Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

2017-04-30 23:12:23
Karen O
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.

Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

2017-05-02 11:41:33
nico11238
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.

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?

Nico



Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

2017-05-02 13:02:41
mariewalsh2003

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.



Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes

2017-05-02 17:49:13
Doug Stamate
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.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes

2017-05-02 18:26:33
Karen O
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@... []" <> 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.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes

2017-05-03 11:18:39
Hilary Jones
Sorry I've come into this late.
I too was hooked on Leslau but his fault is that he stretches things too far and then falls over, like with Clement's age. When you do something like that it discredits everything else. I agree with Doug's point about hiding something which was basically treason in a painting. Paintings at that time were allegorical, so if you were an educated person, and Henry VIII and most of his Court certainly were, you would know immediately what it said. The allegory should be to flatter you or the subject, not something that undermines or threatens you. So it would be a very dangerous and risky thing to do.
Could the 'broken line' be that Edward III was potentially illegitimate; after all there were the issues around Edward II and Gaveston and Isabella and Mortimer?
Thanks Marie for your very comprehensive answer on Mancini. It would certainly be in HT's interest to win over the Papacy, if only to try to receive a pardon to retrieve his own soul. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 2 May 2017, 18:26
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

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@... []" <> 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.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes

2017-05-03 11:23:22
Nicholas Brown

 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@... []" <> 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@... []" <> 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.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes

2017-05-03 13:46:27
Karen O
Yes HT would need absolution for his regicide wouldn't he?Wasn't William the Conqueror excommunicated? I guess that's what HT needed England's Treasury for to bribe the Pope.
On May 3, 2017 6:23 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
 


 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.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes

2017-05-03 14:06:25
Hilary Jones
No William was not excommunicated. He sought the blessing of the Pope for his expedition to avoid such a thing. He was a very religious man. H



From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2017, 13:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

Yes HT would need absolution for his regicide wouldn't he?Wasn't William the Conqueror excommunicated? I guess that's what HT needed England's Treasury for to bribe the Pope.
On May 3, 2017 6:23 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:

 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.



Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes

2017-05-03 14:41:49
Hilary Jones
Not on this topic but wasn't the forum supposed to have been taken off the Society site by now? It still seems to be there. Do we know what's going on and when it does how will we be able to add a new topic, Neil? H

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2017, 14:06
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

No William was not excommunicated. He sought the blessing of the Pope for his expedition to avoid such a thing. He was a very religious man. H



From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2017, 13:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

Yes HT would need absolution for his regicide wouldn't he?Wasn't William the Conqueror excommunicated? I guess that's what HT needed England's Treasury for to bribe the Pope.
On May 3, 2017 6:23 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:

 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.





Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo

2017-05-03 19:27:27
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: 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. Doug here: FWIW, I lean towards More's work as being a satire on writing of history based on what everyone knows, where all sorts of unfounded stories are included to support an already determined depiction of a person or events. Perhaps More started writing his own book as a satire on what Morton had written? If, and I readily admit that's a large if, More knew the contents of Morton's tract were false, or largely so, and wrote his History as a satire, then might we have some idea of what was included in Morton's tract and the style Morton employed? IOW, was Morton's tract the type of History More was satirizing? Pity there's nothing but references to the tract's existence! If I remember correctly, all we know about Morton's tract is that he wrote it and passed it around amongst his friends; then it disappears. Except for a few references to it having existed, I don't recall any quotes or citations from it anywhere. Most likely Morton used cheap paper... Nico continued: 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. Doug here: I, too, have serious doubts about Erasmus being Edward V as the dates don't match up. I agree that it's not unlikely the Bishop of Cambrai would have known about Richard of Shrewsbury having been sent to Flanders, but whether the Bishop would have passed on such knowledge to Erasmus gives me doubts. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Erasmus was ordained in 1492 and sometime thereafter entered the Bishop's household before then proceeding to Paris for study in 1495. That leaves a maximum of three years, and most likely much less, for him to have gained such favor with the Bishop for the latter to then speak with Erasmus about the Bishop's involvement in a major European political event. While certainly not impossible, I have my doubts. Nico concluded: 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. Doug here: That first sentence is puzzling, but that's the way it reads to me. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

2017-05-04 09:26:38
Nicholas Brown
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.



Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes

2017-05-04 09:40:46
b.eileen25
And how will we be able to get on here once that link is removed?

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes

2017-05-04 11:21:00
Hilary Jones
Yes it worries me Eileen. Are you out there Neil? H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 9:40
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

And how will we be able to get on here once that link is removed?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo

2017-05-04 11:38:48
Hilary Jones
I'm surprised Morton is always quoted as More's source. There were at least two others who could have spun him a tale.
Firstly, his second wife, Alice Harpur whom he married in 1512 just before he supposedly started the 'History' was daughter to Richard Harpur, Receiver General to the Staffords and MB. The Harpurs have a long history of service to the Staffords (and Stanleys).
Secondly, his heretic-hunting colleague, John Stokesley (later Bishop of London) was a protegee of MB and supposedly was born at Collyweston in 1475.
(To me he is a man of mystery as Stokesley is a Yorkshire name (Stokesley near Ingleby) and I can find no record of any Stokesley having lived at Collyweston or anywhere nearby before or afterwards apart from another priestly brother called Richard. Also his illegitimate daughter married a Yorkshire Gascoigne. He claimed to have been born at Collyweston in 1475 and we first meet him when MB chastises him.)
Then there were More's Kentish contacts such as the Ropers. So he actually had quite a few, shall we say, biased sources not just Morton. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2017, 19:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

Nico wrote: 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. Doug here: FWIW, I lean towards More's work as being a satire on writing of history based on what everyone knows, where all sorts of unfounded stories are included to support an already determined depiction of a person or events. Perhaps More started writing his own book as a satire on what Morton had written? If, and I readily admit that's a large if, More knew the contents of Morton's tract were false, or largely so, and wrote his History as a satire, then might we have some idea of what was included in Morton's tract and the style Morton employed? IOW, was Morton's tract the type of History More was satirizing? Pity there's nothing but references to the tract's existence! If I remember correctly, all we know about Morton's tract is that he wrote it and passed it around amongst his friends; then it disappears. Except for a few references to it having existed, I don't recall any quotes or citations from it anywhere. Most likely Morton used cheap paper... Nico continued: 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. Doug here: I, too, have serious doubts about Erasmus being Edward V as the dates don't match up. I agree that it's not unlikely the Bishop of Cambrai would have known about Richard of Shrewsbury having been sent to Flanders, but whether the Bishop would have passed on such knowledge to Erasmus gives me doubts. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Erasmus was ordained in 1492 and sometime thereafter entered the Bishop's household before then proceeding to Paris for study in 1495. That leaves a maximum of three years, and most likely much less, for him to have gained such favor with the Bishop for the latter to then speak with Erasmus about the Bishop's involvement in a major European political event. While certainly not impossible, I have my doubts. Nico concluded: 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. Doug here: That first sentence is puzzling, but that's the way it reads to me. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re:

2017-05-04 11:45:22
Johanne Tournier
If I might inject a couple of questions here ý


1. Has there ever been any reason given for the final decision to cut the ties of the Society with the Forum? I didnýt see anything anywhere, except for Eileenýs comment that the decision had been made. And the only reason given that I recall was the initial one that the usage of the Forum had gone down. Which we know wasnýt entirely accurate.



1. Is it possible, or is it just coincidence, that the Society has just announced a ýresearch blogý which is open to members and non-members?


I hope this is not out of line.

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
Email ý jltournier60@...


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<mailto:>
Sent: May 4, 2017 7:21 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini


Yes it worries me Eileen. Are you out there Neil? H


From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 9:40
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini


And how will we be able to get on here once that link is removed?





Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 12:31:43
Hilary Jones
Hi Joanne I received an email one Sunday evening (which went into my spam) saying in a very cold manner that the Executive Committee had decided, despite protests, to disassociate itself from the forum and that they would cut ties on 2 May. There was no real reason given. It was like a very high-handed statutory declaration. Then on Facebook the next day they announced the research blog. That's all I know. H

From: "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 11:45
Subject: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)

If I might inject a couple of questions here 


1. Has there ever been any reason given for the final decision to cut the ties of the Society with the Forum? I didn't see anything anywhere, except for Eileen's comment that the decision had been made. And the only reason given that I recall was the initial one that the usage of the Forum had gone down. Which we know wasn't entirely accurate.



1. Is it possible, or is it just coincidence, that the Society has just announced a research blog which is open to members and non-members?


I hope this is not out of line.

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
Email  jltournier60@...


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<mailto:>
Sent: May 4, 2017 7:21 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini


Yes it worries me Eileen. Are you out there Neil? H


From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 9:40
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini


And how will we be able to get on here once that link is removed?









------------------------------------

------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/


Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

2017-05-04 13:00:25
Karen O
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.



Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 14:06:15
Johanne Tournier
Hi, Hilary ý

Thatýs what Iým talking about. It does seem a curious coincidence that this decision is made and almost simultaneously the research blog is announced. Although, truthfully, I donýt understand why initiating the blog would preclude continuation of the Forum under the Societyýs auspices. After all, they are quite different animals. A blog being a blog, I donýt see it as one where readers would be doing more than posting comments on the articles posted online by members of the research committee. Weýve already mentioned Facebook ý although great for sharing news of events and pictures and links to articles and such, imo the best forum for serious back-and-forth discussions is a discussion group like this one. And I think the level of discussion has generally been very high.

I love being a member of the Society and cherished the excursion to Fotheringhay which I was able to go on last December. But I am very disappointed about this development.

<sigh>

Johanne

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<mailto:>
Sent: May 4, 2017 8:31 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)


Hi Joanne I received an email one Sunday evening (which went into my spam) saying in a very cold manner that the Executive Committee had decided, despite protests, to disassociate itself from the forum and that they would cut ties on 2 May. There was no real reason given. It was like a very high-handed statutory declaration. Then on Facebook the next day they announced the research blog. That's all I know. H


From: "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 11:45
Subject: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)

If I might inject a couple of questions here ý


1. Has there ever been any reason given for the final decision to cut the ties of the Society with the Forum? I didnýt see anything anywhere, except for Eileenýs comment that the decision had been made. And the only reason given that I recall was the initial one that the usage of the Forum had gone down. Which we know wasnýt entirely accurate.



1. Is it possible, or is it just coincidence, that the Society has just announced a ýresearch blogý which is open to members and non-members?


I hope this is not out of line.

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
Email ý jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...> []<mailto:<mailto:>>
Sent: May 4, 2017 7:21 AM
To: <mailto:><mailto:<mailto:>>
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini


Yes it worries me Eileen. Are you out there Neil? H


From: "cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...> []" <<mailto:>>
To: <mailto:>
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 9:40
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini


And how will we be able to get on here once that link is removed?










------------------------------------

------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links








Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 14:12:23
Hilary Jones
Yes so I am Johanne. I've just had a look at the blog and it seems to be open to articles only by members of the Executive Committee. It also says all submissions are subject to censorship (sorry there's no other word) by that Committee, as I imagine will be any comments. There are blogs there by Joanna Laynesmith about a couple of things but nothing controversial. It would seem the reserve of the exclusive few. As though no-one else has a contribution to make. Very sad. H

From: "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 14:06
Subject: RE: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)

Hi, Hilary 

That's what I'm talking about. It does seem a curious coincidence that this decision is made and almost simultaneously the research blog is announced. Although, truthfully, I don't understand why initiating the blog would preclude continuation of the Forum under the Society's auspices. After all, they are quite different animals. A blog being a blog, I don't see it as one where readers would be doing more than posting comments on the articles posted online by members of the research committee. We've already mentioned Facebook  although great for sharing news of events and pictures and links to articles and such, imo the best forum for serious back-and-forth discussions is a discussion group like this one. And I think the level of discussion has generally been very high.

I love being a member of the Society and cherished the excursion to Fotheringhay which I was able to go on last December. But I am very disappointed about this development.

<sigh>

Johanne

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<mailto:>
Sent: May 4, 2017 8:31 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)


Hi Joanne I received an email one Sunday evening (which went into my spam) saying in a very cold manner that the Executive Committee had decided, despite protests, to disassociate itself from the forum and that they would cut ties on 2 May. There was no real reason given. It was like a very high-handed statutory declaration. Then on Facebook the next day they announced the research blog. That's all I know. H


From: "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 11:45
Subject: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)

If I might inject a couple of questions here 


1. Has there ever been any reason given for the final decision to cut the ties of the Society with the Forum? I didn't see anything anywhere, except for Eileen's comment that the decision had been made. And the only reason given that I recall was the initial one that the usage of the Forum had gone down. Which we know wasn't entirely accurate.



1. Is it possible, or is it just coincidence, that the Society has just announced a research blog which is open to members and non-members?


I hope this is not out of line.

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
Email  jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...> []<mailto:<mailto:>>
Sent: May 4, 2017 7:21 AM
To: <mailto:><mailto:<mailto:>>
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini


Yes it worries me Eileen. Are you out there Neil? H


From: "cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...> []" <<mailto:>>
To: <mailto:>
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 9:40
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini


And how will we be able to get on here once that link is removed?










------------------------------------

------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links












------------------------------------

------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/


Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

2017-05-04 15:40:01
Nicholas Brown
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.





Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

2017-05-04 15:53:18
Karen O
Oh, I read that. I guess I missed that. It's back at the library now.
On May 4, 2017 10:40 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
 

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.





Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 17:01:02
mariewalsh2003

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III

2017-05-04 17:07:44
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Yes so I am Johanne. I've just had a look at the blog and it seems to be open to articles only by members of the Executive Committee. It also says all submissions are subject to censorship (sorry there's no other word) by that Committee, as I imagine will be any comments. There are blogs there by Joanna Laynesmith about a couple of things but nothing controversial. It would seem the reserve of the exclusive few. As though no-one else has a contribution to make. Very sad. Doug here: To be fair, there's no mention of the membership of the editorial committee that produces the Bulletin. Anne F. Sutton, as editor, is the only person associated with the composition of The Ricardian, but surely she has some sort of assistance? But, if so, it's also un-named. Now, in your earlier post, you wrote: Then on Facebook the next day they announced the research blog. To me, that makes no sense at all. What are the Bulletin and the Journal if not places to publish research? Because that's exactly what happens when something is posted on a blog! The difference, of course, is that it's a lot cheaper to put something up on the internet than it is to put together, and distribute, a Bulletin four times a year and a Journal annually. I mean, why pay for a membership in the RIII Society, when all the fruits of its' members' labor are freely available? One needn't even have to go to a library, just connect to the internet! As far as I know, membership in the RIII Society isn't a requirement for having an article published by it, so where's the necessity in starting up an internet site where the very same research that is currently being published in the Society's two dead-tree outlets? And if the Committee really thinks they're going to get a large number of new adherents, read: younger...well, let me put it this way: can anyone imagine an article on Richard or a related subject composed of emojis and abbreviations such as LOL, while the footnote references are to twitter hashtags? I do realize we're in the 21st century, but economic laws haven't been superseded and, and this is only a fleeting suspicion at the back of my mind, this looks an awful lot like an attempt to free up the funds that were previously expended on putting together and distributing the Bulletin and the Journal. Presumably, one imagines, the funds thus freed up would then go into research. Either that or the Society is being run by people who are, for want of a better term, control freaks and simply can't stand the idea of something going on they don't control. Doug Who doesn't know which possibility is worse...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 17:17:35
Pamela Furmidge
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 wel
l 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, 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










Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 18:15:10
mariewalsh2003

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.

Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 18:20:22
Johanne Tournier
Hi, Pamela, Marie, Hilary et al ý

I donýt like to spread unsubstantiated rumour, but the confluence of events did raise a question in my mind of what the agenda actually is or was. I assume that there is zero expense to the Society for the Forum ý I know that it costs nothing to set up a discussion group on Yahoogroups. I donýt think there could or should be any civil liability incurred ý and if there were, potentially, that could surely be dealt with by way of disclaimers and waivers. Can this Forum be used as an authoritative source? Probably not, but the discussions, as I said, are usually on a pretty high level, and when people are discussing More and Commynes and Mancini, for example, well, we can always go back to those sources. At least itýs a good place to get ideas about what was going on, given, as Marie has mentioned, that the sources are so patchy that one has to engage in a bit of speculation about the events.

So ý itýs informal, itýs informative, itýs generally friendly, and there are a lot of knowledgeable people who participate. I think it only enhances the Society and gives people like me, who arenýt experts in the field, a source to become more knowledgeable.

It is the belief that the Society is losing nothing by allowing the Forum to continue as it was, together with the fact that we have gotten no convincing reason that I can see for the decision, that results in my drawing a connection where there may not be one, and even tho I recognize that there might not be a direct cause and effect relationship. If there is not, then what was the cause and effect that resulted in the decision?

Iým no expert on blogs, but I donýt think they are substitutes for the authoritative sources like the Ricardian (and perhaps on occasion the Bulletin as well), that can be cited in other scholarly research.

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
Email ý jltournier60@...


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@... []<mailto:>
Sent: May 4, 2017 1:17 PM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: RE: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)



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 wel
l 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, 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










Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes

2017-05-04 18:55:18
justcarol67



Eileen wrote:

"And how will we be able to get on here once that link is removed?"

Carol responds:

Just bookmark ("favorite") the main page or Conversations page of this website.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo

2017-05-04 19:09:18
justcarol67

Hilary wrote:


"I'm surprised Morton is always quoted as More's source. There were at least two others who could have spun him a tale."

Carol responds:

Aside from the contacts you mentioned (with whom I'm not familiar), More had certainly read Rous (with an ironic reaction to the suggestion that fetus Richard spent two years in his mother's womb), the chronicles of London, Bernard Andre, and, most important, Vergil. He also, of course, had access to ballads, rumors, and his own fertile imagination. It's important that he says of the so-called murder of the "princes" that this version is only the version he prefers ("it were hard if it were not true," whatever exactly that means) and that he has heard many other versions, including that one or both "princes" escaped.

Does anyone know if Hanham or anyone else examined his sources? The "information," such as it is, need not have come from Morton at all--but, of course, anything that came from him would be tainted by bias.

Carol

Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

2017-05-04 20:04:54
Paul Trevor Bale
Hope we aren't going back into horoscope land!Paul

Sent from my iPad
On 4 May 2017, at 16:39, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

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.





Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 20:25:12
justcarol67

Johanne wrote:


"1. Has there ever been any reason given for the final decision to cut the ties of the Society with the Forum? I didnýt see anything anywhere, except for Eileenýs comment that the decision had been made. And the only reason given that I recall was the initial one that the usage of the Forum had gone down. Which we know wasnýt entirely accurate."

Carol responds:

All that the Society did (as far as I can determine) is remove the link to our forum (and the description of it) from their main page and replace it with a link to (and description of) their blog. You can still Google "Richard III Society Forum" and get here that way if you don't have the site bookmarked. The only problem I can see is that prospective new members won't know about us because the Society has severed the link and, in essence, disowned us despite this forum still carrying their name in its title.

Carol


Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

2017-05-04 20:44:28
justcarol67
Karen O wrote :

"And what is EV?"

Carol responds:

Hi, Karen. We have our own shorthand on this forum for names we use frequently. I don't think you'll have any trouble figuring out RIII, but here are some others you may encounter:

EIV: Edward IV
EV: Edward V
EW: Elizabeth Woodville
EoY: Elizabeth of York
HT: Henry Tudor
MB: Margaret Beaufort
TR: Titulus Regius

I'm sure there are others that escape me at the moment. Maybe others can add to the list.

Carol




Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 21:11:18



---In , <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote :

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 wel
l 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, 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



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.
Eva




Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 21:27:19
mariewalsh2003

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.


Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 21:28:11
Pamela Bain
I love our site because of the passion, the wide range of information, and that there is room for the brilliant minds who research and study, and one like mine, uninformed but interested. I know that Blogs are "hot", but again not the only answer, just as Twitter also is not. Is this email Forum a threat, hard to manage, costly, filled with accusations and scurrilous slander - NO? If the site name is not trade marked, or otherwise legally encumbered, can we not continue? I have become so fond of so many, most whom I will never meet. But how nice to be connected.
On May 4, 2017, at 3:11 PM, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:




---In , <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote :

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 wel
l 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, 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



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.
Eva




Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes

2017-05-04 21:37:01
b.eileen25
Carol Said..'just bookmark'
Have done so...thank you.

Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 21:52:17



---In , <[email protected]> wrote :

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

Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 21:54:52
b.eileen25
When I hear the word 'committee' my heart sinks. In my little village alone a committee has brought the local shop to its knees after being run successfully for many years. The committee that runs the sheltered accommodation has nearly caused a riot and much unhappiness with the residents. It seems to me that for some when they join a committee it tends to go to their heads and they get carried away with the whole thing and make bad decisions. Of course this is over simplifying and I may be barking up the wrong tree.
I have long loved the society and being a member..look at the good works they have done, the wonderful books they have published. Look at how much work must have gone into the two volumes of the Logge Wills and the Harleian Manuscript books..not to mention the wonderful articles in the Bulletin. Having said that though I am so dismayed by this decision to ditch the Forum, it seems so mean, I have been thinking about packing in my membership after it must be neigh on 15 years. That is how strongly I feel about it.
I thought a committee should bear in mind the opinions of the many non-committee members and try to carry out their wishes and keep them happy. Does it cost the Society anything to allow this forum to remain under their umbrella? I dont know all the facts, obviously but as it stands now and after the curt messages left on the forum, I really do think this is a really bad decision by the Society.Thats my two pennorth anyway..

Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-04 22:08:12
Hilary Jones
I agree with you Eileen. I once compared them to an allotment association and now I don't regret it. There is an arrogance creeping in which says they own Richard. No-one owns Richard and we on this forum have some of the most diverse backgrounds and knowledge which enable us to suggest and look at theories knowing that they will be subject the utmost scrutiny - but treated with respect. Oh that so many authors had been subject to that!
BTW Marie no blame is attached to you - you're in a difficult position. I hope we can move forward and long may we flourish!!! H


From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 21:54
Subject: Re: RE: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)

When I hear the word 'committee' my heart sinks. In my little village alone a committee has brought the local shop to its knees after being run successfully for many years. The committee that runs the sheltered accommodation has nearly caused a riot and much unhappiness with the residents. It seems to me that for some when they join a committee it tends to go to their heads and they get carried away with the whole thing and make bad decisions. Of course this is over simplifying and I may be barking up the wrong tree.
I have long loved the society and being a member..look at the good works they have done, the wonderful books they have published. Look at how much work must have gone into the two volumes of the Logge Wills and the Harleian Manuscript books..not to mention the wonderful articles in the Bulletin. Having said that though I am so dismayed by this decision to ditch the Forum, it seems so mean, I have been thinking about packing in my membership after it must be neigh on 15 years. That is how strongly I feel about it.
I thought a committee should bear in mind the opinions of the many non-committee members and try to carry out their wishes and keep them happy. Does it cost the Society anything to allow this forum to remain under their umbrella? I dont know all the facts, obviously but as it stands now and after the curt messages left on the forum, I really do think this is a really bad decision by the Society.Thats my two pennorth anyway..

Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

2017-05-04 22:22:02
Durose David
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.

Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-05 07:03:13
Pamela Furmidge
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.
Pamela again:
Sorry Marie, if my comment sounded as if I thought you knew and was holding back - it was meant to be a rhetorical question! I wonder if the people who made this decision and then decided that the reasons should be a 'secret' have read any of the comments from members of this forum. They really should!
Pamela










Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo

2017-05-05 10:43:16
Nicholas Brown
Doug here: I, too, have serious doubts about Erasmus being Edward V as the dates don't match up. I agree that it's not unlikely the Bishop of Cambrai would have known about Richard of Shrewsbury having been sent to Flanders, but whether the Bishop would have passed on such knowledge to Erasmus gives me doubts. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Erasmus was ordained in 1492 and sometime thereafter entered the Bishop's household before then proceeding to Paris for study in 1495. That leaves a maximum of three years, and most likely much less, for him to have gained such favor with the Bishop for the latter to then speak with Erasmus about the Bishop's involvement in a major European political event. While certainly not impossible, I have my doubts.

I agree that while it would seem unusual for someone as senior as the Bishop of Cambrai to share confidential information with an underling, it is surprising how much information does get leaked, especially since some people love the power trip that goes with showing off their inside knowledge. Alternatively, since the job involved close contact with the Bishop from 1492-1495 - the years when Warbeck was at his zenith - Erasmus could have been responsible for correspondence concerning him or seen documentation that disproved the story that the Princes died in the Tower.

While I am not ready to endorse the theory that Edward V and Erasmus were the same person, details of Erasmus' early life are scarce, conflicting and difficult to ascertain. I will come back to the theories later.
Nico




On Thursday, 4 May 2017, 19:09, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:



Hilary wrote:


"I'm surprised Morton is always quoted as More's source. There were at least two others who could have spun him a tale."

Carol responds:

Aside from the contacts you mentioned (with whom I'm not familiar), More had certainly read Rous (with an ironic reaction to the suggestion that fetus Richard spent two years in his mother's womb), the chronicles of London, Bernard Andre, and, most important, Vergil. He also, of course, had access to ballads, rumors, and his own fertile imagination. It's important that he says of the so-called murder of the "princes" that this version is only the version he prefers ("it were hard if it were not true," whatever exactly that means) and that he has heard many other versions, including that one or both "princes" escaped.

Does anyone know if Hanham or anyone else examined his sources? The "information," such as it is, need not have come from Morton at all--but, of course, anything that came from him would be tainted by bias.

Carol



Re: {Disarmed} RE: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III

2017-05-05 16:32:27
Doug Stamate

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


--
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] Re: Angelo

2017-05-05 16:40:09
Hilary Jones
I'm lost here but that's probably because I've missed a post when trying to catch up. I though Leslau had Edward Guildford as Edward V and John Clement as Richard of Shrewsbury? Sorry for being so thick. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 5 May 2017, 10:43
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

Doug here: I, too, have serious doubts about Erasmus being Edward V as the dates don't match up. I agree that it's not unlikely the Bishop of Cambrai would have known about Richard of Shrewsbury having been sent to Flanders, but whether the Bishop would have passed on such knowledge to Erasmus gives me doubts. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Erasmus was ordained in 1492 and sometime thereafter entered the Bishop's household before then proceeding to Paris for study in 1495. That leaves a maximum of three years, and most likely much less, for him to have gained such favor with the Bishop for the latter to then speak with Erasmus about the Bishop's involvement in a major European political event. While certainly not impossible, I have my doubts.

I agree that while it would seem unusual for someone as senior as the Bishop of Cambrai to share confidential information with an underling, it is surprising how much information does get leaked, especially since some people love the power trip that goes with showing off their inside knowledge. Alternatively, since the job involved close contact with the Bishop from 1492-1495 - the years when Warbeck was at his zenith - Erasmus could have been responsible for correspondence concerning him or seen documentation that disproved the story that the Princes died in the Tower.

While I am not ready to endorse the theory that Edward V and Erasmus were the same person, details of Erasmus' early life are scarce, conflicting and difficult to ascertain. I will come back to the theories later.
Nico




On Thursday, 4 May 2017, 19:09, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:



Hilary wrote:


"I'm surprised Morton is always quoted as More's source. There were at least two others who could have spun him a tale."

Carol responds:

Aside from the contacts you mentioned (with whom I'm not familiar), More had certainly read Rous (with an ironic reaction to the suggestion that fetus Richard spent two years in his mother's womb), the chronicles of London, Bernard Andre, and, most important, Vergil. He also, of course, had access to ballads, rumors, and his own fertile imagination. It's important that he says of the so-called murder of the "princes" that this version is only the version he prefers ("it were hard if it were not true," whatever exactly that means) and that he has heard many other versions, including that one or both "princes" escaped.

Does anyone know if Hanham or anyone else examined his sources? The "information," such as it is, need not have come from Morton at all--but, of course, anything that came from him would be tainted by bias.

Carol





Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

2017-05-05 16:48:07
Hilary Jones
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.


Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-05 22:12:26
Hilary Jones
Marie, I don't for a moment attach any blame to you or any one individual, but in another post you say that the blogs have to convey 'right' information. What we've discovered on here is that there is no 'right' information. For example we explored the contemporary evidence that Edward of Middleham died in April 1484. There isn't a single piece of contemporary evidence which said that he did. And that's just an example.
So how on earth can a set of individuals decide what is right and what is wrong? The beauty of true research is that it's open and the results might not please us all. I fear that the discovery of Richard's burial place may have gone to some peoples' heads but there is an awful lot of work still left to do to restore his reputation. If the Society creates barriers to others wanting to participate in the discussion then they may well have shot themselves in the foot. In fact I fear they have forgotten the values of the man they claim to defend, who would have valued loyalty above all other things. Sad, but unforgivable. H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 21:27
Subject: Re: RE: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)

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.


Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-06 00:25:39
mariewalsh2003

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.










Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-06 11:15:14
Paul Trevor Bale
What constantly dismays me is that the Society should be about Richard First and foremost at all times, and Society second. This often gets forgotten. Richard even comes first in the name The Richard The Third Society.Everything that keeps Richard's name in the consciousness of the general public, and every discussion about Richard, can only help in restoring his name and reputation.Paul


Sent from my iPad
On 6 May 2017, at 01:25, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

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.










Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-06 11:23:52
ricard1an
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.
Mary

Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-06 12:26:51
Paul Trevor Bale
Communes was at the side of Louis XI most of his later years so would have met Richard and his brothers, and witnessed Richard's distaste at the bribes bring offered to Edward and his generals/nobles to go home without fighting a battle or claiming rights in France. So attacking Richard was natural for him. Also when Louis died his very young son became king, and his sister the regent wanted to protect the power and rights she used through him, so attacking Richard and calling him usurper worked nicely for her. Understanding of English law clearly not needed as far as she was concerned.Paul
Sent from my iPad
On 6 May 2017, at 12:23, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

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.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo

2017-05-06 12:45:04
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
That is what Leslau said, but the theory that Edward V's alter ego was Erasmus is from a little known self published book from a few years ago (To Know a Lion by His Claw, Sarah Badders). Actually, I found a reference to it online and it was the subject of my first post on the forum a few years ago. Nobody was familiar with it and we all ended up agreeing that it seemed a bit far out, and since the book was quite expensive on Amazon, I was put off buying something that must have sunk without trace because it probably wasn't very good. However, Marylynn Salmon has picked up the idea and put it in her book 'Secrets of the House of York.' (A book that sounds like interesting nonsense - there is some discussion of it in a couple of the recent bulletins.)
I did find a copy of the original book at a reasonable price a few weeks ago. As I suspected, it has many flaws which may explain why it never caught on, but the author has done some good research on Erasmus. I have just finished it, so I will post her main theories later, which really are interesting. Erasmus was secretive about his early life, and the details (given by him in a book written in later life) are conflicting and controversial. While I can't say I wholeheartedly believe this theory, I don't find it unconvincing either, but even if EV and Erasmus were not the same person, the book does raise questions about Thomas More's information.
Nico

On Friday, 5 May 2017, 16:41, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:


I'm lost here but that's probably because I've missed a post when trying to catch up. I though Leslau had Edward Guildford as Edward V and John Clement as Richard of Shrewsbury? Sorry for being so thick. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 5 May 2017, 10:43
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

Doug here: I, too, have serious doubts about Erasmus being Edward V as the dates don't match up. I agree that it's not unlikely the Bishop of Cambrai would have known about Richard of Shrewsbury having been sent to Flanders, but whether the Bishop would have passed on such knowledge to Erasmus gives me doubts. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Erasmus was ordained in 1492 and sometime thereafter entered the Bishop's household before then proceeding to Paris for study in 1495. That leaves a maximum of three years, and most likely much less, for him to have gained such favor with the Bishop for the latter to then speak with Erasmus about the Bishop's involvement in a major European political event. While certainly not impossible, I have my doubts.

I agree that while it would seem unusual for someone as senior as the Bishop of Cambrai to share confidential information with an underling, it is surprising how much information does get leaked, especially since some people love the power trip that goes with showing off their inside knowledge. Alternatively, since the job involved close contact with the Bishop from 1492-1495 - the years when Warbeck was at his zenith - Erasmus could have been responsible for correspondence concerning him or seen documentation that disproved the story that the Princes died in the Tower.

While I am not ready to endorse the theory that Edward V and Erasmus were the same person, details of Erasmus' early life are scarce, conflicting and difficult to ascertain. I will come back to the theories later.
Nico




On Thursday, 4 May 2017, 19:09, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:



Hilary wrote:


"I'm surprised Morton is always quoted as More's source. There were at least two others who could have spun him a tale."

Carol responds:

Aside from the contacts you mentioned (with whom I'm not familiar), More had certainly read Rous (with an ironic reaction to the suggestion that fetus Richard spent two years in his mother's womb), the chronicles of London, Bernard Andre, and, most important, Vergil. He also, of course, had access to ballads, rumors, and his own fertile imagination. It's important that he says of the so-called murder of the "princes" that this version is only the version he prefers ("it were hard if it were not true," whatever exactly that means) and that he has heard many other versions, including that one or both "princes" escaped.

Does anyone know if Hanham or anyone else examined his sources? The "information," such as it is, need not have come from Morton at all--but, of course, anything that came from him would be tainted by bias.

Carol







Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-06 13:54:30
mariewalsh2003
Hi Paul:What constantly dismays me is that the Society should be about Richard First and foremost at all times, and Society second. This often gets forgotten. Richard even comes first in the name The Richard The Third Society.Everything that keeps Richard's name in the consciousness of the general public, and every discussion about Richard, can only help in restoring his name and reputation.
Marie:If you're alluding to the forum, I totally agree. But if you're alluding to the fact that the website blog isn't an open forum, then I wouldn't agree. In the past the Society had a problem with historical claims being placed on the website without proper checks, and the resulting errors of fact were picked up and made hay with by detractors.

Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-06 14:07:34
Hilary Jones
Thanks for this Marie. I agree with it. I wouldn't dream of putting my 'speculations' in a blog :) Just a small point as you may have missed the discussion on EOM. Yes Croyland does say this, but Croyland was written after HT took the throne and is hardly unbiased. So far we couldn't find one piece of contemporary evidence - not in the YHB which cover Easter, the Plumpton letters, the Leet Books. And later Rous too was written in the time of HT. We did think it strange - he was, after all, POW, the news would have been everywhere. H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 6 May 2017, 0:25
Subject: Re: RE: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)

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.










Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Angelo

2017-05-06 14:08:45
Hilary Jones
Thanks so much! No, I hadn't heard of that one. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 6 May 2017, 12:45
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

Hi Hilary,
That is what Leslau said, but the theory that Edward V's alter ego was Erasmus is from a little known self published book from a few years ago (To Know a Lion by His Claw, Sarah Badders). Actually, I found a reference to it online and it was the subject of my first post on the forum a few years ago. Nobody was familiar with it and we all ended up agreeing that it seemed a bit far out, and since the book was quite expensive on Amazon, I was put off buying something that must have sunk without trace because it probably wasn't very good. However, Marylynn Salmon has picked up the idea and put it in her book 'Secrets of the House of York.' (A book that sounds like interesting nonsense - there is some discussion of it in a couple of the recent bulletins.)
I did find a copy of the original book at a reasonable price a few weeks ago. As I suspected, it has many flaws which may explain why it never caught on, but the author has done some good research on Erasmus. I have just finished it, so I will post her main theories later, which really are interesting. Erasmus was secretive about his early life, and the details (given by him in a book written in later life) are conflicting and controversial. While I can't say I wholeheartedly believe this theory, I don't find it unconvincing either, but even if EV and Erasmus were not the same person, the book does raise questions about Thomas More's information.
Nico

On Friday, 5 May 2017, 16:41, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:


I'm lost here but that's probably because I've missed a post when trying to catch up. I though Leslau had Edward Guildford as Edward V and John Clement as Richard of Shrewsbury? Sorry for being so thick. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 5 May 2017, 10:43
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini

Doug here: I, too, have serious doubts about Erasmus being Edward V as the dates don't match up. I agree that it's not unlikely the Bishop of Cambrai would have known about Richard of Shrewsbury having been sent to Flanders, but whether the Bishop would have passed on such knowledge to Erasmus gives me doubts. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Erasmus was ordained in 1492 and sometime thereafter entered the Bishop's household before then proceeding to Paris for study in 1495. That leaves a maximum of three years, and most likely much less, for him to have gained such favor with the Bishop for the latter to then speak with Erasmus about the Bishop's involvement in a major European political event. While certainly not impossible, I have my doubts.

I agree that while it would seem unusual for someone as senior as the Bishop of Cambrai to share confidential information with an underling, it is surprising how much information does get leaked, especially since some people love the power trip that goes with showing off their inside knowledge. Alternatively, since the job involved close contact with the Bishop from 1492-1495 - the years when Warbeck was at his zenith - Erasmus could have been responsible for correspondence concerning him or seen documentation that disproved the story that the Princes died in the Tower.

While I am not ready to endorse the theory that Edward V and Erasmus were the same person, details of Erasmus' early life are scarce, conflicting and difficult to ascertain. I will come back to the theories later.
Nico




On Thursday, 4 May 2017, 19:09, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:



Hilary wrote:


"I'm surprised Morton is always quoted as More's source. There were at least two others who could have spun him a tale."

Carol responds:

Aside from the contacts you mentioned (with whom I'm not familiar), More had certainly read Rous (with an ironic reaction to the suggestion that fetus Richard spent two years in his mother's womb), the chronicles of London, Bernard Andre, and, most important, Vergil. He also, of course, had access to ballads, rumors, and his own fertile imagination. It's important that he says of the so-called murder of the "princes" that this version is only the version he prefers ("it were hard if it were not true," whatever exactly that means) and that he has heard many other versions, including that one or both "princes" escaped.

Does anyone know if Hanham or anyone else examined his sources? The "information," such as it is, need not have come from Morton at all--but, of course, anything that came from him would be tainted by bias.

Carol









Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-06 14:50:58
Hilary Jones
A bit of good news. Thomas Penn's book 'The Brothers York - an English Tragedy' is out in September. I have high hopes; he's a good historian and he's taken a long time to write it, which I quite understand. H

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 6 May 2017, 14:07
Subject: Re: RE: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)

Thanks for this Marie. I agree with it. I wouldn't dream of putting my 'speculations' in a blog :) Just a small point as you may have missed the discussion on EOM. Yes Croyland does say this, but Croyland was written after HT took the throne and is hardly unbiased. So far we couldn't find one piece of contemporary evidence - not in the YHB which cover Easter, the Plumpton letters, the Leet Books. And later Rous too was written in the time of HT. We did think it strange - he was, after all, POW, the news would have been everywhere. H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 6 May 2017, 0:25
Subject: Re: RE: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)

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.












Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-06 17:32:47
b.eileen25
Another one for my list Hilary. I looking forward to the Laynesmith 'Cicely Neville' book.

Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-06 21:41:50
Gilda Elise
On Amazon, it's not out until 2018.
Gilda

On May 6, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:


A bit of good news. Thomas Penn's book 'The Brothers York - an English Tragedy' is out in September. I have high hopes; he's a good historian and he's taken a long time to write it, which I quite understand. H

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 6 May 2017, 14:07
Subject: Re: RE: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)

Thanks for this Marie. I agree with it. I wouldn't dream of putting my 'speculations' in a blog :) Just a small point as you may have missed the discussion on EOM. Yes Croyland does say this, but Croyland was written after HT took the throne and is hardly unbiased. So far we couldn't find one piece of contemporary evidence - not in the YHB which cover Easter, the Plumpton letters, the Leet Books. And later Rous too was written in the time of HT. We did think it strange - he was, after all, POW, the news would have been everywhere. H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 6 May 2017, 0:25
Subject: Re: RE: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, and Mancini)

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.















Re: Couple questions (was RE: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum]

2017-05-06 21:51:55
b.eileen25
Gilda..what the Laynesmith book?

Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, Mancini and the Templars

2017-05-08 15:28:51
Durose David
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
On Fri, 5 May 2017 at 16:48, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

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.


Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, Mancini and the Templars

2017-05-10 09:48:20
Hilary Jones
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.




Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, Mancini and the Templars

2017-05-10 12:23:16
Durose David
Thanks Hilary,The castle that is the main holding of the Tournemine family. Château de la Hunaudaye  Wikipédia Château de la Hunaudaye  Wikipédia


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'



Incidentally, I think the Woodvilles would have been influential in promoting the Breton marriage alliance agreed in 1480/1 given their family links to the Duchy.


Kind regardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 10 May 2017 at 9:48, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

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.




Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, Mancini and the Templars

2017-05-10 14:06:16
Paul Trevor Bale
Very interesting post about the Templars and Brittany connection.The latest thinking about Richard's fate is that Tudor had a group of French pikemen with him who fought in a way foreign then to England, a style rather like the Spartan phalanx. No horsemen could get through it, hence Richard being unhorsed, his mount killed beneath him.Would be interesting to know exactly who these men were.There was also a unit, apart from the guard around Tudor, who caused havoc on Norfolk's right wing, possibly enough to bring about the decision to hold after Tudor.Thank you David. Love food for thought and more clues to follow!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 10 mai 2017 à 10:48, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

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.




Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, Mancini and the Templars

2017-05-10 14:58:30
b.eileen25
I tbought they were Swiss pikemen...read that somewhere eons ago.,

Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, Mancini and the Templars

2017-05-10 18:38:57
daviddurose2000
Eileen and Paul, The pikemen were a specialist group that would have come from the region of Switzerland - as an aside, the English name for this country means the land of the mercenary pikemen. As a Switzer was such a soldier.
The commander Philibert de Chandée was from Savoy, so it makes sense that the core of his men would be Swiss or Savoyards trained in the Swiss tactics.
Chandée has no links to Brittany at all so HT can not have met him before October 1484. He went on to serve as Chancellor to two kings of France.
Kind regards David

On 10 May 2017 2:58 p.m., "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:

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



Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, Mancini and the Templars

2017-05-10 18:41:41
b.eileen25
Thank you David. I think I may have read it in Paul Murrey Kendall's book. It was many years ago but stuck in my head.

Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, Mancini and the Templars

2017-05-11 16:11:54
Paul Trevor Bale
Thanks David. A Savoyard eh?What is the source for this? Would like to follow up a bit on it.Paul
Richard Liveth Yet


On 10 May 2017, at 19:38, daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

Eileen and Paul, The pikemen were a specialist group that would have come from the region of Switzerland - as an aside, the English name for this country means the land of the mercenary pikemen. As a Switzer was such a soldier.
The commander Philibert de Chandée was from Savoy, so it makes sense that the core of his men would be Swiss or Savoyards trained in the Swiss tactics.
Chandée has no links to Brittany at all so HT can not have met him before October 1484. He went on to serve as Chancellor to two kings of France.
Kind regards David

On 10 May 2017 2:58 p.m., "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:

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





Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, Mancini and the Templars

2017-05-11 22:28:15
Durose David
PaulMainly from the history of Bresse and Bugey - hope the link works
The first item should place you at the beginning of the family history of the de Chandées.
Phillibert appears near the end.

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q="De+chandée"
RegardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 11 May 2017 at 16:11, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []<> wrote:

Thanks David. A Savoyard eh?

What is the source for this? Would like to follow up a bit on it.Paul
Richard Liveth Yet


On 10 May 2017, at 19:38, daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

Eileen and Paul, The pikemen were a specialist group that would have come from the region of Switzerland - as an aside, the English name for this country means the land of the mercenary pikemen. As a Switzer was such a soldier.
The commander Philibert de Chandée was from Savoy, so it makes sense that the core of his men would be Swiss or Savoyards trained in the Swiss tactics.
Chandée has no links to Brittany at all so HT can not have met him before October 1484. He went on to serve as Chancellor to two kings of France.
Kind regards David

On 10 May 2017 2:58 p.m., "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:

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





Re: Angelo Cato, Commynes, Mancini and the Templars

2017-05-12 09:40:40
Bale Paul Trevor
Thanks David.Paul
On 11 May 2017, at 23:28, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

Paul

Mainly from the history of Bresse and Bugey - hope the link works
The first item should place you at the beginning of the family history of the de Chandées.
Phillibert appears near the end.

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q="De+chandée"
RegardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Thanks David. A Savoyard eh?

What is the source for this? Would like to follow up a bit on it.Paul
Richard Liveth Yet


On 10 May 2017, at 19:38, daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

Eileen and Paul, The pikemen were a specialist group that would have come from the region of Switzerland - as an aside, the English name for this country means the land of the mercenary pikemen. As a Switzer was such a soldier.
The commander Philibert de Chandée was from Savoy, so it makes sense that the core of his men would be Swiss or Savoyards trained in the Swiss tactics.
Chandée has no links to Brittany at all so HT can not have met him before October 1484. He went on to serve as Chancellor to two kings of France.
Kind regards David

On 10 May 2017 2:58 p.m., "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:

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







Richard III
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.