimentality has crept into Richard's reputation, especially with the Princes in the Tower and the Millais picture.
Judgements were harsher for women though. You don't hear too much about noblewomen and their illegitimate children. Offhand, I can only think of Constance of York (Alianore Holland) and Alice Fitzalan (Jane Stradling). Also, they were both widows, and to be fair there may have been a Edward/Eleanor type of secret marriage for Constance. Nevertheless, they didn't fare too badly. I don't know whether a priory would accept a prioress who had illegitimate children, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were willing to make an exception for a former mistress of a King who was pledging a large annuity.
As for her age, a lot of teenage boys find older women really attractive if they still look good - look at the Macrons!
Nico
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017, 16:17, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
What about her age?
There certainly were a lot of bishops with illegitimate children, and the royalty/nobility were quite open about them. It probably was the Victorian era where you start to see coyness about illegitimacy setting in. Henry VIII and Charles II certainly didn't find their children embarrassing nor did William IV. A lot of Victorian sentimentality has crept into Richard's reputation, especially with the Princes in the Tower and the Millais picture.
Judgements were harsher for women though. You don't hear too much about noblewomen and their illegitimate children. Offhand, I can only think of Constance of York (Alianore Holland) and Alice Fitzalan (Jane Stradling). Also, they were both widows, and to be fair there may have been a Edward/Eleanor type of secret marriage for Constance. Nevertheless, they didn't fare too badly. I don't know whether a priory would accept a prioress who had illegitimate children, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were willing to make an exception for a former mistress of a King who was pledging a large annuity.
As for her age, a lot of teenage boys find older women really attractive if they still look good - look at the Macrons!
Nico
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017, 16:17, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
What about her age?
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-04-27 15:36:03
Hi,
We obviously can't disprove that Alice Burgh was Richard's mistress. But it's a matter of weighing up probabilities where poof is not available. She's not a good candidate IMO because on every point some special pleading or fix has to be suggested to get her to fit the bill: age, availability at said age given that the Visitation does not indicate that she entered the nunnery as a widow. Richard's extreme youth whilst still in Warwick's household and his lack of freedom. Etc, etc.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can only assume that Alice entered the nunnery at the usual young age, and I don't think Richard was the sort to deflower a nun.
The possible explanations for the annuity are as varied as our imaginations can make them.
Wouldn't it be more fun to follow Richard's movements in the period when Katherine is likely to have been conceived? We'd not get any proof but we'd get a better idea of the range of possibilities. Young ladies named Katherine would of course have to take precedence.
Marie
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-04-27 15:49:01
Hi,
I am keeping an open mind, and I am looking forward to find the time to read the Anne Sutton article.. Tracing his movements and speculating is a very interesting prospect indeed. And of course, I do not think he would ever deflower a nun (or anyone at all.)
Nico
On Thursday, 27 April 2017, 15:36, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,We obviously can't disprove that Alice Burgh was Richard's mistress. But it's a matter of weighing up probabilities where poof is not available. She's not a good candidate IMO because on every point some special pleading or fix has to be suggested to get her to fit the bill: age, availability at said age given that the Visitation does not indicate that she entered the nunnery as a widow. Richard's extreme youth whilst still in Warwick's household and his lack of freedom. Etc, etc. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can only assume that Alice entered the nunnery at the usual young age, and I don't think Richard was the sort to deflower a nun.The possible explanations for the annuity are as varied as our imaginations can make them.Wouldn't it be more fun to follow Richard's movements in the period when Katherine is likely to have been conceived? We'd not get any proof but we'd get a better idea of the range of possibilities. Young ladies named Katherine would of course have to take precedence.Marie
I am keeping an open mind, and I am looking forward to find the time to read the Anne Sutton article.. Tracing his movements and speculating is a very interesting prospect indeed. And of course, I do not think he would ever deflower a nun (or anyone at all.)
Nico
On Thursday, 27 April 2017, 15:36, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,We obviously can't disprove that Alice Burgh was Richard's mistress. But it's a matter of weighing up probabilities where poof is not available. She's not a good candidate IMO because on every point some special pleading or fix has to be suggested to get her to fit the bill: age, availability at said age given that the Visitation does not indicate that she entered the nunnery as a widow. Richard's extreme youth whilst still in Warwick's household and his lack of freedom. Etc, etc. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can only assume that Alice entered the nunnery at the usual young age, and I don't think Richard was the sort to deflower a nun.The possible explanations for the annuity are as varied as our imaginations can make them.Wouldn't it be more fun to follow Richard's movements in the period when Katherine is likely to have been conceived? We'd not get any proof but we'd get a better idea of the range of possibilities. Young ladies named Katherine would of course have to take precedence.Marie
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-04-27 16:17:55
Carol,
I've included my
original post and your reply below as I wasn't certain where to place my reply
which is:
What if we substitute
Lady Stanley for Lord Stanley ? Because we do know that Lady Stanley, aka
Margaret Beaufort, was placed in the custody of her husband after the
Council meeting. Considering the times, any mention of a Stanley being
arrested/confined would very likely be taken to refer to Lord Stanley and not
his wife. Especially if whoever was the source wasn't at the Council meeting.
Nor, as no legal action was taken against Lady Stanley, there wouldn't be
anything to contradict the story. Later, once the story started getting around,
it would be much more convenient for the Stanleys, either through ignorance or
to hide Lady Stanley's early involvement in treason against
Richard.
Which could give us a
scenario along the lines of:
There's a Council
meeting whose attendees include Richard, Morton, Lord Stanley and Lord Hastings.
Sometime during the meeting someone informs Richard about the
conspiracy Hastings and Morton are involved in. While I still favor Morton as
the rat, there's certainly the possibility the informer could have Lord
Stanley (via his wife) who was, if I recall correctly, if not at daggers drawn
with Hastings, certainly competing with Hastings for influence in the
Midlands/northwest England, thus giving Lord Stanley two motives for ensuring
Hastings went down: to protect his wife (and himself?) and to rid himself of a
competitor in parts of the country that Lord Thomas considered
his.
The important point, though, would be muddying the waters about
which Stanley had been arrested. With the result that, when it's
discovered that, no, Lord Thomas wasn't arrested, doubt would be thrown
on the idea that any Stanley had been arrested.
Which, IMO, was the
likely aim of the whole story.
Doug
Doug
wrote:
"Well,
there's being arrested and then then there's being placed in custody, with the
latter signifying something on the order of house arrest until we sort things
out. Perhaps Lord Thomas' arrest was more on the order of the latter? Sort of
a making sure on Richard's part?"
Carol responds:
Except that, as I said before and Marie implied, no contemporary chronicler (not Mancini, not Croyland, not Simon Stallworth in his letter to Sir William Stonor) mentions Stanley at all in relation to the Hastings incident. His supposed arrest and the small fracas in which he was slightly injured appear to be fiction.
Carol
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Carol responds:
Except that, as I said before and Marie implied, no contemporary chronicler (not Mancini, not Croyland, not Simon Stallworth in his letter to Sir William Stonor) mentions Stanley at all in relation to the Hastings incident. His supposed arrest and the small fracas in which he was slightly injured appear to be fiction.
Carol
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-04-27 20:13:36
Doug wrote:
What if we substitute Lady Stanley for Lord Stanley ? Because we do know that Lady Stanley, aka Margaret Beaufort, was placed in the custody of her husband after the Council meeting.
Marie:
I'm afraid Margaret wasn't placed in her husband's custody until January 1484, and that was because of her plotting during Buckingham's Rebellion. In June/ July 1483 she was very much in Richard's good books, and she was given the top job of carrying Queen Anne's train at the coronation.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-04-27 22:53:22
Marie so where did all the disinformation come from? Like Doug I have always thought that MB was given in to Stanley's custody in June 1483 and I couldn't understand why Richard allowed her to carry Anne's train. Your post explains it.
Mary
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-04-27 23:35:02
If the idea has got around that Margaret was put under house arrest in June 1483, then this doesn't come from any early source - not even a Tudor one - and I'm not sure where it might have arisen.
The house arrest solution was decreed in the Act of Attainder against her in the parliament of January 1484 (yes, she got her own personal Act of Attainder).
I can well believe Margaret may have been keeping well in with both sides in the summer of 1483, but if so then Richard appears to have had no inkling of it. In fact, on the day before the coronation she secured his support for her attempts to collect an old family ransom debt from the house of Orleans.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-04-28 12:30:23
Well, well, well ..there is always something new to learn on here. I have always believed the story of Stanley getting injured in the fracas..although it didn't make sense that shortly afterwards his spouse was playing a leading part at the coronation. Now I know. It just goes to show that if something doesn't seem right, or not make sense then that's probably because it never happened.
You won't find this sort of stuff out on Facebook either...
You won't find this sort of stuff out on Facebook either...
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis
2017-04-28 15:35:49
Marie wrote:
I'm afraid Margaret wasn't placed in her husband's custody until January 1484, and that was because of her plotting during Buckingham's Rebellion. In June/ July 1483 she was very much in Richard's good books, and she was given the top job of carrying Queen Anne's train at the coronation.
Doug here:
Darn! Yet another of my Ahas! down the tubes... The only other possibility I can even imagine is that somehow, someone conflated what they'd heard about the events of June 1483 (Lord Thomas being injured somehow, someway) with their imperfect knowledge of Lady Stanley's Attainder of 1484 (presuming the Attainder was intended for her husband) and ran with it. But that's really pushing it... A pity too, because, done properly, it'd make a great bit anti-Richard propaganda. Here's Lord Thomas, injured protecting Richard, only to be rewarded by imprisonment! However, and most importantly, thank you, Marie, for setting me straight! Doug Who does still wonder where this story came from? And why it was ever included in any Chronicle or history ?--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard
2017-04-28 20:32:21
Carol earlier:
"[A]s I said before and Marie implied, no contemporary chronicler (not Mancini, not Croyland, not Simon Stallworth in his letter to Sir William Stonor) mentions Stanley at all in relation to the Hastings incident. His supposed arrest and the small fracas in which he was slightly injured appear to be fiction."
Marie responded:
"Or perhaps he was slightly injured in the fracas, but not resisting arrest."
Carol responds:
"Possibly. But if so, no contemporary commentator thought it worth mentioning. It would be ironic, wouldn't it, if Stanley had been slightly injured defending Richard but later changed his story to make it look like he had been defending the "innocent" Hastings and Morton. Then again, if Morton were still alive when Stanley told that story, Morton could have denied it. Most likely, in my view, it never happened.
Carol
"[A]s I said before and Marie implied, no contemporary chronicler (not Mancini, not Croyland, not Simon Stallworth in his letter to Sir William Stonor) mentions Stanley at all in relation to the Hastings incident. His supposed arrest and the small fracas in which he was slightly injured appear to be fiction."
Marie responded:
"Or perhaps he was slightly injured in the fracas, but not resisting arrest."
Carol responds:
"Possibly. But if so, no contemporary commentator thought it worth mentioning. It would be ironic, wouldn't it, if Stanley had been slightly injured defending Richard but later changed his story to make it look like he had been defending the "innocent" Hastings and Morton. Then again, if Morton were still alive when Stanley told that story, Morton could have denied it. Most likely, in my view, it never happened.
Carol
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard
2017-04-28 22:03:01
Connected to the original post that led to this thread, namely Lovell and his enfeoffments, it seems that Thomas Stanley was very busy in Lancashire before Bosworth, similarly getting his house in order.
The following article mentions the nature of the documents and where they are. It seems he really had urgent business.
The 1st Stanley Earl of Derby from LANCASHIRE WORTHIES, 1874 The 1st Stanley Earl of Derby from LANCASHIRE WORTHIES, 1874
The following article mentions the nature of the documents and where they are. It seems he really had urgent business.
The 1st Stanley Earl of Derby from LANCASHIRE WORTHIES, 1874 The 1st Stanley Earl of Derby from LANCASHIRE WORTHIES, 1874
RegardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 at 20:32, justcarol67@... []<> wrote:
Carol earlier:
"[A]s I said before and Marie implied, no contemporary chronicler (not Mancini, not Croyland, not Simon Stallworth in his letter to Sir William Stonor) mentions Stanley at all in relation to the Hastings incident. His supposed arrest and the small fracas in which he was slightly injured appear to be fiction."
Marie responded:
"Or perhaps he was slightly injured in the fracas, but not resisting arrest."
Carol responds:
"Possibly. But if so, no contemporary commentator thought it worth mentioning. It would be ironic, wouldn't it, if Stanley had been slightly injured defending Richard but later changed his story to make it look like he had been defending the "innocent" Hastings and Morton. Then again, if Morton were still alive when Stanley told that story, Morton could have denied it. Most likely, in my view, it never happened.
Carol
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-05-01 09:43:57
Hi Marie, sorry to be so long coming back on this - my cat ate a plastic bag and it and my wallet are now considerably thinner.
I hadn't thought of this before but the Alice Burgh below could have been the nurse to Richard's illegitimate children; the dates would fit. Secondly, the time when he had most chance to 'kick his heels' would surely be during the exile to Bruges. Just because John of Gloucester was called John of Pomfret doesn't necessarily mean that he was born there? H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 27 April 2017, 15:36
Subject: Re: Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hi,We obviously can't disprove that Alice Burgh was Richard's mistress. But it's a matter of weighing up probabilities where poof is not available. She's not a good candidate IMO because on every point some special pleading or fix has to be suggested to get her to fit the bill: age, availability at said age given that the Visitation does not indicate that she entered the nunnery as a widow. Richard's extreme youth whilst still in Warwick's household and his lack of freedom. Etc, etc. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can only assume that Alice entered the nunnery at the usual young age, and I don't think Richard was the sort to deflower a nun.The possible explanations for the annuity are as varied as our imaginations can make them.Wouldn't it be more fun to follow Richard's movements in the period when Katherine is likely to have been conceived? We'd not get any proof but we'd get a better idea of the range of possibilities. Young ladies named Katherine would of course have to take precedence.Marie
I hadn't thought of this before but the Alice Burgh below could have been the nurse to Richard's illegitimate children; the dates would fit. Secondly, the time when he had most chance to 'kick his heels' would surely be during the exile to Bruges. Just because John of Gloucester was called John of Pomfret doesn't necessarily mean that he was born there? H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 27 April 2017, 15:36
Subject: Re: Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Hi,We obviously can't disprove that Alice Burgh was Richard's mistress. But it's a matter of weighing up probabilities where poof is not available. She's not a good candidate IMO because on every point some special pleading or fix has to be suggested to get her to fit the bill: age, availability at said age given that the Visitation does not indicate that she entered the nunnery as a widow. Richard's extreme youth whilst still in Warwick's household and his lack of freedom. Etc, etc. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can only assume that Alice entered the nunnery at the usual young age, and I don't think Richard was the sort to deflower a nun.The possible explanations for the annuity are as varied as our imaginations can make them.Wouldn't it be more fun to follow Richard's movements in the period when Katherine is likely to have been conceived? We'd not get any proof but we'd get a better idea of the range of possibilities. Young ladies named Katherine would of course have to take precedence.Marie
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-05-01 17:18:22
Oh, your poor cat. I do hope he/ she is feeling a bit more chipper now.
Of course I agree that John wasn't necessarily born at Pontefract, although it is often assumed. It may simply be that he and Katherine were housed at Pontefract once they were deemed old enough to leave their mothers. It's just that we have nothing else to go on.
Richard wouldn't need to have been kicking his heels full time in order to father children. The main thing is that from the time he left Warwick's household / passed his 16th birthday he appears to have had livery of his own estates, i.e. he was independent. Also, I would imagine that Edward might have encouraged him in that direction in order to take his mind off the Neville home he had just left and his loss of his prospective birde.
I'm sorry to have to be a wet blanket again about Alice Burgh, but quite apart from where little John would have been living in early 1474, Alice the nun of Ellerton-in-Swaledale isn't a good candidate to be his nurse either, for similar reasons - i.e. you'd have to invent a special back story for her to make it work. This is fine for a novel but not for a history book or article.
I would question both:-
1) the idea that the annuity must have had something to do with Richard's illegitimate children; and
2) the idea that Alice Burgh, gentlewoman, must have been the nun of Ellerton because she is the only Alice Burgh in the published genealogies.
I said earlier that the possible reasons for the annuity are as various as our imaginations can make them. Without further evidence we can't regard any idea as historically useful although this is obviously an absolutely valid question for a novelist. Here's an example of what I mean by the open-endedness of the possibilities:-
On 1 March 1474 Richard was in the middle of thrashing out the deal with Clarence that would put an end to the conflict over the Beauchamp-Despenser-Montagu estates, and stop Clarence's attempt to have Richard and Anne's marriage annulled. It would make absolute sense that, whilst the validity of their marriage was under attack on grounds of Anne's lack of consent, Richard and Anne would have separated. This would have been necessary both to prevent the conception of a child who might possibly end up being declared illegitimate, and also in order for Anne to be free to demonstrate her genuine willingness to be Richard's wife. This could explain why Richard apparently went to Durham that Easter without Anne (he was enrolled into the Priory's Fraternity of St. Cuthbert without her - she joined at a later date).
So let's imagine that Richard and Anne had formally separated in the autumn of 1473, and that Anne was living somewhere independent of Richard's control but also safe from Clarence. Perhaps a former nurse of Anne was looking after her secretly in some remote location. Enter Alice Burgh, to whom Richard is of course incredibly grateful, but whose services he cannot openly acknowledge without leaving himself open to the charge of keeping Anne as his prisoner.
Perhaps Alice could have been the Lady of Calais?
I'm sure other members could dream up loads of other possible scenarios.
We just don't have evidence.
The second thing, i.e. the identification of Annuity Alice with Prioress Alice - again the old thing, absence of evidence for other Alice Burghs is not evidence of their absence. Re the Burghs/ Broughs of Brough Hall, We've already noted the lack of detail for the generation above Alice's and the lack of wives' names for brothers of hers. There were also other Burghs in Yorkshire. I haven't had time to study them, but the name Alice does crop up.
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-05-01 17:31:15
Clarence sounds like a complete jerk. A separation may help explain why their only child was delayed. If Anne eloped with Richard in some way, as seems the case or why would Clarence call it abduction, she was underage wasn't she?Wouldn't they just solicit testimony from her? Why all the mystery around Anne? I was also thinking, could she have been taking some infertility treatment? Anne of Bohemia had a big list of herbal infertility treatments she had purchased. I read tbis. Could this be the seed of the poisoning rumours?
On May 1, 2017 12:20 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:
On May 1, 2017 12:20 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:
Oh, your poor cat. I do hope he/ she is feeling a bit more chipper now.
Of course I agree that John wasn't necessarily born at Pontefract, although it is often assumed. It may simply be that he and Katherine were housed at Pontefract once they were deemed old enough to leave their mothers. It's just that we have nothing else to go on.
Richard wouldn't need to have been kicking his heels full time in order to father children. The main thing is that from the time he left Warwick's household / passed his 16th birthday he appears to have had livery of his own estates, i.e. he was independent. Also, I would imagine that Edward might have encouraged him in that direction in order to take his mind off the Neville home he had just left and his loss of his prospective birde.
I'm sorry to have to be a wet blanket again about Alice Burgh, but quite apart from where little John would have been living in early 1474, Alice the nun of Ellerton-in-Swaledale isn't a good candidate to be his nurse either, for similar reasons - i.e. you'd have to invent a special back story for her to make it work. This is fine for a novel but not for a history book or article.
I would question both:-
1) the idea that the annuity must have had something to do with Richard's illegitimate children; and
2) the idea that Alice Burgh, gentlewoman, must have been the nun of Ellerton because she is the only Alice Burgh in the published genealogies.
I said earlier that the possible reasons for the annuity are as various as our imaginations can make them. Without further evidence we can't regard any idea as historically useful although this is obviously an absolutely valid question for a novelist. Here's an example of what I mean by the open-endedness of the possibilities:-
On 1 March 1474 Richard was in the middle of thrashing out the deal with Clarence that would put an end to the conflict over the Beauchamp-Despenser- Montagu estates, and stop Clarence's attempt to have Richard and Anne's marriage annulled. It would make absolute sense that, whilst the validity of their marriage was under attack on grounds of Anne's lack of consent, Richard and Anne would have separated. This would have been necessary both to prevent the conception of a child who might possibly end up being declared illegitimate, and also in order for Anne to be free to demonstrate her genuine willingness to be Richard's wife. This could explain why Richard apparently went to Durham that Easter without Anne (he was enrolled into the Priory's Fraternity of St. Cuthbert without her - she joined at a later date).
So let's imagine that Richard and Anne had formally separated in the autumn of 1473, and that Anne was living somewhere independent of Richard's control but also safe from Clarence. Perhaps a former nurse of Anne was looking after her secretly in some remote location. Enter Alice Burgh, to whom Richard is of course incredibly grateful, but whose services he cannot openly acknowledge without leaving himself open to the charge of keeping Anne as his prisoner.
Perhaps Alice could have been the Lady of Calais?
I'm sure other members could dream up loads of other possible scenarios.
We just don't have evidence.
The second thing, i.e. the identification of Annuity Alice with Prioress Alice - again the old thing, absence of evidence for other Alice Burghs is not evidence of their absence. Re the Burghs/ Broughs of Brough Hall, We've already noted the lack of detail for the generation above Alice's and the lack of wives' names for brothers of hers. There were also other Burghs in Yorkshire. I haven't had time to study them, but the name Alice does crop up.
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-05-01 20:37:22
Karen wrote:
A separation may help explain why their only child was delayed. If Anne eloped with Richard in some way, as seems the case or why would Clarence call it abduction, she was underage wasn't she?
Wouldn't they just solicit testimony from her? Why all the mystery around Anne?Marie replies:Marriage laws were different then. Canon law determined what was and what wasn't a valid marriage. Anyone over the age of sexual consent could make a valid marriage without their parents' consent. Parents couldn't force their children into marriage (though they could advise and encourage).But landed society saw things differently. Parents were extremely concerned about fortune hunters seducing their daughters for their money, and so regarded elopements rather in the same way as forced abductions. Common law did penalise abductors.The Church classified different types of forced marriage differently. There was force and fear, which is obvious, but also raptus, which essentially means marriage by abduction (from family or lawful guardian). The point about the latter is that it was difficult in principal to distinguish between elopement and abduction unless the girl could be separated from her "seducer". Families frequently attempted to characterise elopements as abductions in order to get the marriage annulled - Clarence's claim was by no means unusual - though they were more often than not unsuccessful. Clarence had a lot of clout, and Edward had apparently placed Anne into his care/ custody (we don't really know how free she was meant to be, after her Lancastrian episode). His chances of success would depend partly on how Richard and Anne had organised their affairs leading up to the marriage. And if Clarence could have got Anne back into his custody and put pressure on her to deny her marriage. . . .I'm not sure how the Church handled claims of forced marriage back then, but at the time the Catholic Encyclopaedia was written (1920s) the rule was that an abductor could not make a valid marriage until the girl had first been allowed to go free. I think that Richard and Anne would have been foolish for many reasons not to separate whilst all this was sorted out.
Karen wrote:I was also thinking, could she have been taking some infertility treatment? Anne of Bohemia had a big list of herbal infertility treatments she had purchased. I read tbis. Could this be the seed of the poisoning rumours?
Marie:It is more than likely that she would have been trying everything she could by 1485. I'm afraid I don't know what potions were recommended for barrenness.
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-05-01 22:31:28
Two things Ive learnt on here this week...1. Stanley was not injured in the kerfuffle at the Council Meeting.2. Richard and Anne separated for a while. This was after they were married yes?
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-05-01 22:51:12
Eileen wrote:Two things Ive learnt on here this week...1. Stanley was not injured in the kerfuffle at the Council Meeting.2. Richard and Anne separated for a while. This was after they were married yes?
Marie replies:This is what I suspect, but neither of these things is known for certain:-1. There's no strictly contemporary source that mentions Stanley having been either injured or arrested, and he and his wife remained in Richard's top good books, so the story *probably* isn't true.2. I have just (for the first time) suggested that Richard and Anne may have separated for a while after their marriage - while they were dealing with Clarence's attempt to get the marriage annulled so he could keep all the Beauchamp lands for himself. It would have been the sensible thing to do *but* I must stress that we don't have direct evidence.So much of the interpretation of events in this period really just comes down to an educated guess because the sources are so patchy.
Marie replies:This is what I suspect, but neither of these things is known for certain:-1. There's no strictly contemporary source that mentions Stanley having been either injured or arrested, and he and his wife remained in Richard's top good books, so the story *probably* isn't true.2. I have just (for the first time) suggested that Richard and Anne may have separated for a while after their marriage - while they were dealing with Clarence's attempt to get the marriage annulled so he could keep all the Beauchamp lands for himself. It would have been the sensible thing to do *but* I must stress that we don't have direct evidence.So much of the interpretation of events in this period really just comes down to an educated guess because the sources are so patchy.
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-05-02 10:44:46
Hi,
First of all, Hilary, best wishes to your cat for a speedy recovery.
Marie: Who was the 'Lady of Calais?'
Karen: Amy License writes about herbal remedies for all sorts of conditions in her book 'In Bed With The Tudors.' I can't remember exactly what they were as I read it a few years ago, but she is very interesting. Anne Beauchamp also had some fertility problems and she obtained a dispensation from fasting because of it. It sounded like she may have been having miscarriages. This could be have been hereditary and passed on to Anne. There is a condition where some women have a healthy first child, but subsequent pregnancies end in miscarriage or severely premature births. Fortunately, there are treatments now and premature babies are much more likely to survive, but in those days nothing could be done. Alternatively, she could have had an eating disorder. These did exist, although the underlying reason may having been fasting for religious reasons rather than an aesthetic ideal.
Nico
First of all, Hilary, best wishes to your cat for a speedy recovery.
Marie: Who was the 'Lady of Calais?'
Karen: Amy License writes about herbal remedies for all sorts of conditions in her book 'In Bed With The Tudors.' I can't remember exactly what they were as I read it a few years ago, but she is very interesting. Anne Beauchamp also had some fertility problems and she obtained a dispensation from fasting because of it. It sounded like she may have been having miscarriages. This could be have been hereditary and passed on to Anne. There is a condition where some women have a healthy first child, but subsequent pregnancies end in miscarriage or severely premature births. Fortunately, there are treatments now and premature babies are much more likely to survive, but in those days nothing could be done. Alternatively, she could have had an eating disorder. These did exist, although the underlying reason may having been fasting for religious reasons rather than an aesthetic ideal.
Nico
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-05-02 12:33:52
Nicholas rote:
Marie: Who was the 'Lady of Calais?'
Marie replies:
The lady who came from Calais to join Isabel's entourage in France with a secret offer of reconciliation for Clarence.from Edward IV
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-05-03 09:58:31
Thanks Marie. Well I think we can say for certain that Stanley was not injured that day at the Tower. WHich is entirely new to me...it's so frustrating that false stories like this have been fed to us over the years so that some of us take it as a given fact.
Secondly although we cannot be so certain that Richard and Anne separated for a while in order for her to be able to say she was a willing bride for Richard it does seem very plausible and one to bear in mind,
HIlary...hope cat is better. Poor thing, I wonder if he has learned a lesson..probably not!
Secondly although we cannot be so certain that Richard and Anne separated for a while in order for her to be able to say she was a willing bride for Richard it does seem very plausible and one to bear in mind,
HIlary...hope cat is better. Poor thing, I wonder if he has learned a lesson..probably not!
Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
2017-05-03 11:00:45
Thanks Marie, I have no particular hang ups with Alice, but, as with everything about Richard, she led me so someone else - Stillington.
The more I investigated her the more links there are with her family connections and those of Stillington's. On page 49 of her book, Horrox lists the families which had an affinity with both the Nevilles and Richard, the Burghs of Catterick, the Wycliffes, the Metcalfes and of course the Conyers family. I found others such as the De Rivers, the Askes, the Holmes, the Holthorpes, the Bowes and of course the Inglebys.
Now you could say that all these people were bound to be related in a smallish community, but they intermarry and continue to intermarry for several generations before and after the mid-fifteenth century. Some of them have a significant historical relationship with the City of York, the Stillingtons provided two Chancellors in the fourteenth century. There are other connections. Some, including the Burghs (formerly de Richmond), almost certainly have Breton heritage. One of Stillington's family married a direct descent Breton in about the early 1470s. They also have historic connections with the Scots, the Templars and the Hospitallers. The Hospitallers keep cropping up in this. (Wasn't Prior Kendall implicated in the Perkin Warbeck plot?). Incidentally, it's not unusual that there is a lot of Breton heritage in the North because of the Honour of Richmond.
I'm still working on this; it's like wading through treacle to an unknown destination, but for a start it would indicate that the affinity of the Stillington family (if not the Bishop) was certainly to the House of York ( we already knew that William Ingleby was a Squire of the Body to Richard and his brother was Edward's confessor) and secondly, that direct descent Bretons, or certainly those in Yorkshire, felt no particular allegiance to HT and why should they, he was a titular Earl? BTW one of the most prominent direct descent Breton families was the Fitzhughs. And interestingly, the Wycliffes were also formerly the Ellertons (of Priory fame) who changed their name at the start of the century when the Wycliffe line died out. Didn't Richard have a Wycliffe bible?
Still a lot of work to do on this, particularly as one of the Hospitaller spots seems to potentially have been Eleanor's Wiltshire Draycott. H
(many thanks to all for your concern for Ernie the cat. He is now enjoying celebrity status as one who has achieved something which in the words of the vet 'only dogs do'.).
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 May 2017, 17:18
Subject: Re: Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Oh, your poor cat. I do hope he/ she is feeling a bit more chipper now.
Of course I agree that John wasn't necessarily born at Pontefract, although it is often assumed. It may simply be that he and Katherine were housed at Pontefract once they were deemed old enough to leave their mothers. It's just that we have nothing else to go on.
Richard wouldn't need to have been kicking his heels full time in order to father children. The main thing is that from the time he left Warwick's household / passed his 16th birthday he appears to have had livery of his own estates, i.e. he was independent. Also, I would imagine that Edward might have encouraged him in that direction in order to take his mind off the Neville home he had just left and his loss of his prospective birde.
I'm sorry to have to be a wet blanket again about Alice Burgh, but quite apart from where little John would have been living in early 1474, Alice the nun of Ellerton-in-Swaledale isn't a good candidate to be his nurse either, for similar reasons - i.e. you'd have to invent a special back story for her to make it work. This is fine for a novel but not for a history book or article.
I would question both:-
1) the idea that the annuity must have had something to do with Richard's illegitimate children; and
2) the idea that Alice Burgh, gentlewoman, must have been the nun of Ellerton because she is the only Alice Burgh in the published genealogies.
I said earlier that the possible reasons for the annuity are as various as our imaginations can make them. Without further evidence we can't regard any idea as historically useful although this is obviously an absolutely valid question for a novelist. Here's an example of what I mean by the open-endedness of the possibilities:-On 1 March 1474 Richard was in the middle of thrashing out the deal with Clarence that would put an end to the conflict over the Beauchamp-Despenser-Montagu estates, and stop Clarence's attempt to have Richard and Anne's marriage annulled. It would make absolute sense that, whilst the validity of their marriage was under attack on grounds of Anne's lack of consent, Richard and Anne would have separated. This would have been necessary both to prevent the conception of a child who might possibly end up being declared illegitimate, and also in order for Anne to be free to demonstrate her genuine willingness to be Richard's wife. This could explain why Richard apparently went to Durham that Easter without Anne (he was enrolled into the Priory's Fraternity of St. Cuthbert without her - she joined at a later date).So let's imagine that Richard and Anne had formally separated in the autumn of 1473, and that Anne was living somewhere independent of Richard's control but also safe from Clarence. Perhaps a former nurse of Anne was looking after her secretly in some remote location. Enter Alice Burgh, to whom Richard is of course incredibly grateful, but whose services he cannot openly acknowledge without leaving himself open to the charge of keeping Anne as his prisoner. Perhaps Alice could have been the Lady of Calais?I'm sure other members could dream up loads of other possible scenarios.We just don't have evidence.
The second thing, i.e. the identification of Annuity Alice with Prioress Alice - again the old thing, absence of evidence for other Alice Burghs is not evidence of their absence. Re the Burghs/ Broughs of Brough Hall, We've already noted the lack of detail for the generation above Alice's and the lack of wives' names for brothers of hers. There were also other Burghs in Yorkshire. I haven't had time to study them, but the name Alice does crop up.
The more I investigated her the more links there are with her family connections and those of Stillington's. On page 49 of her book, Horrox lists the families which had an affinity with both the Nevilles and Richard, the Burghs of Catterick, the Wycliffes, the Metcalfes and of course the Conyers family. I found others such as the De Rivers, the Askes, the Holmes, the Holthorpes, the Bowes and of course the Inglebys.
Now you could say that all these people were bound to be related in a smallish community, but they intermarry and continue to intermarry for several generations before and after the mid-fifteenth century. Some of them have a significant historical relationship with the City of York, the Stillingtons provided two Chancellors in the fourteenth century. There are other connections. Some, including the Burghs (formerly de Richmond), almost certainly have Breton heritage. One of Stillington's family married a direct descent Breton in about the early 1470s. They also have historic connections with the Scots, the Templars and the Hospitallers. The Hospitallers keep cropping up in this. (Wasn't Prior Kendall implicated in the Perkin Warbeck plot?). Incidentally, it's not unusual that there is a lot of Breton heritage in the North because of the Honour of Richmond.
I'm still working on this; it's like wading through treacle to an unknown destination, but for a start it would indicate that the affinity of the Stillington family (if not the Bishop) was certainly to the House of York ( we already knew that William Ingleby was a Squire of the Body to Richard and his brother was Edward's confessor) and secondly, that direct descent Bretons, or certainly those in Yorkshire, felt no particular allegiance to HT and why should they, he was a titular Earl? BTW one of the most prominent direct descent Breton families was the Fitzhughs. And interestingly, the Wycliffes were also formerly the Ellertons (of Priory fame) who changed their name at the start of the century when the Wycliffe line died out. Didn't Richard have a Wycliffe bible?
Still a lot of work to do on this, particularly as one of the Hospitaller spots seems to potentially have been Eleanor's Wiltshire Draycott. H
(many thanks to all for your concern for Ernie the cat. He is now enjoying celebrity status as one who has achieved something which in the words of the vet 'only dogs do'.).
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 May 2017, 17:18
Subject: Re: Re: Francis Lovell and Bosworth
Oh, your poor cat. I do hope he/ she is feeling a bit more chipper now.
Of course I agree that John wasn't necessarily born at Pontefract, although it is often assumed. It may simply be that he and Katherine were housed at Pontefract once they were deemed old enough to leave their mothers. It's just that we have nothing else to go on.
Richard wouldn't need to have been kicking his heels full time in order to father children. The main thing is that from the time he left Warwick's household / passed his 16th birthday he appears to have had livery of his own estates, i.e. he was independent. Also, I would imagine that Edward might have encouraged him in that direction in order to take his mind off the Neville home he had just left and his loss of his prospective birde.
I'm sorry to have to be a wet blanket again about Alice Burgh, but quite apart from where little John would have been living in early 1474, Alice the nun of Ellerton-in-Swaledale isn't a good candidate to be his nurse either, for similar reasons - i.e. you'd have to invent a special back story for her to make it work. This is fine for a novel but not for a history book or article.
I would question both:-
1) the idea that the annuity must have had something to do with Richard's illegitimate children; and
2) the idea that Alice Burgh, gentlewoman, must have been the nun of Ellerton because she is the only Alice Burgh in the published genealogies.
I said earlier that the possible reasons for the annuity are as various as our imaginations can make them. Without further evidence we can't regard any idea as historically useful although this is obviously an absolutely valid question for a novelist. Here's an example of what I mean by the open-endedness of the possibilities:-On 1 March 1474 Richard was in the middle of thrashing out the deal with Clarence that would put an end to the conflict over the Beauchamp-Despenser-Montagu estates, and stop Clarence's attempt to have Richard and Anne's marriage annulled. It would make absolute sense that, whilst the validity of their marriage was under attack on grounds of Anne's lack of consent, Richard and Anne would have separated. This would have been necessary both to prevent the conception of a child who might possibly end up being declared illegitimate, and also in order for Anne to be free to demonstrate her genuine willingness to be Richard's wife. This could explain why Richard apparently went to Durham that Easter without Anne (he was enrolled into the Priory's Fraternity of St. Cuthbert without her - she joined at a later date).So let's imagine that Richard and Anne had formally separated in the autumn of 1473, and that Anne was living somewhere independent of Richard's control but also safe from Clarence. Perhaps a former nurse of Anne was looking after her secretly in some remote location. Enter Alice Burgh, to whom Richard is of course incredibly grateful, but whose services he cannot openly acknowledge without leaving himself open to the charge of keeping Anne as his prisoner. Perhaps Alice could have been the Lady of Calais?I'm sure other members could dream up loads of other possible scenarios.We just don't have evidence.
The second thing, i.e. the identification of Annuity Alice with Prioress Alice - again the old thing, absence of evidence for other Alice Burghs is not evidence of their absence. Re the Burghs/ Broughs of Brough Hall, We've already noted the lack of detail for the generation above Alice's and the lack of wives' names for brothers of hers. There were also other Burghs in Yorkshire. I haven't had time to study them, but the name Alice does crop up.
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.