Richard III Research and Discussion Archive.

co wrote:

Leslau may be right about Commynes and Mancini being agents provocateurs, especially Commynes. He was a well rewarded for the information he gave Louis about Charles the Bold and Burgundy, so he would have been well place to spread rumours about the Princes if it suited Louis.

I believe there was a novel based on his theories about the Princes. However, while it is a good idea for fiction, and details in Holbein's paintings are thought to be rebuses, Leslau's conclusions are too far fetched for me, especially the age of John Clement. Also, Guildford would have been too old to suddenly appear without attracting comment. Nevertheless, I do suspect Thomas More may have known what happened to the Princes and it wasn't from gossiping with old ladies in the Minories as Alison Weir suggests. Leslau may have been onto something about that family picture - and a few others of Holbein's. I will post the other theory when I finish the book.

Marie adds:

I wholly agree about Leslau's theory. I did hear him speak once, and he was very enthusiastic and entertaining, but in the cold light of day his ideas don't stack up.

I don't know about Commines, but I really do wish the idea that Mancini was a spy would die a painless death. It was a tenatitive suggestion made by his translator, Armstrong, in his introduction, and has been taken as fact by most historians perhaps because it makes his account seem more authoritative.

Mancini himself, in his address to his patron, Angelo Cato, seems to be telling a quite different story. To roll back a bit, Angelo Cato, who was Louis XI's physician and a renowned predictive astrologer, was appointed by Louis as Archbishop of Vienne near Poitiers in the late summer of 1482, and he moved down to Poitiers to try his hand at being a hands-on archbishop. Mancini, a fellow Italian, was his protégé, and the two had been enthusiastic members of the Paris intellectual circles. He was now left without a patron in Paris. He moved to England for reasons that he does not tell us, but really it does look like a search for fresh patronage, doesn't it?

Shortly after Richard's coronation he got a message from Cato calling him back - what for, again, he does not say. Anyhow, Cato and his friends seemed very interested in the recent political upheavals in England, and Mancini obliged by telling and retelling the story. So far, so good, but then Cato asked Mancini to take it one step further and make a written account that he, Cato, could donate to his old patron the Prince of Taranto (a son of the King of Naples). Mancini, as he relates in his introduction, was now in a difficult position because his level of knowledge about the events that had occurred whilst he'd been in England wasn't good enough for a written account. For instance, he says, he was vague regarding chronology, wasn't clear on the names of some of the main protagonists and had no inside information regarding motives. For this reason, he was slow producing his account (having a lot of details to check), and it wasn't completed until December, by which time Cato was apparently becoming quite cross.

We have no evidence that Mancini had ever been in England before or, indeed, spoke a word of English, so he would have been a very odd choice for a spy. Also, Cato had long left court by the time he commissioned Mancini to write this account, and Louis XI was dead by the time it was completed and possibly before it was commissioned.

But the account is interesting. Mancini's floundering attempts to give Cato some inkling of what had happened to Edward V - something he clearly didn't know - perhaps suggest that this was something - perhaps *the* thing - that Cato particularly wanted to know. Cato, as we've seen was a predictive astrologer (with a particular interest in political astrology) and maybe he was interested because at least two astrologers had already predicted an early demise for Edward V (ie the ill-fated Stacy and Blake, executed in 1477). I suspect Cato may have seen certain things in the stars and wished to verify their occurrence. But that is totally my own suggestion, which although I think it is plausible has no more evidence to support it than Armstrong's spying idea.

The account certainly did get around, and does seem to have been used by Guillaume de Rochefort as evidence that Edward had been murdered, but that may have been nothing to do with Cato. Mancini had returned to Paris and found a new patron in Rochefort's brother, who was a great literary buff.

It has also been suggested - very plausibly - that a copy of the text may have reached the Vatican and helped turned the papacy against Richard.

All very ironic for an account written under protest by a man who said he didn't really know what was going on.

    Nico wrote: Leslau may be right about Commynes and Mancini being agents provocateurs, especially Commynes.  He was a well rewarded for the information he gave Louis about Charles the Bold and Burgundy, so he would have been well place to spread rumours about the Princes if it suited Louis.     Doug here: Well, to honest, Commynes should have been in a position to have information about Charles the Bold as he'd been Charles' close friend and confidante from 1467/8 until he (Commynes) fled to France in 1472. Why the flight isn't known.
Nico continued:
I believe there was a novel based on his theories about the Princes.  However, while it is a good idea for fiction, and details in Holbein's paintings are thought to be rebuses, Leslau's conclusions are too far fetched for me, especially the age of John Clement. Also, Guildford would have been too old to suddenly appear without attracting comment.  Nevertheless, I do suspect Thomas More may have known what happened to the Princes and it wasn't from gossiping with old ladies in the Minories as Alison Weir suggests.  Leslau may have been onto something about that family picture - and a few others of Holbein's.  I will post the other theory when I finish the book.& nbsp;    Doug here: Wouldn't including  a puzzle in a painting, especially one hinting at a threat to the reigning monarch, would be dangerous. If only because, unless the puzzle wasn't too hard to decipher, what would the use of including it be? You wrote I do suspect Thomas More may have known what happened to the Princes... What if that was phrased ...More may have known what didn't happen to the Princes... IOW, More knew Richard hadn't killed them, even if he wasn't certain about what exactly had happened to them. Might that approach make any difference in viewing More's writings about Richard? That More should be viewed as someone who wrote a History of Richard that was, in reality, a satire on what passed for the writing of history? I hope that makes sense!

Nico concluded: Leslau can be a bit confusing at times.  For example, he writes: The lines of Edward I and Edward II are broken. Richard III, King of England, legally married and in unbroken line of Edward III, reveals the extremity of Edward IV and the impediment to Edward V.
Does anyone know what he means about this?  I was never aware of any doubts about the paternity of Edward I or Edward II's children, if that is what he is referring to?   Doug here: If I read that first sentence correctly, he's not saying anything about Edward I or Edward II, but rather that their legitimate line of descent was broken. IOW, not that their immediate descendants, ie. children, are illegitimate, but that somewhere further on the legitimate descent has been sidelined. Which it was did happen when Bolingbroke usurped the throne. Richard, however, was of legitimate descent from Edward III and senior to any other claimants. Well, after his brothers Edward and George and their father Richard, Duke of York, anyway. I don't know why he used the word extremity in regards to Edward IV unless it's a reference to Edward being willing to pass off illegitimate offspring as legitimate heirs to the throne? And, of course, Edward V's impediment' would have been his being illegitimate. Doug  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

 What if that was phrased ...More may have known what didn't happen to the Princes... IOW, More knew Richard hadn't killed them, even if he wasn't certain about what exactly had happened to them.
You could phrase it that way.  If More didn't know exactly what did happen to the Princes, he probably knew what didn't happen to them.  It is difficult to know what his intentions were with the unfinished book on Richard III.  It could have been satire or an early attempt a historical novel that he abandoned either because he lost interest or realized it wasn't true.  Annette Carson speculates that he may have based it on what Morton told him and an unflattering tract about Richard that Morton was said to have been writing at the time, but gave up because he became disillusioned if he realized what his mentor told him could not have been true .  I don't know how much social contact Morton had with his pages (More was 12-14 at the time), but if he was telling them anything, I suspect it would be to push a version what he would like them to believe.
As for rebuses in pictures, they are so vague that they are open to all kinds of interpretations.  In fact, they may mean nothing at all.  However, there could be a link with the More Family portrait, which was commissioned by Erasmus.  There are some theories about Erasmus being Edward V which I'm not sure what to make of, but he was a close associate of the Bishop of Cambrai, (who features prominently in the Warbeck story and if they were sent to Flanders would almost certainly have known what happened to the them).  Erasmus was an early patron of Holbein who introduced him to More and eventually Henry VIII.  Therefore, if the Bishop of Cambrai told Erasmus what happened to the Princes, he could then have told More with whom he had a very close friendship.  More and Erasmus were spending a lot of time together around the time the Richard III book was being written.
As for reference to the three King Edwards, you may be right as Leslau doesn't elaborate on the theory and it may be just a strange way of expressing it.

Nico







On Tuesday, 2 May 2017, 18:26, "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:


  The thing about the painting is that it is not the original, but a copy probably altered and certainly not Richard's message.
On May 2, 2017 12:49 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      Nico wrote: Leslau may be right about Commynes and Mancini being agents provocateurs, especially Commynes.  He was a well rewarded for the information he gave Louis about Charles the Bold and Burgundy, so he would have been well place to spread rumours about the Princes if it suited Louis.     Doug here: Well, to honest, Commynes should have been in a position to have information about Charles the Bold as he'd been Charles' close friend and confidante from 1467/8 until he (Commynes) fled to France in 1472. Why the flight isn't known.
Nico continued:
I believe there was a novel based on his theories about the Princes.  However, while it is a good idea for fiction, and details in Holbein's paintings are thought to be rebuses, Leslau's conclusions are too far fetched for me, especially the age of John Clement. Also, Guildford would have been too old to suddenly appear without attracting comment.  Nevertheless, I do suspect Thomas More may have known what happened to the Princes and it wasn't from gossiping with old ladies in the Minories as Alison Weir suggests.  Leslau may have been onto something about that family picture - and a few others of Holbein's.  I will post the other theory when I finish the book.& nbsp;    Doug here: Wouldn't including  a puzzle in a painting, especially one hinting at a threat to the reigning monarch, would be dangerous. If only because, unless the puzzle wasn't too hard to decipher, what would the use of including it be? You wrote I do suspect Thomas More may have known what happened to the Princes... What if that was phrased ...More may have known what didn't happen to the Princes... IOW, More knew Richard hadn't killed them, even if he wasn't certain about what exactly had happened to them. Might that approach make any difference in viewing More's writings about Richard? That More should be viewed as someone who wrote a History of Richard that was, in reality, a satire on what passed for the writing of history? I hope that makes sense!

Nico concluded: Leslau can be a bit confusing at times.  For example, he writes: The lines of Edward I and Edward II are broken. Richard III, King of England, legally married and in unbroken line of Edward III, reveals the extremity of Edward IV and the impediment to Edward V.
Does anyone know what he means about this?  I was never aware of any doubts about the paternity of Edward I or Edward II's children, if that is what he is referring to?   Doug here: If I read that first sentence correctly, he's not saying anything about Edward I or Edward II, but rather that their legitimate line of descent was broken. IOW, not that their immediate descendants, ie. children, are illegitimate, but that somewhere further on the legitimate descent has been sidelined. Which it was did happen when Bolingbroke usurped the throne. Richard, however, was of legitimate descent from Edward III and senior to any other claimants. Well, after his brothers Edward and George and their father Richard, Duke of York, anyway. I don't know why he used the word extremity in regards to Edward IV unless it's a reference to Edward being willing to pass off illegitimate offspring as legitimate heirs to the throne? And, of course, Edward V's impediment' would have been his being illegitimate. Doug  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Sorry, I didn't see this post yesterday.

I agree with you that Mancini was an unlikely spy especially if he couldn't speak English and wasn't familiar with the country - probably the last person you would pick if you wanted to infiltrate a society for inside information.  I don't know that much about Commynes, but he sounds more sophisticated and would probably spy if the price and circumstances were right.  Interesting too about the astrology.  I wonder what Stacy and Blake were working with when they made their prediction about EV, but astrology was so different then.
Nico





On Tuesday, 2 May 2017, 13:02, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


  co wrote:
Leslau may be right about Commynes and Mancini being agents provocateurs, especially Commynes.  He was a well rewarded for the information he gave Louis about Charles the Bold and Burgundy, so he would have been well place to spread rumours about the Princes if it suited Louis.

I believe there was a novel based on his theories about the Princes.  However, while it is a good idea for fiction, and details in Holbein's paintings are thought to be rebuses, Leslau's conclusions are too far fetched for me, especially the age of John Clement. Also, Guildford would have been too old to suddenly appear without attracting comment.  Nevertheless, I do suspect Thomas More may have known what happened to the Princes and it wasn't from gossiping with old ladies in the Minories as Alison Weir suggests.  Leslau may have been onto something about that family picture - and a few others of Holbein's.  I will post the other theory when I finish the book. 

Marie adds:I wholly agree about Leslau's theory. I did hear him speak once, and he was very enthusiastic and entertaining, but in the cold light of day his ideas don't stack up.I don't know about Commines, but I really do wish the idea that Mancini was a spy would die a painless death. It was a tenatitive suggestion made by his translator, Armstrong, in his introduction, and has been taken as fact by most historians perhaps because it makes his account seem more authoritative.
Mancini himself, in his address to his patron, Angelo Cato, seems to be telling a quite different story. To roll back a bit, Angelo Cato, who was Louis XI's physician and a renowned predictive astrologer, was appointed by Louis as Archbishop of Vienne near Poitiers in the late summer of 1482, and he moved down to Poitiers to try his hand at being a hands-on archbishop. Mancini, a fellow Italian, was his protégé, and the two had been enthusiastic members of the Paris intellectual circles. He was now left without a patron in Paris. He moved to England for reasons that he does not tell us, but really it does look like a search for fresh patronage, doesn't it?
Shortly after Richard's coronation he got a message from Cato calling him back - what for, again, he does not say. Anyhow, Cato and his friends seemed very interested in the recent political upheavals in England, and Mancini obliged by telling and retelling the story. So far, so good, but then Cato asked Mancini to take it one step further and make a written account that he, Cato, could donate to his old patron the Prince of Taranto (a son of the King of Naples). Mancini, as he relates in his introduction, was now in a difficult position because his level of knowledge about the events that had occurred whilst he'd been in England wasn't good enough for a written account. For instance, he says, he was vague regarding chronology, wasn't clear on the names of some of the main protagonists and had no inside information regarding motives. For this reason, he was slow producing his account (having a lot of details to check), and it wasn't completed until December, by which time Cato was apparently becoming quite cross.We have no evidence that Mancini had ever been in England before or, indeed, spoke a word of English, so he would have been a very odd choice for a spy. Also, Cato had long left court by the time he commissioned Mancini to write this account, and Louis XI was dead by the time it was completed and possibly before it was commissioned. But the account is interesting. Mancini's floundering attempts to give Cato some inkling of what had happened to Edward V - something he clearly didn't know - perhaps suggest that this was something - perhaps *the* thing - that Cato particularly wanted to know. Cato, as we've seen was a predictive astrologer (with a particular interest in political astrology) and maybe he was interested because at least two astrologers had already predicted an early demise for Edward V (ie the ill-fated Stacy and Blake, executed in 1477). I suspect Cato may have seen certain things in the stars and wished to verify their occurrence. But that is totally my own suggestion, which although I think it is plausible has no more evidence to support it than Armstrong's spying idea.
The account certainly did get around, and does seem to have been used by Guillaume de Rochefort as evidence that Edward had been murdered, but that may have been nothing to do with Cato. Mancini had returned to Paris and found a new patron in Rochefort's brother, who was a great literary buff.It has also been suggested - very plausibly - that a copy of the text may have reached the Vatican and helped turned the papacy against Richard.
All very ironic for an account written under protest by a man who said he didn't really know what was going on.

Karen,

Sorry, EV is Edward V.   Here is a link to some info about the prediction.The Third Plantagenet

The Third Plantagenet Less well-known than his brothers, Edward IV and Richard III, little has been written about George, Duke of Clar...

Nico





On Thursday, 4 May 2017, 13:00, "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:


  What prediction? And what is EV?
On May 4, 2017 4:26 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  Sorry, I didn't see this post yesterday.

I agree with you that Mancini was an unlikely spy especially if he couldn't speak English and wasn't familiar with the country - probably the last person you would pick if you wanted to infiltrate a society for inside information.  I don't know that much about Commynes, but he sounds more sophisticated and would probably spy if the price and circumstances were right.  Interesting too about the astrology.  I wonder what Stacy and Blake were working with when they made their prediction about EV, but astrology was so different then.
Nico





On Tuesday, 2 May 2017, 13:02, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


  co wrote:
Leslau may be right about Commynes and Mancini being agents provocateurs, especially Commynes.  He was a well rewarded for the information he gave Louis about Charles the Bold and Burgundy, so he would have been well place to spread rumours about the Princes if it suited Louis.

I believe there was a novel based on his theories about the Princes.  However, while it is a good idea for fiction, and details in Holbein's paintings are thought to be rebuses, Leslau's conclusions are too far fetched for me, especially the age of John Clement. Also, Guildford would have been too old to suddenly appear without attracting comment.  Nevertheless, I do suspect Thomas More may have known what happened to the Princes and it wasn't from gossiping with old ladies in the Minories as Alison Weir suggests.  Leslau may have been onto something about that family picture - and a few others of Holbein's.  I will post the other theory when I finish the book. 

Marie adds:I wholly agree about Leslau's theory. I did hear him speak once, and he was very enthusiastic and entertaining, but in the cold light of day his ideas don't stack up.I don't know about Commines, but I really do wish the idea that Mancini was a spy would die a painless death. It was a tenatitive suggestion made by his translator, Armstrong, in his introduction, and has been taken as fact by most historians perhaps because it makes his account seem more authoritative.
Mancini himself, in his address to his patron, Angelo Cato, seems to be telling a quite different story. To roll back a bit, Angelo Cato, who was Louis XI's physician and a renowned predictive astrologer, was appointed by Louis as Archbishop of Vienne near Poitiers in the late summer of 1482, and he moved down to Poitiers to try his hand at being a hands-on archbishop. Mancini, a fellow Italian, was his protégé, and the two had been enthusiastic members of the Paris intellectual circles. He was now left without a patron in Paris. He moved to England for reasons that he does not tell us, but really it does look like a search for fresh patronage, doesn't it?
Shortly after Richard's coronation he got a message from Cato calling him back - what for, again, he does not say. Anyhow, Cato and his friends seemed very interested in the recent political upheavals in England, and Mancini obliged by telling and retelling the story. So far, so good, but then Cato asked Mancini to take it one step further and make a written account that he, Cato, could donate to his old patron the Prince of Taranto (a son of the King of Naples). Mancini, as he relates in his introduction, was now in a difficult position because his level of knowledge about the events that had occurred whilst he'd been in England wasn't good enough for a written account. For instance, he says, he was vague regarding chronology, wasn't clear on the names of some of the main protagonists and had no inside information regarding motives. For this reason, he was slow producing his account (having a lot of details to check), and it wasn't completed until December, by which time Cato was apparently becoming quite cross.We have no evidence that Mancini had ever been in England before or, indeed, spoke a word of English, so he would have been a very odd choice for a spy. Also, Cato had long left court by the time he commissioned Mancini to write this account, and Louis XI was dead by the time it was completed and possibly before it was commissioned. But the account is interesting. Mancini's floundering attempts to give Cato some inkling of what had happened to Edward V - something he clearly didn't know - perhaps suggest that this was something - perhaps *the* thing - that Cato particularly wanted to know. Cato, as we've seen was a predictive astrologer (with a particular interest in political astrology) and maybe he was interested because at least two astrologers had already predicted an early demise for Edward V (ie the ill-fated Stacy and Blake, executed in 1477). I suspect Cato may have seen certain things in the stars and wished to verify their occurrence. But that is totally my own suggestion, which although I think it is plausible has no more evidence to support it than Armstrong's spying idea.
The account certainly did get around, and does seem to have been used by Guillaume de Rochefort as evidence that Edward had been murdered, but that may have been nothing to do with Cato. Mancini had returned to Paris and found a new patron in Rochefort's brother, who was a great literary buff.It has also been suggested - very plausibly - that a copy of the text may have reached the Vatican and helped turned the papacy against Richard.
All very ironic for an account written under protest by a man who said he didn't really know what was going on.

I only wish the reasons for the odd decision to ditch the forum were being made public, but I would like to say at this point that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Research Blog.

Of course posting to the Research Blog isn't open to anyone because it is a place where new research or the correction of common misconceptions (like the Joan of York piece) can be placed - it is not in any way, shape or form a replacement for the forum. The articles that appear on the blog have to be factually correct because they are public statements by the Society. The blog is simply part of a drive to give more prominence to the Society's research as part of the general website overhaul.

The blog is thus the responsibility of the Research Committee (not the Exec Committee in any direct way), and Joanna Laynesmith is the current Research Officer.

It is very frustrating because I well understand why people here feel let down by the Society over the cutting loose of the forum, but suspicions are being cast in the wrong directions.

Marie

Marie, I am sure there are good reasons for the decision, but in the absence of any indication as to what they are, you cannot blame people for trying to fill the vacuum with assumptions. Why is it such a secret?
Pamela

Marie replies:

Hi Pamela, I'm not a member of the Executive Committee and so haven't been involved in the decision process on dropping the forum, so anything I might have heard is no better than grapevine status. I am therefore not the person to be giving an explanation.

Karen,

Sorry, EV is Edward V. Here is a link to some info about the prediction.The Third Plantagenet

The Third Plantagenet Less well-known than his brothers, Edward IV and Richard III, little has been written about George, Duke of Clar...

Nico





On Thursday, 4 May 2017, 13:00, "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> wrote:


What prediction? And what is EV?
On May 4, 2017 4:26 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
Sorry, I didn't see this post yesterday.

I agree with you that Mancini was an unlikely spy especially if he couldn't speak English and wasn't familiar with the country - probably the last person you would pick if you wanted to infiltrate a society for inside information. I don't know that much about Commynes, but he sounds more sophisticated and would probably spy if the price and circumstances were right. Interesting too about the astrology. I wonder what Stacy and Blake were working with when they made their prediction about EV, but astrology was so different then.
Nico





On Tuesday, 2 May 2017, 13:02, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


co wrote:
Leslau may be right about Commynes and Mancini being agents provocateurs, especially Commynes. He was a well rewarded for the information he gave Louis about Charles the Bold and Burgundy, so he would have been well place to spread rumours about the Princes if it suited Louis.

I believe there was a novel based on his theories about the Princes. However, while it is a good idea for fiction, and details in Holbein's paintings are thought to be rebuses, Leslau's conclusions are too far fetched for me, especially the age of John Clement. Also, Guildford would have been too old to suddenly appear without attracting comment. Nevertheless, I do suspect Thomas More may have known what happened to the Princes and it wasn't from gossiping with old ladies in the Minories as Alison Weir suggests. Leslau may have been onto something about that family picture - and a few others of Holbein's. I will post the other theory when I finish the book.

Marie adds:I wholly agree about Leslau's theory. I did hear him speak once, and he was very enthusiastic and entertaining, but in the cold light of day his ideas don't stack up.I don't know about Commines, but I really do wish the idea that Mancini was a spy would die a painless death. It was a tenatitive suggestion made by his translator, Armstrong, in his introduction, and has been taken as fact by most historians perhaps because it makes his account seem more authoritative.
Mancini himself, in his address to his patron, Angelo Cato, seems to be telling a quite different story. To roll back a bit, Angelo Cato, who was Louis XI's physician and a renowned predictive astrologer, was appointed by Louis as Archbishop of Vienne near Poitiers in the late summer of 1482, and he moved down to Poitiers to try his hand at being a hands-on archbishop. Mancini, a fellow Italian, was his protégé, and the two had been enthusiastic members of the Paris intellectual circles. He was now left without a patron in Paris. He moved to England for reasons that he does not tell us, but really it does look like a search for fresh patronage, doesn't it?
Shortly after Richard's coronation he got a message from Cato calling him back - what for, again, he does not say. Anyhow, Cato and his friends seemed very interested in the recent political upheavals in England, and Mancini obliged by telling and retelling the story. So far, so good, but then Cato asked Mancini to take it one step further and make a written account that he, Cato, could donate to his old patron the Prince of Taranto (a son of the King of Naples). Mancini, as he relates in his introduction, was now in a difficult position because his level of knowledge about the events that had occurred whilst he'd been in England wasn't good enough for a written account. For instance, he says, he was vague regarding chronology, wasn't clear on the names of some of the main protagonists and had no inside information regarding motives. For this reason, he was slow producing his account (having a lot of details to check), and it wasn't completed until December, by which time Cato was apparently becoming quite cross.We have no evidence that Mancini had ever been in England before or, indeed, spoke a word of English, so he would have been a very odd choice for a spy. Also, Cato had long left court by the time he commissioned Mancini to write this account, and Louis XI was dead by the time it was completed and possibly before it was commissioned. But the account is interesting. Mancini's floundering attempts to give Cato some inkling of what had happened to Edward V - something he clearly didn't know - perhaps suggest that this was something - perhaps *the* thing - that Cato particularly wanted to know. Cato, as we've seen was a predictive astrologer (with a particular interest in political astrology) and maybe he was interested because at least two astrologers had already predicted an early demise for Edward V (ie the ill-fated Stacy and Blake, executed in 1477). I suspect Cato may have seen certain things in the stars and wished to verify their occurrence. But that is totally my own suggestion, which although I think it is plausible has no more evidence to support it than Armstrong's spying idea.
The account certainly did get around, and does seem to have been used by Guillaume de Rochefort as evidence that Edward had been murdered, but that may have been nothing to do with Cato. Mancini had returned to Paris and found a new patron in Rochefort's brother, who was a great literary buff.It has also been suggested - very plausibly - that a copy of the text may have reached the Vatican and helped turned the papacy against Richard.
All very ironic for an account written under protest by a man who said he didn't really know what was going on.

Eva wrote:

I just can't understand why theSociety cannot give us the real reason for abandoning the forum. As Pamela rightly says it leaves room for assumptions and by making a mystery about the rerasons the whole affair
gets more important than it possibly is. For me it leaves a slightly uneasy feeling of being left out and as
simple member not qualified to understand the weighty decisions of the Society.
I have no problem with the blog apart for their using the reconstruction image, which just is of poor quality.
And by they way the photograph is taken it looks as if Richard himself made a selphy of himself with his new I-Phone. Using this picture as official image IMO is not conducive to promote Richard.

Marie replies:

Eva, I don't disagree with any of what you say. This is confusing for those on the forum who have no idea what went on, and frustrating for anyone who might have some idea about it. But one thing to always bear in mind is that "the Society" is just a bunch of individuals, and even those on the committees aren't all in agreement over everything.

Marie wrote

Eva, I don't disagree with any of what you say. This is confusing for those on the forum who have no idea what went on, and frustrating for anyone who might have some idea about it. But one thing to always bear in mind is that "the Society" is just a bunch of individuals, and even those on the committees aren't all in agreement over everything.

Thank you, Marie for your kind reply. The most important thing now is, that this Forum continues to exist

and we can share our Interest in Richard iii and his time.

I want to thank all of you for making this forum so informative, enjoyable and sometimes emotional!

Eva

http://www.holbeinartworks. org/ efaqssevenkrichardiiitwentyone .htmDespite the fact that this article is about a painting it makes some interest points.We're Mancini and Commynes in the post of Louis as agents provocateur? In other words to spread the lie that the Princes had been murdered to bait Richard into a denial or some indication of their whereabouts because they wanted to find them and use them? The article is exceedingly long but once you get past the art interpretation it gets interesting. These 'contemporary chronicles' used facts but then twisted them.

Marie wrote:

I only wish the reasons for the odd decision to ditch the forum were being made public, but I would like to say at this point that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Research Blog.

Of course posting to the Research Blog isn't open to anyone because it is a place where new research or the correction of common misconceptions (like the Joan of York piece) can be placed - it is not in any way, shape or form a replacement for the forum. The articles that appear on the blog have to be factually correct because they are public statements by the Society. The blog is simply part of a drive to give more prominence to the Society's research as part of the general website overhaul.

The blog is thus the responsibility of the Research Committee (not the Exec Committee in any direct way), and Joanna Laynesmith is the current Research Officer.

It is very frustrating because I well underst and why people here feel let down by the Society over the cutting loose of the forum, but suspicions are being cast in the wrong directions.

Doug here

Marie, thank you for setting things in their proper perspective.

One can only hope that someone (I prefer to remain nameless) will finally learn to not press that send button immediately after composing a post...

Doug

Hi Hilary,

There are rights and wrongs, actually, although very little of the interpretations that appears in books are reliable. It's much easier to keep the blog sound if articles simply deal with discrete pieces of information, and don't try to interpret what was happening in a wider sense.

What I mean is that the research on which the blog items is based is absolutely sound and not reasonably open to other interpretations. In the case of Joan of York, for instance, the modern source for this fictitious daughter is pretty clear, and we also have clear sources (2 or three - would need to check - versions of the lists of York's children - plus that poem) which all fail to show her. The value of posting this stuff on the web is that, hopefully, it will be noticed. John Ashdown-Hill contacted Alison Weir about the mysterious Joan some years back when he was researching The Third Plantagenet, and (so I imagine) would have incorporated the fact of her non-existence into that book, but the internet has its own life and if corrections of false data with a vigorous internet life are not themselves placed online they will be ignored.

The post on the burials of York's children simply publicises an exciting primary source that Joanna has recently uncovered.

Neither of these articles went up online without having been scrutinised by all Research Committee members - people who understand the sources available and have studied the way 15th century society worked. The author, the new Research Office Joanna Laynesmith, is possibly the most careful researcher around, and IMO the Society is extremely fortunate to have her. She and the blog have absolutely nothing to do with what has happened to the forum.

These pieces are a completely different kettle of fish from theoretical interpretations of events in the wider sense, which is what you and I generally do on this forum. I'm sure the Society wouldn't put articles like that on the blog, whether yours or mine or Joanna Laynesmith's, because the Society doesn't subscribe to an historical orthodoxy - that just places a brake on further research.

Also, whilst interpretation of history in the broader sense is never certain, all interpretations are not equally valid. Marylynn Salmon's theories, for instance. . . . or Jack Leslau . . . .

Incidentally, re Edward of Middleham, the Crowland Chronicle specificallly states that he died in April whilst his parents were at Nottingham. What is doesn't say is that he died on *9th* April.

Hi Hilary,

There are rights and wrongs, actually, although very little of the interpretations that appears in books are reliable. It's much easier to keep the blog sound if articles simply deal with discrete pieces of information, and don't try to interpret what was happening in a wider sense.

What I mean is that the research on which the blog items is based is absolutely sound and not reasonably open to other interpretations. In the case of Joan of York, for instance, the modern source for this fictitious daughter is pretty clear, and we also have clear sources (2 or three - would need to check - versions of the lists of York's children - plus that poem) which all fail to show her. The value of posting this stuff on the web is that, hopefully, it will be noticed. John Ashdown-Hill contacted Alison Weir about the mysterious Joan some years back when he was researching The Third Plantagenet, and (so I imagine) would have incorporated the fact of her non-existence into that book, but the internet has its own life and if corrections of false data with a vigorous internet life are not themselves placed online they will be ignored.

The post on the burials of York's children simply publicises an exciting primary source that Joanna has recently uncovered.

Neither of these articles went up online without having been scrutinised by all Research Committee members - people who understand the sources available and have studied the way 15th century society worked. The author, the new Research Office Joanna Laynesmith, is possibly the most careful researcher around, and IMO the Society is extremely fortunate to have her. She and the blog have absolutely nothing to do with what has happened to the forum.

These pieces are a completely different kettle of fish from theoretical interpretations of events in the wider sense, which is what you and I generally do on this forum. I'm sure the Society wouldn't put articles like that on the blog, whether yours or mine or Joanna Laynesmith's, because the Society doesn't subscribe to an historical orthodoxy - that just places a brake on further research.

Also, whilst interpretation of history in the broader sense is never certain, all interpretations are not equally valid. Marylynn Salmon's theories, for instance. . . . or Jack Leslau . . . .

Incidentally, re Edward of Middleham, the Crowland Chronicle specificallly states that he died in April whilst his parents were at Nottingham. What is doesn't say is that he died on *9th* April.

I have known Joanna for many years. Her mother was a member of the Society in Worcestershire and Joanna joined when she was old enough. She has written several books and her research is excellent. Happy memories of weekend the branch spent in York when Joanna (then at York University) joined us.

David, not quite on this topic but are you saying that the only reason for affinity between Francis II and HT was because his daughter had been engaged to Edward V? One of the things that I'm beginning to grasp is that HT as titular Earl of Richmond through his father and Henry VI, had actually no blood connections with Brittany at all (unless there are some I don't know through Katherine of Valois). Am I right? This could then mean that English/Bretons would see no real need to support him, which certainly seems to be the case in Yorkshire?
Do you know if there was a traditional link between the Templars/Hospitallers and Brittany? Where I find Breton descent there's usually a Hospitaller in there somewhere.
Incidentally, on an entirely different topic, the Breton links of the Fitzhughs might have gained them significant links in Scotland, backing the theory that Lovell went there? (There's that old Da Vinci Code legend that the Templars were still lingering in Scotland) H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 22:22
Subject: Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

Karen,Regarding the Leslau article, I read it as far as the section on Commynes and Mancini where the logic and the lack of a coherent time frame made the article unreadable. Perhaps I could tackle Commynes and Rochefort.
They could not be acting for Louis, because he was dead. He died before the rebellion of 1483. Rochefort's motive for saying what he did before the parliament becomes obvious if you read about events in France at the time - often referred to as the Mad War. A young king with his elder sister as regent faced a number of rebellious lords.
Rochefort was clearly using the events in England as a warning to say look what can happen if there is strife over the control of the king and kingdom.
In January 1484, and with trouble brewing at home, boosting Henry Tudor would not be high on his to-do list. Henry's rebellion had already failed and his usefulness was so minimal that the French did not even stop him going back to Brittany when he was washed up in France. Henry did not reach France to escape Richard's plot with Landais until October 1484.
The "news' of the deaths had already reached Brittany by autumn 1483, where Francis II supported Henry because his daughter had been engaged to Edward V. Louis of Orleans had petitioned the Pope to annul his marriage and headed for Brittany. Anne was an important heiress.
If you look up the Mad War, you will find that Commynes took an active part on behalf of Louis - that is against the regency. So he was writing shortly after release from prison while under house arrest in the 1490s. So at the time he put pen to paper he was out of favour in a big way, Richard was already dead.
I think the idea of his being a spy or being bribed is a bit far fetched - he was pretty high up the pecking order in Burgundy and then France. He was counsellor and chamberlain to the Duke of Burgundy and then the king of France. A member of the French royal council until 1485, from memory one of the titles he bore was "prince".
There is an excellent article about him and a translation on the Richard III Soc web site by Michael Jones (not MKJ).
Best wishesDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 at 23:12, Karen O karenoder4@... []<> wrote: http://www.holbeinartworks. org/ efaqssevenkrichardiiitwentyone .htmDespite the fact that this article is about a painting it makes some interest points.We're Mancini and Commynes in the post of Louis as agents provocateur? In other words to spread the lie that the Princes had been murdered to bait Richard into a denial or some indication of their whereabouts because they wanted to find them and use them? The article is exceedingly long but once you get past the art interpretation it gets interesting. These 'contemporary chronicles' used facts but then twisted them.

The fact that they became extinct in the 16th century means that they will be overlooked by any but specialist researchers.
There is also a contemporary marriage Tournemine / Kerimel (Kerimel appears as one of Roland de Velville's arms.
Another Breton connection is the Sandfords. I saw their arms in a window at Levens Hall and it featured the ermine.
Mortons arms also feature the ermine, but I have not found a Breton connection there. There was a propaganda exercise post 1532 to make out that Brittany was naturally part of France.
An article you might find helpful / interesting by K Keats-Rohan

'The Bretons and Normans of England 1066-1154: the family, the fief, and the feudal monarchy' 'The Bretons and Normans of England 1066-1154: the family, the fief, and the feudal monarchy'

'The Bretons and Normans of England 1066-1154: the family, the fief, and the feudal monarchy'

Thanks so much David. A lot of work to do on it methinks. But it's coming at me through the other angle - the Yorkists.
I was astounded to find that, if you accept the descent of the House of Bruce from Emma of Brittany, a huge majority of the gentry/aristocracy in the North of England (not just Yorkshire) are of Breton descent. One should have guessed it from the names of course, Alan, Conan, Bryan, Elias. These people have associations with the foundation and support of religious houses and some of them, like the Burghs, the Kendals, the Withams, have membership of Orders of knights. Their support of Richard came to him through the Nevilles. Incidentally, Stillington was in those circles too.
In his book on Warbeck, Ian Arthurson pointed out that Prior John Kendale of the Hospitallers was probably involved in the Warbeck Affair and I was intrigued to discover that in 1495 HT forbade the Hospitallers in Ireland to appoint their own Prior. Kendale fell from grace and was replaced by an HT hardliner. Of course a previous Prior, Langstrother, was a great supporter of MOA.
Is there a possibility, I wonder, of the Hospitallers 'taking care' of the princes after Richard's death and aiding the escape of Lovell? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 8 May 2017, 15:28
Subject: Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, Mancini and the Templars

Hi Hilary,Interesting questions as always. Your message opened an area that I had overlooked - the membership of the templars. It has thrown up some facts that I did not know.
Firstly the point about Francis II was to point out that when Rochefort made his statement to the parliament in Jan 1484, he was not saying anything new. The breton court was already behaving as though Edward V was dead by supporting HT in autumn. It did not make sense if they thought there was a chance he could be reinstated and Anne could become queen.
As far as HT's relationship with Francis is concerned, his father Edmund was his second cousin. Through the Valois connection he also had links through marriage and the daughter of Agnes Sorel.
Olivier de Coëtivy had many influential cousins. Guillaume du Chastel (buried at Saint Denis) was killed by Richard of York at Pontoise in 1441. A Tanguy du Chastel was chamberlain.
Back to the Templars. They were very strong in Brittany
http://www.infobretagne.com/ordre-temple-bretagne.htm
Looking into the Templar connection has thrown up a new linking family name Tournemine
They were big supporters of the TemplarsThey were among HT's circle of cousins through Marie de ValoisThey are linked to known Bretons at Bosworth- the arms of Cosquer (Velville) are quartered with Tournemine (gold / blue quarters)- also the family le Peletier who inherited Rosanbo from the Cosquers were also
Jean de Tournemine became knight commander about 50 years after Bosworth.
I don't know if it is significant, or if we would find some Templars wherever we looked.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
David, not quite on this topic but are you saying that the only reason for affinity between Francis II and HT was because his daughter had been engaged to Edward V? One of the things that I'm beginning to grasp is that HT as titular Earl of Richmond through his father and Henry VI, had actually no blood connections with Brittany at all (unless there are some I don't know through Katherine of Valois). Am I right? This could then mean that English/Bretons would see no real need to support him, which certainly seems to be the case in Yorkshire?
Do you know if there was a traditional link between the Templars/Hospitallers and Brittany? Where I find Breton descent there's usually a Hospitaller in there somewhere.
Incidentally, on an entirely different topic, the Breton links of the Fitzhughs might have gained them significant links in Scotland, backing the theory that Lovell went there? (There's that old Da Vinci Code legend that the Templars were still lingering in Scotland) H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 22:22
Subject: Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

Karen,Regarding the Leslau article, I read it as far as the section on Commynes and Mancini where the logic and the lack of a coherent time frame made the article unreadable. Perhaps I could tackle Commynes and Rochefort.
They could not be acting for Louis, because he was dead. He died before the rebellion of 1483. Rochefort's motive for saying what he did before the parliament becomes obvious if you read about events in France at the time - often referred to as the Mad War. A young king with his elder sister as regent faced a number of rebellious lords.
Rochefort was clearly using the events in England as a warning to say look what can happen if there is strife over the control of the king and kingdom.
In January 1484, and with trouble brewing at home, boosting Henry Tudor would not be high on his to-do list. Henry's rebellion had already failed and his usefulness was so minimal that the French did not even stop him going back to Brittany when he was washed up in France. Henry did not reach France to escape Richard's plot with Landais until October 1484.
The "news' of the deaths had already reached Brittany by autumn 1483, where Francis II supported Henry because his daughter had been engaged to Edward V. Louis of Orleans had petitioned the Pope to annul his marriage and headed for Brittany. Anne was an important heiress.
If you look up the Mad War, you will find that Commynes took an active part on behalf of Louis - that is against the regency. So he was writing shortly after release from prison while under house arrest in the 1490s. So at the time he put pen to paper he was out of favour in a big way, Richard was already dead.
I think the idea of his being a spy or being bribed is a bit far fetched - he was pretty high up the pecking order in Burgundy and then France. He was counsellor and chamberlain to the Duke of Burgundy and then the king of France. A member of the French royal council until 1485, from memory one of the titles he bore was "prince".
There is an excellent article about him and a translation on the Richard III Soc web site by Michael Jones (not MKJ).
Best wishesDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 at 23:12, Karen O karenoder4@... []<> wrote: http://www.holbeinartworks. org/ efaqssevenkrichardiiitwentyone .htmDespite the fact that this article is about a painting it makes some interest points.We're Mancini and Commynes in the post of Louis as agents provocateur? In other words to spread the lie that the Princes had been murdered to bait Richard into a denial or some indication of their whereabouts because they wanted to find them and use them? The article is exceedingly long but once you get past the art interpretation it gets interesting. These 'contemporary chronicles' used facts but then twisted them.

Thanks so much David. A lot of work to do on it methinks. But it's coming at me through the other angle - the Yorkists.
I was astounded to find that, if you accept the descent of the House of Bruce from Emma of Brittany, a huge majority of the gentry/aristocracy in the North of England (not just Yorkshire) are of Breton descent. One should have guessed it from the names of course, Alan, Conan, Bryan, Elias. These people have associations with the foundation and support of religious houses and some of them, like the Burghs, the Kendals, the Withams, have membership of Orders of knights. Their support of Richard came to him through the Nevilles. Incidentally, Stillington was in those circles too.
In his book on Warbeck, Ian Arthurson pointed out that Prior John Kendale of the Hospitallers was probably involved in the Warbeck Affair and I was intrigued to discover that in 1495 HT forbade the Hospitallers in Ireland to appoint their own Prior. Kendale fell from grace and was replaced by an HT hardliner. Of course a previous Prior, Langstrother, was a great supporter of MOA.
Is there a possibility, I wonder, of the Hospitallers 'taking care' of the princes after Richard's death and aiding the escape of Lovell? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 8 May 2017, 15:28
Subject: Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, Mancini and the Templars

Hi Hilary,Interesting questions as always. Your message opened an area that I had overlooked - the membership of the templars. It has thrown up some facts that I did not know.
Firstly the point about Francis II was to point out that when Rochefort made his statement to the parliament in Jan 1484, he was not saying anything new. The breton court was already behaving as though Edward V was dead by supporting HT in autumn. It did not make sense if they thought there was a chance he could be reinstated and Anne could become queen.
As far as HT's relationship with Francis is concerned, his father Edmund was his second cousin. Through the Valois connection he also had links through marriage and the daughter of Agnes Sorel.
Olivier de Coëtivy had many influential cousins. Guillaume du Chastel (buried at Saint Denis) was killed by Richard of York at Pontoise in 1441. A Tanguy du Chastel was chamberlain.
Back to the Templars. They were very strong in Brittany
http://www.infobretagne.com/ordre-temple-bretagne.htm
Looking into the Templar connection has thrown up a new linking family name Tournemine
They were big supporters of the TemplarsThey were among HT's circle of cousins through Marie de ValoisThey are linked to known Bretons at Bosworth- the arms of Cosquer (Velville) are quartered with Tournemine (gold / blue quarters)- also the family le Peletier who inherited Rosanbo from the Cosquers were also
Jean de Tournemine became knight commander about 50 years after Bosworth.
I don't know if it is significant, or if we would find some Templars wherever we looked.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
David, not quite on this topic but are you saying that the only reason for affinity between Francis II and HT was because his daughter had been engaged to Edward V? One of the things that I'm beginning to grasp is that HT as titular Earl of Richmond through his father and Henry VI, had actually no blood connections with Brittany at all (unless there are some I don't know through Katherine of Valois). Am I right? This could then mean that English/Bretons would see no real need to support him, which certainly seems to be the case in Yorkshire?
Do you know if there was a traditional link between the Templars/Hospitallers and Brittany? Where I find Breton descent there's usually a Hospitaller in there somewhere.
Incidentally, on an entirely different topic, the Breton links of the Fitzhughs might have gained them significant links in Scotland, backing the theory that Lovell went there? (There's that old Da Vinci Code legend that the Templars were still lingering in Scotland) H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 22:22
Subject: Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

Karen,Regarding the Leslau article, I read it as far as the section on Commynes and Mancini where the logic and the lack of a coherent time frame made the article unreadable. Perhaps I could tackle Commynes and Rochefort.
They could not be acting for Louis, because he was dead. He died before the rebellion of 1483. Rochefort's motive for saying what he did before the parliament becomes obvious if you read about events in France at the time - often referred to as the Mad War. A young king with his elder sister as regent faced a number of rebellious lords.
Rochefort was clearly using the events in England as a warning to say look what can happen if there is strife over the control of the king and kingdom.
In January 1484, and with trouble brewing at home, boosting Henry Tudor would not be high on his to-do list. Henry's rebellion had already failed and his usefulness was so minimal that the French did not even stop him going back to Brittany when he was washed up in France. Henry did not reach France to escape Richard's plot with Landais until October 1484.
The "news' of the deaths had already reached Brittany by autumn 1483, where Francis II supported Henry because his daughter had been engaged to Edward V. Louis of Orleans had petitioned the Pope to annul his marriage and headed for Brittany. Anne was an important heiress.
If you look up the Mad War, you will find that Commynes took an active part on behalf of Louis - that is against the regency. So he was writing shortly after release from prison while under house arrest in the 1490s. So at the time he put pen to paper he was out of favour in a big way, Richard was already dead.
I think the idea of his being a spy or being bribed is a bit far fetched - he was pretty high up the pecking order in Burgundy and then France. He was counsellor and chamberlain to the Duke of Burgundy and then the king of France. A member of the French royal council until 1485, from memory one of the titles he bore was "prince".
There is an excellent article about him and a translation on the Richard III Soc web site by Michael Jones (not MKJ).
Best wishesDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 at 23:12, Karen O karenoder4@... []<> wrote: http://www.holbeinartworks. org/ efaqssevenkrichardiiitwentyone .htmDespite the fact that this article is about a painting it makes some interest points.We're Mancini and Commynes in the post of Louis as agents provocateur? In other words to spread the lie that the Princes had been murdered to bait Richard into a denial or some indication of their whereabouts because they wanted to find them and use them? The article is exceedingly long but once you get past the art interpretation it gets interesting. These 'contemporary chronicles' used facts but then twisted them.

I tbought they were Swiss pikemen...read that somewhere eons ago.,

I tbought they were Swiss pikemen...read that somewhere eons ago.,

Thanks David. A Savoyard eh?

I tbought they were Swiss pikemen...read that somewhere eons ago.,

Paul

Thanks David. A Savoyard eh?

I tbought they were Swiss pikemen...read that somewhere eons ago.,