Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-02 19:27:56
romanenemo

Hello !


I'm new here, and I've very glad I've found that group. I've started to browse among the topics, and I'm impressed by the huge amount of scholarly knowledge here ! I'm sure I'll find answers to the many questions I have !

Like many others, my interest in Richard began when I read J. Tey's 'Daughter of time'. From then, I've read a lot of books about him, novels and scholarly works alike. For a start, I chose mostly 'ricardian' authors, but now I'm reading David Horspool's rather neutral, and very interesting biography : 'Richard III, a ruler and his reputation'. I enjoyed it because he always quotes his sources and discuss their reliability. Too many historians seem to take the Crowland chronicle and Mancini at face value. Horspool has also a rather lucid point of view about the fact that in the controversy concerning Richard's guilt in his nephews' (probable) death, most scholars consider very likely that Richard did it, whereas 'gifted amateurs' (as Horspool calls them) are convinced that he didn't. For him, it's because historians are used to deal with the gaps in their sources and to rely on probabilities to reconstruct the facts, whereas the 'amateurs' want clear answers. But probabilities are not facts.

Most of the time, Horspool is well aware of that. Yet on the subject of Buckingham, his account disappointed me by being as shortsighted as any of the one-sided point of views he had previously denounced. He quotes two sources involving Buckingham in the death of the children. I knew already about the first one, found in the College of Heralds annals : "this yer King Edward the Vth, lae callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the IIII sonys, wer put to deyth in the vise of the duke of Buckingham". But I didn't know about the second one, which is also contemporary of the facts, as it is "probably written in 1485" according to Horspool himself. And that text, found in a genealogy, says that the children were "snatched from the light of the world with the advice of the Duke of Buckingham".

But once he has quoted these two texts, Horspool simply dismiss them, saying that they just reflect what 'some citizen thought had happened to the boys'. Yet, these are the only two strictly contemporary sources making a (rather) clear statement about what happened to the princes. Mancini (as dubious a witness as he is, being on the payroll of a french bishop) says he doesn't know what happened. So wouldn't it be worth asking why these two different, yet strictly contemporary texts make the same statement ? Why involving precisely Buckingham, if he had nothing to do with the prince's disappearance ?

Do you know if, apart from the novelists any scholar (or 'gifted amateur' with strong historical knowledge) ever tried to find some answers ?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-02 21:54:48
A J Hibbard
Why exactly should we trust Horspool's assessment about those sources you mention? To really know whether or not to trust a given source, I'm afraid it's not good enough to take some "professional" historian's word for it. You need to know what is the actual evidence regarding the dating, the qualifications of the person writing (was he, or rarely she, in a position to know what s/he's reporting) and why was a document written.

A J

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:58 AM, romanenemo@... [] <> wrote:
 

Hello !


I'm new here, and I've very glad I've found that group. I've started to browse among the topics, and I'm impressed by the huge amount of scholarly knowledge here ! I'm sure I'll find answers to the many questions I have ! 

Like many others, my interest in Richard began when I read J. Tey's 'Daughter of time'. From then, I've read a lot of books about him, novels and scholarly works alike. For a start, I chose mostly 'ricardian' authors, but now I'm reading David Horspool's rather neutral, and very interesting biography : 'Richard III, a ruler and his reputation'. I enjoyed it because he always quotes his sources and discuss their reliability. Too many historians seem to take the Crowland chronicle and Mancini at face value. Horspool has also a rather lucid point of view about the fact that in the controversy concerning Richard's guilt in his nephews' (probable) death, most scholars consider very likely that Richard did it, whereas 'gifted amateurs' (as Horspool calls them) are convinced that he didn't. For him, it's because historians are used to deal with the gaps in their sources and to rely on probabilities to reconstruct the facts, whereas the 'amateurs' want clear answers. But probabilities are not facts. 

Most of the time, Horspool is well aware of that. Yet on the subject of Buckingham, his account disappointed me by being as shortsighted as any of the one-sided point of views he had previously denounced. He quotes two sources involving Buckingham in the death of the children. I knew already about the first one, found in the College of Heralds annals : "this yer King Edward the Vth, lae callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the IIII sonys, wer put to deyth in the vise of the duke of Buckingham". But I didn't know about the second one, which is also contemporary of the facts, as it is "probably written in 1485" according to Horspool himself. And that text, found in a genealogy, says that the children were "snatched from the light of the world with the advice of the Duke of Buckingham".

But once he has quoted these two texts, Horspool simply dismiss them, saying that they just reflect what 'some citizen thought had happened to the boys'. Yet, these are the only two strictly contemporary sources making a (rather) clear statement about what happened to the princes. Mancini (as dubious a witness as he is, being on the payroll of a french bishop) says he doesn't know what happened. So wouldn't it be worth asking why these two different, yet strictly contemporary texts make the same statement ? Why involving precisely Buckingham, if he had nothing to do with the prince's disappearance ?

Do you know if, apart from the novelists any scholar (or 'gifted amateur' with strong historical knowledge) ever tried to find some answers ?


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-03 03:45:54
Karen O
Well there is a Princes in the Tower research project going on right now. No results I've seen. Google it

On Jun 2, 2017 2:27 PM, "romanenemo@... []" <> wrote:
 

Hello !


I'm new here, and I've very glad I've found that group. I've started to browse among the topics, and I'm impressed by the huge amount of scholarly knowledge here ! I'm sure I'll find answers to the many questions I have ! 

Like many others, my interest in Richard began when I read J. Tey's 'Daughter of time'. From then, I've read a lot of books about him, novels and scholarly works alike. For a start, I chose mostly 'ricardian' authors, but now I'm reading David Horspool's rather neutral, and very interesting biography : 'Richard III, a ruler and his reputation'. I enjoyed it because he always quotes his sources and discuss their reliability. Too many historians seem to take the Crowland chronicle and Mancini at face value. Horspool has also a rather lucid point of view about the fact that in the controversy concerning Richard's guilt in his nephews' (probable) death, most scholars consider very likely that Richard did it, whereas 'gifted amateurs' (as Horspool calls them) are convinced that he didn't. For him, it's because historians are used to deal with the gaps in their sources and to rely on probabilities to reconstruct the facts, whereas the 'amateurs' want clear answers. But probabilities are not facts. 

Most of the time, Horspool is well aware of that. Yet on the subject of Buckingham, his account disappointed me by being as shortsighted as any of the one-sided point of views he had previously denounced. He quotes two sources involving Buckingham in the death of the children. I knew already about the first one, found in the College of Heralds annals : "this yer King Edward the Vth, lae callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the IIII sonys, wer put to deyth in the vise of the duke of Buckingham". But I didn't know about the second one, which is also contemporary of the facts, as it is "probably written in 1485" according to Horspool himself. And that text, found in a genealogy, says that the children were "snatched from the light of the world with the advice of the Duke of Buckingham".

But once he has quoted these two texts, Horspool simply dismiss them, saying that they just reflect what 'some citizen thought had happened to the boys'. Yet, these are the only two strictly contemporary sources making a (rather) clear statement about what happened to the princes. Mancini (as dubious a witness as he is, being on the payroll of a french bishop) says he doesn't know what happened. So wouldn't it be worth asking why these two different, yet strictly contemporary texts make the same statement ? Why involving precisely Buckingham, if he had nothing to do with the prince's disappearance ?

Do you know if, apart from the novelists any scholar (or 'gifted amateur' with strong historical knowledge) ever tried to find some answers ?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-03 12:17:38
romanenemo
I hope Philippa Langley will succeed in her researches. And why not,considering how much had been achieved untill now : the finding of the TItulus Regius, the body of Richard himself...On the net I've found the text of the genealogy Horspool told about. It's a genealogy of the kings of England, ending with Richard III. The latin is easy to translate. The author is convinced that the princes are dead, and that Richard put them to death with the advice of Buckingham. It leads tu suppose that in the other contemporary document, the journal from some London citizen found in the College of arms manuscript, 'vice' means 'advice' and not 'device' after all. I thought these documents could help Richard's case (if the word used in the latin text could have meant 'device', if Richard wasn't accused directly) but obviously they can't. Of course, one can imagine that there was a rumor of Buckingham having committed the crime, and that the people could not believe, as it's still the case now, that he had done it without Richard's orders. And there is also the possibility that the rumor was false altogether (from some of my recent reading, it seems that it's not completely ridiculous to believe that Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York ?). So in fact, Horspool was both objective and cautious. I only regret he didn't quote the latin text and I had to search for it. In every book I read, there is some partial point of view, a partial use of the sources. Horspool is, so far, the most thorough that have found, but still not enough for my curiosity about the question.I suppose that Richard's excellent previous record and the fact that the murder of the princes was not among the charges of Henri VII's indictment of him are still the best proofs against his culpability (back to Josephine Tey, then).By the way, how do the historians convinced that 'Richard did it' answer to that objection: the absence of the accusation of having murdered his nephew in Henry VII's first charges against his predecessor ? Do you know if they have any convincing explanation for that ?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-03 13:41:42
Karen O
Firstly, we have no evidence they died in the Tower. Secondly, those famous bones have never been DNA tested or carbon dated. Buried ten feet down? It would take a week digging a grave that deep, and nobody noticed and told Henry Tudor?   The reason Richard continues to be accused is that it is the last charge against him that hasn't been disproved. Richard has to be the bad guy, in my opinion, because the Royal family is descended from Elizabeth of York. If she is illegitimate, then the whole line is now illegitimate on both sides. 


On Jun 3, 2017 7:21 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

I hope Philippa Langley will succeed in her researches. And why not,considering how much had been achieved untill now : the finding of the TItulus Regius, the body of Richard himself...On the net I've found the text of the genealogy  Horspool told about. It's a genealogy of the kings of England, ending with Richard III. The latin is easy to translate. The author is convinced that the princes are dead, and that Richard put them to death with the advice of Buckingham. It leads tu suppose that in the other contemporary document, the journal from some London citizen found in the College of arms manuscript, 'vice' means 'advice' and not 'device' after all. I thought these documents could help Richard's case (if the word used in the latin text could have meant 'device', if Richard wasn't accused directly) but obviously they can't. Of course, one can imagine that there was a rumor of Buckingham having committed the crime, and that the people could not believe, as it's still the case now, that he had done it without Richard's orders. And there is also the possibility that the rumor was false altogether (from some of my recent reading, it seems that it's not completely ridiculous to believe that Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York ?). So in fact, Horspool was both objective and cautious. I only regret he didn't quote the latin text and I had to search for it. In every book I read, there is some partial point of view, a partial use of the sources. Horspool is, so far, the most thorough that have found, but still not enough for my curiosity about the question.I suppose that Richard's excellent previous record and the fact that the murder of the princes was not among the charges of Henri VII's indictment of him are still the best proofs against his culpability (back to Josephine Tey, then).By the way, how do the historians convinced that 'Richard did it' answer to that objection: the absence of the accusation of having murdered his nephew in Henry VII's first charges against his predecessor ? Do you know if they have any convincing explanation for that ?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-03 13:47:27
Hilary Jones
I do think there are two other things to be taken into account. If you want someone dead for political reasons you make sure everyone knows they are dead. You want people to see them dead so that no ghosts can ever be conjured up. This happened in the case of Edward II (though even that is now disputed), Richard II, Henry VI and even Richard himself. No point in having them dead and not confirm it - it just fuels rumour and unrest. That's without the fact that they'd actually been declared illegitimate and had no claim anyway.
But secondly, the argument that convinces me (and the jury in the 1980s 'trial') is that there was an heir who was alive and being cared for very well by Richard and that was Warwick. Yes, he was at that point attainted, but if Richard wanted to get rid of all rivals he would have had to have got rid of Warwick too. Why go to the trouble of removing too illegitimate claimants when one legitimate one was still alive? It takes little to lift an attainder and all would agree that in no way could Warwick have been culpable for his father's crimes. H

From: romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 3 June 2017, 12:17
Subject: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

I hope Philippa Langley will succeed in her researches. And why not,considering how much had been achieved untill now : the finding of the TItulus Regius, the body of Richard himself...On the net I've found the text of the genealogy Horspool told about. It's a genealogy of the kings of England, ending with Richard III. The latin is easy to translate. The author is convinced that the princes are dead, and that Richard put them to death with the advice of Buckingham. It leads tu suppose that in the other contemporary document, the journal from some London citizen found in the College of arms manuscript, 'vice' means 'advice' and not 'device' after all. I thought these documents could help Richard's case (if the word used in the latin text could have meant 'device', if Richard wasn't accused directly) but obviously they can't. Of course, one can imagine that there was a rumor of Buckingham having committed the crime, and that the people could not believe, as it's still the case now, that he had done it without Richard's orders. And there is also the possibility that the rumor was false altogether (from some of my recent reading, it seems that it's not completely ridiculous to believe that Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York ?). So in fact, Horspool was both objective and cautious. I only regret he didn't quote the latin text and I had to search for it. In every book I read, there is some partial point of view, a partial use of the sources. Horspool is, so far, the most thorough that have found, but still not enough for my curiosity about the question.I suppose that Richard's excellent previous record and the fact that the murder of the princes was not among the charges of Henri VII's indictment of him are still the best proofs against his culpability (back to Josephine Tey, then).By the way, how do the historians convinced that 'Richard did it' answer to that objection: the absence of the accusation of having murdered his nephew in Henry VII's first charges against his predecessor ? Do you know if they have any convincing explanation for that ?



Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-03 14:09:50
Hilary Jones
Actually Karen that's not really right. Henry took the throne by conquest so legitimacy doesn't come into it. In fact the most famous Conqueror of all was a bastard. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 3 June 2017, 13:41
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Firstly, we have no evidence they died in the Tower. Secondly, those famous bones have never been DNA tested or carbon dated. Buried ten feet down? It would take a week digging a grave that deep, and nobody noticed and told Henry Tudor? The reason Richard continues to be accused is that it is the last charge against him that hasn't been disproved. Richard has to be the bad guy, in my opinion, because the Royal family is descended from Elizabeth of York. If she is illegitimate, then the whole line is now illegitimate on both sides.


On Jun 3, 2017 7:21 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I hope Philippa Langley will succeed in her researches. And why not,considering how much had been achieved untill now : the finding of the TItulus Regius, the body of Richard himself...On the net I've found the text of the genealogy Horspool told about. It's a genealogy of the kings of England, ending with Richard III. The latin is easy to translate. The author is convinced that the princes are dead, and that Richard put them to death with the advice of Buckingham. It leads tu suppose that in the other contemporary document, the journal from some London citizen found in the College of arms manuscript, 'vice' means 'advice' and not 'device' after all. I thought these documents could help Richard's case (if the word used in the latin text could have meant 'device', if Richard wasn't accused directly) but obviously they can't. Of course, one can imagine that there was a rumor of Buckingham having committed the crime, and that the people could not believe, as it's still the case now, that he had done it without Richard's orders. And there is also the possibility that the rumor was false altogether (from some of my recent reading, it seems that it's not completely ridiculous to believe that Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York ?). So in fact, Horspool was both objective and cautious. I only regret he didn't quote the latin text and I had to search for it. In every book I read, there is some partial point of view, a partial use of the sources. Horspool is, so far, the most thorough that have found, but still not enough for my curiosity about the question.I suppose that Richard's excellent previous record and the fact that the murder of the princes was not among the charges of Henri VII's indictment of him are still the best proofs against his culpability (back to Josephine Tey, then).By the way, how do the historians convinced that 'Richard did it' answer to that objection: the absence of the accusation of having murdered his nephew in Henry VII's first charges against his predecessor ? Do you know if they have any convincing explanation for that ?



Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-03 14:20:39
Stephen

Barnfield’s post is among the “Files” here, but is linked to in this article:

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/richard-and-incest/

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 03 June 2017 13:42
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Firstly, we have no evidence they died in the Tower. Secondly, those famous bones have never been DNA tested or carbon dated. Buried ten feet down? It would take a week digging a grave that deep, and nobody noticed and told Henry Tudor?

The reason Richard continues to be accused is that it is the last charge against him that hasn't been disproved. Richard has to be the bad guy, in my opinion, because the Royal family is descended from Elizabeth of York. If she is illegitimate, then the whole line is now illegitimate on both sides.

On Jun 3, 2017 7:21 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I hope Philippa Langley will succeed in her researches. And why not,considering how much had been achieved untill now : the finding of the TItulus Regius, the body of Richard himself...

On the net I've found the text of the genealogy Horspool told about. It's a genealogy of the kings of England , ending with Richard III. The latin is easy to translate. The author is convinced that the princes are dead, and that Richard put them to death with the advice of Buckingham. It leads tu suppose that in the other contemporary document, the journal from some London citizen found in the College of arms manuscript, 'vice' means 'advice' and not 'device' after all. I thought these documents could help Richard's case (if the word used in the latin text could have meant 'device', if Richard wasn't accused directly) but obviously they can't. Of course, one can imagine that there was a rumor of Buckingham having committed the crime, and that the people could not believe, as it's still the case now, that he had done it without Richard's orders. And there is also the possibility that the rumor was false altogether (from some of my recent reading, it seems that it's not completely ridiculous to believe that Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York ?). So in fact, Horspool was both objective and cautious. I only regret he didn't quote the latin text and I had to search for it. In every book I read, there is some partial point of view, a partial use of the sources. Horspool is, so far, the most thorough that have found, but still not enough for my curiosity about the question.

I suppose that Richard's excellent previous record and the fact that the murder of the princes was not among the charges of Henri VII's indictment of him are still the best proofs against his culpability (back to Josephine Tey, then).

By the way, how do the historians convinced that 'Richard did it' answer to that objection: the absence of the accusation of having murdered his nephew in Henry VII's first charges against his predecessor ? Do you know if they have any convincing explanation for that ?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-03 16:14:41
Karen O
That is why I have after much reading concluded that Richard sent them to his sister Margaret.
On Jun 3, 2017 8:47 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

I  do think there are two other things to be taken into account. If you want someone dead for political reasons you make sure everyone knows they are dead. You want people to see them dead so that no ghosts can ever be conjured up. This happened in the case of Edward II (though even that is now disputed), Richard II, Henry VI and even Richard himself. No point in having them dead and not confirm it - it just fuels rumour and unrest. That's without the fact that they'd actually been declared illegitimate and had no claim anyway.
But secondly, the argument that convinces me (and the jury in the 1980s 'trial') is that there was an heir who was alive and being cared for very well by Richard and that was Warwick. Yes, he was at that point attainted, but if Richard wanted to get rid of all rivals he would have had to have got rid of Warwick too. Why go to the trouble of removing too illegitimate claimants when one legitimate one was still alive? It takes little to lift an attainder and all would agree that in no way could Warwick have been culpable for his father's crimes. H

From: romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 3 June 2017, 12:17
Subject: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

  I hope Philippa Langley will succeed in her researches. And why not,considering how much had been achieved untill now : the finding of the TItulus Regius, the body of Richard himself...On the net I've found the text of the genealogy  Horspool told about. It's a genealogy of the kings of England, ending with Richard III. The latin is easy to translate. The author is convinced that the princes are dead, and that Richard put them to death with the advice of Buckingham. It leads tu suppose that in the other contemporary document, the journal from some London citizen found in the College of arms manuscript, 'vice' means 'advice' and not 'device' after all. I thought these documents could help Richard's case (if the word used in the latin text could have meant 'device', if Richard wasn't accused directly) but obviously they can't. Of course, one can imagine that there was a rumor of Buckingham having committed the crime, and that the people could not believe, as it's still the case now, that he had done it without Richard's orders. And there is also the possibility that the rumor was false altogether (from some of my recent reading, it seems that it's not completely ridiculous to believe that Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York ?). So in fact, Horspool was both objective and cautious. I only regret he didn't quote the latin text and I had to search for it. In every book I read, there is some partial point of view, a partial use of the sources. Horspool is, so far, the most thorough that have found, but still not enough for my curiosity about the question.I suppose that Richard's excellent previous record and the fact that the murder of the princes was not among the charges of Henri VII's indictment of him are still the best proofs against his culpability (back to Josephine Tey, then).By the way, how do the historians convinced that 'Richard did it' answer to that objection: the absence of the accusation of having murdered his nephew in Henry VII's first charges against his predecessor ? Do you know if they have any convincing explanation for that ?



Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-03 16:48:51
Paul Trevor Bale
"Gifted amateur" Dan Jones, though I think gifted may be giving him more credit than deserved, is getting a repeat of his castles series that includes more of his nonsense about the Tower of London!
Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 3 juin 2017 à 11:04, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> a écrit :

I hope Philippa Langley will succeed in her researches. And why not,considering how much had been achieved untill now : the finding of the TItulus Regius, the body of Richard himself...On the net I've found the text of the genealogy Horspool told about. It's a genealogy of the kings of England, ending with Richard III. The latin is easy to translate. The author is convinced that the princes are dead, and that Richard put them to death with the advice of Buckingham. It leads tu suppose that in the other contemporary document, the journal from some London citizen found in the College of arms manuscript, 'vice' means 'advice' and not 'device' after all. I thought these documents could help Richard's case (if the word used in the latin text could have meant 'device', if Richard wasn't accused directly) but obviously they can't. Of course, one can imagine that there was a rumor of Buckingham having committed the crime, and that the people could not believe, as it's still the case now, that he had done it without Richard's orders. And there is also the possibility that the rumor was false altogether (from some of my recent reading, it seems that it's not completely ridiculous to believe that Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York ?). So in fact, Horspool was both objective and cautious. I only regret he didn't quote the latin text and I had to search for it. In every book I read, there is some partial point of view, a partial use of the sources. Horspool is, so far, the most thorough that have found, but still not enough for my curiosity about the question.I suppose that Richard's excellent previous record and the fact that the murder of the princes was not among the charges of Henri VII's indictment of him are still the best proofs against his culpability (back to Josephine Tey, then).By the way, how do the historians convinced that 'Richard did it' answer to that objection: the absence of the accusation of having murdered his nephew in Henry VII's first charges against his predecessor ? Do you know if they have any convincing explanation for that ?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-03 16:53:47
Paul Trevor Bale
What upsets me about Horspool is that he gives a well researched and sympathetic view of Richard up the 1483. Then he seems to throw all his research, along with his brain, away and just delivers the Tudor myth for the rest of Richard's life! Bizarre.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juin 2017 à 22:54, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> a écrit :

Why exactly should we trust Horspool's assessment about those sources you mention? To really know whether or not to trust a given source, I'm afraid it's not good enough to take some "professional" historian's word for it. You need to know what is the actual evidence regarding the dating, the qualifications of the person writing (was he, or rarely she, in a position to know what s/he's reporting) and why was a document written.

A J

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:58 AM, romanenemo@... [] <> wrote:

Hello !


I'm new here, and I've very glad I've found that group. I've started to browse among the topics, and I'm impressed by the huge amount of scholarly knowledge here ! I'm sure I'll find answers to the many questions I have !

Like many others, my interest in Richard began when I read J. Tey's 'Daughter of time'. From then, I've read a lot of books about him, novels and scholarly works alike. For a start, I chose mostly 'ricardian' authors, but now I'm reading David Horspool's rather neutral, and very interesting biography : 'Richard III, a ruler and his reputation'. I enjoyed it because he always quotes his sources and discuss their reliability. Too many historians seem to take the Crowland chronicle and Mancini at face value. Horspool has also a rather lucid point of view about the fact that in the controversy concerning Richard's guilt in his nephews' (probable) death, most scholars consider very likely that Richard did it, whereas 'gifted amateurs' (as Horspool calls them) are convinced that he didn't. For him, it's because historians are used to deal with the gaps in their sources and to rely on probabilities to reconstruct the facts, whereas the 'amateurs' want clear answers. But probabilities are not facts.

Most of the time, Horspool is well aware of that. Yet on the subject of Buckingham, his account disappointed me by being as shortsighted as any of the one-sided point of views he had previously denounced. He quotes two sources involving Buckingham in the death of the children. I knew already about the first one, found in the College of Heralds annals : "this yer King Edward the Vth, lae callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the IIII sonys, wer put to deyth in the vise of the duke of Buckingham". But I didn't know about the second one, which is also contemporary of the facts, as it is "probably written in 1485" according to Horspool himself. And that text, found in a genealogy, says that the children were "snatched from the light of the world with the advice of the Duke of Buckingham".

But once he has quoted these two texts, Horspool simply dismiss them, saying that they just reflect what 'some citizen thought had happened to the boys'. Yet, these are the only two strictly contemporary sources making a (rather) clear statement about what happened to the princes. Mancini (as dubious a witness as he is, being on the payroll of a french bishop) says he doesn't know what happened. So wouldn't it be worth asking why these two different, yet strictly contemporary texts make the same statement ? Why involving precisely Buckingham, if he had nothing to do with the prince's disappearance ?

Do you know if, apart from the novelists any scholar (or 'gifted amateur' with strong historical knowledge) ever tried to find some answers ?


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-03 18:11:43
romanenemo
There are indeed some clues about this. Espacially if Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York. Why would Margaret have supported an impostor's claim, even to get revenge against Henry VII ? The fact that he was under the protection of Sir Edward Brampton is also in favor of the theory.But to explain how he had survived and suddenly reappeared, Perkin Warbeck apparently said (I read it on wikipedia) that his older brother had been killed, and that he had been spared by the (unknown) murderers 'because of his innocence', in exchange of the promise of not revealing his identity for several years. Isn't such a story rather unlikely ? Why would anyone take the risk (at least for his immortal soul) to kill the heir of the throne only to spare the other one ? And if Perkin Warbck was an impostor, why didn't Margaret ever produce the real princes to support their claim, if they were hidden in Burgundy ?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-03 18:31:28
ricard1an
I have always thought that it would have been extremely odd for Margaret to support an impostor. Also that John, Earl of Lincoln was supporting Lambert Simnel as heir to the throne when he had a much better claim himself. Though it was thought that Simnel was meant to be Warwick. All very odd.
The fact that Perkin was connected to Edward Brampton is also odd if he really was just a boatman's son. Why would Brampton want to put an impostor on the throne? Hopefully Philippa's research project will find some answers.
Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-03 20:26:21
Karen O
  That's another spin doctored story. Why would they let one boy see the other killed?
On Jun 3, 2017 1:11 PM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

There are indeed some clues about this. Espacially if Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York. Why would Margaret have supported an impostor's claim, even to get revenge against Henry VII ? The fact that he was under the protection of Sir Edward Brampton is also in favor of the theory.But to explain how he had survived and suddenly reappeared, Perkin Warbeck apparently said (I read it on wikipedia) that his older brother had been killed, and that he had been spared by the (unknown) murderers 'because of his innocence', in exchange of the promise of not revealing his identity for several years. Isn't such a story rather unlikely ? Why would anyone take the risk (at least for his immortal soul) to kill the heir of the throne only to spare the other one ? And if Perkin Warbck was an impostor, why didn't Margaret ever produce the real princes to support their claim, if they were hidden in Burgundy ? 

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 04:14:22
romanenemo
I don't know the source of that story Warbeck is supposed to have told about his escape. Wikipedia doesn' t say it. Maybe indeed it is not reliable. I did not read enough about that episode of Perkin Warbeck. What are the sources ?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 04:14:31
romanenemo
Yes, there was young Warwick. And John de la Pole as well. It's Henry Tudor, not Richard, who did the job of thoroughly getting rid of all the ones who had a better claim to the throne than himself. The destruction of almost all the copies of the Titulus Regius is also very suspicious.
I've watched the TV trial, but I was a bit disappointed. The historians on the prosecution side quoted Mancini and the C.C. as if it was gospel, without pointing out that the C.C was written under Henry VII, and that Mancini wrote for a former minister of Louis XI, under a government that helped Henry Tudor to seize the throne. It was indeed constructed like a real trial, not a scholarly debate looking for the truth.And the defense disappointed me as well. I didn't watch it until the end, but instead of analysing Richard's later portraits and pointing out the devices used to make Richard look deformed, I expected them to raise first the major question : why didn't Henry VII officially accuse Richard of the crime, among the other charges he piled up against his predecessor ? If the children had died under his care, it would have been so easy. What answer could the historians bring on that matter ? Did they ever bother to do it ?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 04:14:35
romanenemo
I did what I could on that matter, that is I googled 'College of arms manuscripts', and I foudn that website http://www.aim25.com/cats/153/19836.htmIt is the list of all the manuscritpts, among which there is this : ff 55-59 - list of the lord mayors of London, 1402-1512, with a brief note of events for each of those years, a set of annals written by London citizens, particularly full for the years 1482-1487, and containing a suggestion that the Princes in the Tower 'wer put to deyth ... be the vise of the duke of Buckingham', in a contemporary hand.So it's apparently all what is known about the origin of the text, but the datation seems confirmed. The other source, the genealogy, comes from a collection of manuscripts, the Elias Ashmole collection. In it, Herny VII is still called the Earl of Richmond, which would conform the date, if the manuscript is not a fake. And apparently no one ave said it was.But I asked if some of you know anything about these texts, and if any scholar pondered a bit more about them, because obviously Horspool didn't.Yet I find interesting that the Duke of Buckingham would be named twice as the responsible of the death of the princes. I suppose it's what triggered so many versions of the boy's disappearance involving Buckingham, like for example in the 'Sunne of Splendour'. I'd like to find some essay or book making a strong case in favor or against Buckingham's culpability.Some say that even if he was Constable of England, he couldn't have make the children disappear without Richard's order. Some others say he did't have any reason for wanting the children dead, as it's not possible he'd consider taking the crown for himself. But they don't present many arguments to support either of these statements.


---In , <ajhibbard@...> wrote :

Why exactly should we trust Horspool's assessment about those sources you mention? To really know whether or not to trust a given source, I'm afraid it's not good enough to take some "professional" historian's word for it. You need to know what is the actual evidence regarding the dating, the qualifications of the person writing (was he, or rarely she, in a position to know what s/he's reporting) and why was a document written.

A J

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:58 AM, romanenemo@... [] <> wrote:

Hello !


I'm new here, and I've very glad I've found that group. I've started to browse among the topics, and I'm impressed by the huge amount of scholarly knowledge here ! I'm sure I'll find answers to the many questions I have !

Like many others, my interest in Richard began when I read J. Tey's 'Daughter of time'. From then, I've read a lot of books about him, novels and scholarly works alike. For a start, I chose mostly 'ricardian' authors, but now I'm reading David Horspool's rather neutral, and very interesting biography : 'Richard III, a ruler and his reputation'. I enjoyed it because he always quotes his sources and discuss their reliability. Too many historians seem to take the Crowland chronicle and Mancini at face value. Horspool has also a rather lucid point of view about the fact that in the controversy concerning Richard's guilt in his nephews' (probable) death, most scholars consider very likely that Richard did it, whereas 'gifted amateurs' (as Horspool calls them) are convinced that he didn't. For him, it's because historians are used to deal with the gaps in their sources and to rely on probabilities to reconstruct the facts, whereas the 'amateurs' want clear answers. But probabilities are not facts.

Most of the time, Horspool is well aware of that. Yet on the subject of Buckingham, his account disappointed me by being as shortsighted as any of the one-sided point of views he had previously denounced. He quotes two sources involving Buckingham in the death of the children. I knew already about the first one, found in the College of Heralds annals : "this yer King Edward the Vth, lae callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the IIII sonys, wer put to deyth in the vise of the duke of Buckingham". But I didn't know about the second one, which is also contemporary of the facts, as it is "probably written in 1485" according to Horspool himself. And that text, found in a genealogy, says that the children were "snatched from the light of the world with the advice of the Duke of Buckingham".

But once he has quoted these two texts, Horspool simply dismiss them, saying that they just reflect what 'some citizen thought had happened to the boys'. Yet, these are the only two strictly contemporary sources making a (rather) clear statement about what happened to the princes. Mancini (as dubious a witness as he is, being on the payroll of a french bishop) says he doesn't know what happened. So wouldn't it be worth asking why these two different, yet strictly contemporary texts make the same statement ? Why involving precisely Buckingham, if he had nothing to do with the prince's disappearance ?

Do you know if, apart from the novelists any scholar (or 'gifted amateur' with strong historical knowledge) ever tried to find some answers ?


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 04:21:05
romanenemo
Yes. I chose that book because some readers critics said that it was objective. And I enjoyed reading a well documented academic work that was in agreement with the image offre Richard I had from my ricardians reading. But the end is indeed disappointing, Horspool doesn't really face the issues and draws too hasty and shematic conclusions. But of course it is the mots difficult part.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 04:25:05
A J Hibbard
The story told by "Warbeck" is in a letter.

In a letter dated from Andermund, 8 ka. Sept. 1493, Richard/Perkin wrote to Queen Isabella of Spain. The letter has been quoted occasionally online, but tracking it down to the original is something of a challenge. It is now in the British Museum's collection, acquired in 1843 as part of the Egerton MSS [List of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum in the years MDCCCXXXVIMDCCCXL. By order of the Trustees, London, MDCCCXLIII]. There is a photo of it in Ian Arthurson's The Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy & one available at this link - https://www.granger.com/popuppreview.asp?image=0524395

Both images are too small to read, although it does look as if the letter was written in Latin.

Ann Wroe, in her The Perfect Prince, discusses the contents and highlights certain of the Latin words used, but doesn't seem to have provided the full text, either in Latin or in English translation.

What is available online is a translation offered by Sir Frederic Madden in his Documents relating to Perkin Warbeck, with Remarks on his History, published in 1837. Madden began by noting that the letter was written by a secretary, in very indifferent Latin and signed Richard with the epithet of Plantagenet, second son of the late King Edward.' He further regretted the loss of the seal, since it would have been interesting to know what arms were assumed by Perkin at this stage of his career. *

Madden's rendering of Perkin's letter into English includes this account (which, by the way, is repeated verbatim, and uncredited, by Arthurson; pp 82-83 in my paperback edition of his work]

Whereas the Prince of Wales, eldest son of Edward formerly King of England, of pious memory, my dearest lord and father, was miserably put to death, and I myself, then nearly nine years of age, was also delivered to a certain lord to be killed, it pleased the Divine Clemency, that that lord, having compassion on my innocence, preserved me alive and in safety; first, however, causing me to swear on the holy sacrament, that to no one should I disclose my name, origin, or family, until a certain number of years had passed. He sent me therefore abroad, with two persons, who should watch over and take charge of me; and thus, I, an orphan, bereaved of my royal father and brother, an exile from my kingdom, and deprived of country, inheritance and fortune, a fugitive in the midst of extreme perils, led my miserable life, in fear, and weeping, and grief, and for the space of nearly eight years lay hid in divers provinces. At length, one of those who had charge of me being dead, and the other returned to his country, and never afterwards seen, scarcely had I emerged from childhood, alone and without means, I remained for a time in the kingdom of Portugal, and thence sailed to Ireland, where being recognised by the illustrious lords, the Earls of Desmond and Kildare, my cousins, as also by other noblemen of the island, I was received with great joy and honour.

Originally, I had supposed there might be some merit in speculating about who the players in this story were supposed to have been, and when exactly it might have taken place. On second thought, I wonder how accurate the translation is, as it seems to have a very Victorian flavor to it, especially in comparison to documents already quoted from King Richard's lifetime. It also seems anachronistic that a son of Edward IV would speak of scarcely having emerged from childhood at the age of 18, when his father had become king at the age of 18, his brother Edward V at age 15 was expected to be able to rule independently soon after being crowned, and his uncles, George (certainly) and Richard (almost certainly) assumed their majority at the age of 16.


A J


On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:48 PM, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

I did what I could on that matter, that is I googled 'College of arms manuscripts', and I foudn that website http://www.aim25.com/cats/153/ 19836.htm

It is the list of all the manuscritpts, among which there is this : ff 55-59 - list of the lord mayors of London, 1402-1512, with a brief note of events for each of those years, a set of annals written by London citizens, particularly full for the years 1482-1487, and containing a suggestion that the Princes in the Tower 'wer put to deyth ... be the vise of the duke of Buckingham', in a contemporary hand.So it's apparently all what is known about the origin of the text, but the datation seems confirmed. The other source, the genealogy, comes from a collection of manuscripts, the Elias Ashmole collection. In it, Herny VII is still called the Earl of Richmond, which would conform the date, if the manuscript is not a fake. And apparently no one ave said it was.But I asked if some of you know anything about these texts, and if any scholar pondered a bit more about them, because obviously Horspool didn't.Yet I find interesting that the Duke of Buckingham would be named twice as the responsible of the death of the princes. I suppose it's what triggered so many versions of the boy's disappearance involving Buckingham, like for example in the 'Sunne of Splendour'. I'd like to find some essay or book making a strong case in favor or against Buckingham's culpability.Some say that even if he was Constable of England, he couldn't have make the children disappear without Richard's order. Some others say he did't have any reason for wanting the children dead, as it's not possible he'd consider taking the crown for himself. But they don't present many arguments to support either of these statements.


---In @ yahoogroups.com, <ajhibbard@...> wrote :

Why exactly should we trust Horspool's assessment about those sources you mention? To really know whether or not to trust a given source, I'm afraid it's not good enough to take some "professional" historian's word for it. You need to know what is the actual evidence regarding the dating, the qualifications of the person writing (was he, or rarely she, in a position to know what s/he's reporting) and why was a document written.

A J

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:58 AM, romanenemo@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Hello !


I'm new here, and I've very glad I've found that group. I've started to browse among the topics, and I'm impressed by the huge amount of scholarly knowledge here ! I'm sure I'll find answers to the many questions I have ! 

Like many others, my interest in Richard began when I read J. Tey's 'Daughter of time'. From then, I've read a lot of books about him, novels and scholarly works alike. For a start, I chose mostly 'ricardian' authors, but now I'm reading David Horspool's rather neutral, and very interesting biography : 'Richard III, a ruler and his reputation'. I enjoyed it because he always quotes his sources and discuss their reliability. Too many historians seem to take the Crowland chronicle and Mancini at face value. Horspool has also a rather lucid point of view about the fact that in the controversy concerning Richard's guilt in his nephews' (probable) death, most scholars consider very likely that Richard did it, whereas 'gifted amateurs' (as Horspool calls them) are convinced that he didn't. For him, it's because historians are used to deal with the gaps in their sources and to rely on probabilities to reconstruct the facts, whereas the 'amateurs' want clear answers. But probabilities are not facts. 

Most of the time, Horspool is well aware of that. Yet on the subject of Buckingham, his account disappointed me by being as shortsighted as any of the one-sided point of views he had previously denounced. He quotes two sources involving Buckingham in the death of the children. I knew already about the first one, found in the College of Heralds annals : "this yer King Edward the Vth, lae callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the IIII sonys, wer put to deyth in the vise of the duke of Buckingham". But I didn't know about the second one, which is also contemporary of the facts, as it is "probably written in 1485" according to Horspool himself. And that text, found in a genealogy, says that the children were "snatched from the light of the world with the advice of the Duke of Buckingham".

But once he has quoted these two texts, Horspool simply dismiss them, saying that they just reflect what 'some citizen thought had happened to the boys'. Yet, these are the only two strictly contemporary sources making a (rather) clear statement about what happened to the princes. Mancini (as dubious a witness as he is, being on the payroll of a french bishop) says he doesn't know what happened. So wouldn't it be worth asking why these two different, yet strictly contemporary texts make the same statement ? Why involving precisely Buckingham, if he had nothing to do with the prince's disappearance ?

Do you know if, apart from the novelists any scholar (or 'gifted amateur' with strong historical knowledge) ever tried to find some answers ?



Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 04:34:55
A J Hibbard
The manuscript you mention as one of Horspool's references was published in 1981 - Below are some of my notes about it. So what exists appears to have been written or copied well after the time events occurred, and seems at best to represent what was current gossip in London. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to suppose the hypothetical "London merchant" was privy to authoritative information. 

Green, Richard Firth, Historical Notes of a London Citizen, 1483-1488, EHR, 96, (1981)Described as MS 2M6 in the College of Arms an early 16th century heraldic miscellany in a variety of hands of 126 ff.  fos 55r-60r = a set of annals for 1402-1513, most years recording only the names of the mayors (the mayoral year starting 29 October). Author discusses dating & provenance, suggesting a range of 1512/13-1522 for when they were copied; then proposes that they probably originate in "the commonplace book of a London merchant."Author further points out that they provide evidence of"traditional" date for Hastings' executionarrests & execution of more than Rivers, Grey, Vaughan & Sir Richard Hawte, including [not clear] hanging of 4 of the king's servantshearsay that the princes were dead by 28 Oct 1483 (last day of the mayoral year) "be the vise" of the duke of BuckinghamTranscription of the relevant portion of the annals --
College of Arms MS 2M6 [capitalization & punctuation are "editorial"] fo. 57r 1482 Edmond SchawThis yer King Edward decesyd the viij day of Apprell. Item: King Edwardthe vth schuld haue ben crownyd the iiij day of May, and the dwke of Gloseter and his lordes at Northampton seid he schuld be crowyndeannother tyme with more honour at London; hit was condescendid that he5      schuld be crownyd the xxij day of Iune and a parlaments schuld be holdenat [W]estminster3 the iijde day after. And in the mene tyme ther was dyuers[i]magenyd4 the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and theLord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiijday of Iune Anno 1483. And the archebeschope of Yorke, the bischop of10     Ele, and Oleuer King the secoudate, with other moo, was arestyd the sameday and put in preson in the Towur, and the coronacon deferryd tell the ix day of November, and the parlament of a new warnyng, and the duke ofGloseter made protector. And in the same moneyth the Quenes brother,Antony Wodfeild Lord Reuers, and the Lord Rychard, Quene Elizabeth15     son5 be her first husbond, wer put to deyth, with many moo. And on SentIonys Day Baptisse next foloing, the duke of Glocester in his howsoldetoke vppon hym to be king, and on the iij day after went to Westminsterwith al the lordes and comenalte of London, and ther was proclaymydKyng Richard the iijde. And on Sonday the vj of Iuly next after, he was 20     crownyd and the Quene, bothe the same day. Item: this same yer Lewys theFrenche king desescyd. Item: this same yer the duke of Buckingham with many other knyghtes, squyeres, and gentilmen from Kent to Sent MighellysMownnte were rebelles ayeinst King Richard. And the bischop of Ely, thebischop of Exseter, and the bischop of Salesbery fled the land with many25     other ientilmen. Item: this yer King Edward the vth, late callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the iiij sonys, wer put to deyth in the Towur of London be the vise of the duke ofBuckingham._____   3 MS: Mestm'   4 MS: ?diuagenyd   5 MS: sonys
fo. 57r 1483 Robard BillisdonThis yer, on the Sonday ye ijde day of Nouember, the duke of Buckingham30     was beheddid at Salisbery, and [gap] Sir Selinger was behedyd at Exceter,and Ione Brone and William Cleyfford, squyeres, were behedyd at Towur Hyll, and Rychard Poynch, yoman of the crowne, was drawyn thorowLondon and hangyd with chaynys at Tybourne.
1484 Thomas Hyll.In this yer was William Colyngbourne behedyd; item: Sir Roger Clyfford 35     beheddyd at the Towur Hill, and ther heddes sett on London Brege. Thisyer the erle of Rychemonde and Iasper the erle of Penbroke and the erleOxford, with many other dyuers ientelles, cam out of France and landydin Milfourd Havyn (and the same erle of Rychmond calling hymselff KyngHenry the vij), and soo camm fourthe into Englond and mett with Kyng40     Rychard the iijde at Redesmore, and ther was Kyng Rychard slayne and theduke of Norfolke and the lord Ferres and Hakinbery, with many other.This batell was the xxij day of Auguste, Anno Domini Ml iiije iiijxx vth.Item: in this year the erl or Northomurland and the erle of Surrey wastakyn and browght into the Flete of London, and ther they were ix days,45     and then they wer led into the Towur of London, and ther they wer ij days,and after had to the castell of Quynborow in Kent. Item: in this yer, in themonyth of September Anno 1485, ther fell a gret deth sodenly within thespace of xxiiij oures; and this yer dyyd the mayer and his son and dyersaldermen, with many other commonys, and in this monyth was chosyn Sir 50    William Stocker for to be mayer and was sworne at the Towur of London,and he dyyd the iijde day after, and then on Sent Michelles Day in the samemoneth was chosyn Iohn Ward; and Thomas Bretyn scheriffe1 dyid in thesame moneyth. This was callyd the swetyng sekenes. And in this yer KingHenry was made king.
fo. 58r 1485 Hewe Bresse55     In this yer King Henry the vijth weddyd Kyng Edwardes eldest dawghter,whoys name ys Elizabeth, and they had a son the same yer callyd Arthwrre.
1486 Harry CollettIn this yer was a cheilde carryd into Yrland saying he was the dweke Clarence son and was nat. And he was browght into England with the erle of Lyncoll, the Lord Lovell, with many other, and Martyn Swarte with60     money strayngerres; and beseyd Newerke Kyng Henry the vijth mettthem, and ther was slayn th'erle of Lyncoll, Martyn Swarte, Ducheman,with money other, and the seid Lord Louell fled with money other ientil-men. And the duke of Clarence son and the other chield that was in Erleland were schewyd openly in London in Polles on Relicke Sonday, the viij day65     of Iuyll the ijde yer of King Henry the vijth.
1487 William BrowneThis yer Quene Elizabeth was crownyd on Sent Katherinys Day. Item: in this yer was a resistance made in the parlement tyme of men in the kinges howys, and therfor was iiij of the kinges seruantes hangyd at the Towur Hill. Item: in this yer was afrays maid at Polles Wharff betwext the duke of70     Bedforth seruantes and my lord Dawbenes men, and ther was viij drownyd_____   1 MS: scheriffes
and slayn. Item: this yer was gret werre in Flawnnderres betwext the king of Romans and Flawnnderes, and the emperour cam downe to helpe his son the king of Romans, and nat fenyssched this yer. Item: in theis yerCalles almouste1 betrayed be falsse treson, and the king sent gret ordenance75     to Callysse ward, and hit was takyn before Dover with Dochemen andcallid themselff Danys._____   1 MS: almoustes


what I find curious about this document as far as attempting to date it, is that there is no mention about the grounds on which Richard was offered the crown; does this indicate that it was recorded by someone who knew nothing of Dr Sha's sermon, or of Titulus Regius or are these just idiosyncratic remembrances? - odd the amount of detail about the Earls of Northumberland & Surrey compared to the dearth of detail about Richard.
A J
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 5:00 PM, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Yes. I chose that book because some readers critics said that it was objective. And I enjoyed reading a well documented academic work that was in agreement with the image offre Richard I had from my ricardians reading. But the end is indeed disappointing, Horspool doesn't really face the issues and draws too hasty and shematic conclusions. But of course it is the mots difficult part.


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 04:38:13
A J Hibbard
I'm not familiar with the genealogy you mention and have no plans to buys Horspool's book - do you have his exact citation?
A J
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 10:34 PM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
The manuscript you mention as one of Horspool's references was published in 1981 - Below are some of my notes about it. So what exists appears to have been written or copied well after the time events occurred, and seems at best to represent what was current gossip in London. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to suppose the hypothetical "London merchant" was privy to authoritative information. 

Green, Richard Firth, Historical Notes of a London Citizen, 1483-1488, EHR, 96, (1981)Described as MS 2M6 in the College of Arms an early 16th century heraldic miscellany in a variety of hands of 126 ff.  fos 55r-60r = a set of annals for 1402-1513, most years recording only the names of the mayors (the mayoral year starting 29 October). Author discusses dating & provenance, suggesting a range of 1512/13-1522 for when they were copied; then proposes that they probably originate in "the commonplace book of a London merchant."Author further points out that they provide evidence of"traditional" date for Hastings' executionarrests & execution of more than Rivers, Grey, Vaughan & Sir Richard Hawte, including [not clear] hanging of 4 of the king's servantshearsay that the princes were dead by 28 Oct 1483 (last day of the mayoral year) "be the vise" of the duke of BuckinghamTranscription of the relevant portion of the annals --
College of Arms MS 2M6 [capitalization & punctuation are "editorial"]fo. 57r 1482 Edmond SchawThis yer King Edward decesyd the viij day of Apprell. Item: King Edwardthe vth schuld haue ben crownyd the iiij day of May, and the dwke of Gloseter and his lordes at Northampton seid he schuld be crowyndeannother tyme with more honour at London; hit was condescendid that he5      schuld be crownyd the xxij day of Iune and a parlaments schuld be holdenat [W]estminster3 the iijde day after. And in the mene tyme ther was dyuers[i]magenyd4 the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and theLord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiijday of Iune Anno 1483. And the archebeschope of Yorke, the bischop of10     Ele, and Oleuer King the secoudate, with other moo, was arestyd the sameday and put in preson in the Towur, and the coronacon deferryd tell the ix day of November, and the parlament of a new warnyng, and the duke ofGloseter made protector. And in the same moneyth the Quenes brother,Antony Wodfeild Lord Reuers, and the Lord Rychard, Quene Elizabeth15     son5 be her first husbond, wer put to deyth, with many moo. And on SentIonys Day Baptisse next foloing, the duke of Glocester in his howsoldetoke vppon hym to be king, and on the iij day after went to Westminsterwith al the lordes and comenalte of London, and ther was proclaymydKyng Richard the iijde. And on Sonday the vj of Iuly next after, he was 20     crownyd and the Quene, bothe the same day. Item: this same yer Lewys theFrenche king desescyd. Item: this same yer the duke of Buckingham with many other knyghtes, squyeres, and gentilmen from Kent to Sent MighellysMownnte were rebelles ayeinst King Richard. And the bischop of Ely, thebischop of Exseter, and the bischop of Salesbery fled the land with many25     other ientilmen. Item: this yer King Edward the vth, late callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the iiij sonys, wer put to deyth in the Towur of London be the vise of the duke ofBuckingham._____   3 MS: Mestm'   4 MS: ?diuagenyd   5 MS: sonys
fo. 57r 1483 Robard BillisdonThis yer, on the Sonday ye ijde day of Nouember, the duke of Buckingham30     was beheddid at Salisbery, and [gap] Sir Selinger was behedyd at Exceter,and Ione Brone and William Cleyfford, squyeres, were behedyd at Towur Hyll, and Rychard Poynch, yoman of the crowne, was drawyn thorowLondon and hangyd with chaynys at Tybourne.
1484 Thomas Hyll.In this yer was William Colyngbourne behedyd; item: Sir Roger Clyfford 35     beheddyd at the Towur Hill, and ther heddes sett on London Brege. Thisyer the erle of Rychemonde and Iasper the erle of Penbroke and the erleOxford, with many other dyuers ientelles, cam out of France and landydin Milfourd Havyn (and the same erle of Rychmond calling hymselff KyngHenry the vij), and soo camm fourthe into Englond and mett with Kyng40     Rychard the iijde at Redesmore, and ther was Kyng Rychard slayne and theduke of Norfolke and the lord Ferres and Hakinbery, with many other.This batell was the xxij day of Auguste, Anno Domini Ml iiije iiijxx vth.Item: in this year the erl or Northomurland and the erle of Surrey wastakyn and browght into the Flete of London, and ther they were ix days,45     and then they wer led into the Towur of London, and ther they wer ij days,and after had to the castell of Quynborow in Kent. Item: in this yer, in themonyth of September Anno 1485, ther fell a gret deth sodenly within thespace of xxiiij oures; and this yer dyyd the mayer and his son and dyersaldermen, with many other commonys, and in this monyth was chosyn Sir 50    William Stocker for to be mayer and was sworne at the Towur of London,and he dyyd the iijde day after, and then on Sent Michelles Day in the samemoneth was chosyn Iohn Ward; and Thomas Bretyn scheriffe1 dyid in thesame moneyth. This was callyd the swetyng sekenes. And in this yer KingHenry was made king.
fo. 58r 1485 Hewe Bresse55     In this yer King Henry the vijth weddyd Kyng Edwardes eldest dawghter,whoys name ys Elizabeth, and they had a son the same yer callyd Arthwrre.
1486 Harry CollettIn this yer was a cheilde carryd into Yrland saying he was the dweke Clarence son and was nat. And he was browght into England with the erle of Lyncoll, the Lord Lovell, with many other, and Martyn Swarte with60     money strayngerres; and beseyd Newerke Kyng Henry the vijth mettthem, and ther was slayn th'erle of Lyncoll, Martyn Swarte, Ducheman,with money other, and the seid Lord Louell fled with money other ientil-men. And the duke of Clarence son and the other chield that was in Erleland were schewyd openly in London in Polles on Relicke Sonday, the viij day65     of Iuyll the ijde yer of King Henry the vijth.
1487 William BrowneThis yer Quene Elizabeth was crownyd on Sent Katherinys Day. Item: in this yer was a resistance made in the parlement tyme of men in the kinges howys, and therfor was iiij of the kinges seruantes hangyd at the Towur Hill. Item: in this yer was afrays maid at Polles Wharff betwext the duke of70     Bedforth seruantes and my lord Dawbenes men, and ther was viij drownyd_____   1 MS: scheriffes
and slayn. Item: this yer was gret werre in Flawnnderres betwext the king of Romans and Flawnnderes, and the emperour cam downe to helpe his son the king of Romans, and nat fenyssched this yer. Item: in theis yerCalles almouste1 betrayed be falsse treson, and the king sent gret ordenance75     to Callysse ward, and hit was takyn before Dover with Dochemen andcallid themselff Danys._____   1 MS: almoustes


what I find curious about this document as far as attempting to date it, is that there is no mention about the grounds on which Richard was offered the crown; does this indicate that it was recorded by someone who knew nothing of Dr Sha's sermon, or of Titulus Regius or are these just idiosyncratic remembrances? - odd the amount of detail about the Earls of Northumberland & Surrey compared to the dearth of detail about Richard.
A J
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 5:00 PM, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Yes. I chose that book because some readers critics said that it was objective. And I enjoyed reading a well documented academic work that was in agreement with the image offre Richard I had from my ricardians reading. But the end is indeed disappointing, Horspool doesn't really face the issues and draws too hasty and shematic conclusions. But of course it is the mots difficult part.



Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 09:44:29
Hilary Jones
Hi I think when you've read both Anne Wroe and Ian Arthurson on Perkin there's little to argue in his favour Both come at it from an entirely different angle - Wroe from 'our' angle and Arthurson from the world of international politics. Both conclude that he was an imposter. Wroe because of several things but particularly his physicial appearance - he was small; Arthurson because there is plenty of evidence about the 'real' Perkin, his siblings and his family. He concludes that he was a fantasist who actually came to believe he was who he claimed to be. The whole thing was a plot conjured up by the French (and Scottish) to distract the meddling Henry from intervening in French ambitions in the Netherlands. Both books are a good read if you haven't read them.
Two further things: Perkin's father was a 'boatman' in the terms that he was a shipping merchant, not a Thames boatman type. That was how Perkin came to dabble with the international upper classes (it was actually Brampton's wife he met) and learned to ape them. He'd even travelled to Portugal. As for Margaret, I think she, like we, wanted to believe. I see no way Maximilien would have allowed her to keep or flaunt them in Flanders, given the very difficult situation with the French.
I'm not without hope though. I agree with what you say about the Simnel issue and there are a lot of earlier suspects implicated in that such as EW and even Stillington. Personally, I would also look to Scotland. The Woodvilles were related to the Scottish Crown going way back. And think of all those people I was talking about who surrounded Richard and were loyal to him. They had links with the Hospitallers and again to the Scottish Crown. And then there's Richard of Eastwell - there are far too many connections between Moyle, him and key players. Baldwin was ignored once before :) H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 3 June 2017, 18:31
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

I have always thought that it would have been extremely odd for Margaret to support an impostor. Also that John, Earl of Lincoln was supporting Lambert Simnel as heir to the throne when he had a much better claim himself. Though it was thought that Simnel was meant to be Warwick. All very odd.
The fact that Perkin was connected to Edward Brampton is also odd if he really was just a boatman's son. Why would Brampton want to put an impostor on the throne? Hopefully Philippa's research project will find some answers.
Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 09:54:55
Hilary Jones
And they still quote Mancini and Croyland and More and Rous as though it's gospel!!! We have not got very far.
It was intended to be a trial with a verdict not a debate and was conducted as such within the Law. The judge was the ex Lord Chancellor. The defence barrister was the top criminal defence barrister in England but he had to present evidence not conjectures. So he could present evidence that the portraits were doctored, he could prevent evidence that Warwick was alive. And he did a marvellous job on Dr Starkey - it's worth watching just for that.
You see I doubt a scholarly debate would have produced a result - scholars never agree, it's bad for business This way we got a result which was in accordance with the Law. The Law that Richard had once helped to create. For me it was a real step forward H

From: romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 4 June 2017, 4:14
Subject: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Yes, there was young Warwick. And John de la Pole as well. It's Henry Tudor, not Richard, who did the job of thoroughly getting rid of all the ones who had a better claim to the throne than himself. The destruction of almost all the copies of the Titulus Regius is also very suspicious.
I've watched the TV trial, but I was a bit disappointed. The historians on the prosecution side quoted Mancini and the C.C. as if it was gospel, without pointing out that the C.C was written under Henry VII, and that Mancini wrote for a former minister of Louis XI, under a government that helped Henry Tudor to seize the throne. It was indeed constructed like a real trial, not a scholarly debate looking for the truth.And the defense disappointed me as well. I didn't watch it until the end, but instead of analysing Richard's later portraits and pointing out the devices used to make Richard look deformed, I expected them to raise first the major question : why didn't Henry VII officially accuse Richard of the crime, among the other charges he piled up against his predecessor ? If the children had died under his care, it would have been so easy. What answer could the historians bring on that matter ? Did they ever bother to do it ?


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 10:01:54
b.eileen25
Agree with you there HIlary..it was what it said on the can...a trial. Thought Jeremy Potter was marvellous.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 10:13:28
Hilary Jones
So did I. Wish he was around now. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 4 June 2017, 10:01
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Agree with you there HIlary..it was what it said on the can...a trial. Thought Jeremy Potter was marvellous.


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 10:21:12
ricard1an
Yes he was brilliant. He certainly demolished Starkey.
Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 11:00:04
b.eileen25
Oh yes...Starkey was spitting feathers...showed himself up in my opinion. Anne Sutton was so calm as was the defence barrister...Mr Dillon..although I don't think that was his actual name? But he was one of Britains leading QCs. Enjoyed it so much I also got the book.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 11:01:21
b.eileen25
The Society sustained a great loss with the death of Jeremy Potter.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 14:24:20
Hilary Jones
His surname was DuCann, the brother of the politician. As you know, they were not allowed to use their own names. Sadly, he died very soon after the programme aired. Yes, actually I think Starkey made such a petulant impression that no-one would have wanted to vote Guilty. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 4 June 2017, 11:00
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Oh yes...Starkey was spitting feathers...showed himself up in my opinion. Anne Sutton was so calm as was the defence barrister...Mr Dillon..although I don't think that was his actual name? But he was one of Britains leading QCs. Enjoyed it so much I also got the book.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 14:34:53
b.eileen25
Starkey was just so rude..it literally made my toes curl. There is no excuse for behaviour like that. I think once someone called him the rude man in England. I wonder why he got like that?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-04 15:10:44
romanenemo
Thank you for that interesting summary of the available knowledge about Perkin Warbeck Hilary.
I think that if he was an impostor, the fact that Margaret supported him shows that she didn't know what had happened to the children either. And that they were probably dead. There was no staunchest supporter of the yorkist cause than Margaret. Why would anyone having the children under their care not contact Margaret, at least after Richard's death, even if they were not hidden in Burgundy ?Or, if they were hidden somewhere else, why didn't they reappear in Burgundy to claim the throne, as Perkin Warbeck did ?
And considering the two texts contemporary to Richard's reign (the text from the journal of some London citizen and the genealogy)showing that there were already rumors about the children's death during Richard's reign, if they had been alive, Richard would have shown them to prove it.
On another hand, as Tey points at, Richard was far from stupid and if he had killed the children or if they had died under his care, he would have shown the bodies.And there is the lack of official accusation from Henry vii as well.
It is as if the situation concerning the children had no longer been under Richard's control when the rumors started. Will we ever know what happened

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-05 17:28:32
Doug Stamate
romanenemo wrote:
"Thank you for that interesting summary of the available knowledge about
Perkin Warbeck Hilary.
I think that if he was an impostor, the fact that Margaret supported him
shows that she didn't know what had happened to the children either. And
that they were probably dead. There was no staunchest supporter of the
yorkist cause than Margaret. Why would anyone having the children under
their care not contact Margaret, at least after Richard's death, even if
they were not hidden in Burgundy ?Or, if they were hidden somewhere else,
why didn't they reappear in Burgundy to claim the throne, as Perkin Warbeck
did ?"

Doug here:
That Margaret supported "Perkin" is why I tend to believe he was who he
claimed. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to think that Margaret,
as much as she detested Tudor, would have supported someone for the throne
of England that she knew to be an imposter. The possibility does exist, of
course, that Margaret, as well as others, was taken in but, once again, any
attempt to palm someone off as Richard of Shrewsbury entailed so many
possible dangers as to make it, to me anyway, a non-starter.
For what it's worth, it's my belief that Richard separated his two nephews
during the spring of 1484, keeping Edward in England (Edward had, after all,
been proclaimed king, even if he'd never been crowned) and sent Richard
overseas to reside in the household of a well-to-do merchant and, most
importantly, Yorkist supporter. It would have made sense for Richard to have
informed his sister of his actions concerning his nephew, but I can't see
any necessity for Margaret to have had much, or even any, interaction with
the boy. Especially if, as I tend to believe, a major reason for the boy
being sent to Flanders was for his own protection.

ramonenemo concluded:
"And considering the two texts contemporary to Richard's reign (the text
from the journal of some London citizen and the genealogy)showing that there
were already rumors about the children's death during Richard's reign, if
they had been alive, Richard would have shown them to prove it.
On another hand, as Tey points at, Richard was far from stupid and if he
had killed the children or if they had died under his care, he would have
shown the bodies.And there is the lack of official accusation from Henry vii
as well.
It is as if the situation concerning the children had no longer been under
Richard's control when the rumors started. Will we ever know what happened"

Doug here:
As best I can determine, there were two periods when rumors about the boys
were flying around. The first was shortly after Buckingham's Rebellion broke
out, when rumors spread that the boys were dead, and spread far enough to be
noted by the Croyland Chronicler (whoever he was). While noone has ever been
named as the source of these rumors, it's my belief, based on what we
currently know, that those rumors were intended to gin up support for
Buckingham in his quest for the throne. My reasoning is that, should the
rebellion, which originally had as its' aim the return of Edward to the
throne, been successful, Buckingham could only at best hoped to take over as
Protector as long as Edward and Richard were alive. However, if anything
were to happen to the boys, then Buckingham would be in a position not
unlike that which faced Richard upon Stillington's announcement that Edward
IV's offspring were illegitimate - namely, there'd be two juveniles as
possible monarchs, with one under attainder and the second the son of the
man who'd be charged with the murder of his nephews. Because I really can't
see Buckingham letting the facts that Edward and Richard were also his
nephews and were still children stand in his way. IOW, Edward and Richard
would have likely been "discovered" as having been killed by Richard before
Buckingham could rescue them.
I believe the plan failed because the person who dreamed it up, and
encouraged Buckingham to aim for the throne, Bishop Morton, wasn't in
complete control of all the planning that goes into plotting a rebellion.
Morton almost certainly realized that, if a rebellion aimed at returning
Edward V to the throne was to succeed, Edward had to been seen as being
alive. Any rumor about his death spread before the rebellion was well
underway (IOW, troops already mustered and gathered together) would only
depress turnout and reduce the chances of Buckingham defeating Richard.
Everything I've seen suggests that the rumor about the boys' deaths got out
before it was intended, and that, as soon as the rumor was out, Morton
headed for cover, realizing the rebellion was almost certainly doomed. I'm
not certain about the dating of the reference to the boys being killed "on
the vise of Buckingham," but it's certainly possible the reference was
written down at a later time. Possibly because the topic of the boys' deaths
had come up again?
The second instance that I know of is a reference to the boys no longer
being seen in the Tower "after Easter." Easter 1483 can be ruled out
immediately as neither boy was even in the Tower before Easter 1483 was well
past. Which leaves 1484 and 1485 as possibilities. My preference is for 1484
as that was also the time frame when EW finally left sanctuary in
Westminster. There is no reference to her being lodged in London that I know
of, which increases the likelihood that she was lodged somewhere outside
London. Which would also explain why the boys were no longer seen at the
Tower, they also had been moved out of London.
It's only my belief, as I have no proof to sustain it other than the actions
of those involved and their personalities, but my current belief is that an
integral part of Buckingham's Rebellion included the death of the two boys,
and that death was to be laid at Richard's feet. Richard's actions lead me
to believe that he didn't know what Buckingham had planned for his nephews
until sometime at least after the rebellion was set in motion, and possibly
not until it was over. It may have been when Richard called Buckingham "that
most untrue creature" or it may have been prior to the winter of 1483/84
when it was noticed the boys were being seen less and less.
In either case, Richard decided the boys would be safer if they were
separated. If people were on the look-out for two boys, it would make the
job of hiding them away easier if only one boy suddenly popped up somewhere.
Where Richard seems to have failed is in not making better plans in advance
for the possibility of his, Richard's, demise. Of course, up until the death
of his son, Richard didn't need to worry too much about the succession. And
after his son died, Richard was quickly faced with the prospect of his
wife's illness and death. So I cut him some slack for being preoccupied.
The problems that developed after Bosworth result, again IMO, were due to
our not knowing what happened to Edward. If, as I believe, he'd been hidden
away somewhere in England, his first thought after the news of Bosworth
arrived would have been to get away to someplace safe. But then the problems
with being, first Prince of Wales, then the eldest illegitimate son of
Edward IV came to the fore. His tenure as Prince of Wales hadn't gotten to
the point where he'd actually been doing things on his own. Not only had he
been under the tutelage of his uncle, with everything provided for him
including, quite likely, just where to put his, Edward's, signature on
official documents. That period was followed by his time in the Tower,
originally the Royal Apartments, then in more secure surrounding where,
again, his interactions with people would have been quite limited. If, as I
think, he'd been sent to some out-of-the-way place in the country, the same
would apply there. He'd likely have a greater chance to interact with people
but, and if only because of the reason for his sequestration, those contacts
would still be limited.
Which means that, after Bosworth, there are two possibilities for Edward.
The first is that remained where he was and was swallowed up into the gentry
or he fled. If it's the latter that happened then there's the possibility,
and only a possibility, that there may be something to the "Richard of
Eastham" story, but whether that "Richard" was actually Edward or possibly
someone who knew what had happened to Edward and decided in his declining
years to take advantage of that knowledge isn't currently determinable.
Sorry about the length!
Doug



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-05 18:27:11
Nicholas Brown
Perkin's account of his survival and escape from the Tower are often dismissed as lacking in credibility. However, I'm not convinced that they undermine him completely. Anne Wroe mentioned a detachment in the description of Edward's murder that suggests a lack of first hand knowledge, but there are several possible explanations. One could be that he was removed from the Tower quickly, but did not personally see the murder and was told about it later. It may have been true or simply a ruse to frighten a 9 year old boy into swearing to silence, while Edward was removed separately (and perhaps told something similar), since the plan would be to keep the boys apart to avoid them eventually plotting together. It could also be a cover for the fact that he knew Edward was not dead, but had chosen not to pursue a quest for the throne, or Margaret had considered Edward unsuitable for whatever reason and chosen Richard because she thought he would make a better King.

AJ made an interesting point about 'Richard's' age - ie. that 18 wasn't all that young back then. There is some truth to that in relation to the nobility, who often had to assume adult responsibilities at a young age. However they also enjoyed considerable wealth and support. That wasn't the case with other social classes and most 18 year old boys would have still been doing their apprenticeships, and probably would be 'emerging from childhood.' If 'Richard' had lost his position on the social scale, and had been working as a page, his perception of the transition to being an adult would have more in common with people from the middle class. Also, he could be referring to his guardians abandoning him, which occurred much earlier before he went to Portugal.

Ian Arthurson wrote an excellent book of on 15th century foreign policy, but it assumes that the Perkin's confession was genuine and not taken under duress. It is true that the Werbeques existed, but that doesn't prove that they were his biological parents. As far as this particular book is concerned, the focus is the analysis of the politics of the time, so Perkins actual identity is less important. Anne Wroe makes a good case for questioning the official story, but wasn't 100% certain whether he was Richard or an illegitimate member of the House of York - although she leans in favour of the latter focusing on a boy who was in Margaret's guardianship from 1487-1485. Diana Kleyn wrote in favour of Perkin being Richard. Wroe may have put too much emphasis on Perkin's size. He may have been smaller than Edward IV, but most people were and not everyone is the same height as their parents.
I have always been intrigued by Margaret's ward, who could be relevant or a complete red herring. I have even wondered if he was actually Lambert Simnel. However, I do not believe that Margaret would back a complete imposter. Even if the male figures had the cynical approach suggested by Arthurson, her emotional attachment to the House of York was too deep to sully it by handing the throne to someone completely unrelated. Actually, there isn't really one particular thing that convinces me that Perkin wasn't telling the truth, so on this one I would say I was about 70% in his favour and 30%, an illegitimate Yorkist.
Nico





On Sunday, 4 June 2017, 15:10, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Thank you for that interesting summary of the available knowledge about Perkin Warbeck Hilary.
I think that if he was an impostor, the fact that Margaret supported him shows that she didn't know what had happened to the children either. And that they were probably dead. There was no staunchest supporter of the yorkist cause than Margaret. Why would anyone having the children under their care not contact Margaret, at least after Richard's death, even if they were not hidden in Burgundy ?Or, if they were hidden somewhere else, why didn't they reappear in Burgundy to claim the throne, as Perkin Warbeck did ?
And considering the two texts contemporary to Richard's reign (the text from the journal of some London citizen and the genealogy)showing that there were already rumors about the children's death during Richard's reign, if they had been alive, Richard would have shown them to prove it.
On another hand, as Tey points at, Richard was far from stupid and if he had killed the children or if they had died under his care, he would have shown the bodies.And there is the lack of official accusation from Henry vii as well.
It is as if the situation concerning the children had no longer been under Richard's control when the rumors started. Will we ever know what happened

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 07:05:58
Hilary Jones
Nico thanks for your summary. I do think we tend to think Margaret had more power than she actually did. She was not the mother of the heir to Burgundy. She rarely saw Charles right up until his death. Thereafter she was a dowager very much in the hands of Maximilien who was trying to fend off French ambitions in the Low Countries. I don't know why people assume the boys would be sent to her; if anyone would be sent it would surely be the child of her favourite brother George. If I were Richard who would I trust? The very people I've known since I was about thirteen in Yorkshire. They share my values, they are loyal to me, and they are miles away from the Woodvilles. Which is exactly where he did send EOY and Warwick. After Bosworth who knows? H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 5 June 2017, 18:27
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Perkin's account of his survival and escape from the Tower are often dismissed as lacking in credibility. However, I'm not convinced that they undermine him completely. Anne Wroe mentioned a detachment in the description of Edward's murder that suggests a lack of first hand knowledge, but there are several possible explanations. One could be that he was removed from the Tower quickly, but did not personally see the murder and was told about it later. It may have been true or simply a ruse to frighten a 9 year old boy into swearing to silence, while Edward was removed separately (and perhaps told something similar), since the plan would be to keep the boys apart to avoid them eventually plotting together. It could also be a cover for the fact that he knew Edward was not dead, but had chosen not to pursue a quest for the throne, or Margaret had considered Edward unsuitable for whatever reason and chosen Richard because she thought he would make a better King.

AJ made an interesting point about 'Richard's' age - ie. that 18 wasn't all that young back then. There is some truth to that in relation to the nobility, who often had to assume adult responsibilities at a young age. However they also enjoyed considerable wealth and support. That wasn't the case with other social classes and most 18 year old boys would have still been doing their apprenticeships, and probably would be 'emerging from childhood.' If 'Richard' had lost his position on the social scale, and had been working as a page, his perception of the transition to being an adult would have more in common with people from the middle class. Also, he could be referring to his guardians abandoning him, which occurred much earlier before he went to Portugal.

Ian Arthurson wrote an excellent book of on 15th century foreign policy, but it assumes that the Perkin's confession was genuine and not taken under duress. It is true that the Werbeques existed, but that doesn't prove that they were his biological parents. As far as this particular book is concerned, the focus is the analysis of the politics of the time, so Perkins actual identity is less important. Anne Wroe makes a good case for questioning the official story, but wasn't 100% certain whether he was Richard or an illegitimate member of the House of York - although she leans in favour of the latter focusing on a boy who was in Margaret's guardianship from 1487-1485. Diana Kleyn wrote in favour of Perkin being Richard. Wroe may have put too much emphasis on Perkin's size. He may have been smaller than Edward IV, but most people were and not everyone is the same height as their parents.
I have always been intrigued by Margaret's ward, who could be relevant or a complete red herring. I have even wondered if he was actually Lambert Simnel. However, I do not believe that Margaret would back a complete imposter. Even if the male figures had the cynical approach suggested by Arthurson, her emotional attachment to the House of York was too deep to sully it by handing the throne to someone completely unrelated. Actually, there isn't really one particular thing that convinces me that Perkin wasn't telling the truth, so on this one I would say I was about 70% in his favour and 30%, an illegitimate Yorkist.
Nico





On Sunday, 4 June 2017, 15:10, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Thank you for that interesting summary of the available knowledge about Perkin Warbeck Hilary.
I think that if he was an impostor, the fact that Margaret supported him shows that she didn't know what had happened to the children either. And that they were probably dead. There was no staunchest supporter of the yorkist cause than Margaret. Why would anyone having the children under their care not contact Margaret, at least after Richard's death, even if they were not hidden in Burgundy ?Or, if they were hidden somewhere else, why didn't they reappear in Burgundy to claim the throne, as Perkin Warbeck did ?
And considering the two texts contemporary to Richard's reign (the text from the journal of some London citizen and the genealogy)showing that there were already rumors about the children's death during Richard's reign, if they had been alive, Richard would have shown them to prove it.
On another hand, as Tey points at, Richard was far from stupid and if he had killed the children or if they had died under his care, he would have shown the bodies.And there is the lack of official accusation from Henry vii as well.
It is as if the situation concerning the children had no longer been under Richard's control when the rumors started. Will we ever know what happened



Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 10:51:42
romanenemo
Thank you, Doug, for that detailed account. I find your hypothesis that Buckingham spread the rumor of the children's death to seize the crown himself very interesting. And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. And it's clear that anyone who started the rumor wanted to lay the crime at Richard's feet. But I tend to think that Buckingham actually killed the children.Of course, I'd like to believe that they didn't die. But if the children, or at lest Edward, was with his mother in 1484, if the other one was sent to Flanders, once again, why didn't King Richard prove to the public, one way of another, through a solemn declaration of someone trustworthy on that matter (such as the Archbishop or their mother) that the boys were still alive ? All the sources we have, reliable or not, contemporary or not, and above all the renewed alliance Lancastrer-Woodville, based upon Henry's promise to marry Elizabeth of York, show that the assumption that the princes were dead was very strong before and after Bosworth. And that assumption was deadly to Richard. If it had not been true, he'd have found a way to dispel the rumor.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 11:31:28
b.eileen25
Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive? She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 11:44:58
Durose David
Hi re Buckingham
There is a third contemporary source that mentions Buckingham. Commynes is often quoted but his writing mentions both men - in the sense of working together to secure Richard on the throne.
It would be a good idea to sign your posts so that we can reply to specific posts / points
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 at 10:51, romanenemo<no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Thank you, Doug, for that detailed account. I find your hypothesis that Buckingham spread the rumor of the children's death to seize the crown himself very interesting. And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. And it's clear that anyone who started the rumor wanted to lay the crime at Richard's feet. But I tend to think that Buckingham actually killed the children.

Of course, I'd like to believe that they didn't die. But if the children, or at lest Edward, was with his mother in 1484, if the other one was sent to Flanders, once again, why didn't King Richard prove to the public, one way of another, through a solemn declaration of someone trustworthy on that matter (such as the Archbishop or their mother) that the boys were still alive ? All the sources we have, reliable or not, contemporary or not, and above all the renewed alliance Lancastrer-Woodville, based upon Henry's promise to marry Elizabeth of York, show that the assumption that the princes were dead was very strong before and after Bosworth. And that assumption was deadly to Richard. If it had not been true, he'd have found a way to dispel the rumor.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 11:58:37
Durose David
Hi Nico,
The idea that the Princes were kept in isolation and ignorance of each other (as a means of explaining Warbeck's letter) is an interesting one. The problem is that it then complicates the scenarios that roll on into the future. Instead of a single conspiracy, we are presented with two - not only that, but two mutually exlusive stories in which the two must be kept in ignorance. Warbeck must have been quite a news item at the time and how did Edward not become aware of him?
If Richard / Warbeck was spun a story given to Richard as he was smuggled away, why not simply tell him that his brother had died of natural causes?

What would be wrong with telling the world that he had been smuggled out on the orders of his uncle, and protected by his aunt?
The letter also fits in with two other Yorkist sources - Margaret's letter (also to Isabella) saying 'they' had told her they were dead (on the appearance) of Warbeck in Flanders.
The other source - Lincoln's family tree - which states that Edward 'Died young with no issue' and Richard 'Also died with no issue'.
These confirm a belief among enemies of Henry that the Princes were dead and just as importantly, the biographical details given for Richard do not match Warbeck, who married and did have issue.
Kind regardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 at 18:27, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []<> wrote:

Perkin's account of his survival and escape from the Tower are often dismissed as lacking in credibility. However, I'm not convinced that they undermine him completely. Anne Wroe mentioned a detachment in the description of Edward's murder that suggests a lack of first hand knowledge, but there are several possible explanations. One could be that he was removed from the Tower quickly, but did not personally see the murder and was told about it later. It may have been true or simply a ruse to frighten a 9 year old boy into swearing to silence, while Edward was removed separately (and perhaps told something similar), since the plan would be to keep the boys apart to avoid them eventually plotting together. It could also be a cover for the fact that he knew Edward was not dead, but had chosen not to pursue a quest for the throne, or Margaret had considered Edward unsuitable for whatever reason and chosen Richard because she thought he would make a better King.

AJ made an interesting point about 'Richard's' age - ie. that 18 wasn't all that young back then. There is some truth to that in relation to the nobility, who often had to assume adult responsibilities at a young age. However they also enjoyed considerable wealth and support. That wasn't the case with other social classes and most 18 year old boys would have still been doing their apprenticeships, and probably would be 'emerging from childhood.' If 'Richard' had lost his position on the social scale, and had been working as a page, his perception of the transition to being an adult would have more in common with people from the middle class. Also, he could be referring to his guardians abandoning him, which occurred much earlier before he went to Portugal.

Ian Arthurson wrote an excellent book of on 15th century foreign policy, but it assumes that the Perkin's confession was genuine and not taken under duress. It is true that the Werbeques existed, but that doesn't prove that they were his biological parents. As far as this particular book is concerned, the focus is the analysis of the politics of the time, so Perkins actual identity is less important. Anne Wroe makes a good case for questioning the official story, but wasn't 100% certain whether he was Richard or an illegitimate member of the House of York - although she leans in favour of the latter focusing on a boy who was in Margaret's guardianship from 1487-1485. Diana Kleyn wrote in favour of Perkin being Richard. Wroe may have put too much emphasis on Perkin's size. He may have been smaller than Edward IV, but most people were and not everyone is the same height as their parents.
I have always been intrigued by Margaret's ward, who could be relevant or a complete red herring. I have even wondered if he was actually Lambert Simnel. However, I do not believe that Margaret would back a complete imposter. Even if the male figures had the cynical approach suggested by Arthurson, her emotional attachment to the House of York was too deep to sully it by handing the throne to someone completely unrelated. Actually, there isn't really one particular thing that convinces me that Perkin wasn't telling the truth, so on this one I would say I was about 70% in his favour and 30%, an illegitimate Yorkist.
Nico





On Sunday, 4 June 2017, 15:10, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Thank you for that interesting summary of the available knowledge about Perkin Warbeck Hilary.
I think that if he was an impostor, the fact that Margaret supported him shows that she didn't know what had happened to the children either. And that they were probably dead. There was no staunchest supporter of the yorkist cause than Margaret. Why would anyone having the children under their care not contact Margaret, at least after Richard's death, even if they were not hidden in Burgundy ?Or, if they were hidden somewhere else, why didn't they reappear in Burgundy to claim the throne, as Perkin Warbeck did ?
And considering the two texts contemporary to Richard's reign (the text from the journal of some London citizen and the genealogy)showing that there were already rumors about the children's death during Richard's reign, if they had been alive, Richard would have shown them to prove it.
On another hand, as Tey points at, Richard was far from stupid and if he had killed the children or if they had died under his care, he would have shown the bodies.And there is the lack of official accusation from Henry vii as well.
It is as if the situation concerning the children had no longer been under Richard's control when the rumors started. Will we ever know what happened

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 13:22:58
romanenemo
As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle.The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In , <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive? She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 13:45:32
Karen O
The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters.   They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies. 
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity  of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle.The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In @ yahoogroups.com, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive?  She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.  

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 13:54:09
Karen
The reason the rumor was started in my opinion was to force Richard to go.public in just such a fashion. They didn't believe the word of Stllington, why believe the Archbishop?Richard's enemies would then demand he produce the boys physically. Also, if Margaret of Burgundy was so powerless how did she get an army together to invade? She claims the boys are dead. Of course she does! She's lying!
On Jun 6, 2017 2:42 AM, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Thank you, Doug, for that detailed account. I find your hypothesis that Buckingham spread the rumor of the children's death to seize the crown himself very interesting. And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. And it's clear that anyone who started the rumor wanted to lay the crime at Richard's feet. But I tend to think that Buckingham actually killed the children.

Of course, I'd like to believe that they didn't die. But if the children, or at lest Edward, was with his mother in 1484, if the other one was sent to Flanders, once again, why didn't King Richard prove to the public, one way of another, through a solemn declaration of someone trustworthy on that matter (such as the Archbishop or their mother) that the boys were still alive ? All the sources we have, reliable or not, contemporary or not, and above all the renewed alliance Lancastrer-Woodville, based upon Henry's promise to marry Elizabeth of York, show that the assumption that the princes were dead was very strong before and after Bosworth. And that assumption was deadly to Richard. If it had not been true, he'd have found a way to dispel the rumor.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 14:56:27
romanenemo
The Archbishop of Caterbury was the supreme religious authority, not Stilington. The majority would have believed him, if not the people who had good reasons not to. Elizabeth Woodville also could have made a convincing statement. She had to know what Henry's victory would mean for her boys. Unless they were already dead.
Besides, it's just a matter of logic, and of pros and cons. To produce the boys physically might have been dangerous for them, but Richard had means of protecting them. Not to produce them if it had been possible would have been a political suicide for Richard, as it allowed the association Woodville-Lancastrians to gather strength. To produce them was to put an end to that association. And there was the question of the moral high ground as well. What would any sensible statesman do in such a situation ?
To sum up, I don't think Richard would have cared about his nephew's safety to the point of neglecting so much his own, and the peace of his kingdom. If sentiment and not sense had led him, he might as well have left Edward V on the throne.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 14:56:41
romanenemo
Yes, I know. It's just that I find rather unbelievable that Richard would not have defended himself if he could. He was perfectly able to do just that, as shown by Hasting's and Anthony Woodville's executions. Richard was not Henry, but he was no lamb to the slaughter either. The policy of secrecy was not a sensible solution. I know that Richard made errors in judgment, but this one seems to me rather enormous.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 17:21:52
daviddurose2000
What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours?
Regards David
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> wrote:
 

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters.   They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies. 
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity  of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle.The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In @ yahoogroups.com, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive?  She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.  

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 17:39:51
Karen O
John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany. 
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:
 

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours? 
Regards David 
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters.   They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies. 
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity  of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle.The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In @yahoogr oups.com, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive?  She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.  

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 22:55:38
b.eileen25
Romanemo wrote "As far as I know Elizabeth's involvement (in the Simnel plot) is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent at the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement'.
At the risk of appearing nit picking Elizabeth was not sent to a convent but Bermondsey Abbey where she occupied the Claire Suite. Casting that aside though, the debate still carries on as to whether Elizabeth's 'retirement' there was of her own free will or not but there is in fact good reason to believe that her retirement was indeed forced upon her by Henry.
Following the news breaking of the Simnel rebellion and a council meeting, Elizabeth's properties were stripped from her and she was sent to Bermondsey and her son Thomas Grey committed to the Tower so it would be quite reasonable to deduce that they had, indeed, been implicated in the plot. If the reason for Henry had merely been to get her properties and estates etc., why did he return them to her only the year before in 1486 when that would have been an ideal time to strike such a deal. Vergil the Tudor historian wrote that Elizabeth's banishment was because she had reached an understanding with Richard three years earlier when she removed herself and her daughters from sanctuary. This is absurd - David Baldwin Elizabeth's biographer wrote that is was 'unlikely grounds' - and it may be that Vergil did not know the exact reasons why OR chose not to repeat them it being unwise to record that both Elizabeth and Grey may have got themselves involved in the Simnel plot not to put Simnel/young Warwick on the throne but had discovered that Edward of Westminster and/or Richard of Shrewsbury were alive and well.
Undoubtedly Elizabeth Wydeville was being punished for something. Her pitiful will tells us that with a funeral so humble that even the Herald reporting it was shocked.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-06 23:12:06
Karen
The Woodville alliance is overrated IMHO. Tudor would have invaded anyway. He probably would have invoked the precontract himself. I think it was rather common knowledge In Upper circles. I stopped concentrating on Chroniclers long ago. The rumours had nothing to do with the October uprising which was small, limited geographically, and poorly organized. They also had nothing to do with the treachery against Richard. That treachery was simple greed. You cannot prove they were dead by using logic. Richard was not so much concerned with their safety as with their being used. He didn't speak. We can't be certain why. I tend to agree with romance writers that he wanted loyalty out of respect and love. An admirable trait and fatal to an absolute monarch.
On Jun 6, 2017 9:16 AM, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

The Archbishop of Caterbury was the supreme religious authority, not Stilington. The majority would have believed him, if not the people who had good reasons not to. Elizabeth Woodville also could have made a convincing statement. She had to know what Henry's victory would mean for her boys. Unless they were already dead.


Besides, it's just a matter of logic, and of pros and cons. To produce the boys physically might have been dangerous for them, but Richard had means of protecting them. Not to produce them if it had been possible would have been a political suicide for Richard, as it allowed the association Woodville-Lancastrians to gather strength. To produce them was to put an end to that association. And there was the question of the moral high ground as well. What would any sensible statesman do in such a situation ? 
To sum up, I don't think Richard would have cared about his nephew's safety to the point of neglecting so much his own, and the peace of his kingdom. If sentiment and not sense had led him, he might as well have left Edward V on the throne.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-07 16:23:32
Doug Stamate
romanenemo wrote: Thank you, Doug, for that detailed account. I find your hypothesis that Buckingham spread the rumor of the children's death to seize the crown himself very interesting. And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. And it's clear that anyone who started the rumor wanted to lay the crime at Richard's feet. But I tend to think that Buckingham actually killed the children. Doug here: You're welcome! I must add, however, that, while I have support for my views, what I posted is just that  my views. You wrote And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. I emphasized that one phrase because, as far as I know, the only references to Buckingham offering to support Tudor for the crown came after Henry became king; IOW, there's no reference contemporary with Buckingham's Rebellion to support the idea that Buckingham intended to step aside for anyone other than Edward V. Apparently there is a contemporary document from Buckingham requesting Tudor's aid, but that's certainly not the same as supporting Henry in a bid for the throne! For reasons I have trouble understanding, the fact that Henry Tudor could, and did, only make his claim to the throne based on the right of conquest, seems to be too often forgotten. Henry Stafford, OTOH, was the premier (if not only?) Royal Duke in England; presuming one ignores any such titles held by Richard and Richard's son. Stafford's descent from Edward III was completely legitimate. Unlike Henry's, which had required an Act of Parliament just to legitimize John of Gaunt's off-spring by his mistress. Nor in regards to Stafford were there any Royal caveats excepting to the royalty, such as there were for the Beauforts. My personal view is that it's extremely probable that the deaths of Edward and Richard were part of what Buckingham intended when he rebelled but, and again it's only my personal view, the plan misfired. romanenemo concluded: Of course, I'd like to believe that they didn't die. But if the children, or at lest Edward, was with his mother in 1484, if the other one was sent to Flanders, once again, why didn't King Richard prove to the public, one way of another, through a solemn declaration of someone trustworthy on that matter (such as the Archbishop or their mother) that the boys were still alive ? All the sources we have, reliable or not, contemporary or not, and above all the renewed alliance Lancast rer-Woodville, based upon Henry's promise to marry Elizabeth of York, show that the assumption that the princes were dead was very strong before and after Bosworth. And that assumption was deadly to Richard. If it had not been true, he'd have found a way to dispel the rumor. Doug here: Perhaps the reason Richard never publicly showed the boys to be still alive in order to squelch rumors is because said rumors weren't widespread. There is something on the order of two or three contemporary sources for the rumors; one is in a speech by the equivalent of the French Prime Minister, there's the reference in the Croyland Chronicle and another reference seemingly entered as a later addition to another chronicle I think it's a chronicle, but I could be mistaken). The only reference that can definitely be determined to have been made during Richard's reign is the one by the Frenchman; the other two were written, as best can be determined, sometime after Bosworth when the fates of the two boys had assumed national importance. Basically what I'm saying is that the rumors weren't widespread, or at least not widespread enough for Richard to take official notice. I also have to admit that the idea that, because Henry pledged to marry Elizabeth of York, therefore he must have believed her brothers to be dead a non-starter. Henry's only shot at gaining the throne was via splitting Yorkist support for Richard. Henry couldn't marry Edward or Richard to accomplish that end, but he could, and eventually did, marry their sister. I've read, unfortunately I don't recall exactly where, that, between Bosworth and his marriage in January, 1486, Henry attempted to find a suitable foreign princess to marry, rather than carry out his pledge to marry Elizabeth. IOW, Henry vowed to marry Elizabeth as part of his efforts to gain the throne, but once he had the throne, his marriage to her was only because he'd not been able to acquire a foreign princess as a bride. In view of the lack of Woodville support for his invasion (presuming Hilary's researches are accurate  and they have been so far!), there was no special reason for Henry to carry out his earlier pledge except to meet the demands of the nobility that he do so. Another thing to remember is that Tudor's army consisted of French mercenaries and whatever Welsh troops he'd managed to gather in. Had Sir WIlliam Stanley not intervened as he did, or Northumberland been more active (to say the least) Richard would have won. Richard even had the option, prior to Bosworth of falling back and joining those troops with him to an even larger number of supporters. That Richard failed to do so is, IMO, what doomed him and not any rumors. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-07 16:38:33
Karen O
   Now, Richard is betrayed on both flanks. Can I E assume that his escape routes surely had been cut off? Moving an army is a slow business and there may be no more difficult maneuver than strategic retreat. If Richard attempted to flee, which his brother, I think, would have he had a high risk of capture. I don't think his charge was an attempt to win.Kling Tudor would not have saved him. Stanley would have killed him and claimed the throne. I think Richard knew he was going to.his death and accepted it. If he could kill Tudor on the way so much the better.
On Jun 7, 2017 11:23 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 

    romanenemo wrote: Thank you, Doug, for that detailed account. I find your hypothesis that Buckingham spread the rumor of the children's death to seize the crown himself very interesting. And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. And it's clear that anyone who started the rumor wanted to lay the crime at Richard's feet. But I tend to think that Buckingham actually killed the children.   Doug here: You're welcome! I must add, however, that, while I have support for my views, what I posted is just that  my views. You wrote And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. I emphasized that one phrase because, as far as I know, the only references to Buckingham offering to support Tudor for the crown came after Henry became king; IOW, there's no reference contemporary with Buckingham's Rebellion to support the idea that Buckingham intended to step aside for anyone other than Edward V. Apparently there is a contemporary document from Buckingham requesting Tudor's aid, but that's certainly not the same as supporting Henry in a bid for the throne! For reasons I have trouble understanding, the fact that Henry Tudor could, and did, only make his claim to the throne based on the right of conquest, seems to be too often forgotten. Henry Stafford, OTOH, was the premier (if not only?) Royal Duke in England; presuming one ignores any such titles held by Richard and Richard's son. Stafford's descent from Edward III was completely legitimate. Unlike Henry's, which had required an Act of Parliament just to legitimize John of Gaunt's off-spring by his mistress. Nor in regards to Stafford were there any Royal caveats excepting to the royalty, such as there were for the Beauforts. My personal view is that it's extremely probable that the deaths of Edward and Richard were part of what Buckingham intended when he rebelled but, and again it's only my personal view, the plan misfired. romanenemo concluded: Of course, I'd like to believe that they didn't die. But if the children, or at lest Edward, was with his mother in 1484, if the other one was sent to Flanders, once again, why didn't King Richard prove to the public, one way of another, through a solemn declaration of someone trustworthy on that matter (such as the Archbishop or their mother) that the boys were still alive ? All the sources we have, reliable or not, contemporary or not, and above all the renewed alliance Lancast rer-Woodville, based upon Henry's promise to marry Elizabeth of York, show that the assumption that the princes were dead was very strong before and after Bosworth. And that assumption was deadly to Richard. If it had not been true, he'd have found a way to dispel the rumor.   Doug here: Perhaps the reason Richard never publicly showed the boys to be still alive in order to squelch rumors is because said rumors weren't widespread. There is something on the order of two or three contemporary sources for the rumors; one is in a speech by the equivalent of the French Prime Minister, there's the reference in the Croyland Chronicle and another reference seemingly entered as a later addition to another chronicle I think it's a chronicle, but I could be mistaken). The only reference that can definitely be determined to have been made during Richard's reign is the one by the Frenchman; the other two were written, as best can be determined, sometime after Bosworth when the fates of the two boys had assumed national importance. Basically what I'm saying is that the rumors weren't widespread, or at least not widespread enough for Richard to take official notice. I also have to admit that the idea that, because Henry pledged to marry Elizabeth of York, therefore he must have believed her brothers to be dead a non-starter. Henry's only shot at gaining the throne was via splitting Yorkist support for Richard. Henry couldn't marry Edward or Richard to accomplish that end, but he could, and eventually did, marry their sister. I've read, unfortunately I don't recall exactly where, that, between Bosworth and his marriage in January, 1486, Henry attempted to find a suitable foreign princess to marry, rather than carry out his pledge to marry Elizabeth. IOW, Henry vowed to marry Elizabeth as part of his efforts to gain the throne, but once he had the throne, his marriage to her was only because he'd not been able to acquire a foreign princess as a bride. In view of the lack of Woodville support for his invasion (presuming Hilary's researches are accurate  and they have been so far!), there was no special reason for Henry to carry out his earlier pledge except to meet the demands of the nobility that he do so. Another thing to remember is that Tudor's army consisted of French mercenaries and whatever Welsh troops he'd managed to gather in. Had Sir WIlliam Stanley not intervened as he did, or Northumberland been more active (to say the least) Richard would have won. Richard even had the option, prior to Bosworth of falling back  and joining those troops with him to an even larger number of supporters. That Richard failed to do so is, IMO, what doomed him and not any rumors. Doug  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-07 16:58:15
Doug Stamate
Eileen wrote: Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive? She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne. Doug here: When the Simnel rebellion broke out, Elizabeth hadn't yet been crowned queen, had she? If I recall correctly, she was crowned in November 1487 and the rebellion occurred in May/June of that year. As for why Elizabeth Woodville might support Warwick over her own sons, all the while knowing they were alive, could it be because she knew how little support for a restoration of Edward V there actually was? Buckingham's Rebellion had as it claimed end Edward's restoration and it had fizzled dismally. Nor, as far as I know, had anything more been done to restore her son while Elizabeth had been in sanctuary at Westminster for nearly six months. IOW, Warwick was the most direct, legitimate Yorkist heir and that was why she may have supported his claims to the throne over those of her son/s. There's also the possibility that any involvement of EW in regards to the rebellion originated before her daughter married Henry on 18 January, 1486. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-07 17:19:09
daviddurose2000
RE rumours from Brittany Really???But then Ashdown-Hill says Edward IV was gay, Clarence was short and Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund Tudor. Annette Carson says Henry Tudor's exile was self-imposed.
I suspect that both are wrong in this. I would not consider contemporary books as sources - they must have quoted a source themselves...
It would seem this may be used to portray a great external plot between Francis and Henry
However it does not fit in with the sequence of events
Vergil says that Margaret heard of the deaths of the Princes and soon after thought of the deal with Elizabeth Woodville to get Henry home by making him king.
We have the means by which Henry and Francis were informed in Brittany - Conway Guildford and Rameney sent separately by Margaret
Also it would be illogical for Francis to be party to a false rumour, because his daughter was due to become Queen of England on her marriage to Edward V. Having spent 12 years holding Henry to obtain good terms from England, why throw it all away in favour of placing his captive on the throne through an invasion?
While while starting rumours from a distance might be a good tactic for something that could not be disproved, like the parentage of Edward IV, it makes no sense for something that could easily be disproved by producing the Princes. And by what mechanism were the rumours transmitted?
Lastly, in her book Josephine Wilkinson analyses the first occurrence of them, to point the finger at Margaret Beaufort. Although her logic is a bit suspect, in that she ignores the fact that Polydore Virgil says that the rumours were pre-existing.


On 6 Jun 2017 5:39 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> wrote:

John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany.
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours?
Regards David
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters. They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies.
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle.The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In @yahoogr oups.com, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive? She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-07 17:43:25
romanenemo

What had convinced me that the children had to be dead was, first, the fact that IMO, Richard wold have put a stop to the rumors if he had been able to. But maybe Doug is right and these rumors were not that important in England, and overrated by Mancini, for obvious reasons.
About my second reason, that is the Woodville alliance with Henry, maybe you're right thinking that it's overrated too. Besides, it's possible that many of the plotters with Woodville connections had no qualms about allying themselves with Henry in spite of what would happen to the children if he became king. As you say, they were led by greed.
But what of Lionel Woodville ?What of Thomas Grey, who swore allegiance to Henry for a while ? Granted, he apparently changed his mind, but it's nonetheless strange, if his half-brothers were still alive, don't you think ? Why having a new candidate for the throne, instead of his own brother ? Brotherly loyalty aside, in was not in Dorset's interest to be only the brother of a powerless queen, and not the brother, maybe the protector even, as Anthony was dead, of a young and so probably suggestible king. And Henry's accession to the throne meant the children's death warrant. Supporting Henry's claim to the throne meant to tacitly accept that the children were dead, or as good as dead. Would the boys' own kin have done that, if they were alive ?
I can't see a way out from that.


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-07 17:44:42
romanenemo
I think that Henry was sensible enough not to imagine that Elizabeth would involve herself in a plot in favor of Clarence's son. And there is no source supporting the idea that Simnel was in fact Richard of York.But J. Tey suggests, more or less, that it's the moment when Henry discovered the children's hiding place and killed them. What do you think of it ?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-07 18:32:36
b.eileen25
Interesting reply Doug..as per usual..however I cannot believe Elizabeth would rather have seen Warwick on the throne than her own daughter. AFter all her title of Queen Dowager had been restored to her in Henry's first Parliament November 1485. 1486 she 'received annuities and a life interest in a raft of properties in southern England in full satisfaction of her dower' - David Baldwin Elizabeth Woodville Mother of the Princes in the Tower p115. July 1486 ELizabeth took out a 40 year lease on Cheyneygates, the abbots house in Westminster Abbey. All was going well...then wallop! February 1487 she is sent into 'retirement' in Bermondsey Abbey..and her son Grey consigned to the tower when the news broke about the Simnel rebellion. question? Was there some muddled thinking about who the true candidate for the throne they were rebelling about,,young Warwick or young Edward?
BAldwin speculates in his book that Elizabeth may have 'resented the authority which the change of dynasty had given to Margaret Beaufort but more particularly Henry had been anxious to dispel any illusions that he ruled England in right if his wife'. But I remain unconvinced. My belief is that ELizabeth and Grey knew/had just found that one or both of her younger sons had survived. MAybe she was annoyed if she had been led to believe that they we both dead, perhaps suggested that Richard had done them in..Margaret Beaufort anyone?


---In , <destama@...> wrote :

Eileen wrote:Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive? She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne. Doug here:When the Simnel rebellion broke out, Elizabeth hadn't yet been crowned queen, had she? If I recall correctly, she was crowned in November 1487 and the rebellion occurred in May/June of that year.As for why Elizabeth Woodville might support Warwick over her own sons, all the while knowing they were alive, could it be because she knew how little support for a restoration of Edward V there actually was? Buckingham's Rebellion had as it claimed end Edward's restoration and it had fizzled dismally. Nor, as far as I know, had anything more been done to restore her son while Elizabeth had been in sanctuary at Westminster for nearly six months.IOW, Warwick was the most direct, legitimate Yorkist heir and that was why she may have supported his claims to the throne over those of her son/s. There's also the possibility that any involvement of EW in regards to the rebellion originated before her daughter married Henry on 18 January, 1486.Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-07 18:39:42
ricard1an
However, David Vergil was writing many years after the events of 1483-1485 and he was writing for Henry Tudor. There is also no evidence to suppose the princes died let alone were murdered at this time but of course Henry's mother would say that wouldn't she?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-07 18:47:34
Paul Trevor Bale
Karen I am shocked reading what you write. Richard knew he was going to die? Stanley would have killed him anyway and claimed the throne? Sorry, but both are abject nonsense! Where did you get such ideas?Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 7 juin 2017 à 17:32, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> a écrit :

Now, Richard is betrayed on both flanks. Can I E assume that his escape routes surely had been cut off? Moving an army is a slow business and there may be no more difficult maneuver than strategic retreat. If Richard attempted to flee, which his brother, I think, would have he had a high risk of capture. I don't think his charge was an attempt to win.Kling Tudor would not have saved him. Stanley would have killed him and claimed the throne. I think Richard knew he was going to.his death and accepted it. If he could kill Tudor on the way so much the better.
On Jun 7, 2017 11:23 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:

romanenemo wrote: Thank you, Doug, for that detailed account. I find your hypothesis that Buckingham spread the rumor of the children's death to seize the crown himself very interesting. And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. And it's clear that anyone who started the rumor wanted to lay the crime at Richard's feet. But I tend to think that Buckingham actually killed the children. Doug here: You're welcome! I must add, however, that, while I have support for my views, what I posted is just that  my views. You wrote And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. I emphasized that one phrase because, as far as I know, the only references to Buckingham offering to support Tudor for the crown came after Henry became king; IOW, there's no reference contemporary with Buckingham's Rebellion to support the idea that Buckingham intended to step aside for anyone other than Edward V. Apparently there is a contemporary document from Buckingham requesting Tudor's aid, but that's certainly not the same as supporting Henry in a bid for the throne! For reasons I have trouble understanding, the fact that Henry Tudor could, and did, only make his claim to the throne based on the right of conquest, seems to be too often forgotten. Henry Stafford, OTOH, was the premier (if not only?) Royal Duke in England; presuming one ignores any such titles held by Richard and Richard's son. Stafford's descent from Edward III was completely legitimate. Unlike Henry's, which had required an Act of Parliament just to legitimize John of Gaunt's off-spring by his mistress. Nor in regards to Stafford were there any Royal caveats excepting to the royalty, such as there were for the Beauforts. My personal view is that it's extremely probable that the deaths of Edward and Richard were part of what Buckingham intended when he rebelled but, and again it's only my personal view, the plan misfired. romanenemo concluded: Of course, I'd like to believe that they didn't die. But if the children, or at lest Edward, was with his mother in 1484, if the other one was sent to Flanders, once again, why didn't King Richard prove to the public, one way of another, through a solemn declaration of someone trustworthy on that matter (such as the Archbishop or their mother) that the boys were still alive ? All the sources we have, reliable or not, contemporary or not, and above all the renewed alliance Lancast rer-Woodville, based upon Henry's promise to marry Elizabeth of York, show that the assumption that the princes were dead was very strong before and after Bosworth. And that assumption was deadly to Richard. If it had not been true, he'd have found a way to dispel the rumor. Doug here: Perhaps the reason Richard never publicly showed the boys to be still alive in order to squelch rumors is because said rumors weren't widespread. There is something on the order of two or three contemporary sources for the rumors; one is in a speech by the equivalent of the French Prime Minister, there's the reference in the Croyland Chronicle and another reference seemingly entered as a later addition to another chronicle I think it's a chronicle, but I could be mistaken). The only reference that can definitely be determined to have been made during Richard's reign is the one by the Frenchman; the other two were written, as best can be determined, sometime after Bosworth when the fates of the two boys had assumed national importance. Basically what I'm saying is that the rumors weren't widespread, or at least not widespread enough for Richard to take official notice. I also have to admit that the idea that, because Henry pledged to marry Elizabeth of York, therefore he must have believed her brothers to be dead a non-starter. Henry's only shot at gaining the throne was via splitting Yorkist support for Richard. Henry couldn't marry Edward or Richard to accomplish that end, but he could, and eventually did, marry their sister. I've read, unfortunately I don't recall exactly where, that, between Bosworth and his marriage in January, 1486, Henry attempted to find a suitable foreign princess to marry, rather than carry out his pledge to marry Elizabeth. IOW, Henry vowed to marry Elizabeth as part of his efforts to gain the throne, but once he had the throne, his marriage to her was only because he'd not been able to acquire a foreign princess as a bride. In view of the lack of Woodville support for his invasion (presuming Hilary's researches are accurate  and they have been so far!), there was no special reason for Henry to carry out his earlier pledge except to meet the demands of the nobility that he do so. Another thing to remember is that Tudor's army consisted of French mercenaries and whatever Welsh troops he'd managed to gather in. Had Sir WIlliam Stanley not intervened as he did, or Northumberland been more active (to say the least) Richard would have won. Richard even had the option, prior to Bosworth of falling back and joining those troops with him to an even larger number of supporters. That Richard failed to do so is, IMO, what doomed him and not any rumors. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-07 19:05:47
Karen O
Clarence's bones attest to his being five feet four. The shortest if the brothers.
On Jun 7, 2017 12:19 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:
 

RE rumours from Brittany Really???But then Ashdown-Hill says Edward IV was gay, Clarence was short and Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund Tudor. Annette Carson says Henry Tudor's exile was self-imposed. 
I suspect that both are wrong in this. I would not consider contemporary books as sources - they must have quoted a source themselves... 
It would seem this may be used to portray a great external plot between Francis and Henry 
However it does not fit in with the sequence of events
Vergil says that Margaret heard of the deaths of the Princes and soon after thought of the deal with Elizabeth Woodville to get Henry home by making him king. 
We have the means by which Henry and Francis were informed in Brittany - Conway Guildford and Rameney sent separately by Margaret 
Also it would be illogical for Francis to be party to a false rumour, because his daughter was due to become Queen of England on her marriage to Edward V. Having spent 12 years holding Henry to obtain good terms from England, why throw it all away in favour of placing his captive on the throne through an invasion? 
While while starting rumours from a distance might be a good tactic for something that could not be disproved, like the parentage of Edward IV, it makes no sense for something that could easily be disproved by producing the Princes. And by what mechanism were the rumours transmitted? 
Lastly, in her book Josephine Wilkinson analyses the first occurrence of them, to point the finger at Margaret Beaufort. Although her logic is a bit suspect, in that she ignores the fact that Polydore Virgil says that the rumours were pre-existing. 


On 6 Jun 2017 5:39 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany. 
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours? 
Regards David 
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
 

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters.   They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies. 
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity  of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle.The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In @yahoogr oups.com, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive?  She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.  

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-07 19:07:18
b.eileen25
what?? RUbbish..Clarence's bones are lost. It's been proven even the skull in Tewkesbury abbey cannot be his.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-07 19:23:43
Karen O
Don't listen to Chroniclers. Edward probably was bisexual. He seemed to be an "anything goes type". At least John bases it in his itinerary. The book isn't out yet so how do.you know,?. I'm still waiting on hold for it.  We know Katherine was a very lusty woman. It seems she had three affairs in a row before running off with Tudor.  Vergil,? Tudor s propaganda chief? Seriously? Not me. I ignore them all now in favor of new evidence.

On Jun 7, 2017 12:19 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:
 

RE rumours from Brittany Really???But then Ashdown-Hill says Edward IV was gay, Clarence was short and Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund Tudor. Annette Carson says Henry Tudor's exile was self-imposed. 
I suspect that both are wrong in this. I would not consider contemporary books as sources - they must have quoted a source themselves... 
It would seem this may be used to portray a great external plot between Francis and Henry 
However it does not fit in with the sequence of events
Vergil says that Margaret heard of the deaths of the Princes and soon after thought of the deal with Elizabeth Woodville to get Henry home by making him king. 
We have the means by which Henry and Francis were informed in Brittany - Conway Guildford and Rameney sent separately by Margaret 
Also it would be illogical for Francis to be party to a false rumour, because his daughter was due to become Queen of England on her marriage to Edward V. Having spent 12 years holding Henry to obtain good terms from England, why throw it all away in favour of placing his captive on the throne through an invasion? 
While while starting rumours from a distance might be a good tactic for something that could not be disproved, like the parentage of Edward IV, it makes no sense for something that could easily be disproved by producing the Princes. And by what mechanism were the rumours transmitted? 
Lastly, in her book Josephine Wilkinson analyses the first occurrence of them, to point the finger at Margaret Beaufort. Although her logic is a bit suspect, in that she ignores the fact that Polydore Virgil says that the rumours were pre-existing. 


On 6 Jun 2017 5:39 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany. 
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours? 
Regards David 
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
 

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters.   They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies. 
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity  of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle.The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In @yahoogr oups.com, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive?  She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.  

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-07 19:40:03
romanenemo
About the rumors concerning the death of the children, here's the ones I know of :
- That speech from some french minister, I don't remember who, likening young Charles VIII's dangerous situation to the fate that the York princes met at the hands of their uncle. But France supported Tudor.
- Mancini's memoir speaking of rumors concerning the princes death. He seems honest, for he adds that he doesn't know how they would have died. But Mancini worked for a former minister of Louis XI.
- A manuscript found in the collection of the Colllege of Arms. I copied what I found in the list of the items found in that collection. It's on the net : ff 55-59 - list of the lord mayors of London, 1402-1512, with a brief note of events for each of those years, a set of annals written by London citizens, particularly full for the years 1482-1487, and containing a suggestion that the Princes in the Tower 'wer put to deyth ... be the vise of the duke of Buckingham', in a contemporary hand It seems to be considered as a genuine contemporary source.

- Found in the Ashmole collection of manuscript : A genealogy of the Kings of England down to Richard III, mentioning Henry VII as the Earl of Richmond and considered genuine as well. It's written in latin but it's easy to translate, and it says clearly that Richard debated the matter with Buckingham and decided to kill the boys.
I agree that the sources are scarce, and two come from Tudor's allies. The other two are anonymous, so we don't know if the ones who wrote them were well informed.
But then, one of them was a London citizen. As you pointed out yourself, he had means of checking if the princes were dead or alive, by seeking news about them directly at the Tower.
So in the end, I'm not sure that this one source is that easy to dismiss as unreliable.
But your second point is very interesting :
"the only references to Buckingham offering to support Tudor for the crown came after Henry became king"
Is that so ? It doesn't seem like this in Horspool's, or even in Kendal's book. But I assume that the reference you speak about comes from the Croyland Chronicle ? Kendal, at least, quotes it.
Well, I find this very, very interesting. For indeed, Buckingham rebelling against Richard, who had given him so much power, for the sake of Henry Tudor is rather absurd, as much as the historians try to explain it. It makes so much more sense if he was his own champion !
What role did Morton play in all that, who knows ? Maybe he was the one who suggested Buckingham that he had a valuable claim to the throne. Morton was an opportunist.

So maybe Buckingham killed the boys (hence the reference of his role in their death in our meagre sources). Or, he just spread the rumor in the hope the Woodville would rally to him for revenge, but the children were still alive.

But then, as you said, there were means to check at the Tower. And why didn't they reappear later, in Burgundy for example, as did the impostors ? That's the major argument of the ones who support the idea that Richard did kill them, forgetting that they could have been other reasons for their death.
To finish, as for Richard having more or less doomed himself, I agree. Tudor with his bunch of mercenaries was nothing more that another adventurer who won against the odds, like others before him. Had Richard waited for more troops, had he prevented Stanley from leaving his side, he might have won. Had he not decided that admirable, but reckless charge, he might have lived to see another battle, even if he'd lost that one. In the 'Sunne of Splendor", Sharon Penman describes him as desperate, feeling forsaken by God after the death of his son and wife. I think that view could be rather close to the truth. At least, he really didn't behave as one whose very concerned by self-preservation.


---In , <destama@...> wrote :

romanenemo wrote:Thank you, Doug, for that detailed account. I find your hypothesis that Buckingham spread the rumor of the children's death to seize the crown himself very interesting. And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. And it's clear that anyone who started the rumor wanted to lay the crime at Richard's feet. But I tend to think that Buckingham actually killed the children. Doug here:You're welcome! I must add, however, that, while I have support for my views, what I posted is just that  my views.You wrote And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. I emphasized that one phrase because, as far as I know, the only references to Buckingham offering to support Tudor for the crown came after Henry became king; IOW, there's no reference contemporary with Buckingham's Rebellion to support the idea that Buckingham intended to step aside for anyone other than Edward V. Apparently there is a contemporary document from Buckingham requesting Tudor's aid, but that's certainly not the same as supporting Henry in a bid for the throne!For reasons I have trouble understanding, the fact that Henry Tudor could, and did, only make his claim to the throne based on the right of conquest, seems to be too often forgotten. Henry Stafford, OTOH, was the premier (if not only?) Royal Duke in England; presuming one ignores any such titles held by Richard and Richard's son. Stafford's descent from Edward III was completely legitimate. Unlike Henry's, which had required an Act of Parliament just to legitimize John of Gaunt's off-spring by his mistress. Nor in regards to Stafford were there any Royal caveats excepting to the royalty, such as there were for the Beauforts.My personal view is that it's extremely probable that the deaths of Edward and Richard were part of what Buckingham intended when he rebelled but, and again it's only my personal view, the plan misfired.romanenemo concluded:Of course, I'd like to believe that they didn't die. But if the children, or at lest Edward, was with his mother in 1484, if the other one was sent to Flanders, once again, why didn't King Richard prove to the public, one way of another, through a solemn declaration of someone trustworthy on that matter (such as the Archbishop or their mother) that the boys were still alive ? All the sources we have, reliable or not, contemporary or not, and above all the renewed alliance Lancast rer-Woodville, based upon Henry's promise to marry Elizabeth of York, show that the assumption that the princes were dead was very strong before and after Bosworth. And that assumption was deadly to Richard. If it had not been true, he'd have found a way to dispel the rumor. Doug here:Perhaps the reason Richard never publicly showed the boys to be still alive in order to squelch rumors is because said rumors weren't widespread. There is something on the order of two or three contemporary sources for the rumors; one is in a speech by the equivalent of the French Prime Minister, there's the reference in the Croyland Chronicle and another reference seemingly entered as a later addition to another chronicle I think it's a chronicle, but I could be mistaken). The only reference that can definitely be determined to have been made during Richard's reign is the one by the Frenchman; the other two were written, as best can be determined, sometime after Bosworth when the fates of the two boys had assumed national importance. Basically what I'm saying is that the rumors weren't widespread, or at least not widespread enough for Richard to take official notice.I also have to admit that the idea that, because Henry pledged to marry Elizabeth of York, therefore he must have believed her brothers to be dead a non-starter. Henry's only shot at gaining the throne was via splitting Yorkist support for Richard. Henry couldn't marry Edward or Richard to accomplish that end, but he could, and eventually did, marry their sister. I've read, unfortunately I don't recall exactly where, that, between Bosworth and his marriage in January, 1486, Henry attempted to find a suitable foreign princess to marry, rather than carry out his pledge to marry Elizabeth. IOW, Henry vowed to marry Elizabeth as part of his efforts to gain the throne, but once he had the throne, his marriage to her was only because he'd not been able to acquire a foreign princess as a bride. In view of the lack of Woodville support for his invasion (presuming Hilary's researches are accurate  and they have been so far!), there was no special reason for Henry to carry out his earlier pledge except to meet the demands of the nobility that he do so.Another thing to remember is that Tudor's army consisted of French mercenaries and whatever Welsh troops he'd managed to gather in. Had Sir WIlliam Stanley not intervened as he did, or Northumberland been more active (to say the least) Richard would have won. Richard even had the option, prior to Bosworth of falling back and joining those troops with him to an even larger number of supporters. That Richard failed to do so is, IMO, what doomed him and not any rumors.Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-07 20:02:47
b.eileen25
The only thing we can be sure of is that the boys disappeared and were never heard of again. Other than thats its pure speculation and second guessing what someone was thinking over 500 years ago. I fear we will never know.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-07 20:25:06
daviddurose2000
Romane, The French were not supporting Tudor at the time of the speech by de Rochefort, it happened early in 1484 Henry did not go to France until October. They had bigger fish to fry - read about the 'mad war'.
Actually there is further evidence for the belief that the Princes were dead in the action of Louis - future King - he sued for divorce and set off for Brittany. Anne was the best catch in Europe.
Regards David
On 7 Jun 2017 7:08 p.m., romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

About the rumors concerning the death of the children, here's the ones I know of :


- That speech from some french minister, I don't remember who, likening young Charles VIII's dangerous situation to the fate that the York princes met at the hands of their uncle. But France supported Tudor.
- Mancini's memoir speaking of rumors concerning the princes death. He seems honest, for he adds that he doesn't know how they would have died. But Mancini worked for a former minister of Louis XI.
- A manuscript found in the collection of the Colllege of Arms. I copied what I found in the list of the items found in that collection. It's on the net : ff 55-59 - list of the lord mayors of London, 1402-1512, with a brief note of events for each of those years, a set of annals written by London citizens, particularly full for the years 1482-1487, and containing a suggestion that the Princes in the Tower 'wer put to deyth ... be the vise of the duke of Buckingham', in a contemporary hand It seems to be considered as a genuine contemporary source.

- Found in the Ashmole collection of manuscript : A genealogy of the Kings of England down to Richard III, mentioning Henry VII as the Earl of Richmond and considered genuine as well. It's written in latin but it's easy to translate, and it says clearly that Richard debated the matter with Buckingham and decided to kill the boys.
I agree that the sources are scarce, and two come from Tudor's allies. The other two are anonymous, so we don't know if the ones who wrote them were well informed.
But then, one of them was a London citizen. As you pointed out yourself, he had means of checking if the princes were dead or alive, by seeking news about them directly at the Tower. 
So in the end, I'm not sure that this one source is that easy to dismiss as unreliable.
But your second point is very interesting : 
"the only references to Buckingham offering to support Tudor for the crown came after Henry became king"
Is that so ? It doesn't seem like this in Horspool's, or even in Kendal's book. But I assume that the reference you speak about comes from the Croyland Chronicle ? Kendal, at least, quotes it.
Well, I find this very, very interesting. For indeed, Buckingham rebelling against Richard, who had given him so much power, for the sake of Henry Tudor is rather absurd, as much as the historians try to explain it. It makes so much more sense if he was his own champion !
What role did Morton play in all that, who knows ? Maybe he was the one who suggested Buckingham that he had a valuable claim to the throne. Morton was an opportunist.

So maybe Buckingham killed the boys (hence the reference of his role in their death in our meagre sources). Or, he just spread the rumor in the hope the Woodville would rally to him for revenge, but the children were still alive. 

But then, as you said, there were means to check at the Tower. And why didn't they reappear later, in Burgundy for example, as did the impostors ? That's the major argument of the ones who support the idea that Richard did kill them, forgetting that they could have been other reasons for their death.
To finish, as for Richard having more or less doomed himself, I agree. Tudor with his bunch of mercenaries was nothing more that another adventurer who won against the odds, like others before him. Had Richard waited for more troops, had he prevented Stanley from leaving his side, he might have won. Had he not decided that admirable, but reckless charge, he might have lived to see another battle, even if he'd lost that one. In the 'Sunne of Splendor", Sharon Penman describes him as desperate, feeling forsaken by God after the death of his son and wife. I think that view could be rather close to the truth. At least, he really didn't behave as one whose very concerned by self-preservation.


---In @yahoogroups.com, <destama@...> wrote :

  romanenemo wrote:Thank you, Doug, for that detailed account. I find your hypothesis that Buckingham spread the rumor of the children's death to seize the crown himself very interesting. And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. And it's clear that anyone who started the rumor wanted to lay the crime at Richard's feet. But I tend to think that Buckingham actually killed the children. Doug here:You're welcome! I must add, however, that, while I have support for my views, what I posted is just that  my views.You wrote And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. I emphasized that one phrase because, as far as I know, the only references to Buckingham offering to support Tudor for the crown came after Henry became king; IOW, there's no reference contemporary with Buckingham's Rebellion to support the idea that Buckingham intended to step aside for anyone other than Edward V. Apparently there is a contemporary document from Buckingham requesting Tudor's aid, but that's certainly not the same as supporting Henry in a bid for the throne!For reasons I have trouble understanding, the fact that Henry Tudor could, and did, only make his claim to the throne based on the right of conquest, seems to be too often forgotten. Henry Stafford, OTOH, was the premier (if not only?) Royal Duke in England; presuming one ignores any such titles held by Richard and Richard's son. Stafford's descent from Edward III was completely legitimate. Unlike Henry's, which had required an Act of Parliament just to legitimize John of Gaunt's off-spring by his mistress. Nor in regards to Stafford were there any Royal caveats excepting to the royalty, such as there were for the Beauforts.My personal view is that it's extremely probable that the deaths of Edward and Richard were part of what Buckingham intended when he rebelled but, and again it's only my personal view, the plan misfired.romanenemo concluded:Of course, I'd like to believe that they didn't die. But if the children, or at lest Edward, was with his mother in 1484, if the other one was sent to Flanders, once again, why didn't King Richard prove to the public, one way of another, through a solemn declaration of someone trustworthy on that matter (such as the Archbishop or their mother) that the boys were still alive ? All the sources we have, reliable or not, contemporary or not, and above all the renewed alliance Lancast rer-Woodville, based upon Henry's promise to marry Elizabeth of York, show that the assumption that the princes were dead was very strong before and after Bosworth. And that assumption was deadly to Richard. If it had not been true, he'd have found a way to dispel the rumor. Doug here:Perhaps the reason Richard never publicly showed the boys to be still alive in order to squelch rumors is because said rumors weren't widespread. There is something on the order of two or three contemporary sources for the rumors; one is in a speech by the equivalent of the French Prime Minister, there's the reference in the Croyland Chronicle and another reference seemingly entered as a later addition to another chronicle I think it's a chronicle, but I could be mistaken). The only reference that can definitely be determined to have been made during Richard's reign is the one by the Frenchman; the other two were written, as best can be determined, sometime after Bosworth when the fates of the two boys had assumed national importance. Basically what I'm saying is that the rumors weren't widespread, or at least not widespread enough for Richard to take official notice.I also have to admit that the idea that, because Henry pledged to marry Elizabeth of York, therefore he must have believed her brothers to be dead a non-starter. Henry's only shot at gaining the throne was via splitting Yorkist support for Richard. Henry couldn't marry Edward or Richard to accomplish that end, but he could, and eventually did, marry their sister. I've read, unfortunately I don't recall exactly where, that, between Bosworth and his marriage in January, 1486, Henry attempted to find a suitable foreign princess to marry, rather than carry out his pledge to marry Elizabeth. IOW, Henry vowed to marry Elizabeth as part of his efforts to gain the throne, but once he had the throne, his marriage to her was only because he'd not been able to acquire a foreign princess as a bride. In view of the lack of Woodville support for his invasion (presuming Hilary's researches are accurate  and they have been so far!), there was no special reason for Henry to carry out his earlier pledge except to meet the demands of the nobility that he do so.Another thing to remember is that Tudor's army consisted of French mercenaries and whatever Welsh troops he'd managed to gather in. Had Sir WIlliam Stanley not intervened as he did, or Northumberland been more active (to say the least) Richard would have won. Richard even had the option, prior to Bosworth of falling back  and joining those troops with him to an even larger number of supporters. That Richard failed to do so is, IMO, what doomed him and not any rumors.Doug 
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-07 22:20:29
ricard1an
With regard to Morton, apparently the rumour that Richard had killed his nephews surfaced in France around about the time that he arrived there having escaped from Buckingham's clutches.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-07 23:05:55
b.eileen25
Morton!...the slimey blighter. Bishop of Ely and later Archbishop of Canterbury..aware of the sanctity of the coronation service yet he did not shirk from encouraging others to commit regicide. How did he sleep at nights..

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-07 23:12:40
vicki harris
No, John Ashdowne -Hill does not say Edward IV was gay. He says he may have had a homosexual relationship which was quite common

Get Outlook for Android
From: <> on behalf of daviddurose2000@... [] <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 5:19:03 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

RE rumours from Brittany Really??? But then Ashdown-Hill says Edward IV was gay, Clarence was short and Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund Tudor. Annette Carson says Henry Tudor's exile was self-imposed.
I suspect that both are wrong in this. I would not consider contemporary books as sources - they must have quoted a source themselves...
It would seem this may be used to portray a great external plot between Francis and Henry
However it does not fit in with the sequence of events
Vergil says that Margaret heard of the deaths of the Princes and soon after thought of the deal with Elizabeth Woodville to get Henry home by making him king.
We have the means by which Henry and Francis were informed in Brittany - Conway Guildford and Rameney sent separately by Margaret
Also it would be illogical for Francis to be party to a false rumour, because his daughter was due to become Queen of England on her marriage to Edward V. Having spent 12 years holding Henry to obtain good terms from England, why throw it all away in favour of placing his captive on the throne through an invasion?
While while starting rumours from a distance might be a good tactic for something that could not be disproved, like the parentage of Edward IV, it makes no sense for something that could easily be disproved by producing the Princes. And by what mechanism were the rumours transmitted?
Lastly, in her book Josephine Wilkinson analyses the first occurrence of them, to point the finger at Margaret Beaufort. Although her logic is a bit suspect, in that she ignores the fact that Polydore Virgil says that the rumours were pre-existing.


On 6 Jun 2017 5:39 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> wrote:

John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany.
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours?
Regards David
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters. They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies.
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle. The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In @yahoogr oups.com, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive? She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-07 23:31:23
Hilary Jones
The point made in your sixth and seventh paragraphs are very good. Not sure about the shipwreck though. H

From: romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2017, 13:23
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle.The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In , <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive? She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-07 23:37:56
Hilary Jones
A very good point Eileen!! H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2017, 20:02
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

The only thing we can be sure of is that the boys disappeared and were never heard of again. Other than thats its pure speculation and second guessing what someone was thinking over 500 years ago. I fear we will never know.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-08 00:05:00
Hilary Jones
Yes, I think it was the English who taught the French to be very good at spreading rumours during the Hundred Years War? H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2017, 17:21
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours?
Regards David
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> wrote:
The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters. They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies.
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle.The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In @ yahoogroups.com, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive? She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-08 00:15:25
Pamela Bain
Gosh Hillary, it seems like every country of note, was very crafty. There was a lot of territory, riches, and opportunity for the older nations and the up and comers....... British, Scottish, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, everyone had a dog in the hunt, or wanted one. All the intermarriages, jockeying for marriages to other royals, seeking or holding of territory, what a delightful and dangerous mish mash of people and events. And I left out the "Church" and its very own set of intrigues. This was a multi-layered and interactive chess game, in my very humble opinion.
On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:05 PM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes, I think it was the English who taught the French to be very good at spreading rumours during the Hundred Years War? H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2017, 17:21
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours?
Regards David
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> wrote:
The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters. They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies.
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation : "Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle. The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In @ yahoogroups.com, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive? She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-08 00:18:12
Hilary Jones
Doug, the only reason for a flaw in your theory of Morton's participation is that he actually didn't muster any/much support in 1483. Go forward to Bosworth and it's very different. To say Buckingham's support was thin was an understatement. Sorry, but I still fail to understand why Richard would send either boy to Flanders; Richard was a many who believed in loyalty above all and the loyalty which had been tested again and again was that of his own folk in the North. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 5 June 2017, 17:28
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?



romanenemo wrote:
"Thank you for that interesting summary of the available knowledge about
Perkin Warbeck Hilary.
I think that if he was an impostor, the fact that Margaret supported him
shows that she didn't know what had happened to the children either. And
that they were probably dead. There was no staunchest supporter of the
yorkist cause than Margaret. Why would anyone having the children under
their care not contact Margaret, at least after Richard's death, even if
they were not hidden in Burgundy ?Or, if they were hidden somewhere else,
why didn't they reappear in Burgundy to claim the throne, as Perkin Warbeck
did ?"

Doug here:
That Margaret supported "Perkin" is why I tend to believe he was who he
claimed. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to think that Margaret,
as much as she detested Tudor, would have supported someone for the throne
of England that she knew to be an imposter. The possibility does exist, of
course, that Margaret, as well as others, was taken in but, once again, any
attempt to palm someone off as Richard of Shrewsbury entailed so many
possible dangers as to make it, to me anyway, a non-starter.
For what it's worth, it's my belief that Richard separated his two nephews
during the spring of 1484, keeping Edward in England (Edward had, after all,
been proclaimed king, even if he'd never been crowned) and sent Richard
overseas to reside in the household of a well-to-do merchant and, most
importantly, Yorkist supporter. It would have made sense for Richard to have
informed his sister of his actions concerning his nephew, but I can't see
any necessity for Margaret to have had much, or even any, interaction with
the boy. Especially if, as I tend to believe, a major reason for the boy
being sent to Flanders was for his own protection.

ramonenemo concluded:
"And considering the two texts contemporary to Richard's reign (the text
from the journal of some London citizen and the genealogy)showing that there
were already rumors about the children's death during Richard's reign, if
they had been alive, Richard would have shown them to prove it.
On another hand, as Tey points at, Richard was far from stupid and if he
had killed the children or if they had died under his care, he would have
shown the bodies.And there is the lack of official accusation from Henry vii
as well.
It is as if the situation concerning the children had no longer been under
Richard's control when the rumors started. Will we ever know what happened"

Doug here:
As best I can determine, there were two periods when rumors about the boys
were flying around. The first was shortly after Buckingham's Rebellion broke
out, when rumors spread that the boys were dead, and spread far enough to be
noted by the Croyland Chronicler (whoever he was). While noone has ever been
named as the source of these rumors, it's my belief, based on what we
currently know, that those rumors were intended to gin up support for
Buckingham in his quest for the throne. My reasoning is that, should the
rebellion, which originally had as its' aim the return of Edward to the
throne, been successful, Buckingham could only at best hoped to take over as
Protector as long as Edward and Richard were alive. However, if anything
were to happen to the boys, then Buckingham would be in a position not
unlike that which faced Richard upon Stillington's announcement that Edward
IV's offspring were illegitimate - namely, there'd be two juveniles as
possible monarchs, with one under attainder and the second the son of the
man who'd be charged with the murder of his nephews. Because I really can't
see Buckingham letting the facts that Edward and Richard were also his
nephews and were still children stand in his way. IOW, Edward and Richard
would have likely been "discovered" as having been killed by Richard before
Buckingham could rescue them.
I believe the plan failed because the person who dreamed it up, and
encouraged Buckingham to aim for the throne, Bishop Morton, wasn't in
complete control of all the planning that goes into plotting a rebellion.
Morton almost certainly realized that, if a rebellion aimed at returning
Edward V to the throne was to succeed, Edward had to been seen as being
alive. Any rumor about his death spread before the rebellion was well
underway (IOW, troops already mustered and gathered together) would only
depress turnout and reduce the chances of Buckingham defeating Richard.
Everything I've seen suggests that the rumor about the boys' deaths got out
before it was intended, and that, as soon as the rumor was out, Morton
headed for cover, realizing the rebellion was almost certainly doomed. I'm
not certain about the dating of the reference to the boys being killed "on
the vise of Buckingham," but it's certainly possible the reference was
written down at a later time. Possibly because the topic of the boys' deaths
had come up again?
The second instance that I know of is a reference to the boys no longer
being seen in the Tower "after Easter." Easter 1483 can be ruled out
immediately as neither boy was even in the Tower before Easter 1483 was well
past. Which leaves 1484 and 1485 as possibilities. My preference is for 1484
as that was also the time frame when EW finally left sanctuary in
Westminster. There is no reference to her being lodged in London that I know
of, which increases the likelihood that she was lodged somewhere outside
London. Which would also explain why the boys were no longer seen at the
Tower, they also had been moved out of London.
It's only my belief, as I have no proof to sustain it other than the actions
of those involved and their personalities, but my current belief is that an
integral part of Buckingham's Rebellion included the death of the two boys,
and that death was to be laid at Richard's feet. Richard's actions lead me
to believe that he didn't know what Buckingham had planned for his nephews
until sometime at least after the rebellion was set in motion, and possibly
not until it was over. It may have been when Richard called Buckingham "that
most untrue creature" or it may have been prior to the winter of 1483/84
when it was noticed the boys were being seen less and less.
In either case, Richard decided the boys would be safer if they were
separated. If people were on the look-out for two boys, it would make the
job of hiding them away easier if only one boy suddenly popped up somewhere.
Where Richard seems to have failed is in not making better plans in advance
for the possibility of his, Richard's, demise. Of course, up until the death
of his son, Richard didn't need to worry too much about the succession. And
after his son died, Richard was quickly faced with the prospect of his
wife's illness and death. So I cut him some slack for being preoccupied.
The problems that developed after Bosworth result, again IMO, were due to
our not knowing what happened to Edward. If, as I believe, he'd been hidden
away somewhere in England, his first thought after the news of Bosworth
arrived would have been to get away to someplace safe. But then the problems
with being, first Prince of Wales, then the eldest illegitimate son of
Edward IV came to the fore. His tenure as Prince of Wales hadn't gotten to
the point where he'd actually been doing things on his own. Not only had he
been under the tutelage of his uncle, with everything provided for him
including, quite likely, just where to put his, Edward's, signature on
official documents. That period was followed by his time in the Tower,
originally the Royal Apartments, then in more secure surrounding where,
again, his interactions with people would have been quite limited. If, as I
think, he'd been sent to some out-of-the-way place in the country, the same
would apply there. He'd likely have a greater chance to interact with people
but, and if only because of the reason for his sequestration, those contacts
would still be limited.
Which means that, after Bosworth, there are two possibilities for Edward.
The first is that remained where he was and was swallowed up into the gentry
or he fled. If it's the latter that happened then there's the possibility,
and only a possibility, that there may be something to the "Richard of
Eastham" story, but whether that "Richard" was actually Edward or possibly
someone who knew what had happened to Edward and decided in his declining
years to take advantage of that knowledge isn't currently determinable.
Sorry about the length!
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-08 09:09:29
Paul Trevor Bale
Sounds to me as if you are in the same place as Phillippa Gregory, never mind the facts if a good dirty story can get told! Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 7 juin 2017 à 19:14, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> a écrit :

Don't listen to Chroniclers. Edward probably was bisexual. He seemed to be an "anything goes type". At least John bases it in his itinerary. The book isn't out yet so how do.you know,?. I'm still waiting on hold for it. We know Katherine was a very lusty woman. It seems she had three affairs in a row before running off with Tudor. Vergil,? Tudor s propaganda chief? Seriously? Not me. I ignore them all now in favor of new evidence.

On Jun 7, 2017 12:19 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

RE rumours from Brittany Really???But then Ashdown-Hill says Edward IV was gay, Clarence was short and Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund Tudor. Annette Carson says Henry Tudor's exile was self-imposed.
I suspect that both are wrong in this. I would not consider contemporary books as sources - they must have quoted a source themselves...
It would seem this may be used to portray a great external plot between Francis and Henry
However it does not fit in with the sequence of events
Vergil says that Margaret heard of the deaths of the Princes and soon after thought of the deal with Elizabeth Woodville to get Henry home by making him king.
We have the means by which Henry and Francis were informed in Brittany - Conway Guildford and Rameney sent separately by Margaret
Also it would be illogical for Francis to be party to a false rumour, because his daughter was due to become Queen of England on her marriage to Edward V. Having spent 12 years holding Henry to obtain good terms from England, why throw it all away in favour of placing his captive on the throne through an invasion?
While while starting rumours from a distance might be a good tactic for something that could not be disproved, like the parentage of Edward IV, it makes no sense for something that could easily be disproved by producing the Princes. And by what mechanism were the rumours transmitted?
Lastly, in her book Josephine Wilkinson analyses the first occurrence of them, to point the finger at Margaret Beaufort. Although her logic is a bit suspect, in that she ignores the fact that Polydore Virgil says that the rumours were pre-existing.


On 6 Jun 2017 5:39 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany.
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours?
Regards David
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters. They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies.
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle.The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In @yahoogr oups.com, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive? She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-08 09:10:23
Paul Trevor Bale
Eileen the voice of reason once again. Spot on, and thanks.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 7 juin 2017 à 21:02, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :

The only thing we can be sure of is that the boys disappeared and were never heard of again. Other than thats its pure speculation and second guessing what someone was thinking over 500 years ago. I fear we will never know.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-08 09:12:58
Paul Trevor Bale
I would suggest John's own predelictions colour his assessment. And who says a homosexual relationship was quite common? Outside of closed communities in Medieval England?

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 7 juin 2017 à 21:47, vicki harris vickihnotb@... [] <> a écrit :

No, John Ashdowne -Hill does not say Edward IV was gay. He says he may have had a homosexual relationship which was quite common

Get Outlook for Android
From: <> on behalf of daviddurose2000@... [] <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 5:19:03 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

RE rumours from Brittany Really??? But then Ashdown-Hill says Edward IV was gay, Clarence was short and Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund Tudor. Annette Carson says Henry Tudor's exile was self-imposed.
I suspect that both are wrong in this. I would not consider contemporary books as sources - they must have quoted a source themselves...
It would seem this may be used to portray a great external plot between Francis and Henry
However it does not fit in with the sequence of events
Vergil says that Margaret heard of the deaths of the Princes and soon after thought of the deal with Elizabeth Woodville to get Henry home by making him king.
We have the means by which Henry and Francis were informed in Brittany - Conway Guildford and Rameney sent separately by Margaret
Also it would be illogical for Francis to be party to a false rumour, because his daughter was due to become Queen of England on her marriage to Edward V. Having spent 12 years holding Henry to obtain good terms from England, why throw it all away in favour of placing his captive on the throne through an invasion?
While while starting rumours from a distance might be a good tactic for something that could not be disproved, like the parentage of Edward IV, it makes no sense for something that could easily be disproved by producing the Princes. And by what mechanism were the rumours transmitted?
Lastly, in her book Josephine Wilkinson analyses the first occurrence of them, to point the finger at Margaret Beaufort. Although her logic is a bit suspect, in that she ignores the fact that Polydore Virgil says that the rumours were pre-existing.


On 6 Jun 2017 5:39 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> wrote:

John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany.
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours?
Regards David
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters. They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies.
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle. The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




---In @yahoogr oups.com, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive? She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-08 10:37:11
Nicholas Brown
David wrote: The idea that the Princes were kept in isolation and ignorance of each other (as a means of explaining Warbeck's letter) is an interesting one. The problem is that it then complicates the scenarios that roll on into the future. Instead of a single conspiracy, we are presented with two - not only that, but two mutually exclusive stories in which the two must be kept in ignorance. Warbeck must have been quite a news item at the time and how did Edward not become aware of him?If Richard / Warbeck was spun a story given to Richard as he was smuggled away, why not simply tell him that his brother had died of natural causes?What would be wrong with telling the world that he had been smuggled out on the orders of his uncle, and protected by his aunt?The letter also fits in with two other Yorkist sources - Margaret's letter (also to Isabella) saying 'they' had told her they were dead (on the appearance) of Warbeck in Flanders.The other source - Lincoln's family tree - which states that Edward 'Died young with no issue' and Richard 'Also died with no issue'.These confirm a belief among enemies of Henry that the Princes were dead and just as importantly, the biographical details given for Richard do not match Warbeck, who married and did have issue.

Hi David,
The separation of two surviving princes kept in ignorance of one another is only one possible scenario. If Margaret had been harbouring them, it is likely that she would have sent them to different church schools or monasteries. Alternatively, it is possible that Edward was murdered or was killed challenging an intruder, possibly during the 'rescue' attempt in July 1483. Actually, I don't find the story as told implausible; an assassin could have decided that he couldn't murder a 9 year old boy after all - especially if he woke up before he did the deed.
As for Margaret's letter, she could have been lying to cover her earlier involvement. Margaret may have given the Princes shelter, but had no initial interest in them other than a duty of care. However, a lot changed between 1483 and 1492. After Bosworth, they still would not have been much use as pretenders, as they would probably end up as Woodville puppets and she probably believed they were illegitmate anyway. Warwick had a better claim, so she preferred him, so perhaps she sent 'Perkin' to Portugal in 1487 and hoped he would stay there. Maybe Margaret played no part in Perkin's early quest, and the idea to claim the throne came from him with Brampton's assistance, with Margaret only getting involved later when he was attracting attention. Also, it is interesting that Perkin was so determined to continue his claim after he could have backed out, which demonstrates more conviction and self belief than would generally be found in con artists, who tend to be self serving sociopaths that disappear at the first sign of trouble and move on to their next victim.

You are right the information on the de la Pole family tree doesn't match Perkin who was married with a son. However, it was compiled in Tudor times, perhaps when the de la Poles were the Tudor's main rivals. If so, the Princes in the Tower and Perkin were best forgotten.

Nico



On Tuesday, 6 June 2017, 23:12, "Karen cmasters1335@... []" <> wrote:


The Woodville alliance is overrated IMHO. Tudor would have invaded anyway. He probably would have invoked the precontract himself. I think it was rather common knowledge In Upper circles. I stopped concentrating on Chroniclers long ago. The rumours had nothing to do with the October uprising which was small, limited geographically, and poorly organized. They also had nothing to do with the treachery against Richard. That treachery was simple greed. You cannot prove they were dead by using logic. Richard was not so much concerned with their safety as with their being used. He didn't speak. We can't be certain why. I tend to agree with romance writers that he wanted loyalty out of respect and love. An admirable trait and fatal to an absolute monarch.
On Jun 6, 2017 9:16 AM, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The Archbishop of Caterbury was the supreme religious authority, not Stilington. The majority would have believed him, if not the people who had good reasons not to. Elizabeth Woodville also could have made a convincing statement. She had to know what Henry's victory would mean for her boys. Unless they were already dead.
Besides, it's just a matter of logic, and of pros and cons. To produce the boys physically might have been dangerous for them, but Richard had means of protecting them. Not to produce them if it had been possible would have been a political suicide for Richard, as it allowed the association Woodville-Lancastrians to gather strength. To produce them was to put an end to that association. And there was the question of the moral high ground as well. What would any sensible statesman do in such a situation ?
To sum up, I don't think Richard would have cared about his nephew's safety to the point of neglecting so much his own, and the peace of his kingdom. If sentiment and not sense had led him, he might as well have left Edward V on the throne.


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-08 11:28:35
romanenemo
The actual 'mad war' was a bit later in fact. But as soon as 1484, Anne of Beaujeu had trouble with the Duke of Orleans, and that didn't prevent France from helping Henry Tudor.
But you're right anyway, Rochefort's speech was before Henry's flight in France. At I didn't remember who Rochefort was, and to whom he had spoken when he'd claimed that the children were dead.
So, here are the earliest statements about the princes' death.
- Mancini, in his memoir probably finished in december 1583, says that in England there were rumors of the princes' death, but that he didn't know how it had happened.
From that, we can't draw any kind of conclusion. Mancini doesn't say that the princes were dead, only that he'd heard that they were. He doesn't tell from whom he'd heard the rumor. It could be completely false. And he was on the payroll of a former minister of Louis XI.

- In January 1484 Guillaume de Rochefort, Lord Chancellor of France, urged the Estates General to "take warning" from the fate of the princes, as their own king, Charles VIII, was only 13.

That particular clue, IMO, is a very different matter.

Of course, the french government had supported the Lancastrian pretenders for quite a while, following a 'divide and rule' (or at least 'divide and keep the troubles outside') policy. It was in their interest to spread such a rumor against Richard, a potential enemy. If it is only a rumor, as Morton escaped on the continent in october 1483 I think, he could have been the source of it.


But at that date, so early in 1484, there was no conflict yet between Richard and France.

And above all, would a Chancelor, talking to the Estates General, report a mere rumor ? At the risk that it was proved to be a lie later ? It's much more likely that, for the sake of his own credibility, he would have checked the information first. And as Doug said, it was quite easy to check.


Of course, there is still the possibility that Richard would have hidden the boys. But if the Chancelor of France was talking about the princes' death to the Estates General, it was not a faint, provincial rumor. It was already a matter of state.

And as I said before, I find quite impossible to believe that Richard would have put the princes's safety, or the risk that they would be spirited away by the Woodville, above the possibility of clearing himself of such a dangerous accusation. Considering again the 'divide to rule' policy, it was much more in Richard's interest if there were two pretenders, Edward V and Henry, than just one.


And even if there was few of the Woodville party at Bosworth, there was at least Edward Woodville, who had taken shelter in Brittany and gave Henry some part of the english treasure. Would he have fought to make Henry king if he'd thought that his nephews were alive ?


Politically, it was really of the utmost interest for Richard to prove that his nephews were alive.

So I tend to go back to my previous point of view : the boys were actually dead in september, when Buckingham rebelled. As he probably rebelled for his own sake, it was absolutely in his interest to make the boys disappear. He did it !




---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote :

Doug, the only reason for a flaw in your theory of Morton's participation is that he actually didn't muster any/much support in 1483. Go forward to Bosworth and it's very different. To say Buckingham's support was thin was an understatement. Sorry, but I still fail to understand why Richard would send either boy to Flanders; Richard was a many who believed in loyalty above all and the loyalty which had been tested again and again was that of his own folk in the North. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 5 June 2017, 17:28
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?



romanenemo wrote:
"Thank you for that interesting summary of the available knowledge about
Perkin Warbeck Hilary.
I think that if he was an impostor, the fact that Margaret supported him
shows that she didn't know what had happened to the children either. And
that they were probably dead. There was no staunchest supporter of the
yorkist cause than Margaret. Why would anyone having the children under
their care not contact Margaret, at least after Richard's death, even if
they were not hidden in Burgundy ?Or, if they were hidden somewhere else,
why didn't they reappear in Burgundy to claim the throne, as Perkin Warbeck
did ?"

Doug here:
That Margaret supported "Perkin" is why I tend to believe he was who he
claimed. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to think that Margaret,
as much as she detested Tudor, would have supported someone for the throne
of England that she knew to be an imposter. The possibility does exist, of
course, that Margaret, as well as others, was taken in but, once again, any
attempt to palm someone off as Richard of Shrewsbury entailed so many
possible dangers as to make it, to me anyway, a non-starter.
For what it's worth, it's my belief that Richard separated his two nephews
during the spring of 1484, keeping Edward in England (Edward had, after all,
been proclaimed king, even if he'd never been crowned) and sent Richard
overseas to reside in the household of a well-to-do merchant and, most
importantly, Yorkist supporter. It would have made sense for Richard to have
informed his sister of his actions concerning his nephew, but I can't see
any necessity for Margaret to have had much, or even any, interaction with
the boy. Especially if, as I tend to believe, a major reason for the boy
being sent to Flanders was for his own protection.

ramonenemo concluded:
"And considering the two texts contemporary to Richard's reign (the text
from the journal of some London citizen and the genealogy)showing that there
were already rumors about the children's death during Richard's reign, if
they had been alive, Richard would have shown them to prove it.
On another hand, as Tey points at, Richard was far from stupid and if he
had killed the children or if they had died under his care, he would have
shown the bodies.And there is the lack of official accusation from Henry vii
as well.
It is as if the situation concerning the children had no longer been under
Richard's control when the rumors started. Will we ever know what happened"

Doug here:
As best I can determine, there were two periods when rumors about the boys
were flying around. The first was shortly after Buckingham's Rebellion broke
out, when rumors spread that the boys were dead, and spread far enough to be
noted by the Croyland Chronicler (whoever he was). While noone has ever been
named as the source of these rumors, it's my belief, based on what we
currently know, that those rumors were intended to gin up support for
Buckingham in his quest for the throne. My reasoning is that, should the
rebellion, which originally had as its' aim the return of Edward to the
throne, been successful, Buckingham could only at best hoped to take over as
Protector as long as Edward and Richard were alive. However, if anything
were to happen to the boys, then Buckingham would be in a position not
unlike that which faced Richard upon Stillington's announcement that Edward
IV's offspring were illegitimate - namely, there'd be two juveniles as
possible monarchs, with one under attainder and the second the son of the
man who'd be charged with the murder of his nephews. Because I really can't
see Buckingham letting the facts that Edward and Richard were also his
nephews and were still children stand in his way. IOW, Edward and Richard
would have likely been "discovered" as having been killed by Richard before
Buckingham could rescue them.
I believe the plan failed because the person who dreamed it up, and
encouraged Buckingham to aim for the throne, Bishop Morton, wasn't in
complete control of all the planning that goes into plotting a rebellion.
Morton almost certainly realized that, if a rebellion aimed at returning
Edward V to the throne was to succeed, Edward had to been seen as being
alive. Any rumor about his death spread before the rebellion was well
underway (IOW, troops already mustered and gathered together) would only
depress turnout and reduce the chances of Buckingham defeating Richard.
Everything I've seen suggests that the rumor about the boys' deaths got out
before it was intended, and that, as soon as the rumor was out, Morton
headed for cover, realizing the rebellion was almost certainly doomed. I'm
not certain about the dating of the reference to the boys being killed "on
the vise of Buckingham," but it's certainly possible the reference was
written down at a later time. Possibly because the topic of the boys' deaths
had come up again?
The second instance that I know of is a reference to the boys no longer
being seen in the Tower "after Easter." Easter 1483 can be ruled out
immediately as neither boy was even in the Tower before Easter 1483 was well
past. Which leaves 1484 and 1485 as possibilities. My preference is for 1484
as that was also the time frame when EW finally left sanctuary in
Westminster. There is no reference to her being lodged in London that I know
of, which increases the likelihood that she was lodged somewhere outside
London. Which would also explain why the boys were no longer seen at the
Tower, they also had been moved out of London.
It's only my belief, as I have no proof to sustain it other than the actions
of those involved and their personalities, but my current belief is that an
integral part of Buckingham's Rebellion included the death of the two boys,
and that death was to be laid at Richard's feet. Richard's actions lead me
to believe that he didn't know what Buckingham had planned for his nephews
until sometime at least after the rebellion was set in motion, and possibly
not until it was over. It may have been when Richard called Buckingham "that
most untrue creature" or it may have been prior to the winter of 1483/84
when it was noticed the boys were being seen less and less.
In either case, Richard decided the boys would be safer if they were
separated. If people were on the look-out for two boys, it would make the
job of hiding them away easier if only one boy suddenly popped up somewhere.
Where Richard seems to have failed is in not making better plans in advance
for the possibility of his, Richard's, demise. Of course, up until the death
of his son, Richard didn't need to worry too much about the succession. And
after his son died, Richard was quickly faced with the prospect of his
wife's illness and death. So I cut him some slack for being preoccupied.
The problems that developed after Bosworth result, again IMO, were due to
our not knowing what happened to Edward. If, as I believe, he'd been hidden
away somewhere in England, his first thought after the news of Bosworth
arrived would have been to get away to someplace safe. But then the problems
with being, first Prince of Wales, then the eldest illegitimate son of
Edward IV came to the fore. His tenure as Prince of Wales hadn't gotten to
the point where he'd actually been doing things on his own. Not only had he
been under the tutelage of his uncle, with everything provided for him
including, quite likely, just where to put his, Edward's, signature on
official documents. That period was followed by his time in the Tower,
originally the Royal Apartments, then in more secure surrounding where,
again, his interactions with people would have been quite limited. If, as I
think, he'd been sent to some out-of-the-way place in the country, the same
would apply there. He'd likely have a greater chance to interact with people
but, and if only because of the reason for his sequestration, those contacts
would still be limited.
Which means that, after Bosworth, there are two possibilities for Edward.
The first is that remained where he was and was swallowed up into the gentry
or he fled. If it's the latter that happened then there's the possibility,
and only a possibility, that there may be something to the "Richard of
Eastham" story, but whether that "Richard" was actually Edward or possibly
someone who knew what had happened to Edward and decided in his declining
years to take advantage of that knowledge isn't currently determinable.
Sorry about the length!
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-08 12:12:27
b.eileen25
I think JAH's best work was his Eleanor the Secret Queen. I think the weakest theory he ever put out was the heights of .Richard and George based on the Rous and Salisbury drawings which may not even have been drawn to scale. However he did also mention in his book, the Third Plantagenet, that the bones in the Clarence vault could not possibly be those of George and Isobel being the bones of people too old to be them. It's hardly JAH's fault if he gets misquoted by people who don't seem to have read the whole book but it's irritating when it leads to people making ludicrous statements.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-08 13:17:19
vicki harris
JAH explains society's attitude to same sex relationships in chapter 9 of his book The Private Life of Edward IV where he discusses Edward's relationship with his cousin Henry Beaufort which I had no idea about. I have all his books and thought The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA excellent

Get Outlook for Android
From: <> on behalf of cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <>
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 12:12:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

I think JAH's best work was his Eleanor the Secret Queen. I think the weakest theory he ever put out was the heights of .Richard and George based on the Rous and Salisbury drawings which may not even have been drawn to scale. However he did also mention in his book, the Third Plantagenet, that the bones in the Clarence vault could not possibly be those of George and Isobel being the bones of people too old to be them. It's hardly JAH's fault if he gets misquoted by people who don't seem to have read the whole book but it's irritating when it leads to people making ludicrous statements.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-08 14:59:14
b.eileen25
Agreed Vicky..The last Days of Richard lll was very good.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-08 15:04:53
Paul Trevor Bale
But Vicky did he not just say they slept in the same bed which is hardly the same as sleeping together in modern sense! That was something quite normal then. Like children sharing a bed.Paul


Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 8 juin 2017 à 13:42, vicki harris vickihnotb@... [] <> a écrit :

JAH explains society's attitude to same sex relationships in chapter 9 of his book The Private Life of Edward IV where he discusses Edward's relationship with his cousin Henry Beaufort which I had no idea about. I have all his books and thought The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA excellent

Get Outlook for Android
From: <> on behalf of cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <>
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 12:12:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

I think JAH's best work was his Eleanor the Secret Queen. I think the weakest theory he ever put out was the heights of .Richard and George based on the Rous and Salisbury drawings which may not even have been drawn to scale. However he did also mention in his book, the Third Plantagenet, that the bones in the Clarence vault could not possibly be those of George and Isobel being the bones of people too old to be them. It's hardly JAH's fault if he gets misquoted by people who don't seem to have read the whole book but it's irritating when it leads to people making ludicrous statements.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-08 16:57:48
b.eileen25
Paul ive got a vague recollection of a state bed being in the famous Painted Chamber at Westminster Palace. Ive checked on Wiki and it was Henry lll had it put there. Wiki mentions he complained it was draughty. Casting that aside I recall reading somewhere, eons ago, visitors would be invited to hop in to this said bed. I know... its weird...Cant help beyond that though.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'B

2017-06-08 18:25:00
Doug Stamate
Eileen wrote: Interesting reply Doug..as per usual..however I cannot believe Elizabeth would rather have seen Warwick on the throne than her own daughter. AFter all her title of Queen Dowager had been restored to her in Henry's first Parliament November 1485. 1486 she 'received annuities and a life interest in a raft of properties in southern England in full satisfaction of her dower' - David Baldwin Elizabeth Woodville Mother of the Princes in the Tower p115. July 1486 ELizabeth took out a 40 year lease on Cheyneygates, the abbots house in Westminster Abbey. All was going well...then wallop! February 1487 she is sent into 'retirement' in Bermondsey Abbey..and her son Grey consigned to the tower when the news broke about the Simnel rebellion. question? Was there some muddled thinking about who the true candidate for the throne they were rebelling about,,young Warwick or young Edward? Doug here: The problem I'm having is not being in a position to know the personal views of those involved. For example, do we know whether or not Elizabeth Woodville ever accepted the fact that her marriage to Edward was invalid? As Hilary has pointed out, legitimacy and legal descent were of prime importance to those living in this period. Could Elizabeth Woodville have decided that a legal Yorkist heir on the throne was more important that her daughter remaining Queen? Just how much power did Elizabeth Woodville have as Queen Dowager in a Court led by Henry Tudor and where Margaret Beaufort came second? What was she really risking if she did, in fact, support Warwick as the rightful King? And we need to remember that, should Warwick attain the throne, he'd need all the support he could get from every group of Yorkists, including the Woodvilles. Then there's also the possibility that what happened wasn't that Elizabeth Woodville supported Warwick, but rather her son and that she'd either known about his support for Warwick or was simply presumed to have known. Eileen concluded: BAldwin speculates in his book that Elizabeth may have 'resented the authority which the change of dynasty had given to Margaret Beaufort but more particularly Henry had been anxious to dispel any illusions that he ruled England in right if his wife'. But I remain unconvinced. My belief is that ELizabeth and Grey knew/had just found that one or both of her younger sons had survived. MAybe she was annoyed if she had been led to believe that they we both dead, perhaps suggested that Richard had done them in..Margaret Beaufort anyone? Doug here: As you mentioned in your first paragraph, there may have been some confusion on the parts of Elizabeth Woodville and her son as to just which Edward was being backed for the throne, but I rather doubt it. Both Elizabeth and her son resided in London at that time and would almost certainly have heard, if not believed, any rumors about Warwick having escaped from the Tower. Perhaps their response to those rumors had been to make enquiries about what had exactly happened concerning Warwick, that hadn't been as surreptitious as they'd believed? I can see Elizabeth not knowing where her sons were, but I, personally anyway, have little doubt she knew all along they weren't dead. But still illegitimate. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-08 18:57:26
Karen
And then, suggesting that EW upon learning if her son's deaths, supported a rebellion? What must EoY have brought of her husband's now? Did her mother btell her. Was her reportedly happy marriage then, not so happy. BTW I'm starting to call this the reign of Margaret Regina =Q
On Jun 7, 2017 3:21 AM, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

I think that Henry was sensible enough not to imagine that Elizabeth would involve herself in a plot in favor of Clarence's son. And there is no source supporting the idea that Simnel was in fact Richard of York.

But J. Tey suggests, more or less, that it's the moment when Henry discovered the children's hiding place and killed them. What do you think of it ?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-08 23:15:11
vicki harris
It is Gregory's Chronicle which tells us that Edward and Henry Beaufort regularly slept together quote: lodged with the king in his own bed many nights. Children only shared beds cos they had no choice! And even a visiting person often had no choice but to share the hosts bed and the host had no choice or space but to accept it.
I think Edward may just have had a spare room....

Get Outlook for Android
From: <> on behalf of Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <>
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 3:04:49 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

But Vicky did he not just say they slept in the same bed which is hardly the same as sleeping together in modern sense! That was something quite normal then. Like children sharing a bed. Paul


Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 8 juin 2017 à 13:42, vicki harris vickihnotb@... [] <> a écrit :

JAH explains society's attitude to same sex relationships in chapter 9 of his book The Private Life of Edward IV where he discusses Edward's relationship with his cousin Henry Beaufort which I had no idea about. I have all his books and thought The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA excellent

Get Outlook for Android
From: <> on behalf of cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <>
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 12:12:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

I think JAH's best work was his Eleanor the Secret Queen. I think the weakest theory he ever put out was the heights of .Richard and George based on the Rous and Salisbury drawings which may not even have been drawn to scale. However he did also mention in his book, the Third Plantagenet, that the bones in the Clarence vault could not possibly be those of George and Isobel being the bones of people too old to be them. It's hardly JAH's fault if he gets misquoted by people who don't seem to have read the whole book but it's irritating when it leads to people making ludicrous statements.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'B

2017-06-09 00:29:25
b.eileen25
Doug wrote (shortened version):' Im not in a position to know the personal views of those involved. Do we know whether or not EW ever accepted the fact that her marriage was invalid? Could Elizabeth have decided that a legal Yorkist heir was more important that her daughter remaining queen.'
Eileen: All we can do is second guess what these people were thinking over 500 years ago. Probably most of the time we are going to be barking up the wrong tree (we wont let that stop us eh?) and maybe on occasion we hit the nail on the head. The trouble is we never actually know when.
Could Elizabeth have accepted that her marriage was invalid? Who knows. She took that with her to the grave. She probably had lived with the worry of the truth coming out for years..a Damocles sword hanging over her..but its human nature to square things up in ones head. I would think this is exactly what she may have done. After all she had been crowned and annointed - and put up with her philandering husband - she may have convinced herself this was meant to be.
As to whether this was a woman, bearing in mind what we DO know about her, who would get entwined in a rebellion that would force her daughter off the throne and put an old enemy's son on there instead - well imho is a non starter.
She probably didnt have 'much' power as things stood, but still, things were not too bad. She would have had the respect of being mother-in-law to the king, she'd got some properties back, and was preparing to move into Cheyneygates just across the road from Westminster Palace. Her daughter was Queen. So what went so badly wrong.
My thinking is that she knew full well, obvs, that Simnel was a mere stalking horse, because the real Warwick was incarcerated in the Tower. IF Henry could be consigned to the place where ex-kings go AND if she knew that at least one of hers sons survived then she probably figured that there would be enough support to get that son on the throne instead of young Warwick. She took a gamble, she lost. Badly.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-09 00:46:16
b.eileen25
Gregory's Chronicle:'And the said Sir Henry Beaufort remained with the king and rode with him to London. And the king made very much of him, so much that he lodged with the king in his own bed many nights, and sometimes rode hunting behind the king, and the king having about him more than six horses maximum, of which three were of the Duke of Somerset's men. The king loved him well but the duke thought treason fair cheer and words, as it appeared'.
Is this it? Is this enough to enable us to deduce that Edward was engaged in a homosexual affair with Beaufort. I dont think so. Where did Gregory get his information from? Is he reliable? Im unconvinced.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-09 03:22:47
Doug Stamate
romanenemo wrote What had convinced me that the children had to be dead was, first, the fact that IMO, Richard wold have put a stop to the rumors if he had been able to. But maybe Doug is right and these rumors were not that important in England, and overrated by Mancini, for obvious reasons. About my second reason, that is the Woodville alliance with Henry, maybe you're right thinking that it's overrated too. Besides, it's possible that many of the plotters with Woodville connections had no qualms about allying themselves with Henry in spite of what would happen to the children if he became king. As you say, they were led by greed. Doug here: There's no real evidence that the Woodvilles ever allied themselves to Tudor with the aim of assisting him in getting the throne. We do know that Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort were in communication while Elizabeth was in sanctuary and that, apparently, a proposal was made that Elizabeth of York was to marry Henry Tudor. However, considering the time frame when the original proposed match between Henry and Elizabeth was made, it's entirely probable that all that was intended was that Henry was to marry the sister of the re-enthroned Edward V and not assume the throne himself. Therefore there'd be no reason, at that time, to worry about what Henry might, or might not, do in regards to his proposed brothers-in-law. romanenemo concluded: But what of Lionel Woodville ?What of Thomas Grey, who swore allegiance to Henry for a while ? Granted, he apparently changed his mind, but it's nonetheless strange, if his half-brothers were still alive, don't you think ? Why having a new candidate for the throne, instead of his own brother ? Brotherly loyalty aside, in was not in Dorset's interest to be only the brother of a powerless queen, and not the brother, maybe the protector even, as Anthony was dead, of a young and so probably suggestible king. And Henry's accession to the throne meant the children's death warrant. Supporting Henry's claim to the throne meant to tacitly accept that the children were dead, or as good as dead. Would the boys' own kin have done that, if they were alive ? I can't see a way out from that. Doug here: Again, what's important is when Lionel Woodville and Thomas Grey supported Tudor. Lionel Woodville died in late June 1484. It's again most likely than any support the he gave to Henry Tudor was part of the original effort to return Edward V to the throne. The same queries surround Thomas Grey. It's no secret that he supported Buckingham's Rebellion but the idea that Buckingham rebelled in order to offer the throne to Henry Tudor is, frankly, ludicrous. As best as can be determined by the facts, the aim of Buckingham's Rebellion from the start was to return Edward V to the throne. That Buckingham may have also had his eye on the throne shouldn't be discounted, but doesn't change anything concerning the original intent of the rebellion. Grey, during 1485, attempted to flee from Henry and return to England; apparently he'd received letters from his mother encouraging him to do so. Grey, however, was apprehended, apparently at Tudor's request, and kept under some form of custody in Paris. IOW, while these two Woodvilles were more than willing to conspire and plot treason to return Edward V to the throne, there's no evidence they supported Tudor in his quest for that same throne. One, Lionel, was dead well before Bosworth, and the other, Grey, was a captive in Paris. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-09 03:46:31
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Doug, the only reason for a flaw in your theory of Morton's participation is that he actually didn't muster any/much support in 1483. Go forward to Bosworth and it's very different. To say Buckingham's support was thin was an understatement. Sorry, but I still fail to understand why Richard would send either boy to Flanders; Richard was a many who believed in loyalty above all and the loyalty which had been tested again and again was that of his own folk in the North. Doug here: That's what I meant about Morton not being in control, because I wonder if Buckingham, noting the small number of people turning out, didn't start the rumors on their way prematurely? IOW, the rumors were originally intended to be put out either well after the supporters of Edward V had mustered around the banner raised by Buckingham or, possibly, after Richard had been defeated in battle but before Edward and his brother were rescued. At which time Buckingham would propose himself as Richard's replacement. Yes, it does sound silly put like that, but then Henry Stafford wasn't known for being the brightest bulb in the box, either. If Morton's reputation for manipulating people is anywhere close to being accurate, then, based on what I've read about him, Buckingham would've been putty in Morton's hands. As for what Morton would have gotten out of it  it would likely have been the same as what Morton received for his support of Tudor. The difference being that Morton, if Buckingham became king, would likely have even more power than he actually did under Tudor. If nothing else, Morton's handling of Buckingham during the rebellion would, had the rebellion succeeded, shown Morton he was in a position to, if not control Buckingham, then certainly move him toward those ends Morton. Of courses, I could be over-estimating the good Bishop's talents, but I don't think so. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-09 05:12:15
Doug Stamate
Eileen wrote: All we can do is second guess what these people were thinking over 500 years ago. Probably most of the time we are going to be barking up the wrong tree (we wont let that stop us eh?) and maybe on occasion we hit the nail on the head. The trouble is we never actually know when. Doug here: I'm still waiting for that TARDIS  and I'm not getting any younger... Eileen continued: Could Elizabeth have accepted that her marriage was invalid? Who knows. She took that with her to the grave. She probably had lived with the worry of the truth coming out for years..a Damocles sword hanging over her..but its human nature to square things up in ones head. I would think this is exactly what she may have done. &nb sp;After all she had been crowned and annointed - and put up with her philandering husband - she may have convinced herself this was meant to be. Doug here: I'm sorry to say that I've not really considered that Elizabeth might have known her marriage was invalid. If she did then, of course, most, if not all, of my reasoning would be invalid. I think. Eileen continued: As to whether this was a woman, bearing in mind what we DO know about her, who would get entwined in a rebellion that would force her daughter off the throne and put an old enemy's son on there instead - well imho is a non starter. Doug here: I wonder if her enmity to George had been based solely on his attempts to replace her husband on the throne with himself? If that was the case, would she have looked at things differently when neither George nor her husband was involved? Once again, or so it seems to me, an awful lot would depend on whether or not she'd known her marriage wasn't valid, because that would add another reason for her enmity to George, and also affect her actions after Edward died. Oh my! Eileen concluded: She probably didnt have 'much' power as things stood, but still, things were not too bad. She would have had the respect of being mother-in-law to the king, she'd got some properties back, and was preparing to move into Cheyneygates just across the road from Westminster Palace. Her daughter was Queen. So what went so badly wrong. My thinking is that she knew full well, obvs, that Simnel was a mere stalking horse, because the real Warwick was incarcerated in the Tower. IF Henry could be consigned to the place where ex-kings go AND if she knew that at least one of hers sons survived then she probably figured that there would be enough support to get that son on the throne instead of young Warwick. She took a gamble, she lost. Badly. Doug here: Which is why I wondered if perhaps she, personally, wasn't involved, but was involved with some who were? What do you think of the idea that, after Buckingham's Rebellion, Elizabeth accepted that there just wasn't enough support to return Edward to the throne? After all, the rebellion had failed, and rather spectacularly at that! Oh well... To quote Rodgers and Hammerstein: But...is a puzzlement! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-09 05:27:09
Doug Stamate
Eileen wrote: Paul ive got a vague recollection of a state bed being in the famous Painted Chamber at Westminster Palace. Ive checked on Wiki and it was Henry lll had it put there. Wiki mentions he complained it was draughty. Casting that aside I recall reading somewhere, eons ago, visitors would be invited to hop in to this said bed. I know... its weird...Cant help beyond that though. Doug here: Weren't beds at that time a status symbol of sorts? My understanding is that, while the majority of the population then may have slept on mattresses, those mattresses were usually just laid on the floor and rolled up during the daytime. I've also read that well into the 19th century it wasn't unusual for traveling strangers to share the same bed in inns and taverns. And I seriously doubt anything was expected from the other occupant than staying on their side of the bed... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-09 05:32:30
Doug Stamate
Vicki wrote: It is Gregory's Chronicle which tells us that Edward and Henry Beaufort regularly slept together quote: lodged with the king in his own bed many nights. Children only shared beds cos they had no choice! And even a visiting person often had no choice but to share the hosts bed and the host had no choice or space but to accept it.
I think Edward may just have had a spare room.... Doug here: But did Edward have a spare bed? If he didn't, and it's very likely that was the case, then offering to let Henry share his bed was Edward simply being courteous to high-born acquaintance. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-09 07:35:06
Paul Trevor Bale
Eileen it shows only that people shared beds in the Middle Ages. Sleeping together does not mean what it does nowadays and certainly does not mean a homosexual relationship.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 9 juin 2017 à 01:46, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :

Gregory's Chronicle:

'And the said Sir Henry Beaufort remained with the king and rode with him to London. And the king made very much of him, so much that he lodged with the king in his own bed many nights, and sometimes rode hunting behind the king, and the king having about him more than six horses maximum, of which three were of the Duke of Somerset's men. The king loved him well but the duke thought treason fair cheer and words, as it appeared'.
Is this it? Is this enough to enable us to deduce that Edward was engaged in a homosexual affair with Beaufort. I dont think so. Where did Gregory get his information from? Is he reliable? Im unconvinced.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'B

2017-06-09 10:49:49
ricard1an
There is also the story that Clarence sent E of W to Ireland for safety. Maybe the Earl of Warwick in the tower was an impostor. It is very difficult to know exactly what happened. E of W was supposed to be in Richard and Anne's household after May 1483 before that I believe he was supposed to be in the Marquis of Dorset's household. I tend to think that Anne would have known if he was her nephew or not but then she probably had either never met him or only when he was very young. So many scenarios and without proper contemporary evidence we might never know. I think it is good that we thrash these things out though, instead of just accepting them like the trads.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'B

2017-06-09 11:19:29
b.eileen25
Absolutely agree with you Mary.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

2017-06-09 12:33:58
b.eileen25
Oh yes Paul..Agree.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-09 12:34:55
romanenemo
Doug wrote :There's no real evidence that the Woodvilles ever allied themselves to Tudor with the aim of assisting him in getting the throne.

Romane here :But what then of Edward Woodville, who as on Henry's side at Bosworth ? He had to know what Henry taking the throne meant for the children. So he must bave believed that they were dead.
---In , <destama@...> wrote :

Doug wrote:We do know that Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort were in communication while Elizabeth was in sanctuary and that, apparently, a proposal was made that Elizabeth of York was to marry Henry Tudor. However, considering the time frame when the original proposed match between Henry and Elizabeth was made, it's entirely probable that all that was intended was that Henry was to marry the sister of the re-enthroned Edward V and not assume the throne himself.
Romane here :What would have been Henry's interest in marrying Elizabeth as a bastard ? He could do better, once on the throne. And if he wanted her as a legitimate heir, that meant that the two boys had to be out of the picture. What is the source for that early communication between Elizabeth and Margaret ? Is it reliable ? For it seems to me rather impossible that Elizabeth would have agreed to such a plan without knowing about her boys.
romanenemo wroteWhat had convinced me that the children had to be dead was, first, the fact that IMO, Richard wold have put a stop to the rumors if he had been able to. But maybe Doug is right and these rumors were not that important in England, and overrated by Mancini, for obvious reasons.About my second reason, that is the Woodville alliance with Henry, maybe you're right thinking that it's overrated too. Besides, it's possible that many of the plotters with Woodville connections had no qualms about allying themselves with Henry in spite of what would happen to the children if he became king. As you say, they were led by greed. Doug here:There's no real evidence that the Woodvilles ever allied themselves to Tudor with the aim of assisting him in getting the throne. We do know that Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort were in communication while Elizabeth was in sanctuary and that, apparently, a proposal was made that Elizabeth of York was to marry Henry Tudor. However, considering the time frame when the original proposed match between Henry and Elizabeth was made, it's entirely probable that all that was intended was that Henry was to marry the sister of the re-enthroned Edward V and not assume the throne himself.Therefore there'd be no reason, at that time, to worry about what Henry might, or might not, do in regards to his proposed brothers-in-law. romanenemo concluded:But what of Lionel Woodville ?What of Thomas Grey, who swore allegiance to Henry for a while ? Granted, he apparently changed his mind, but it's nonetheless strange, if his half-brothers were still alive, don't you think ? Why having a new candidate for the throne, instead of his own brother ? Brotherly loyalty aside, in was not in Dorset's interest to be only the brother of a powerless queen, and not the brother, maybe the protector even, as Anthony was dead, of a young and so probably suggestible king. And Henry's accession to the throne meant the children's death warrant. Supporting Henry's claim to the throne meant to tacitly accept that the children were dead, or as good as dead. Would the boys' own kin have done that, if they were alive ?I can't see a way out from that. Doug here:Again, what's important is when Lionel Woodville and Thomas Grey supported Tudor. Lionel Woodville died in late June 1484. It's again most likely than any support the he gave to Henry Tudor was part of the original effort to return Edward V to the throne. The same queries surround Thomas Grey. It's no secret that he supported Buckingham's Rebellion but the idea that Buckingham rebelled in order to offer the throne to Henry Tudor is, frankly, ludicrous. As best as can be determined by the facts, the aim of Buckingham's Rebellion from the start was to return Edward V to the throne. That Buckingham may have also had his eye on the throne shouldn't be discounted, but doesn't change anything concerning the original intent of the rebellion.Grey, during 1485, attempted to flee from Henry and return to England; apparently he'd received letters from his mother encouraging him to do so. Grey, however, was apprehended, apparently at Tudor's request, and kept under some form of custody in Paris.IOW, while these two Woodvilles were more than willing to conspire and plot treason to return Edward V to the throne, there's no evidence they supported Tudor in his quest for that same throne. One, Lionel, was dead well before Bosworth, and the other, Grey, was a captive in Paris.Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-09 13:23:54
Karen O
Maybe he just realized that he would never know where they were. People didn't fight against Richard in some righteous cause. They fought to get wealthy. The rebellion was about like ding their lucrative positions. Hastings was losing his influence.Richard wasn't giving them enough so they decided they would do better under Tudor. They didn't give a jot for  two bastards.  Just tried to plow through Rosemary Horrox, Richard III a study of service. She too takes the view that Richard wasn't greasing the right palms. She also takes the marriage plan with EoY absolutely seriously.
On Jun 9, 2017 7:34 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Doug wrote :There's no real evidence that the Woodvilles ever allied themselves to Tudor with the aim of assisting him in getting the throne. 

Romane here :But what then of Edward Woodville, who as on Henry's side at Bosworth ? He had to know what Henry taking the throne meant for the children. So he must bave believed that they were dead.
---In @ yahoogroups.com, <destama@...> wrote :

 Doug wrote:We do know that Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort were in communication while Elizabeth was in sanctuary and that, apparently, a proposal was made that Elizabeth of York was to marry Henry Tudor. However, considering the time frame when the original proposed match between Henry and Elizabeth was made, it's entirely probable that all that was intended was that Henry was to marry the sister of the re-enthroned Edward V and not assume the throne himself.
 Romane here :What would have been Henry's interest in marrying Elizabeth as a bastard ? He could do better, once on the throne. And if he wanted her as a legitimate heir, that meant that the two boys had to be out of the picture. What is the source for that early communication between Elizabeth and Margaret ? Is it reliable ? For it seems to me rather impossible that Elizabeth would have agreed to such a plan without knowing about her boys.
romanenemo wroteWhat had convinced me that the children had to be dead was, first, the fact that IMO, Richard wold have put a stop to the rumors if he had been able to. But maybe Doug is right and these rumors were not that important in England, and overrated by Mancini, for obvious reasons.About my second reason, that is the Woodville alliance with Henry, maybe you're right thinking that it's overrated too. Besides, it's possible that many of the plotters with Woodville connections had no qualms about allying themselves with Henry in spite of what would happen to the children if he became king. As you say, they were led by greed. Doug here:There's no real evidence that the Woodvilles ever allied themselves to Tudor with the aim of assisting him in getting the throne. We do know that Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort were in communication while Elizabeth was in sanctuary and that, apparently, a proposal was made that Elizabeth of York was to marry Henry Tudor. However, considering the time frame when the original proposed match between Henry and Elizabeth was made, it's entirely probable that all that was intended was that Henry was to marry the sister of the re-enthroned Edward V and not assume the throne himself.Therefore there'd be no reason, at that time, to worry about what Henry might, or might not, do in regards to his proposed brothers-in-law. romanenemo concluded:But what of Lionel Woodville ?What of Thomas Grey, who swore allegiance to Henry for a while ? Granted, he apparently changed his mind, but it's nonetheless strange, if his half-brothers were still alive, don't you think ? Why having a new candidate for the throne, instead of his own brother ? Brotherly loyalty aside, in was not in Dorset's interest to be only the brother of a powerless queen, and not the brother, maybe the protector even, as Anthony was dead, of a young and so probably suggestible king. And Henry's accession to the throne meant the children's death warrant. Supporting Henry's claim to the throne meant to tacitly accept that the children were dead, or as good as dead. Would the boys' own kin have done that, if they were alive ?I can't see a way out from that. Doug here:Again, what's important is when Lionel Woodville and Thomas Grey supported Tudor. Lionel Woodville died in late June 1484. It's again most likely than any support the he gave to Henry Tudor was part of the original effort to return Edward V to the throne. The same queries surround Thomas Grey. It's no secret that he supported Buckingham's Rebellion but the idea that Buckingham rebelled in order to offer the throne to Henry Tudor is, frankly, ludicrous. As best as can be determined by the facts, the aim of Buckingham's Rebellion from the start was to return Edward V to the throne. That Buckingham may have also had his eye on the throne shouldn't be discounted, but doesn't change anything concerning the original intent of the rebellion.Grey, during 1485, attempted to flee from Henry and return to England; apparently he'd received letters from his mother encouraging him to do so. Grey, however, was apprehended, apparently at Tudor's request, and kept under some form of custody in Paris.IOW, while these two Woodvilles were more than willing to conspire and plot treason to return Edward V to the throne, there's no evidence they supported Tudor in his quest for that same throne. One, Lionel, was dead well before Bosworth, and the other, Grey, was a captive in Paris.Doug 
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
 

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-09 14:22:25
ricard1an
No Romane Edward Woodville joined Tudor before the Princes disappeared. There is evidence regarding their presence in the Tower around 8th of September 1483. I can't remember exactly what it was. Alison Weir insists that she has proof that James Tyrrell killed the Princes on 3rd September 1483 because he was in London collecting clothes for the investiture of Edward of Middleham. I believe that he left London on the 3rd. However, there is this documentary evidence for the 8th. Edward Woodville had joined Tudor well before then.Will check to see what sources are.Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-09 14:41:29
b.eileen25
Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return (which they renegaded on obviously) which then evolved into, oh dear, Richard has had the boys murdered. Both or one of these scenarios would explain EW joining the Simnel plot with either EW discovering one or both of the boys was alive and kicking or that someone else and nit Richard had had them destroyed. I prefer the scenario that she had found out that one of them was alive because I think that would be the only reasonable explanation as to why she would get involved in a plot to oust her own daughter from the throne. Further I have always felt that EoY was kind of indifferent to her mothers situation..culminating in a very, very low key funeral which although EW had requested this her family didn't really have to obey to the degree that even the herald reporting on it was shocked,

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-09 15:14:31
Paul Trevor Bale
Well Mary I believe Alison Weir has evidence the dinosaurs never existed too!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 9 juin 2017 à 15:22, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :

No Romane Edward Woodville joined Tudor before the Princes disappeared. There is evidence regarding their presence in the Tower around 8th of September 1483. I can't remember exactly what it was. Alison Weir insists that she has proof that James Tyrrell killed the Princes on 3rd September 1483 because he was in London collecting clothes for the investiture of Edward of Middleham. I believe that he left London on the 3rd. However, there is this documentary evidence for the 8th. Edward Woodville had joined Tudor well before then.

Will check to see what sources are.Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-09 15:41:45
romanenemo
What is that documentary evidence ? It would be very interesting, I hope you'll find it. But the 8th september is the date of Edward of Middleham being created Prince of Wales, are you sure your didn't get it mixed up ?
But as for Edward Woodville, I know that he took shelter in Brittany before the princes disappeared, and he didn't have much other choice than to ally with Henry Tudor.
But he fought for him at Bosworth as well ! What was in it for the man, except if Henry married Elizabeth as Edward IV's legitimate heiress ? Maybe you're right, and he cared little about what his nephews had become, and much more about his titles and lands.But if the children had been known to be alive at that time, I don't think he could have supported Henry Tudor that way, it was too cynical, even for that time. Let's suppose that the children had been alive, and that Richard had shown them to prove it, how coud Edward Woodville have kept supporting Henry ? Supporting Henry's claim to both the throne and to the hand of Elizabeth (as legitimate heiress, for Henry wouldn't have married a bastard) was to consider that the her brothers were out of the equation, which meant as good as dead. So it seems unavoidable to assume that there was at the moment a strong and general belief that the boys were already dead.

---In , <maryfriend@...> wrote :

No Romane Edward Woodville joined Tudor before the Princes disappeared. There is evidence regarding their presence in the Tower around 8th of September 1483. I can't remember exactly what it was. Alison Weir insists that she has proof that James Tyrrell killed the Princes on 3rd September 1483 because he was in London collecting clothes for the investiture of Edward of Middleham. I believe that he left London on the 3rd. However, there is this documentary evidence for the 8th. Edward Woodville had joined Tudor well before then.Will check to see what sources are.Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-09 15:42:17
romanenemo
Eileen wrote :Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return
Eileen, I think that's a very interesting idea. The unlikely alliance between the Woodville and the Lancastrian could indeed be explained much better if its first aim, the alleged one at least, had been to put Edward V, as legitimate heir, on the throne, and then to give HenryTudor the hand of Elizabeth. Or course, on each side, there was a huge hidden agenda. It was a fool's bargain, such as the one between Warwick and Marguerite of Anjou.And then, a rumor was spread that the children were dead, or they actually died. After that, nothing was left in the deal for the Woodville thant Elizabeth of York becoming queen. Which explain that some of them lost heart.
As for the Simnel plot, there is no evidence at all that EW was part of it. Why would she have supported Clarence' son ? And there is no source claiming that he was Richard of York, that's just a modern hypothesis and IMO rather far-fetched one. Henry could have chosen that moment to get rid of her, and that's all.
Or, she could indeed had discovered things about Henry's, or Morton's (if the children had died at the hands of Buckingham) responsibility just at that moment, with all that stirring of the ancient yorkist loyalties.

---In , <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return (which they renegaded on obviously) which then evolved into, oh dear, Richard has had the boys murdered. Both or one of these scenarios would explain EW joining the Simnel plot with either EW discovering one or both of the boys was alive and kicking or that someone else and nit Richard had had them destroyed. I prefer the scenario that she had found out that one of them was alive because I think that would be the only reasonable explanation as to why she would get involved in a plot to oust her own daughter from the throne. Further I have always felt that EoY was kind of indifferent to her mothers situation..culminating in a very, very low key funeral which although EW had requested this her family didn't really have to obey to the degree that even the herald reporting on it was shocked,

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-09 16:12:27
A J Hibbard
According to the Calendar of the Charter Rolls, Edward of Middleham was created Prince of Wales on August 24, 1483. His investiture as Prince of Wales occurred on September 8, 1483, at York.

A J

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 9:35 AM, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Eileen wrote :Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return 
Eileen, I think that's a very interesting idea. The unlikely alliance between the Woodville and the Lancastrian could indeed be explained much better if its first aim, the alleged one at least, had been to put Edward V, as legitimate heir, on the throne, and then to give HenryTudor the hand of Elizabeth. Or course, on each side, there was a huge hidden agenda. It was a fool's bargain, such as the one between Warwick and Marguerite of Anjou.And then, a rumor was spread that the children were dead, or they actually died. After that, nothing was left in the deal for the Woodville thant Elizabeth of York becoming queen. Which explain that some of them lost heart.
As for the Simnel plot, there is no evidence at all that EW was part of it. Why would she have supported Clarence' son ? And there is no source claiming that he was Richard of York, that's just a modern hypothesis and IMO rather far-fetched one. Henry could have chosen that moment to get rid of her, and that's all. 
Or, she could indeed had discovered things about Henry's, or Morton's (if the children had died at the hands of Buckingham) responsibility just at that moment, with all that stirring of the ancient yorkist loyalties.

---In @ yahoogroups.com, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return (which they renegaded on obviously) which then evolved into, oh dear, Richard has  had  the boys murdered.  Both or one of these scenarios would explain EW joining the Simnel plot with either EW discovering one or both of the boys was alive and kicking or that someone else and nit Richard had had them destroyed.  I prefer the scenario that she had found out that one of them was alive because I think that would be the only reasonable explanation as to why she would get involved in a plot to oust her own daughter from the throne.  Further I have always felt that EoY was kind of indifferent to her mothers situation..culminating in a very, very low key funeral which although EW had requested this her family didn't really have to obey to the degree that even the herald reporting on it was shocked,   


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-09 20:17:18
ricard1an
Yes Paul and you know how adamant she always is that she is right.Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-09 20:39:03
Durose David
Romane and Eileen,
I have seen the suggestion before that the Beaufort / Woodville plot was to reinstate Edward V. There is a little problem with that. It was a substantial military operation in England supported by a naval force and an army sent from Brittany. It took a while to organise and Richard was busy mustering his response.
Wind back to the planning stage ...
You are the Duke of Brittany and your daughter's intended husband is being held in the Tower by the man who has replaced him as king, who has also arranged for the execution of the former king's relatives.
You are requested to support an armed assault on the country to liberate and retore him. What could possibly go wrong?
Regarding Edward Woodville, he was appointed admiral of the fleet to deal with piracy in the channel. He captured a ship with a great deal of money. He heard of his relatives' arrest when he returned to port and headed off with the money and a couple of ships. There was no Tudor party at the time, he probably went to Brittany because his aunt was dowager Duchess and he had led an army there earlier with Rivers to protect against the French.
I can't see his being attracted by land and money, he seemed to be motivated by other things - after Bosworth he went to fight the moors and then took a small force back to Brittany against Henry's wishes. All but one ot his force died at Saint Aubin du Cormier. He is seen as a hero in the Duchy and has a commemorative stone at the battle site.
There have been some interesting posts recently.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 at 15:42, romanenemo<no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Eileen wrote :Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return
Eileen, I think that's a very interesting idea. The unlikely alliance between the Woodville and the Lancastrian could indeed be explained much better if its first aim, the alleged one at least, had been to put Edward V, as legitimate heir, on the throne, and then to give HenryTudor the hand of Elizabeth. Or course, on each side, there was a huge hidden agenda. It was a fool's bargain, such as the one between Warwick and Marguerite of Anjou.And then, a rumor was spread that the children were dead, or they actually died. After that, nothing was left in the deal for the Woodville thant Elizabeth of York becoming queen. Which explain that some of them lost heart.
As for the Simnel plot, there is no evidence at all that EW was part of it. Why would she have supported Clarence' son ? And there is no source claiming that he was Richard of York, that's just a modern hypothesis and IMO rather far-fetched one. Henry could have chosen that moment to get rid of her, and that's all.
Or, she could indeed had discovered things about Henry's, or Morton's (if the children had died at the hands of Buckingham) responsibility just at that moment, with all that stirring of the ancient yorkist loyalties.

---In , <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return (which they renegaded on obviously) which then evolved into, oh dear, Richard has had the boys murdered. Both or one of these scenarios would explain EW joining the Simnel plot with either EW discovering one or both of the boys was alive and kicking or that someone else and nit Richard had had them destroyed. I prefer the scenario that she had found out that one of them was alive because I think that would be the only reasonable explanation as to why she would get involved in a plot to oust her own daughter from the throne. Further I have always felt that EoY was kind of indifferent to her mothers situation..culminating in a very, very low key funeral which although EW had requested this her family didn't really have to obey to the degree that even the herald reporting on it was shocked,

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'B

2017-06-09 21:02:23
Durose David
Mary,Didn't Marie deal with the Warwick / Ireland rumour some time ago. If I remember correctly, Clarence was charged with planning to send his son to Ireland. So the plan was not acted on.
RegardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 at 10:51, maryfriend@... []<> wrote:

There is also the story that Clarence sent E of W to Ireland for safety. Maybe the Earl of Warwick in the tower was an impostor. It is v difficult to know exactly what happened. E of W was supposed to be in Richard and Anne's household after May 1483 before that I believe he was supposed to be in the Marquis of Dorset's household. I tend to think that Anne would have known if he was her nephew or not but then she probably had either never met him or only when he was very young. So many scenarios and without proper contemporary evidence we might never know. I think it is good that we thrash these things out though, instead of just accepting them like the trads.


Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-09 22:50:04
justcarol67
Mary wrote:

"I have always thought that it would have been extremely odd for Margaret to support an impostor. Also that John, Earl of Lincoln was supporting Lambert Simnel as heir to the throne when he had a much better claim himself. Though it was thought that Simnel was meant to be Warwick. All very odd."
Carol responds:

My apologies for responding without having read all the replies. It's easy to get behind on this forum if you stay away for a week!

Setting aside Perkin Warbeck (who may well have been Richard of York), I'm pretty sure that John, Earl of Lincoln, would never have supported either of Edward IV's sons (assuming that one or both was alive) after having supported Richard III and the claim in Titulus Regius that the boys were illegitimate. That would be, in essence, slitting his own throat. (Edward V on reaching his majority might well have sought vengeance against him and RIII's other supporters.) Margaret may have held a similar view--she and Maximillian had supported Richard. (I do consider it possible that she knew where her nephews were but felt it prudent at that time [1487] to support the claim of a third nephew, known to be alive but inconveniently held in the Tower by the despised HT.) Had he won the Battle of Stoke, Lincoln would, I'm sure, have rescued the real Warwick from the Tower (and, I hope, rewarded Lambert Simnel for his masquerade). Lincoln would have been the power behind the throne, known and trusted by the inexperienced, very young, and possibly timid Earl of Warwick. (I won't say mentally defective as that infirmity seems to have resulted from his long confinement under HT.)

I also think that the people of England would have preferred a king in the direct male line (the attainder could easily be reversed and his illegitimacy was not in question) to a king from a female line, and that John de la Pole would not have tempted fate by setting aside his little cousin as Richard had set aside his nephew(s), especially if people at that time had already come to believe that Richard had killed them.

Just my two cents--or tuppence, as the English probably never said.

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-09 23:08:55
romanenemo
You're right, David, there was no Tudor party yet when Edward Woodville fled to Brittany, but it came quite soon. Thank you, or these interesting informations about the man. I found little about him in the books I've read. It seems that he was very grateful to Brittany for having sheltered him and funding an attempt to rescue his nephews, as he died fighting for Brittany's independence. You're right as well to point out that the way he died, and the fact that he went abroad to fight against the Moors after Bosworth, prove that he was not interested only in lands and money.
So would such a man have fought on Henry's side at Bosworth if he hadn't thought that his nephews were dead ?

But the rumors about them being dead only began in september 1583. So I fail to see why the aborted landing funded by the Duke of Brittany proves that the Beaufort-Woodville plot, at the beginning, was not (at least officially for Margaret and Henry) to reinstate Edward V.
In fact, it's Horspool's hypothesis as well, and I think it makes sense. As long as the children were considered being alive, why would the Woodville ally with Henry Tudor if not for that purpose ? Horspool also says that there are clues that Margaret Beaufort, before she began to look higher, had made plans to have her son married to one of Edward's IV daughter (not Elizabeth, though, at that time), maybe ever since the end of Edward IV's reign.
After Henry and Edward Woodville managed to convince the Duke of Brittany to help, a flotilla was assembled in the first weeks of september, according to contemporary documents. And this shows that the plot was organized before the rumor of the death of the princes began to spread.
At that point, what could the Woodville hope from such an alliance, if not Edward V's reinstatement ?


---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote :

Romane and Eileen,
I have seen the suggestion before that the Beaufort / Woodville plot was to reinstate Edward V. There is a little problem with that. It was a substantial military operation in England supported by a naval force and an army sent from Brittany. It took a while to organise and Richard was busy mustering his response.
Wind back to the planning stage ...
You are the Duke of Brittany and your daughter's intended husband is being held in the Tower by the man who has replaced him as king, who has also arranged for the execution of the former king's relatives.
You are requested to support an armed assault on the country to liberate and retore him. What could possibly go wrong?
Regarding Edward Woodville, he was appointed admiral of the fleet to deal with piracy in the channel. He captured a ship with a great deal of money. He heard of his relatives' arrest when he returned to port and headed off with the money and a couple of ships. There was no Tudor party at the time, he probably went to Brittany because his aunt was dowager Duchess and he had led an army there earlier with Rivers to protect against the French.
I can't see his being attracted by land and money, he seemed to be motivated by other things - after Bosworth he went to fight the moors and then took a small force back to Brittany against Henry's wishes. All but one ot his force died at Saint Aubin du Cormier. He is seen as a hero in the Duchy and has a commemorative stone at the battle site.
There have been some interesting posts recently.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 at 15:42, romanenemo<no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Eileen wrote :Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return
Eileen, I think that's a very interesting idea. The unlikely alliance between the Woodville and the Lancastrian could indeed be explained much better if its first aim, the alleged one at least, had been to put Edward V, as legitimate heir, on the throne, and then to give HenryTudor the hand of Elizabeth. Or course, on each side, there was a huge hidden agenda. It was a fool's bargain, such as the one between Warwick and Marguerite of Anjou.And then, a rumor was spread that the children were dead, or they actually died. After that, nothing was left in the deal for the Woodville thant Elizabeth of York becoming queen. Which explain that some of them lost heart.
As for the Simnel plot, there is no evidence at all that EW was part of it. Why would she have supported Clarence' son ? And there is no source claiming that he was Richard of York, that's just a modern hypothesis and IMO rather far-fetched one. Henry could have chosen that moment to get rid of her, and that's all.
Or, she could indeed had discovered things about Henry's, or Morton's (if the children had died at the hands of Buckingham) responsibility just at that moment, with all that stirring of the ancient yorkist loyalties.

---In , <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return (which they renegaded on obviously) which then evolved into, oh dear, Richard has had the boys murdered. Both or one of these scenarios would explain EW joining the Simnel plot with either EW discovering one or both of the boys was alive and kicking or that someone else and nit Richard had had them destroyed. I prefer the scenario that she had found out that one of them was alive because I think that would be the only reasonable explanation as to why she would get involved in a plot to oust her own daughter from the throne. Further I have always felt that EoY was kind of indifferent to her mothers situation..culminating in a very, very low key funeral which although EW had requested this her family didn't really have to obey to the degree that even the herald reporting on it was shocked,

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-10 10:16:16
ricard1an
Execution of the king's relatives who were guilty of treason.
Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-10 10:20:24
ricard1an
Well said Carol
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'B

2017-06-10 12:05:01
Hilary Jones

Gosh I've got behind and so much to catch up! Couple of things, if we believe there was a Pre-contract and those in the Council believed it enough to support Richard, then EW would realise she would eventually have to come to a compromise if she wanted a respectable survival. She was quite a politically astute woman (having been well trained by her mother) so even if I thought she believed her sons dead (which actually I don't think she did) then I can't see her rushing to a convent and obscurity to assuage her grief. Yes, to a degree, MB had replaced her but I don't think she was as powerful as we tend to think. True she built some trappings of majesty around her son (which may have been to try to divert from the sin of his having killed Richard) but it was HT who reigned without doubt. The next poster talks about Margaret Regina. She certainly wasn't that because HT often did things she didn't like, like take some of her lands - they had spats over various things like Cicely's marriage to Kyme and Margaret Tudor being sent to Scotland at so young an age. Some she won, some she didn't. But she was perhaps one of the first influential women regional rulers from her base at Collyweston - a bit like Richard had been in the North. And it often suited HT to keep her out of London.
Secondly, on an earlier topic, whatever Anthony Woodville and Hastings had done (or in the case of the latter were purported to have done) must have been something which was so bad that it warranted a traitor's death. I say this because Richard and they had been colleagues in adversity in 1470. However much they were unalike or had drifted apart afterwards, Richard wouldn't have forgotten that - such things give people a bond. He wouldn't have taken their deaths lightly. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 8 June 2017, 18:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Eileen wrote: Interesting reply Doug..as per usual..however I cannot believe Elizabeth would rather have seen Warwick on the throne than her own daughter. AFter all her title of Queen Dowager had been restored to her in Henry's first Parliament November 1485. 1486 she 'received annuities and a life interest in a raft of properties in southern England in full satisfaction of her dower' - David Baldwin Elizabeth Woodville Mother of the Princes in the Tower p115. July 1486 ELizabeth took out a 40 year lease on Cheyneygates, the abbots house in Westminster Abbey. All was going well...then wallop! February 1487 she is sent into 'retirement' in Bermondsey Abbey..and her son Grey consigned to the tower when the news broke about the Simnel rebellion. question? Was there some muddled thinking about who the true candidate for the throne they were rebelling about,,young Warwick or young Edward? Doug here: The problem I'm having is not being in a position to know the personal views of those involved. For example, do we know whether or not Elizabeth Woodville ever accepted the fact that her marriage to Edward was invalid? As Hilary has pointed out, legitimacy and legal descent were of prime importance to those living in this period. Could Elizabeth Woodville have decided that a legal Yorkist heir on the throne was more important that her daughter remaining Queen? Just how much power did Elizabeth Woodville have as Queen Dowager in a Court led by Henry Tudor and where Margaret Beaufort came second? What was she really risking if she did, in fact, support Warwick as the rightful King? And we need to remember that, should Warwick attain the throne, he'd need all the support he could get from every group of Yorkists, including the Woodvilles. Then there's also the possibility that what happened wasn't that Elizabeth Woodville supported Warwick, but rather her son and that she'd either known about his support for Warwick or was simply presumed to have known. Eileen concluded: BAldwin speculates in his book that Elizabeth may have 'resented the authority which the change of dynasty had given to Margaret Beaufort but more particularly Henry had been anxious to dispel any illusions that he ruled England in right if his wife'. But I remain unconvinced. My belief is that ELizabeth and Grey knew/had just found that one or both of her younger sons had survived. MAybe she was annoyed if she had been led to believe that they we both dead, perhaps suggested that Richard had done them in..Margaret Beaufort anyone? Doug here: As you mentioned in your first paragraph, there may have been some confusion on the parts of Elizabeth Woodville and her son as to just which Edward was being backed for the throne, but I rather doubt it. Both Elizabeth and her son resided in London at that time and would almost certainly have heard, if not believed, any rumors about Warwick having escaped from the Tower. Perhaps their response to those rumors had been to make enquiries about what had exactly happened concerning Warwick, that hadn't been as surreptitious as they'd believed? I can see Elizabeth not knowing where her sons were, but I, personally anyway, have little doubt she knew all along they weren't dead. But still illegitimate. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-10 12:12:36
Hilary Jones
Doug, yes put that way I could buy that. I think Morton's role could well have been in influencing/diverting/disabling (whatever it took to manipulate the dimmest bulb in the box). But at this stage he hadn't had the time to co-ordinate his own clan to participate in any rebellious action. You can clearly see that by 1485 he certainly had. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017, 3:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Hilary wrote: Doug, the only reason for a flaw in your theory of Morton's participation is that he actually didn't muster any/much support in 1483. Go forward to Bosworth and it's very different. To say Buckingham's support was thin was an understatement. Sorry, but I still fail to understand why Richard would send either boy to Flanders; Richard was a many who believed in loyalty above all and the loyalty which had been tested again and again was that of his own folk in the North. Doug here: That's what I meant about Morton not being in control, because I wonder if Buckingham, noting the small number of people turning out, didn't start the rumors on their way prematurely? IOW, the rumors were originally intended to be put out either well after the supporters of Edward V had mustered around the banner raised by Buckingham or, possibly, after Richard had been defeated in battle but before Edward and his brother were rescued. At which time Buckingham would propose himself as Richard's replacement. Yes, it does sound silly put like that, but then Henry Stafford wasn't known for being the brightest bulb in the box, either. If Morton's reputation for manipulating people is anywhere close to being accurate, then, based on what I've read about him, Buckingham would've been putty in Morton's hands. As for what Morton would have gotten out of it  it would likely have been the same as what Morton received for his support of Tudor. The difference being that Morton, if Buckingham became king, would likely have even more power than he actually did under Tudor. If nothing else, Morton's handling of Buckingham during the rebellion would, had the rebellion succeeded, shown Morton he was in a position to, if not control Buckingham, then certainly move him toward those ends Morton. Of courses, I could be over-estimating the good Bishop's talents, but I don't think so. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-10 12:24:30
Hilary Jones
Yes absolutely Doug! A bed was a very treasured possession so sharing it was often a matter of convenience/gesture of friendship, nothing else. Of course in the nineteenth century not only did beds contain up to eight people head to toe, but they had day and night 'shifts' to accommodate different workers. For the working classes of course. :) H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017, 5:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

Eileen wrote: Paul ive got a vague recollection of a state bed being in the famous Painted Chamber at Westminster Palace. Ive checked on Wiki and it was Henry lll had it put there. Wiki mentions he complained it was draughty. Casting that aside I recall reading somewhere, eons ago, visitors would be invited to hop in to this said bed. I know... its weird...Cant help beyond that though. Doug here: Weren't beds at that time a status symbol of sorts? My understanding is that, while the majority of the population then may have slept on mattresses, those mattresses were usually just laid on the floor and rolled up during the daytime. I've also read that well into the 19th century it wasn't unusual for traveling strangers to share the same bed in inns and taverns. And I seriously doubt anything was expected from the other occupant than staying on their side of the bed... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'B

2017-06-10 12:27:41
Hilary Jones
I do actually think there is something in this Mary. You see for all we go on about rumours, those which are the wildest and have no real purpose - the cookshop, the strawberries, Stillington's 'son' - often do seem to have a grain of truth - because quite frankly, there is no other political reason for making them up. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017, 10:51
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

There is also the story that Clarence sent E of W to Ireland for safety. Maybe the Earl of Warwick in the tower was an impostor. It is very difficult to know exactly what happened. E of W was supposed to be in Richard and Anne's household after May 1483 before that I believe he was supposed to be in the Marquis of Dorset's household. I tend to think that Anne would have known if he was her nephew or not but then she probably had either never met him or only when he was very young. So many scenarios and without proper contemporary evidence we might never know. I think it is good that we thrash these things out though, instead of just accepting them like the trads.
Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-10 12:49:09
Hilary Jones
Hi Karen, I have great respect for Horrox, but I've analysed the rebels and she makes some flawed assumptions.
Firstly, who are 'they' who fought to get wealthy?
I don't want to go into things in great detail here, but if you had one umbrella for the 1483 rebels it was 'grudge-bearers' - and in the main not grudge-bearers against Richard (he'd done nothing wrong to upset them like increase taxes) but against Edward. You have a Woodville faction in Kent who were supposedly protesting on behalf of their usurped young relative, but the number there were swelled by rent-a mob, some of whom had participated in the Watt Tyler rebellion. In the South Midlands you have a number of former Lancastrian supporters, some of whom had served Clarence; in the South West you have supporters of attainted traitors (Courteney, Hungerford) - that is attainted by Edward, not Richard. You have relatives of people who had been executed after Tewkesbury on the orders of Richard but under the auspice of Edward; you have people in Hampshire upset by Edward's taxation policy and people in Cornwall, whom again Edward (not Richard) had upset years' ago. Because they are all defeated in 1483 some, but not all, are forced to take refuge in the last chance saloon offered by HT.
Horrox attributes all this to the North/South divide caused by Richard. In fact they were groups of grudge-bearers stirred by activists to basically cause chaos in the opportunity which arose at the start of a new reign. Which activists? Not methinks at this time MB or HT though they dabbled; but the Woodvilles and a seriously mad Buckingham. Working together, probably, but who knows? As for greasing palms, Horrox's whole work is of course around the use of payments for obtaining loyalty. The trouble is once you get buried in matters financial you tend to attribute everything to financial motive. I can be as guilty as anyone about that. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017, 13:24
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Maybe he just realized that he would never know where they were. People didn't fight against Richard in some righteous cause. They fought to get wealthy. The rebellion was about like ding their lucrative positions. Hastings was losing his influence.Richard wasn't giving them enough so they decided they would do better under Tudor. They didn't give a jot for two bastards. Just tried to plow through Rosemary Horrox, Richard III a study of service. She too takes the view that Richard wasn't greasing the right palms. She also takes the marriage plan with EoY absolutely seriously.
On Jun 9, 2017 7:34 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Doug wrote :There's no real evidence that the Woodvilles ever allied themselves to Tudor with the aim of assisting him in getting the throne.

Romane here :But what then of Edward Woodville, who as on Henry's side at Bosworth ? He had to know what Henry taking the throne meant for the children. So he must bave believed that they were dead.
---In @ yahoogroups.com, <destama@...> wrote :

Doug wrote:We do know that Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort were in communication while Elizabeth was in sanctuary and that, apparently, a proposal was made that Elizabeth of York was to marry Henry Tudor. However, considering the time frame when the original proposed match between Henry and Elizabeth was made, it's entirely probable that all that was intended was that Henry was to marry the sister of the re-enthroned Edward V and not assume the throne himself.
Romane here :What would have been Henry's interest in marrying Elizabeth as a bastard ? He could do better, once on the throne. And if he wanted her as a legitimate heir, that meant that the two boys had to be out of the picture. What is the source for that early communication between Elizabeth and Margaret ? Is it reliable ? For it seems to me rather impossible that Elizabeth would have agreed to such a plan without knowing about her boys.
romanenemo wroteWhat had convinced me that the children had to be dead was, first, the fact that IMO, Richard wold have put a stop to the rumors if he had been able to. But maybe Doug is right and these rumors were not that important in England, and overrated by Mancini, for obvious reasons.About my second reason, that is the Woodville alliance with Henry, maybe you're right thinking that it's overrated too. Besides, it's possible that many of the plotters with Woodville connections had no qualms about allying themselves with Henry in spite of what would happen to the children if he became king. As you say, they were led by greed. Doug here:There's no real evidence that the Woodvilles ever allied themselves to Tudor with the aim of assisting him in getting the throne. We do know that Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort were in communication while Elizabeth was in sanctuary and that, apparently, a proposal was made that Elizabeth of York was to marry Henry Tudor. However, considering the time frame when the original proposed match between Henry and Elizabeth was made, it's entirely probable that all that was intended was that Henry was to marry the sister of the re-enthroned Edward V and not assume the throne himself.Therefore there'd be no reason, at that time, to worry about what Henry might, or might not, do in regards to his proposed brothers-in-law. romanenemo concluded:But what of Lionel Woodville ?What of Thomas Grey, who swore allegiance to Henry for a while ? Granted, he apparently changed his mind, but it's nonetheless strange, if his half-brothers were still alive, don't you think ? Why having a new candidate for the throne, instead of his own brother ? Brotherly loyalty aside, in was not in Dorset's interest to be only the brother of a powerless queen, and not the brother, maybe the protector even, as Anthony was dead, of a young and so probably suggestible king. And Henry's accession to the throne meant the children's death warrant. Supporting Henry's claim to the throne meant to tacitly accept that the children were dead, or as good as dead. Would the boys' own kin have done that, if they were alive ?I can't see a way out from that. Doug here:Again, what's important is when Lionel Woodville and Thomas Grey supported Tudor. Lionel Woodville died in late June 1484. It's again most likely than any support the he gave to Henry Tudor was part of the original effort to return Edward V to the throne. The same queries surround Thomas Grey. It's no secret that he supported Buckingham's Rebellion but the idea that Buckingham rebelled in order to offer the throne to Henry Tudor is, frankly, ludicrous. As best as can be determined by the facts, the aim of Buckingham's Rebellion from the start was to return Edward V to the throne. That Buckingham may have also had his eye on the throne shouldn't be discounted, but doesn't change anything concerning the original intent of the rebellion.Grey, during 1485, attempted to flee from Henry and return to England; apparently he'd received letters from his mother encouraging him to do so. Grey, however, was apprehended, apparently at Tudor's request, and kept under some form of custody in Paris.IOW, while these two Woodvilles were more than willing to conspire and plot treason to return Edward V to the throne, there's no evidence they supported Tudor in his quest for that same throne. One, Lionel, was dead well before Bosworth, and the other, Grey, was a captive in Paris.Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-10 14:10:56
Karen O
Just my very humble opinion

On Jun 10, 2017 7:13 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

Doug, yes put that way I could buy that. I think Morton's role could well have been in influencing/diverting/ disabling (whatever it took to manipulate the dimmest bulb in the box). But at this stage he hadn't had the time to co-ordinate his own clan to participate in any rebellious action. You can clearly see that by 1485 he certainly had. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017, 3:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

      Hilary wrote: Doug, the only reason for a flaw in your theory of Morton's participation is that he actually didn't muster any/much support in 1483. Go forward to Bosworth and it's very different. To say Buckingham's support was thin was an understatement. Sorry, but I still fail to understand why Richard would send either boy to Flanders; Richard was a many who believed in loyalty above all and the loyalty which had been tested again and again was that of his own folk in the North.       Doug here: That's what I meant about Morton not being in control, because I wonder if Buckingham, noting the small number of people turning out, didn't start the rumors on their way prematurely? IOW, the rumors were originally intended to be put out either well after the supporters of Edward V had mustered around the banner raised by Buckingham or, possibly, after Richard had been defeated in battle but before Edward and his brother were rescued. At which time Buckingham would propose himself as Richard's replacement. Yes, it does sound silly put like that, but then Henry Stafford wasn't known for being the brightest bulb in the box, either. If Morton's reputation for manipulating people is anywhere close to being accurate, then, based on what I've read about him, Buckingham would've been putty in Morton's hands. As for what Morton would have gotten out of it  it would likely have been the same as what Morton received for his support of Tudor. The difference being that Morton, if Buckingham became king, would likely have even more power than he actually did under Tudor. If nothing else, Morton's handling of Buckingham during the rebellion would, had the rebellion succeeded, shown Morton he was in a position to, if not control Buckingham, then certainly move him toward those ends Morton. Of courses, I could be over-estimating the good Bishop's talents, but I don't think so. Doug  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-10 14:19:41
ricard1an
A thought just occurred to me reading this, could these disaffected people have thought that they would have lots of influence over Edward V, always supposing they could re-instate him, because with Anthony dead EW would need supporters.They would know that, despite the fact that Richard had not done anything in particular to annoy them, he would not be a push over and boy king with vulnerable family connections would be a better option. Though I would imagine MB and the Stanleys would be the most powerful in that scenario.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'B

2017-06-10 15:16:39
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote:
Doug, yes put that way I could buy that. I think Morton's role could well have been in influencing/diverting/disabling (whatever it took to manipulate the dimmest bulb in the box). But at this stage he hadn't had the time to co-ordinate his own clan to participate in any rebellious action. You can clearly see that by 1485 he certainly had.

Doug here:
Of course, my reasoning about the rumors, such as it is, depends on them being spread as a deliberate ploy. There's always the chance that the reference in the Croyland Chronicles is to when the chronicler first heard rumors about the boys' deaths. In which case; all those pixels  wasted!
I'm embarrassed to admit that I hadn't even thought about Morton raising his own relatives/affinity in support of whatever was planned! Would there really have been enough time for him to do so?
And,most importantly, did this lack of participation in 1483 on the part of his relatives/affinity represent Morton's intentions, or was it simply because there hadn't been enough time?
Doug
Who really has no idea how much time it takes to organize a rebellion...

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-10 15:41:25
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: I say this because Richard and they had been colleagues in adversity in 1470. However much they were unalike or had drifted apart afterwards, Richard wouldn't have forgotten that  such things give people a bond. Doug here: Do you think those bonds might have caused Richard to react to their actions in the way he did? Hastings' execution for plotting Richard's death would almost be a given, but there have always been questions about why Rivers and Grey were executed when they were. If some sort of ambush of Richard at Stony Stratford had been planned; why weren't the planners executed then and there, just as Hastings was immediately after the plot he in which he was involved had been discovered and disrupted? Is it possible Grey and Rivers had been kept informed of what was going on between Hastings et al? They were in custody, to be sure, but it was likely more on the order of protective custody than anything else; they most certainly weren't chained to the wall in some dark and dank dungeon. And, if they'd also been informed about what was planned in London and hadn't informed Richard, that could have been the last straw for Richard, no matter what his personal regard for Grey and Rivers have been. I've left your post entire below. I rather tend to agree with you concerning MB's power and EW's likely views. Doug So many ifs and so little time...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-10 16:11:09
Karen O
     I read somewhere that Richard had to petition to have them immediately executed but was stopped because he had not been confirmed as Lord Protector at the time of the attempted coup. A technicality he got through eventually which leads me to conclude he had to submit some evidence.
On Jun 10, 2017 10:41 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 

    Hilary wrote: I say this because Richard and they had been colleagues in adversity in 1470. However much they were unalike or had drifted apart afterwards, Richard wouldn't have forgotten that  such things give people a bond.   Doug here: Do you think those bonds might have caused Richard to react to  their actions in the way he did? Hastings' execution for plotting Richard's death would almost be a given, but there have always been questions about why Rivers and Grey were executed when they were. If some sort of ambush of Richard at Stony Stratford had been planned; why weren't the planners executed then and there, just as Hastings was immediately after the plot he in which he was involved had been discovered and disrupted? Is it possible Grey and Rivers had been kept informed of what was going on between Hastings et al? They were in custody, to be sure, but it was likely more on the order of protective custody than anything else; they most certainly weren't chained to the wall in some dark and dank dungeon. And, if they'd also been informed about what was planned in London and hadn't informed Richard, that could have been the last straw for Richard, no matter what his personal regard for Grey and Rivers have been. I've left your post entire below. I rather tend to agree with you concerning MB's power and EW's likely views. Doug So many ifs and so little time...  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-10 16:38:44
A J Hibbard
That sounds like Mancini.

As Annette Carson has pointed out, Mancini is the only source to mention this. She goes on to point out a couple of errors in this passage, including Mancini's comment that at that point Richard "was neither regent [administratorem] nor did he hold any other public office. In fact, at the time of King Edward's death, Richard held  the public offices of "Great Chamberlain of England, High Constable of England, Lord High Admiral of England and Lieutenant General of England's land forces. She also concluded that such "a snub by the council, as alleged by Mancini, was both unlikely and uncharacteristic. What is more striking is that the supposed rebuff is mentioned nowhere by the Croyland chronicler, who was in a position to record it and with some satisfaction.

A J

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:
 

     I read somewhere that Richard had to petition to have them immediately executed but was stopped because he had not been confirmed as Lord Protector at the time of the attempted coup. A technicality he got through eventually which leads me to conclude he had to submit some evidence.
On Jun 10, 2017 10:41 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

    Hilary wrote: I say this because Richard and they had been colleagues in adversity in 1470. However much they were unalike or had drifted apart afterwards, Richard wouldn't have forgotten that  such things give people a bond.   Doug here: Do you think those bonds might have caused Richard to react to  their actions in the way he did? Hastings' execution for plotting Richard's death would almost be a given, but there have always been questions about why Rivers and Grey were executed when they were. If some sort of ambush of Richard at Stony Stratford had been planned; why weren't the planners executed then and there, just as Hastings was immediately after the plot he in which he was involved had been discovered and disrupted? Is it possible Grey and Rivers had been kept informed of what was going on between Hastings et al? They were in custody, to be sure, but it was likely more on the order of protective custody than anything else; they most certainly weren't chained to the wall in some dark and dank dungeon. And, if they'd also been informed about what was planned in London and hadn't informed Richard, that could have been the last straw for Richard, no matter what his personal regard for Grey and Rivers have been. I've left your post entire below. I rather tend to agree with you concerning MB's power and EW's likely views. Doug So many ifs and so little time...  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-10 17:24:44
Paul Trevor Bale
Karen, I do t recall that, but not being Protector was academic as he was Constable, and as I've said before between the death of one king and the coronation of the next The Constable held the power of the monarch, so any attack on him was treason. He sent Rivers and Grey north under escort possibly so he could take the men they had brought with them into his own force without any immediate chance of revolt. He could have executed them summarily, but perhaps at that time he was unaware of how much opposition their was to his becoming Protector.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 10 juin 2017 à 17:11, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> a écrit :

I read somewhere that Richard had to petition to have them immediately executed but was stopped because he had not been confirmed as Lord Protector at the time of the attempted coup. A technicality he got through eventually which leads me to conclude he had to submit some evidence.
On Jun 10, 2017 10:41 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: I say this because Richard and they had been colleagues in adversity in 1470. However much they were unalike or had drifted apart afterwards, Richard wouldn't have forgotten that  such things give people a bond. Doug here: Do you think those bonds might have caused Richard to react to their actions in the way he did? Hastings' execution for plotting Richard's death would almost be a given, but there have always been questions about why Rivers and Grey were executed when they were. If some sort of ambush of Richard at Stony Stratford had been planned; why weren't the planners executed then and there, just as Hastings was immediately after the plot he in which he was involved had been discovered and disrupted? Is it possible Grey and Rivers had been kept informed of what was going on between Hastings et al? They were in custody, to be sure, but it was likely more on the order of protective custody than anything else; they most certainly weren't chained to the wall in some dark and dank dungeon. And, if they'd also been informed about what was planned in London and hadn't informed Richard, that could have been the last straw for Richard, no matter what his personal regard for Grey and Rivers have been. I've left your post entire below. I rather tend to agree with you concerning MB's power and EW's likely views. Doug So many ifs and so little time...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-10 17:28:15
Karen
Their location would eventually become known. Flanders makes sense to me because there they could be hidden, take on new names, be raised in the status of King's bastards, and not be used by Richard's enemies. Annette Carson has some new clues in Flanders. She was childless and evidently took.on one of Clarence's bastards. Richard, I think, trusted his sister more than he trusted bought and paid for affinity.
On Jun 7, 2017 7:18 PM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

Doug, the only reason for a flaw in your theory of Morton's participation is that he actually didn't muster any/much support in 1483. Go forward to Bosworth and it's very different. To say Buckingham's support was thin was an understatement. Sorry, but I still fail to understand why Richard would send either boy to Flanders; Richard was a many who believed in loyalty above all and the loyalty which had been tested again and again was that of his own folk in the North. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@kconline.com []" <@yahoogroups.com>
To: @yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 5 June 2017, 17:28
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

 

romanenemo wrote:
"Thank you for that interesting summary of the available knowledge about
Perkin Warbeck Hilary.
I think that if he was an impostor, the fact that Margaret supported him
shows that she didn't know what had happened to the children either. And
that they were probably dead. There was no staunchest supporter of the
yorkist cause than Margaret. Why would anyone having the children under
their care not contact Margaret, at least after Richard's death, even if
they were not hidden in Burgundy ?Or, if they were hidden somewhere else,
why didn't they reappear in Burgundy to claim the throne, as Perkin Warbeck
did ?"

Doug here:
That Margaret supported "Perkin" is why I tend to believe he was who he
claimed. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to think that Margaret,
as much as she detested Tudor, would have supported someone for the throne
of England that she knew to be an imposter. The possibility does exist, of
course, that Margaret, as well as others, was taken in but, once again, any
attempt to palm someone off as Richard of Shrewsbury entailed so many
possible dangers as to make it, to me anyway, a non-starter.
For what it's worth, it's my belief that Richard separated his two nephews
during the spring of 1484, keeping Edward in England (Edward had, after all,
been proclaimed king, even if he'd never been crowned) and sent Richard
overseas to reside in the household of a well-to-do merchant and, most
importantly, Yorkist supporter. It would have made sense for Richard to have
informed his sister of his actions concerning his nephew, but I can't see
any necessity for Margaret to have had much, or even any, interaction with
the boy. Especially if, as I tend to believe, a major reason for the boy
being sent to Flanders was for his own protection.

ramonenemo concluded:
"And considering the two texts contemporary to Richard's reign (the text
from the journal of some London citizen and the genealogy)showing that there
were already rumors about the children's death during Richard's reign, if
they had been alive, Richard would have shown them to prove it.
On another hand, as Tey points at, Richard was far from stupid and if he
had killed the children or if they had died under his care, he would have
shown the bodies.And there is the lack of official accusation from Henry vii
as well.
It is as if the situation concerning the children had no longer been under
Richard's control when the rumors started. Will we ever know what happened"

Doug here:
As best I can determine, there were two periods when rumors about the boys
were flying around. The first was shortly after Buckingham's Rebellion broke
out, when rumors spread that the boys were dead, and spread far enough to be
noted by the Croyland Chronicler (whoever he was). While noone has ever been
named as the source of these rumors, it's my belief, based on what we
currently know, that those rumors were intended to gin up support for
Buckingham in his quest for the throne. My reasoning is that, should the
rebellion, which originally had as its' aim the return of Edward to the
throne, been successful, Buckingham could only at best hoped to take over as
Protector as long as Edward and Richard were alive. However, if anything
were to happen to the boys, then Buckingham would be in a position not
unlike that which faced Richard upon Stillington's announcement that Edward
IV's offspring were illegitimate - namely, there'd be two juveniles as
possible monarchs, with one under attainder and the second the son of the
man who'd be charged with the murder of his nephews. Because I really can't
see Buckingham letting the facts that Edward and Richard were also his
nephews and were still children stand in his way. IOW, Edward and Richard
would have likely been "discovered" as having been killed by Richard before
Buckingham could rescue them.
I believe the plan failed because the person who dreamed it up, and
encouraged Buckingham to aim for the throne, Bishop Morton, wasn't in
complete control of all the planning that goes into plotting a rebellion.
Morton almost certainly realized that, if a rebellion aimed at returning
Edward V to the throne was to succeed, Edward had to been seen as being
alive. Any rumor about his death spread before the rebellion was well
underway (IOW, troops already mustered and gathered together) would only
depress turnout and reduce the chances of Buckingham defeating Richard.
Everything I've seen suggests that the rumor about the boys' deaths got out
before it was intended, and that, as soon as the rumor was out, Morton
headed for cover, realizing the rebellion was almost certainly doomed. I'm
not certain about the dating of the reference to the boys being killed "on
the vise of Buckingham," but it's certainly possible the reference was
written down at a later time. Possibly because the topic of the boys' deaths
had come up again?
The second instance that I know of is a reference to the boys no longer
being seen in the Tower "after Easter." Easter 1483 can be ruled out
immediately as neither boy was even in the Tower before Easter 1483 was well
past. Which leaves 1484 and 1485 as possibilities. My preference is for 1484
as that was also the time frame when EW finally left sanctuary in
Westminster. There is no reference to her being lodged in London that I know
of, which increases the likelihood that she was lodged somewhere outside
London. Which would also explain why the boys were no longer seen at the
Tower, they also had been moved out of London.
It's only my belief, as I have no proof to sustain it other than the actions
of those involved and their personalities, but my current belief is that an
integral part of Buckingham's Rebellion included the death of the two boys,
and that death was to be laid at Richard's feet. Richard's actions lead me
to believe that he didn't know what Buckingham had planned for his nephews
until sometime at least after the rebellion was set in motion, and possibly
not until it was over. It may have been when Richard called Buckingham "that
most untrue creature" or it may have been prior to the winter of 1483/84
when it was noticed the boys were being seen less and less.
In either case, Richard decided the boys would be safer if they were
separated. If people were on the look-out for two boys, it would make the
job of hiding them away easier if only one boy suddenly popped up somewhere.
Where Richard seems to have failed is in not making better plans in advance
for the possibility of his, Richard's, demise. Of course, up until the death
of his son, Richard didn't need to worry too much about the succession. And
after his son died, Richard was quickly faced with the prospect of his
wife's illness and death. So I cut him some slack for being preoccupied.
The problems that developed after Bosworth result, again IMO, were due to
our not knowing what happened to Edward. If, as I believe, he'd been hidden
away somewhere in England, his first thought after the news of Bosworth
arrived would have been to get away to someplace safe. But then the problems
with being, first Prince of Wales, then the eldest illegitimate son of
Edward IV came to the fore. His tenure as Prince of Wales hadn't gotten to
the point where he'd actually been doing things on his own. Not only had he
been under the tutelage of his uncle, with everything provided for him
including, quite likely, just where to put his, Edward's, signature on
official documents. That period was followed by his time in the Tower,
originally the Royal Apartments, then in more secure surrounding where,
again, his interactions with people would have been quite limited. If, as I
think, he'd been sent to some out-of-the-way place in the country, the same
would apply there. He'd likely have a greater chance to interact with people
but, and if only because of the reason for his sequestration, those contacts
would still be limited.
Which means that, after Bosworth, there are two possibilities for Edward.
The first is that remained where he was and was swallowed up into the gentry
or he fled. If it's the latter that happened then there's the possibility,
and only a possibility, that there may be something to the "Richard of
Eastham" story, but whether that "Richard" was actually Edward or possibly
someone who knew what had happened to Edward and decided in his declining
years to take advantage of that knowledge isn't currently determinable.
Sorry about the length!
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.




Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-10 17:35:58
b.eileen25
The poorer also slept on the tables..known as boards/bords in them there distant days. Hence 'bed and board' 'boarding house' 'board and lodgings' etc., When bords were not being used to eat from or sleep on they could be turned up the other way and their would a game carved ..the medieval equivalent of chess/draughts or similar Hence the express 'board games'. Clever eh? Not an inch of space wasted. Also where you get 'Board room' and 'Chairman of the Board' I learnt this during a tour of Mary Ardingly's house, Straford on Avon.No need to thank me....hehehehehehe

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-10 18:01:54
b.eileen25
David wrote "There have been some interesting posts recently'
Eileen. Yes indeed..we are still here alive and kicking and arguing. How silly of the Society to get divorced from us..

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-10 18:03:22
b.eileen25
Romaneo wrote"'as for the Simnel plot there is no evidence at all that EW was part of it. Why would she have supported Clarence's son".
Eileen:As explained in my earlier posts it would be absurd to think that EW would have preferred Warwick on the throne to her daughter. I said that I believed that she went into it because she knew that at least one of her sons survived. Thus if the plot succeeded and Tudor was ousted then it would be one of her sons being crowned and not Warwick.
As to there not being any 'evidence' of her being involved in the plot where there is not a lot of 'evidence' of much at all really of those times. You can only weigh up the probabilities for and against. Virgil the Tudor historian wrote that EW was sent to Bermondsey because she had done something bad, i.e. make friends with Richard three years earlier. This is silly. But it does indicate that Vergil did know that EW had been sent to Bermondsey under a cloud even if he got the reason muddled. Either he or Bacon wrote that it was considered dangerous to try to see her. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree about this one Romaneo as Im am absolutely convinced that EW retirement was not voluntary.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-10 18:39:20
Pamela Bain
Very interesting, thank you!
On Jun 10, 2017, at 11:36 AM, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

The poorer also slept on the tables..known as boards/bords in them there distant days. Hence 'bed and board' 'boarding house' 'board and lodgings' etc., When bords were not being used to eat from or sleep on they could be turned up the other way and their would a game carved ..the medieval equivalent of chess/draughts or similar Hence the express 'board games'. Clever eh? Not an inch of space wasted. Also where you get 'Board room' and 'Chairman of the Board' I learnt this during a tour of Mary Ardingly's house, Straford on Avon.

No need to thank me....hehehehehehe

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-10 19:08:49
justcarol67

David wrote:

"What would be wrong with telling the world that he [Richard, former Duke of York] had been smuggled out on the orders of his uncle, and protected by his aunt?"

Carol responds:

It would encourage Edwardian Yorkists and Woodvillians to seek him out and rebel against Richard III (much as Lincoln and Lovell used Lambert Simnel in the guise of the Earl of Warwick to rebel against Henry.

What would be the point of sending either boy to safety and then revealing his whereabouts?

Carol,with apologies for so many posts in a row

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-10 19:17:18
justcarol67

Romanenemo wrote:

"Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead."

Carol responds:

Dead or away from London and inaccessible to Richard, in Burgundy or on Tyrell's estate, for example. I've already given and will not repeat my reasons why Richard would want to keep their whereabouts secret (as others have also done).

Carol


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-10 20:38:14
justcarol67

romanenemo wrote:

"Mancini, in his memoir probably finished in december 1583, says that in England there were rumors of the princes' death, but that he didn't know how it had happened.
From that, we can't draw any kind of conclusion. Mancini doesn't say that the princes were dead, only that he'd heard that they were. He doesn't tell from whom he'd heard the rumor. It could be completely false. And he was on the payroll of a former minister of Louis XI."

Carol responds:

I think you mean 1483. Mancini never mentions the possibility of the younger "prince's" death, only that of the deposed EV (of which, as you say, he's uncertain).

I suspect that Mancini was the source of the rumor made use of by de Rochefort. It certainly was not widespread or "common knowledge" (in quotes because it wasn't "knowledge" at all).

Carol



Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'B

2017-06-11 10:23:23
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, I recall the Chronicler was writing in retrospect during HT's reign? How convenient to have an inaccurate memory!
Re mobilisation, it's the good old High Sheriff network. All those inter-marriages really were worth it! And how convenient to be empowered to recruit. Morton's brother was Sheriff of Somerset in 1481 and the Mortons were and always had been part of that network. Of the 164 rebels in 1483 only 40 turned up at Bosworth (though some were dead) but new ones included those from Morton's network like Henry Horsey, another HS family. There are many more at Bosworth who had connections to Morton so I think he was being cautious in 1483 but did a lot of meddling, as did MB and Bray (their messenger was attainted).
Interestingly our rhymer friend Colyngbourne (who had been a HS) was also in the Wilts/Dorset MP/HS set and brother in law to the Darells, Wroughtons, a Haute and Buckingham's mother. He wasn't just an aggrieved person who came out of nowhere. Bit of quiet manipulation there? FWIW I reckon MB and Morton were testing the water in 1483. Who knows whether HT really intended to turn up? H


From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2017, 15:16
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?



Hilary wrote:
Doug, yes put that way I could buy that. I think Morton's role could well have been in influencing/diverting/disabling (whatever it took to manipulate the dimmest bulb in the box). But at this stage he hadn't had the time to co-ordinate his own clan to participate in any rebellious action. You can clearly see that by 1485 he certainly had.

Doug here:
Of course, my reasoning about the rumors, such as it is, depends on them being spread as a deliberate ploy. There's always the chance that the reference in the Croyland Chronicles is to when the chronicler first heard rumors about the boys' deaths. In which case; all those pixels  wasted!
I'm embarrassed to admit that I hadn't even thought about Morton raising his own relatives/affinity in support of whatever was planned! Would there really have been enough time for him to do so?
And,most importantly, did this lack of participation in 1483 on the part of his relatives/affinity represent Morton's intentions, or was it simply because there hadn't been enough time?
Doug
Who really has no idea how much time it takes to organize a rebellion...

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.





Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-11 10:25:21
Hilary Jones
Probably Mary, but it might have backfired. I bet he was a stroppy teenager and not the easiest to deal with. After all he'd been brought up to be king. H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2017, 14:19
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

A thought just occurred to me reading this, could these disaffected people have thought that they would have lots of influence over Edward V, always supposing they could re-instate him, because with Anthony dead EW would need supporters.They would know that, despite the fact that Richard had not done anything in particular to annoy them, he would not be a push over and boy king with vulnerable family connections would be a better option. Though I would imagine MB and the Stanleys would be the most powerful in that scenario.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-11 11:06:39
Hilary Jones
Thanks Doug Yes it is a mystery - and Vaughan too. One can understand Richard's reaction re the Buckingham plot. That must have been the absolute last straw. H



From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2017, 15:41
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Hilary wrote: I say this because Richard and they had been colleagues in adversity in 1470. However much they were unalike or had drifted apart afterwards, Richard wouldn't have forgotten that  such things give people a bond. Doug here: Do you think those bonds might have caused Richard to react to their actions in the way he did? Hastings' execution for plotting Richard's death would almost be a given, but there have always been questions about why Rivers and Grey were executed when they were. If some sort of ambush of Richard at Stony Stratford had been planned; why weren't the planners executed then and there, just as Hastings was immediately after the plot he in which he was involved had been discovered and disrupted? Is it possible Grey and Rivers had been kept informed of what was going on between Hastings et al? They were in custody, to be sure, but it was likely more on the order of protective custody than anything else; they most certainly weren't chained to the wall in some dark and dank dungeon. And, if they'd also been informed about what was planned in London and hadn't informed Richard, that could have been the last straw for Richard, no matter what his personal regard for Grey and Rivers have been. I've left your post entire below. I rather tend to agree with you concerning MB's power and EW's likely views. Doug So many ifs and so little time...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-11 11:11:06
Hilary Jones
Yep they love it in Stratford because there's all that contention over Shakespeare leaving AH his second-best bed and some thought it was a snub when it actually wasn't H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2017, 17:36
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

The poorer also slept on the tables..known as boards/bords in them there distant days. Hence 'bed and board' 'boarding house' 'board and lodgings' etc., When bords were not being used to eat from or sleep on they could be turned up the other way and their would a game carved ..the medieval equivalent of chess/draughts or similar Hence the express 'board games'. Clever eh? Not an inch of space wasted. Also where you get 'Board room' and 'Chairman of the Board' I learnt this during a tour of Mary Ardingly's house, Straford on Avon.No need to thank me....hehehehehehe

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-11 11:17:09
Hilary Jones
Absolutely! Difficult to keep up. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2017, 18:01
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

David wrote "There have been some interesting posts recently'
Eileen. Yes indeed..we are still here alive and kicking and arguing. How silly of the Society to get divorced from us..

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-11 11:33:43
Durose David
Carol,
Re Warbeck and secrecy

There have been many divergent topics covered under different headings, you may have misunderstood my comment, or taken it out of context.
My question was in the context of the letter written by Perkin Warbeck to Queen Isabella. It was approximately a decade later than the events of 1483 and the disappearance of the Princes.
Warbeck was writing to elicit support for the restoration of his birthright and openly attempting to overthrow Henry with the help of Margaret. Therefore, all need for secrecy had passed.
If he had been smuggled to Flanders and cared for in secret by Margaret, there was no longer any need to conceal the fact. But his letter tells of a miraculous escape from the Tower after the death of his brother.
I can understand the need for secrecy in 1483/4 but not at a time when Warbeck was in the open and putting his location on his letters.
My contention is that you can not simply accept Warbeck as Richard without accepting his version of his back story. It is logically inconsistent.
There could be no good reason for him to lie in his letter. And the letter is consistent with the one in Margaret's own to Isabella. She writes that she had only seen Richard once, and everyone had told her that they were dead.
Kind regards David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 at 19:08, justcarol67@... []<> wrote:


David wrote:

"What would be wrong with telling the world that he [Richard, former Duke of York] had been smuggled out on the orders of his uncle, and protected by his aunt?"

Carol responds:

It would encourage Edwardian Yorkists and Woodvillians to seek him out and rebel against Richard III (much as Lincoln and Lovell used Lambert Simnel in the guise of the Earl of Warwick to rebel against Henry.

What would be the point of sending either boy to safety and then revealing his whereabouts?

Carol,with apologies for so many posts in a row

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-11 12:14:19
Paul Trevor Bale
Stroppy teenager, and a Woodville, brought up by his Woodville relatives, in anticipation that when he became king they would hold power.
Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 11 juin 2017 à 11:25, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

Probably Mary, but it might have backfired. I bet he was a stroppy teenager and not the easiest to deal with. After all he'd been brought up to be king. H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2017, 14:19
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

A thought just occurred to me reading this, could these disaffected people have thought that they would have lots of influence over Edward V, always supposing they could re-instate him, because with Anthony dead EW would need supporters.They would know that, despite the fact that Richard had not done anything in particular to annoy them, he would not be a push over and boy king with vulnerable family connections would be a better option. Though I would imagine MB and the Stanleys would be the most powerful in that scenario.
Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-11 15:27:03
romanenemo
I never said that Elizabeth's s retirement was voluntary. I thought that maybe she had heard about the responsibility Henry could have had, directly or indirectly, in her sons' death. Because of the Warwick rebellion, some old yorkist loyalties might have begun to stir and she might have leant something. She might have confronted Henry, or he just learnt that she knew and decided that he wanted her away from court.It seems to me that if she had learnt that her sons were alive, she could have sent word to John de la Pole. I think it doesn't make sense to have made the rebellion in Warwick's name (whoever Simnel really was) if Edward's boys were alive.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-11 15:46:13
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I recall the Chronicler was writing in retrospect during HT's reign? How convenient to have an inaccurate memory! Doug here: To be fair, I seriously doubt whoever the Chronicler was, he'd taken copious notes about the events of the previous four or five years! Hilary continued: Re mobilisation, it's the good old High Sheriff network. All those inter-marriages really were worth it! And how convenient to be empowered to recruit. Morton's brother was Sheriff of Somerset in 1481 and the Mortons were and always had been part of that network. Of the 164 rebels in 1483 only 40 turned up at Bosworth (though some were dead) but new ones included those from Morton's network like Henry Horsey, another HS family. There are many more at Bosworth who had connections to Morton so I think he was being cautious in 1483 but did a lot of meddling, as did MB and Bray (their messenger was attainted). Doug here: What do you think of the possibility that the idea of spreading the rumor about the boys' death was Buckingham's, and not Morton's? After all, when Morton left Buckingham, he didn't head towards Somerset, he headed off towards the Fen country. Could Morton, unable to convince Buckingham to wait before spreading the rumor of the boys' deaths, and recognizing what it would do to recruitment for the rebellion, have been abandoning ship? (Why did a vision of Buckingham as Elmer Fudd just pop into my head? Shh! Be vewy, vewy, quiet. I'm hunting a thwone.?) Hilary concluded: Interestingly our rhymer friend Colyngbourne (who had been a HS) was also in the Wilts/Dorset MP/HS set and brother in law to the Darells, Wroughtons, a Haute and Buckingham's mother. He wasn't just an aggrieved person who came out of nowhere. Bit of quiet manipulation there? FWIW I reckon MB and Morton were testing the water in 1483. Who knows whether HT really intended to turn up? Doug here: I tend to view the participation of MB and Morton in the events of 1483 as a definite attempt on their parts to return Edward V to the throne but, when they (especially Morton) realized that the odds, aka Buckingham, weren't nearly as good as they'd imagined, they quickly did all they could to limit the damage. Which would explain MB sitting on her hands, so to speak, in regards to mustering troops for the rebellion. While she wouldn't have gone around personally calling out men and arranging supplies in any case, she could certainly set things rolling  yet, AFAIK, she never did. It would also explain her sending that letter to HT to stay away and Morton's scampering off to the Fens as soon as he could. I think. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-06-11 15:53:01
Doug Stamate
Karen wrote:  I read somewhere that Richard had to petition to have them immediately executed but was stopped because he had not been confirmed as Lord Protector at the time of the attempted coup. A technicality he got through eventually which leads me to conclude he had to submit some evidence. Doug here: Even if Richard hadn't yet been confirmed as Protector, he was still Constable of England and any attack on the Constable, whether to kill or capture, was still treason and punishable by death. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-11 15:58:23
romanenemo
But what would be the point for Richard of letting run the rumor that he had killed his own nephews ? And even more than a rumor : to let the Chancellor of France accuse him of being a child murderer in front of the States General ? Richard was fascinated by chivalry, his motto was "Loyaulte me lie", he craved for military glory, especially against the 'infidels', because of his piety. He said as much to some foreign visitor (the one who left us a physical description of him).I can imagine Louis XI, the 'spider king', allowing himself to be slandered in such a way if that could serve his political goals, but not chilvalric, impulsive Richard. And what of Richard's declarations about the need to go back to a more moral way of ruling ? Would he have left the moral higher ground to his enemies on such a capital point : the lives of two innocent children, his nephews ?And what about his oath not to harm Elizabeth and her daughters, and later his public declaration that he didn't intend to marry his niece ? Would he have remained silent about that other dangerous suspicion if he'd had a way to justify himself ? My guess is that he'd been trapped in a situation that was not of his making, but that had resulted in the boy's death.And as the boy's death was not really his interest (one of the reasons why we can assume he's not the murderer) he remained silent because rumors of the boy's unexplained death were somehow a lesser evil than telling the real circumstances of their death, that might have raised even stronger suspicions against him. Why was it so ? Because Buckingham had killed the boys at a moment he was supposed to be still on Richard's side ? Because they were poisoned and it was impossible to find the real culprit ? Because they disappeared during some journey ? There are so many possibilities.On another hand, if they had been alive, it would have been very important politically to make it known, especially when Henry began to be supported by France, and to prepare his landing. It would have given pause to people like Edward Woodville, and other yorkist of the Woodville faction, for then it had become clear that Henry wanted the crown for himself.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-06-11 16:15:12
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Thanks Doug Yes it is a mystery - and Vaughan too. One can understand Richard's reaction re the Buckingham plot. That must have been the absolute last straw. Doug here: I'm stuck between two possibilities. The first is that Richard originally believed the aim of that possible ambush at Stony Stratford was merely to prevent his arriving in London before his nephew had been crowned and a government stocked by persons supporting EW and her family had been chosen. However, either during or immediately after Hastings' attempt on Richard's life was foiled, Richard discovered that this wasn't the first plot against his life  the ambush at Stony Stratford had also envisaged Richard's death, even if his death hadn't been its' primary aim. The second possibility would be the one I've already mentioned; that Richard was willing to forgive Rivers, Grey and Vaughn for one misstep, but not two. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-11 18:12:59
ricard1an
After watching a programme about Thomas Penn it seemed to me that John, Earl of Lincoln believed in the pre-contract and therefore didn't consider the "Princes" to be legitimate heirs. In the programme they showed a genealogical roll of the Royal family which belonged to the De la Pole family and I can't remember if the Princes were on there at all but they certainly were not considered as heirs to the throne. Maybe someone else can remember the exact details. Also, as I have said before, it seems odd that Lincoln was promoting an imposter when he had a claim to the throne too. He may have been promoting Warwick because he considered him the next in line after Richard.
Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-11 18:54:25
Karen O
If he said "my nephews are alive" he would be challenged to.prove it. What then?, Only seeing them in person would convince me. Part of the purpose of the rumours were to get Richard to reveal their whereabouts. Just a humble opinion.
On Jun 11, 2017 10:58 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

But what would be the point for Richard of letting run the rumor that he had killed his own nephews ? And even more than a rumor : to let the Chancellor of France accuse him of being a child murderer in front of the States General ? Richard was fascinated by chivalry, his motto was "Loyaulte me lie", he craved for military glory, especially against the 'infidels', because of his piety. He said as much to some foreign visitor (the one who left us a physical description of him).I can imagine Louis XI, the 'spider king', allowing himself to be slandered in such a way if that could serve his political goals, but not chilvalric, impulsive Richard. And what of Richard's declarations about the need to go back to a more moral way of ruling ? Would he have left the moral higher ground  to his enemies on such a capital point : the lives of two innocent children, his nephews ?And what about his oath not to harm Elizabeth and her daughters, and later his public declaration that he didn't intend to marry his niece ? Would he have remained silent about that other dangerous suspicion if he'd had a way to justify himself ? My guess is that he'd been trapped in a situation that was not of his making, but that had resulted in the boy's death.And as the boy's death was not really his interest (one of the reasons why we can assume he's not the murderer) he remained silent because rumors of the boy's unexplained death were somehow a lesser evil than telling the real circumstances of their death, that might have raised even stronger suspicions against him. Why was it so ? Because Buckingham had killed the boys at a moment he was supposed to be still on Richard's side ? Because they were poisoned and it was impossible to find the real culprit ? Because they disappeared during some journey ? There are so many possibilities.On another hand, if they had been alive, it would have been very important politically to make it known, especially when Henry began to be supported by France, and to prepare his landing. It would have given pause to people like Edward Woodville, and other yorkist of the Woodville faction, for then it had become clear that Henry wanted the crown for himself.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-11 22:18:00
ricard1an
Sorry that should be Thomas Penn's "Winter King"

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-11 23:56:19
justcarol67



Romane wrote:

"But as for Edward Woodville, I know that he took shelter in Brittany before the princes disappeared, and he didn't have much other choice than to ally with Henry Tudor. But he fought for him at Bosworth as well ! What was in it for the man, except if Henry married Elizabeth as Edward IV's legitimate heiress ? . . . So it seems unavoidable to assume that there was at the moment a strong and general belief that the boys were already dead."

Carol responds:

I agree with you that Sir Edward probably *believed* (as opposed to *knew*) that the boys were dead. However, he did have another reason for supporting Tudor--he had given him the treasure from the Tower!

There need not have been a general belief that the boys were dead, certainly not in England (where Sir Edward had not been for some two years). He need only have heard and believed the rumor spread among Tudor's supporters at about the same time that it was spread among the Woodville supporters/Edwardian Yorkists in England.

Carol


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-12 01:07:51
justcarol67
David wrote:

"Regarding Edward Woodville, he was appointed admiral of the fleet to deal with piracy in the channel."

Carol responds:

One slight problem--Richard was Admiral of England and the Woodvilles had no authority to send Sir Edward to "fight pirates"--much less take at least part of the treasury from the Tower to any foreign port. When Richard, the rightful authority, ordered the ships to return all of them did--except the one with Sir Edward and the treasure. Exactly what he was up to with his unauthorized action (and defiance of the Lord High Admiral/Lord Protector/Constable of England once Richard reached London and ordered him home) I can't say.

You are correct that there was no Tudor party at that time. There was also no thought in anyone's mind that Richard would become king. I think we're all agreed that Sir Edward was not so much supporting Edward V (who was king but uncrowned) as opposing Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who had the legal authority to make decisions outside the purview of the Woodvilles--a problem they had tried and failed to circumvent by crowning EV before Richard arrived.

And Tudor, seemingly, was only interested in returning home and having his earldom restored. It may well be that he, MB, and/or Morton were already seeing an opportunity for a larger ambition, but it's impossible to know what they were thinking. Certainly, Sir Edward would not have supported that ambition had he known of it at that time.

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-12 01:13:15
justcarol67
Mary wrote:

"Well said Carol"
Carol responds:

Thanks, Mary, but I can't tell what you're agreeing with as you didn't quote me!

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-12 02:26:24
justcarol67


romanemo wrote:

"I think it doesn't make sense to have made the rebellion in Warwick's name (whoever Simnel really was) if Edward's boys were alive."

Carol responds:

If you were John de la Pole (or Frances Lovell) and had supported Richard III, whose claim to the throne depended on the illegitimacy of Edward V, whom you had hoped to depose, would you really support Edward V (or his brother, also delegitimized)? I wouldn't, not if I valued my life. (Look what happened to Thomas of Woodstock, uncle of Richard II, when he tried to restrain his nephew's power.) Little Warwick, who knew the Earl of Lincoln well and had been tutored by him, was a much safer candidate.

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-12 02:40:47
justcarol67
Carol earlier:

If you were John de la Pole (or Frances Lovell) and had supported Richard III, whose claim to the throne depended on the illegitimacy of Edward V, whom you had hoped to depose . . . . "

Carol again:

Oops! Make that "helped to depose"!

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-12 08:19:45
romanenemo
I didn't say that if Richard had made a declaration, it would have changed everything. When he declared that he'd never intended to marry Elizabeth, some people didn't believe him and it's still the case in these days.I only think is that considering what Richard did in other occasions, and what his character was in general, if he'd had the possibility of defending himself, he'd have at least tried.
There's no reason to think that any effort for defending himself would have been necessarily in vain. Some declaration made by someone trustworthy on the matter, like the Archbishop or Elizabeth herself, wouldn't have convinced everyone, but at least some of those who hadn't good reasons for wanting the children dead. It might have given pause to someone like Edward Woodville, when it became clear that supporting Henry meant supporting him as the next king.
Complete silence, especially once Henry had fled in France and had become the major threat, didn't make sense on a political level.
Richard was clever, he craved for chivalric glory, it was important for him to have the moral higher ground. Many reasons for defending himself, if he'd seen a way of doing it.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-12 08:33:30
ricard1an
It was your post about Lincoln not supporting the Princes.
Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-12 08:38:58
romanenemo
Carol wrote :
I agree with you that Sir Edward probably *believed* (as opposed to *knew*) that the boys were dead. However, he did have another reason for supporting Tudor--he had given him the treasure from the Tower!
Romane responds:
But when Edward Woodville had given the treasure to Henry, it was as a champion for his nephews' cause, who would marry their sister as a reward. Would he have still supported the man as an usurper of the crown who was likely to get rid of the boys once he'd won ?

Carol wrote.

There need not have been a general belief that the boys were dead, certainly not in England (where Sir Edward had not been for some two years). He need only have heard and believed the rumor spread among Tudor's supporters at about the same time that it was spread among the Woodville supporters/Edwardian Yorkists in England.

Romane responds :
But precisely, it was really a problem for Richard that such a rumor was spread among the Woodville supporters/Edwardian Yorkists, whose loyalty (or sense of self-interest) was first attached to the boys' cause. And it was a problem that is was spread even among complete opportunists (like the Stanleys) who were less likely to support an usurper who would have to face other challengers, once Richard eliminated.
That's why I think it was very important for Richard to deny officially that the children were dead, especially after Henry had fled in France and had become such a threat.
For from that point, the benefits of keeping the children's whereabouts a complete mystery were far less obvious than the advantages of convincing as many people as possible that they were alive.

And this, even without taking into account Richard's crave for glory and impatient nature.

---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote :




Romane wrote:

"But as for Edward Woodville, I know that he took shelter in Brittany before the princes disappeared, and he didn't have much other choice than to ally with Henry Tudor. But he fought for him at Bosworth as well ! What was in it for the man, except if Henry married Elizabeth as Edward IV's legitimate heiress ? . . . So it seems unavoidable to assume that there was at the moment a strong and general belief that the boys were already dead."

Carol responds:

I agree with you that Sir Edward probably *believed* (as opposed to *knew*) that the boys were dead. However, he did have another reason for supporting Tudor--he had given him the treasure from the Tower!

There need not have been a general belief that the boys were dead, certainly not in England (where Sir Edward had not been for some two years). He need only have heard and believed the rumor spread among Tudor's supporters at about the same time that it was spread among the Woodville supporters/Edwardian Yorkists in England.

Carol


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-12 10:03:29
b.eileen25
Romanemio wrote I did not say that EW retirement was voluntary.
Eileen - sorry but you said at least twice there was no,evidence of it which sounded very similar.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-12 11:28:24
mariewalsh2003

Romanenemo wrote:

I didn't say that if Richard had made a declaration, it would have changed everything. When he declared that he'd never intended to marry Elizabeth, some people didn't believe him and it's still the case in these days.

I only think is that considering what Richard did in other occasions, and what his character was in general, if he'd had the possibility of defending himself, he'd have at least tried. There's no reason to think that any effort for defending himself would have been necessarily in vain. Some declaration made by someone trustworthy on the matter, like the Archbishop or Elizabeth herself, wouldn't have convinced everyone, but at least some of those who hadn't good reasons for wanting the children dead. It might have given pause to someone like Edward Woodville, when it became clear that supporting Henry meant supporting him as the next king.Complete silence, especially once Henry had fled in France and had become the major threat, didn't make sense on a political level. Richard was clever, he craved for chivalric glory, it was important for him to have the moral higher ground. Many reasons for defending himself, if he'd seen a way of doing it.
Marie butts in:I'm in two minds. Richard strongly felt the need to give his side of the story when he was coming under what he saw as unfair ciriticism (not in a Donald Trumpy way - Trump doesn't explain himself, just points his finger at someone else). You also see it in his response to riots in York. On the other hand, perhaps the dearth of references to Prince Edward's death shows a tendency in the opposite direction when he was dealing with something that he felt just didn't have a good side to it - I think it was Hilary who remarked at the absolute lack of strictly contemporary references to Prince Edward's death. That's true. Even Von Poppelau, who travelled with Richard through Middleham very soon after the event, makes no mention of the Prince in his account. Maybe Richard simply felt that the loss of his son was something about which he could say nothing useful - it was a huge personal and political tragedy and the less attention he drew to it the better.So I don't know what to think. Maybe Richard said nothing about the Princes because he was as much in the dark as everybody else, or maybe he kept quiet because he had an explanation but it was not one that would do him any good?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-12 15:18:41
romanenemo
I completely agree with you Mary. For me, either he didn't know himself what had happened to the princes, or the explanation couldn't do him any good, as it would only have strengthened the suspicions.
Romane

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-12 15:32:37
romanenemo
Maybe I did't express it clearly, but I only meant that there were no evidence at all that Henry had punished EW for having involved herself in the Simnel conspiracy. We just don't know why he did that. IMO, it could have had something to do with her sons, but not because Simnel was Richard of York, it is not suggested anywhere in the ancient sources. Besides, John de la Pole must have known what Richard of York looked like. Maybe it's the moment when Henry found where her sons were hidden and got rid of them. Or maybe, and I rather favor that explanation, it's because she'd learnt something about Henry's links with the real responsible for their death.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did it' :

2017-06-12 17:06:43
Doug Stamate
Mary wrote: He may have been promoting Warwick because he considered him the next in line after Richard. And, except for an easily reversed Attainder, he was. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-13 12:03:35
Hilary Jones
:) :) Agree with all of this Doug. I wondered after I wrote my post whether what the Morton/Buckingham conversion/relationship was really all about was that Morton realised that Buckingham was seriously mad - and backed off fast. MB, as his auntie, probably guessed that anyway and that's why she too hung back so that the majority of the dust would fall on him and the Woodvilles. It might also explain to some extent why Richard was lenient with her - perhaps hubby bent his ear and said that she'd been 'duped'? H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 11 June 2017, 15:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I recall the Chronicler was writing in retrospect during HT's reign? How convenient to have an inaccurate memory! Doug here: To be fair, I seriously doubt whoever the Chronicler was, he'd taken copious notes about the events of the previous four or five years! Hilary continued: Re mobilisation, it's the good old High Sheriff network. All those inter-marriages really were worth it! And how convenient to be empowered to recruit. Morton's brother was Sheriff of Somerset in 1481 and the Mortons were and always had been part of that network. Of the 164 rebels in 1483 only 40 turned up at Bosworth (though some were dead) but new ones included those from Morton's network like Henry Horsey, another HS family. There are many more at Bosworth who had connections to Morton so I think he was being cautious in 1483 but did a lot of meddling, as did MB and Bray (their messenger was attainted). Doug here: What do you think of the possibility that the idea of spreading the rumor about the boys' death was Buckingham's, and not Morton's? After all, when Morton left Buckingham, he didn't head towards Somerset, he headed off towards the Fen country. Could Morton, unable to convince Buckingham to wait before spreading the rumor of the boys' deaths, and recognizing what it would do to recruitment for the rebellion, have been abandoning ship? (Why did a vision of Buckingham as Elmer Fudd just pop into my head? Shh! Be vewy, vewy, quiet. I'm hunting a thwone.?) Hilary concluded: Interestingly our rhymer friend Colyngbourne (who had been a HS) was also in the Wilts/Dorset MP/HS set and brother in law to the Darells, Wroughtons, a Haute and Buckingham's mother. He wasn't just an aggrieved person who came out of nowhere. Bit of quiet manipulation there? FWIW I reckon MB and Morton were testing the water in 1483. Who knows whether HT really intended to turn up? Doug here: I tend to view the participation of MB and Morton in the events of 1483 as a definite attempt on their parts to return Edward V to the throne but, when they (especially Morton) realized that the odds, aka Buckingham, weren't nearly as good as they'd imagined, they quickly did all they could to limit the damage. Which would explain MB sitting on her hands, so to speak, in regards to mustering troops for the rebellion. While she wouldn't have gone around personally calling out men and arranging supplies in any case, she could certainly set things rolling  yet, AFAIK, she never did. It would also explain her sending that letter to HT to stay away and Morton's scampering off to the Fens as soon as he could. I think. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-13 12:13:12
b.eileen25
Interesting points Hilary...what a nest of vipers.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-13 12:22:25
Hilary Jones
Marie I agree with this. There's a sort of moral dignity (can't think of a better way of putting it) about Richard. He would believe that those who supported him would never think he'd stoop so low as to kill his nephews and why should he even go to the trouble of making denials to foreigners and trouble-makers? It's like the Queen today not commenting on things; not just because in her case constitutionally she shouldn't, but because it's beneath her moral dignity as monarch to do so. Does that make sense? H

From: mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 June 2017, 11:28
Subject: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Romanenemo wrote:I didn't say that if Richard had made a declaration, it would have changed everything. When he declared that he'd never intended to marry Elizabeth, some people didn't believe him and it's still the case in these days.I only think is that considering what Richard did in other occasions, and what his character was in general, if he'd had the possibility of defending himself, he'd have at least tried. There's no reason to think that any effort for defending himself would have been necessarily in vain. Some declaration made by someone trustworthy on the matter, like the Archbishop or Elizabeth herself, wouldn't have convinced everyone, but at least some of those who hadn't good reasons for wanting the children dead. It might have given pause to someone like Edward Woodville, when it became clear that supporting Henry meant supporting him as the next king.Complete silence, especially once Henry had fled in France and had become the major threat, didn't make sense on a political level. Richard was clever, he craved for chivalric glory, it was important for him to have the moral higher ground. Many reasons for defending himself, if he'd seen a way of doing it.
Marie butts in:I'm in two minds. Richard strongly felt the need to give his side of the story when he was coming under what he saw as unfair ciriticism (not in a Donald Trumpy way - Trump doesn't explain himself, just points his finger at someone else). You also see it in his response to riots in York. On the other hand, perhaps the dearth of references to Prince Edward's death shows a tendency in the opposite direction when he was dealing with something that he felt just didn't have a good side to it - I think it was Hilary who remarked at the absolute lack of strictly contemporary references to Prince Edward's death. That's true. Even Von Poppelau, who travelled with Richard through Middleham very soon after the event, makes no mention of the Prince in his account. Maybe Richard simply felt that the loss of his son was something about which he could say nothing useful - it was a huge personal and political tragedy and the less attention he drew to it the better.So I don't know what to think. Maybe Richard said nothing about the Princes because he was as much in the dark as everybody else, or maybe he kept quiet because he had an explanation but it was not one that would do him any good?


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-13 12:42:02
Hilary Jones
I think one also has to consider that by 1485 Woodville was in the same position as quite a few others - it wasn't about loyalty (to anyone). He was in the last chance saloon which just happened to be with HT in Brittany. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 11 June 2017, 23:56
Subject: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?




Romane wrote:

"But as for Edward Woodville, I know that he took shelter in Brittany before the princes disappeared, and he didn't have much other choice than to ally with Henry Tudor. But he fought for him at Bosworth as well ! What was in it for the man, except if Henry married Elizabeth as Edward IV's legitimate heiress ? . . . So it seems unavoidable to assume that there was at the moment a strong and general belief that the boys were already dead."

Carol responds:

I agree with you that Sir Edward probably *believed* (as opposed to *knew*) that the boys were dead. However, he did have another reason for supporting Tudor--he had given him the treasure from the Tower!

There need not have been a general belief that the boys were dead, certainly not in England (where Sir Edward had not been for some two years). He need only have heard and believed the rumor spread among Tudor's supporters at about the same time that it was spread among the Woodville supporters/Edwardian Yorkists in England.

Carol




Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-06-13 13:39:22
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Agree with all of this Doug. I wondered after I wrote my post whether what the Morton/Buckingham conversion/relationship was really all about was that Morton realised that Buckingham was seriously mad - and backed off fast. MB, as his auntie, probably guessed that anyway and that's why she too hung back so that the majority of the dust would fall on him and the Woodvilles. It might also explain to some extent why Richard was lenient with her - perhaps hubby bent his ear and said that she'd been 'duped'? Doug here: Whether it was madness or simply a failure on Buckingham's part to realize what a too-early dissemination of rumors of the boys' deaths, I can't really decide. I do tend to think that, once he'd realized what Buckingham had done/planned to do, Morton's only thought was to get out  and fast, probably warning MB as he passed through. It's also possible that Richard viewed MB's dabbling in Buckingham's Rebellion as just being yet another in her attempts to get her son back into England and decided to go easy on her for that reason. Nor, if he could help it, would it be wise to make a definite enemy of Lord Thomas Stanley  if it could be managed to the satisfaction of all concerned. 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: 'Buckingham did it' :

2017-06-13 14:48:13
Doug Stamate
Romanre wrote: I completely agree with you Mary. For me, either he didn't know himself what had happened to the princes, or the explanation couldn't do him any good, as it would only have strengthened the suspicions. Doug here: If the boys had disappeared and Richard didn't know what had happened to them, then the question for us is: What did? Did someone other than Richard hide the boys away? Did someone kidnap them from the Tower and then kill them? We have nothing that says either of those scenarios occurred. OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485. However, the only rumors we have concerning the boys being killed are in 1483; the first reported by Mancini as being in May/June of 1483 and the second sometime during Buckingham's Rebellion. Even the notation from 1485 that the boys were killed on the vise of Buckingham could only refer to some point before Buckingham's execution on 2 November, 1483. Well, unless one wants to believe that Buckingham arranged the boys' deaths before his execution and whoever was appointed to carry out the plan did so after Buckingham was executed! Which basically means the rumors weren't widespread, weren't continually floating around in the background during Richard's reign, thus necessitating any denials by Richard, and only assumed a prominent position when, after Richard's death at Bosworth, the boys' locations weren't known. Thus, as yet another bit of Tudor propaganda, the rumors that had almost certainly died away by late 1483, were resuscitated and emphasized, with the hope that people wouldn't notice that the times the rumors were out and about and the time when the boys were noticed to be missing from the Tower didn't match. IOW, Richard didn't have to allay any suspicions, spread via rumors about the boys being alive or not, because there most likely weren't any such rumors swirling about. Doug My apologies for the late reply. I thought I'd sent this, but only drafted it  as my sister puts it, Just another senior moment!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-13 20:28:08
justcarol67

Romane wrote:
"But precisely, it was really a problem for Richard that such a rumor was spread among the Woodville supporters/Edwardian Yorkists, whose loyalty (or sense of self-interest) was first attached to the boys' cause. And it was a problem that is was spread even among complete opportunists (like the Stanleys) who were less likely to support an usurper who would have to face other challengers, once Richard eliminated."

Carol responds:

But the Stanleys continued to support Richard after the rumors began and helped him put down Buckingham's Rebellion (so called). In fact, Richard made Lord Thomas his Lord Constable and trusted him enough to put his (Lord Thomas's) scheming wife MB in Stanley's custody rather than imprisoning her in the Tower or putting her in a nunnery. It wasn't until after both Edward, Prince of Wales and Queen Anne were dead and Richard seemed more vulnerable that they began contemplating joining Tudor. Sir William didn't like Richard (he called him "Old Dick" though he was considerably older than Richard and seems to have considered him a fuddyduddy) and he seems in light of later events to have preferred Edward V as the "legitimate" heir, but he didn't actively oppose Richard until almost two years later. As for Sir Thomas, I don't think he was loyal to anyone but himself, so he served the cause that seemed the strongest (and sat out the battle when he wasn't sure): Do I support my (apparently weak) stepson or the king who made me Constable but has lost his heir? Hmm. I'll pretend to support both and really support neither.

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-13 20:37:12
romanenemo
Once again, that's very interesting, Doug. You're perfectly right to say that all the sources concerning the rumors were written in 1453, or at least are dealing with that very year. Even Rochefort's statement in front of the States Generals is very soon after that, in january 1484.Apart from the ones you quote, the Chronicle of London says that : 'During the year that Edward Shaw was Mayor of London, the children were seen shooting and playing in the garden if the Tower at sundry time'. So it means that the children could still be seen at least until october 1483, for Shaw was mayor of London until 28 october 1483.
But what is that source saying that the boys were alive 'at least after Easter' ? For you're right, it would mean Easter 1484 or 1485. It's an extremely important source, if it's reliable.
There is only one problem. The fact that people like Edward Woodville, and others who should have sustained Edward V's claim, seem to have stayed under Henry's banner even when it was obvious that the man would seize the crown for himself. Would these Yorkists of the Woodville party have done such a thing if they had thought that the boys were alive ? Edward Woodville fought at Henry's side at Bosworth, knowing fully well that the boys wouldn't stay alive very long if Henry was the victor. So it seems that he thought they were already dead.
Do you have an explanation ? I hope you do, for my favorite version of the story would be with Henry as the responsible for the boy's disappearance.
Romane
---In , <destama@...> wrote :

Romanre wrote:I completely agree with you Mary. For me, either he didn't know himself what had happened to the princes, or the explanation couldn't do him any good, as it would only have strengthened the suspicions. Doug here:If the boys had disappeared and Richard didn't know what had happened to them, then the question for us is: What did? Did someone other than Richard hide the boys away? Did someone kidnap them from the Tower and then kill them? We have nothing that says either of those scenarios occurred.OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.However, the only rumors we have concerning the boys being killed are in 1483; the first reported by Mancini as being in May/June of 1483 and the second sometime during Buckingham's Rebellion. Even the notation from 1485 that the boys were killed on the vise of Buckingham could only refer to some point before Buckingham's execution on 2 November, 1483. Well, unless one wants to believe that Buckingham arranged the boys' deaths before his execution and whoever was appointed to carry out the plan did so after Buckingham was executed!Which basically means the rumors weren't widespread, weren't continually floating around in the background during Richard's reign, thus necessitating any denials by Richard, and only assumed a prominent position when, after Richard's death at Bosworth, the boys' locations weren't known.Thus, as yet another bit of Tudor propaganda, the rumors that had almost certainly died away by late 1483, were resuscitated and emphasized, with the hope that people wouldn't notice that the times the rumors were out and about and the time when the boys were noticed to be missing from the Tower didn't match.IOW, Richard didn't have to allay any suspicions, spread via rumors about the boys being alive or not, because there most likely weren't any such rumors swirling about.DougMy apologies for the late reply. I thought I'd sent this, but only drafted it  as my sister puts it, Just another senior moment!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-13 20:59:36
romanenemo
But my question was : if the Stanleys had known that the boys were alive, wouldn't they have considered hazardous to support Henry at Bosworth,considering the fact that even if he won, he'd have to face a yorkist party that still had the possibility to rally themselves to Edward IV's heirs ? They were a much greater threat than Warwick, for Clarence had never been a successful commander and well-loved king, as the two other boys' father.
Besides, my question was mainly about Edward Woodville : would he had supported Henry at Bosworth, knowing that Henry would do anything in his power to destroy the boys if he won ? Unless Edward Woodville and the men of his party thought that they were already dead, and that Elizabeth as Henry's queen was their only option.
And if these people were convinced that the boys were dead, why didn't Richard prove that they were wrong, if he could ? It would have weakened Henry's position quite a lot.
Romane

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-13 21:17:46
daviddurose2000
Hi Carol I agree with your summary of Thomas Stanley's actions. People forget his assistance during the 1483 rebellion, I think it makes the suggestion that he was driven by revenge for the Hornby dispute very improbable.
RegardsDavid

(no subject)

2017-06-13 21:27:04
alex nazimova

I have joined this group not so long ago and am learning so much, thank you for that.
The problem I find is that I tend to get a little lost in all the names (as in who is in relation to who) as Richards reign is not so well known to me. Is there a site where I could get a better acquaintance with them?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-13 22:08:28
justcarol67
Romane wrote:

"And if these people were convinced that the boys were dead, why didn't Richard prove that they were wrong, if he could ? It would have weakened Henry's position quite a lot."
Carol responds:

Possibly because these people would have rebelled against Richard whether they believed the boys alive or dead. In fact, they would have *preferred* to rebel in support of EV rather than Tudor (as they did in the first place).

As for Richard, his claim depended not on the boys being dead but on their being illegitimate (and best forgotten); calling attention to their being alive (or worse still, advertising their whereabouts) would not have been to his advantage. He had moved the boys with good reason after the attempt at their "rescue," and the last thing he needed, aside from being declared the rightful king in Parliament via Titulus Regius in January 1484, was to remind the kingdom that he had deposed his nephew. He only wanted to rule well and get his laws passed in that same Parliament.

Also, he considered Tudor a nonentity. He is not even mentioned in the attainders for Buckingham's rebellion. Only later (summer of 1484?) does Richard circulate petitions against the "Tydder," calling attention to his illegitimacy on both sides to emphasize the emptiness of his claim.

The rumors that Richard had killed the "princes" (actually, ex-king and ex-prince, now officially illegitimate) were, as we have already established, not widespread, and knowing that the boys were alive would not have satisfied any rebels who saw Edward V as the rightful king.

It's only the Victorian idea that resentment against Richard for (supposedly) killing his nephews permeated the whole kingdom that makes it seem worth his while to prove that he was not a child killer. What he needed, once he had accepted the petition by the Three Estates to take the crown, was to get on with the job and do the best he could in the job. He had a very successful progress, put down a rebellion, got the laws he wanted passed in Parliament, got EW out of sanctuary and her daughters entrusted to his care, and made a treaty with the old enemy, Scotland (whose ambassador marveled at his "spirit" and "virtue").

And then tragedy struck twice, and he spent the rest of his reign preparing to meet the Tydder in battle. Whether he accomplished anything of note after his son's death, I don't know, but he seems to have stopped focusing so keenly on reform. And, of course, the negotiations with Spain and Portugal after Anne's death were a practical necessity, not part of the ideal kingship he had tried to achieve ("I would rather have your love than your money") in the first ten months of his reign.

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-13 22:16:18
justcarol67

David wrote:

"Hi Carol "I agree with your summary of Thomas Stanley's actions. People forget his assistance during the 1483 rebellion, I think it makes the suggestion that he was driven by revenge for the Hornby dispute very improbable. "
Carol responds:

Hi, David. So nice that we agree for a change! (Wasn't it the Harrington dispute? But, I agree, it's a very improbable motive.)

We don't even know whether Lord Thomas was present at Bosworth, and he certainly didn't do anything if he was there.

Possibly, the rewards he received later had more to do with MB than with Bosworth. As for Sir William, who helped defeat Richard but if I recall correctly was not richly rewarded, I wonder if HT suspected all along that he was a closet (Edwardian) Yorkist and not a loyal "Tudorian."

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-13 22:39:47
Durose David
Carol,Don't faint - I think we agree again.
There was an article on the RIII Foundation site that may have been taken down, but has been archived because of the number of links to it from other sites. 'William Stanley a Yorkist'. It tracks all William's participation in the events during his life and concludes he was always loyal to the House of York. The writer concludes that by Bosworth he must have come to view the true line of York to be Elizabeth.
The writer concludes (like Romane) that William must have believed Edward and Richard to be dead, but as a good Ricardian, believes he was mistaken.
Regarding Thomas, I have seen references to extant documents that Thomas was signing at Lathom very shortly before Bosworth. They sound like enfeoffments, so Thomas genuinely had urgent business to transact in Lancashire.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-14 08:37:48
romanenemo
Maybe you're right. You and Doug have made very good points. If the rumors were limited at late 1483 and early 1484, then there was not reason for Richard to stop keeping silent about the children. And Henry Tudor's claim being that weak on the basis of lineage, his claim was mostly based upon Lancastrian support and right of conquest.

But we agree that William Stanley and Edward Woodville believed that the boys were dead. For even if these particular people would have rebelled against Richard whether they believed the boys alive or dead, would they have supported HENRY if they had known that the children were alive ? Especially as it was obvious that Henry's victory was their death warrant ?
So I keep wondering (a little) if for Richard it wouldn't have been worth his while to prove that the children were alive, once Henry Tudor had become a major threat and prepared and invasion. If William Stanley was secretly still in favor of Edward IV's children, whether his boys or his daughter, there must have been other people sharing his views ?
Of course, Edward Woodville was not important anymore, and Richard didn't know about William Stanley's true loyalties. So everything depends on the number of yorkists loyal to the boys who fought at Bosworth, apart from these two. And Hilary (I think) said she's made a lot of researches about that and that there was few of them. If it was really the case, then Edward Woodville's choice of side was a mere detail for Richard.
See ? I'm almost convinced.
But then, two big questions remain. First, wouldn't common people wonder where the boys were, and worry for they sake ? Whatever the era, people always likes to gossip about the rulers and their families. Would the two young boys have been that easily forgotten, especially if no one knew where there were, if they were dead or alive? I tend to think, on the contrary, that many people would have wondered about the boy's whereabouts and lamented their probable fate, if they had known nothing about them since the rumors in late 1483.
But of course, there is what Doug said : a source exists stating that the boys were still alive after Easter, which can only mean Easter 1484 at least. Then it would mean that the boys were seen alive in 1484, and that would explain why the rumors had died.
See ? Even more convinced. I'm looking forward to reading Doug's reply, for I really want to know what is that source.
After that, only the other big question would remain : what happened to the boys after Bosworth ? Simnel put aside, as he pretended to be Warwick, is it possible to see Warbeck as Richard of York ? But the story he's supposed to have told, that a mysterious lord had killed his brother and had speared him, is unbelievable. Who would have done such a thing, killing one heir to let the other live ?
Romane

---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote :

Romane wrote:

"And if these people were convinced that the boys were dead, why didn't Richard prove that they were wrong, if he could ? It would have weakened Henry's position quite a lot."
Carol responds:

Possibly because these people would have rebelled against Richard whether they believed the boys alive or dead. In fact, they would have *preferred* to rebel in support of EV rather than Tudor (as they did in the first place).

As for Richard, his claim depended not on the boys being dead but on their being illegitimate (and best forgotten); calling attention to their being alive (or worse still, advertising their whereabouts) would not have been to his advantage. He had moved the boys with good reason after the attempt at their "rescue," and the last thing he needed, aside from being declared the rightful king in Parliament via Titulus Regius in January 1484, was to remind the kingdom that he had deposed his nephew. He only wanted to rule well and get his laws passed in that same Parliament.

Also, he considered Tudor a nonentity. He is not even mentioned in the attainders for Buckingham's rebellion. Only later (summer of 1484?) does Richard circulate petitions against the "Tydder," calling attention to his illegitimacy on both sides to emphasize the emptiness of his claim.

The rumors that Richard had killed the "princes" (actually, ex-king and ex-prince, now officially illegitimate) were, as we have already established, not widespread, and knowing that the boys were alive would not have satisfied any rebels who saw Edward V as the rightful king.

It's only the Victorian idea that resentment against Richard for (supposedly) killing his nephews permeated the whole kingdom that makes it seem worth his while to prove that he was not a child killer. What he needed, once he had accepted the petition by the Three Estates to take the crown, was to get on with the job and do the best he could in the job. He had a very successful progress, put down a rebellion, got the laws he wanted passed in Parliament, got EW out of sanctuary and her daughters entrusted to his care, and made a treaty with the old enemy, Scotland (whose ambassador marveled at his "spirit" and "virtue").

And then tragedy struck twice, and he spent the rest of his reign preparing to meet the Tydder in battle. Whether he accomplished anything of note after his son's death, I don't know, but he seems to have stopped focusing so keenly on reform. And, of course, the negotiations with Spain and Portugal after Anne's death were a practical necessity, not part of the ideal kingship he had tried to achieve ("I would rather have your love than your money") in the first ten months of his reign.

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-14 09:47:11
Paul Trevor Bale
One must always suspect for once Thomas was telling the truth when he later said he didn't meet Tudor until after Bosworth, though it was Stanley as Constable between The death of the king and the coronation of next who hanged Catesby on 23rd for treason, so he must have been close to if not part of the battle. I believe he was sitting watching and waiting to see what happened, and may well have been surprised by his brother's intervention. But then Richard charging was a surprise, and if not to Thomas Stanley, to whom was Tudor riding seeking help?Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 13 juin 2017 à 23:39, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol,Don't faint - I think we agree again.
There was an article on the RIII Foundation site that may have been taken down, but has been archived because of the number of links to it from other sites. 'William Stanley a Yorkist'. It tracks all William's participation in the events during his life and concludes he was always loyal to the House of York. The writer concludes that by Bosworth he must have come to view the true line of York to be Elizabeth.
The writer concludes (like Romane) that William must have believed Edward and Richard to be dead, but as a good Ricardian, believes he was mistaken.
Regarding Thomas, I have seen references to extant documents that Thomas was signing at Lathom very shortly before Bosworth. They sound like enfeoffments, so Thomas genuinely had urgent business to transact in Lancashire.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-14 23:06:57
justcarol67
David wrote:

"There was an article on the RIII Foundation site that may have been taken down, but has been archived because of the number of links to it from other sites. 'William Stanley a Yorkist'. It tracks all William's participation in the events during his life and concludes he was always loyal to the House of York. The writer concludes that by Bosworth he must have come to view the true line of York to be Elizabeth. The writer concludes (like Romane) that William must have believed Edward and Richard to be dead, but as a good Ricardian, believes he was mistaken."

Carol responds:

William clearly didn't know what happened to the boys since he was willing to believe that Perkin Warbeck was Richard Duke of York. He may have believed that they were dead by the time of Bosworth, but I don't think he'd have fought for Richard during Buckingham's rebellion if he believed it then or he would probably have joined the rebellion. But when Richard, having lost his heir in April 1484, seemed to be weakening and Tudor was half-promising to marry EoY, William seems to have decided to risk supporting Tudor. (I don't like the man, but I think it's important to be fair and to distinguish him from his self-serving brother.)

David wrote:

"Regarding Thomas, I have seen references to extant documents that Thomas was signing at Lathom very shortly before Bosworth. They sound like enfeoffments, so Thomas genuinely had urgent business to transact in Lancashire."
Carol responds:

And there's also his excuse that he had the sweating sickness. But if he was signing documents at Lathom, the sickness is clearly a lie.

Carol



Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-14 23:12:29
romanenemo
Doug wrote :
OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.

I've found the text. It is from the Great Chronicle of London, the very same text where we find the passage I already quoted, about the children playing in the garden of the Tower :
"And during this mayor's year (sir Edmund Shaa, who laid down his mayoralty in october 1483) the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower at sundry times."
The quote about the children still being alive in 1484 is this one :
"All the winter season of this mayor's time ( Robert Billeson, whose mayoralty ended on 28 october 1484) the land was in good quiet, but after Easter there was much whispering among the people that the King had put the children of King Edward to death.

So you see, that piece of data doesn't prove anything. If we are to believe the author, the rumors didn't stop after 1483. On the contrary, they began to spread among the people, and not just among the rebels, after Easter 1484.
But anyway, what's next in the text is that Tyrell "was reported to be the doer". As we well know, that particular piece of crap only surfaced after 1502. So the source is not very reliable, to say the least.
If the text says the truth, it shows at least that the rumors of 1483 about the children's death were lies, as you say. But in the same time, it proves that there were still such rumors in 1484, and then, why didn't Richard deny them, if he had some way to prove his innocence ? In 1484, with Henry strengthening his position, it had become all the more important to do so.
Or, the text is a tissue of lies, and then the children might have been actually dead in 1483.
And to finish, whatever its reliability, there's no way that text can be used to prove that the rumors had disappeared in 1484, because it says just the contrary.
Unless you think of another text ? I didn't find anything else on the net about the date of Easter connected to the princes.
So, I'm afraid I'm more or less back to my previous opinion. -There were apparently rumors about the children's death in 1483. - The Chancelor of France accused Richard somehow officially (in front of the States Generals) to have killed his nephews, and that was before France supported Henry. For the moment, he was still allied with the Duke of Brittany, an enemy of France. - Another source (not a very reliable one, though) states there were rumors of the princes' death after Easter 1484. That's around the moment Henry fled to France and began to become a major threat. He had pledged to marry Elizabeth, and if her brothers were dead, that made him the future husband of the legitimate heir for the Woodville party and some other yorkists.
This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't.
Buckingham is still a good suspect, after all. Or something else happened to the children, in circumstances that wouldn't allow Richard to prove he had nothing to do with their death. So it was better to let the matter in doubt, as it was not his interest that the princes' death became a certainty for his enemies.
Romane

---In , <destama@...> wrote :

Romanre wrote:I completely agree with you Mary. For me, either he didn't know himself what had happened to the princes, or the explanation couldn't do him any good, as it would only have strengthened the suspicions. Doug here:If the boys had disappeared and Richard didn't know what had happened to them, then the question for us is: What did? Did someone other than Richard hide the boys away? Did someone kidnap them from the Tower and then kill them? We have nothing that says either of those scenarios occurred.OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.However, the only rumors we have concerning the boys being killed are in 1483; the first reported by Mancini as being in May/June of 1483 and the second sometime during Buckingham's Rebellion. Even the notation from 1485 that the boys were killed on the vise of Buckingham could only refer to some point before Buckingham's execution on 2 November, 1483. Well, unless one wants to believe that Buckingham arranged the boys' deaths before his execution and whoever was appointed to carry out the plan did so after Buckingham was executed!Which basically means the rumors weren't widespread, weren't continually floating around in the background during Richard's reign, thus necessitating any denials by Richard, and only assumed a prominent position when, after Richard's death at Bosworth, the boys' locations weren't known.Thus, as yet another bit of Tudor propaganda, the rumors that had almost certainly died away by late 1483, were resuscitated and emphasized, with the hope that people wouldn't notice that the times the rumors were out and about and the time when the boys were noticed to be missing from the Tower didn't match.IOW, Richard didn't have to allay any suspicions, spread via rumors about the boys being alive or not, because there most likely weren't any such rumors swirling about.DougMy apologies for the late reply. I thought I'd sent this, but only drafted it  as my sister puts it, Just another senior moment!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-14 23:20:33
mariewalsh2003
Von Popplau, who visited Richard in May 1484, said the fate of the boys was being talked about. Some believed they had been killed, whilst others (with whom he himself agreed) thought they were just hidden away. Given christianised version of magical thinking current at the time, it is probable that the death of Richard's own son caused people to wonder if it was divine vengeance, and that is why the rumours got up that Easter.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-14 23:55:43
justcarol67
Romanenemo wrote:

"This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't."
Carol responds:

Or because the boys were his illegitimate nephews in danger of being used (or killed) by forces opposing Richard and he considered it his duty to conceal their whereabouts (assuming that he knew them) by saying nothing. But Edward V was also a rival claimant whose whereabouts he would not want to advertise for his own sake.

As I said earlier, making the existence of the boys known by showing them or providing proof of their whereabouts (though it would end the not very widespread rumors) would not deter the rebels. Those who supported HT would continue to support him; those who wished to restore Edward V would have even more cause to rebel. It would, in short, do him no good at all.

Contrast his denying the rumor that he intended to marry his niece--he could safely deny that slur on his character because doing so would lead to no new rebellions--though he did move Elizabeth to Sheriff Hutton with little Warwick and, probably, his sister Margaret--again, out of sight, out of mind. (It's even possible that her brothers were there at some point given the instructions about "one breakfast" for "the children" quoted by Paul Murray Kendall). But, as I said, denying the rumor that the boys were dead (not necessarily by his hand) would only call attention to them and the uses to which they could be put by Richard's enemies. It would not stop the plots already in progress against him.

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 00:47:56
daviddurose2000
Romane
Regarding Henry Tudor's position around Easter 1484, this actually corresponds to a low point for him. After the failure of the 1483 rebellion, a second force was being assembled in Brittany but it was abandoned about Easter. I think they thought they didn't have the resources. Henry was in limbo and the 400 or so escapees from 1483 were a drain on the treasury in Vannes.
It wasn't until October that he became aware of the plot between Richard and Landais and had to flee into France.
A Breton historian believes that it was the Landais plot that actually brought both Richard and Landais down.
RegardsDavid


On 14 Jun 2017 23:12, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Doug wrote :


OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.

I've found the text. It is from the Great Chronicle of London, the very same text where we find the passage I already quoted, about the children playing in the garden of the Tower :
"And during this mayor's year (sir Edmund Shaa, who laid down his mayoralty in october 1483) the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower at sundry times."
The quote about the children still being alive in 1484 is this one :
"All the winter season of this mayor's time ( Robert Billeson, whose mayoralty ended on 28 october 1484) the land was in good quiet, but after Easter there was much whispering among the people that the King had put the children of King Edward to death.

 So you see, that piece of data doesn't prove anything. If we are to believe the author, the rumors didn't stop after 1483. On the contrary, they began to spread among the people, and not just among the rebels, after Easter 1484.
But anyway, what's next in the text is that Tyrell "was reported to be the doer". As we well know, that particular piece of crap only surfaced after 1502. So the source is not very reliable, to say the least.
If the text says the truth, it shows at least that the rumors of 1483 about the children's death were lies, as you say. But in the same time, it proves that there were still such rumors in 1484, and then, why didn't Richard deny them, if he had some way to prove his innocence ? In 1484, with Henry strengthening his position, it had become all the more important to do so.
Or, the text is a tissue of lies, and then the children might have been actually dead in 1483.
And to finish, whatever its reliability, there's no way that text can be used to prove that the rumors had disappeared in 1484, because it says just the contrary.
Unless you think of another text ? I didn't find anything else on the net about the date of Easter connected to the princes.
So, I'm afraid I'm more or less back to my previous opinion. -There were apparently rumors about the children's death in 1483. - The Chancelor of France accused Richard somehow officially (in front of the States Generals) to have killed his nephews, and that was before France supported Henry. For the moment, he was still allied with the Duke of Brittany, an enemy of France. - Another source (not a very reliable one, though) states there were rumors of the princes' death after Easter 1484. That's around the moment Henry fled to France and began to become a major threat. He had pledged to marry Elizabeth, and if her brothers were dead, that made him the future husband of the legitimate heir for the Woodville party and some other yorkists. 
This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't.
Buckingham is still a good suspect, after all. Or something else happened to the children, in circumstances that wouldn't allow Richard to prove he had nothing to do with their death. So it was better to let the matter in doubt, as it was not his interest that the princes' death became a certainty for his enemies.
Romane

---In @yahoogroups.com, <destama@...> wrote :

  Romanre wrote:I completely agree with you Mary. For me, either he didn't know himself what had happened to the princes, or the explanation couldn't do him any good, as it would only have strengthened the suspicions. Doug here:If the boys had disappeared and Richard didn't know what had happened to them, then the question for us is: What did? Did someone other than Richard hide the boys away? Did someone kidnap them from the Tower and then kill them? We have nothing that says either of those scenarios occurred.OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.However, the only rumors we have concerning the boys being killed are in 1483; the first reported by Mancini as being in May/June of 1483 and the second sometime during Buckingham's Rebellion. Even the notation from 1485 that the boys were killed on the vise of Buckingham could only refer to some point before Buckingham's execution on 2 November, 1483. Well, unless one wants to believe that Buckingham arranged the boys' deaths before his execution and whoever was appointed to carry out the plan did so after Buckingham was executed!Which basically means the rumors weren't widespread, weren't continually floating around in the background during Richard's reign, thus necessitating any denials by Richard, and only assumed a  prominent position when, after Richard's death at Bosworth, the boys' locations weren't known.Thus, as yet another bit of Tudor propaganda, the rumors that had almost certainly died away by late 1483, were resuscitated and emphasized, with the hope that people wouldn't notice that the times the rumors were out and about and the time when the boys were noticed to be missing from the Tower didn't match.IOW, Richard didn't have to allay any suspicions, spread via rumors about the boys being alive or not, because there most likely weren't any such rumors swirling about.DougMy apologies for the late reply. I thought I'd sent this, but only drafted it  as my sister puts it, Just another senior moment! 
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 00:53:15
daviddurose2000
Carol
Regarding denial, such a statement need not have included details of location.
Regards David
On 14 Jun 2017 23:55, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
 

Romanenemo wrote:

"This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't."
Carol responds:

Or because the boys were his illegitimate nephews in danger of being used (or killed) by forces opposing Richard and he considered it his duty to conceal their whereabouts (assuming that he knew them) by saying nothing. But Edward V was also a rival claimant whose whereabouts he would not want to advertise for his own sake.

As I said earlier, making the existence of the boys known by showing them or providing proof of their whereabouts (though it would end the not very widespread rumors) would not deter the rebels. Those who supported HT would continue to support him; those who wished to restore Edward V would have even more cause to rebel. It would, in short, do him no good at all.

Contrast his denying the rumor that he intended to marry his niece--he could safely deny that slur on his character because doing so would lead to no new rebellions--though he did move Elizabeth to Sheriff Hutton with little Warwick and, probably, his sister Margaret--again, out of sight, out of mind. (It's even possible that her brothers were there at some point given the instructions about "one breakfast" for "the children" quoted by Paul Murray Kendall). But, as I said, denying the rumor that the boys were dead (not necessarily by his hand) would only call attention to them and the uses to which they could be put by Richard's enemies. It would not stop the plots already in progress against him.

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 02:57:50
Karen O
Totally agree. He hid them so well, to this day we still don't know where they went.
On Jun 14, 2017 6:55 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
 

Romanenemo wrote:

"This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't."
Carol responds:

Or because the boys were his illegitimate nephews in danger of being used (or killed) by forces opposing Richard and he considered it his duty to conceal their whereabouts (assuming that he knew them) by saying nothing. But Edward V was also a rival claimant whose whereabouts he would not want to advertise for his own sake.

As I said earlier, making the existence of the boys known by showing them or providing proof of their whereabouts (though it would end the not very widespread rumors) would not deter the rebels. Those who supported HT would continue to support him; those who wished to restore Edward V would have even more cause to rebel. It would, in short, do him no good at all.

Contrast his denying the rumor that he intended to marry his niece--he could safely deny that slur on his character because doing so would lead to no new rebellions--though he did move Elizabeth to Sheriff Hutton with little Warwick and, probably, his sister Margaret--again, out of sight, out of mind. (It's even possible that her brothers were there at some point given the instructions about "one breakfast" for "the children" quoted by Paul Murray Kendall). But, as I said, denying the rumor that the boys were dead (not necessarily by his hand) would only call attention to them and the uses to which they could be put by Richard's enemies. It would not stop the plots already in progress against him.

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 07:54:03
romanenemo
You're right, Marie, the death of Richard's son must have caused to wonder if it was a divine vengeance. And maybe Richard himself wondered, if the children had actually died under his care, even if he was not responsible of their death. He was a very pious man.
It's interesting to know that we have a confirmation of the rumors from a contemporary account, by someone who was well disposed toward Richard. This shows that we can utterly rule out the hypothesis that there were no more rumors in 1484, or that they were not widespread.
But as for Von Popplau's own opinion, here's the way it was phrased, according to what I found on the net : "many people say - and I agree with them - that they are still alive and kept in a very dark cellar'.
Von Popplau can't be suspected of wanting to malign Richard. In spite of the xenophobic remarks on the English in general that he otherwise expresses, he'd been thoroughly impressed by Richard's courtesy and by his "big heart" (meaning his courage and love for military glory, I think). So the fact that for him, the children had been locked up in a dark cellar, something that seems to us, people of the 21th century, only a little less barbaric than killing them, shows that for the people of the time, taking drastic actions in order to get rid of the children were seen as the logical thing to do in Richard's position. That generally shared point of view would have strengthen the rumors, of course.
I find Richard's sentence about the fact that if he lived near the Turks, alone with his people he would defeat them, and 'all his foes' as well, rather moving. It shows Richard's dream of chivalric glory, but also how aware was of his precarious position, in spite of the fact that it was a rather calm moment in his short reign.Did he already realize what threat Henry could pause, even if as David points out, he was not yet allied with France ? Or does he speak about the inside and hidden enemies, the people spreading the slandering rumors?
And would a man craving that much for well-earned fame allow himself to be slandered that way if he could do something, anything, against it ?
Romane

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 07:59:41
romanenemo
Carol wrote:As I said earlier, making the existence of the boys known by showing them or providing proof of their whereabouts (though it would end the not very widespread rumors) would not deter the rebels.

Romane answers :
As David says as well, there was no need to prove their whereabouts, only to prove that they were alive, by making someone trustworthy on the matter saying so. It wouldn't convince those who didn't want to be convinced, but at least the people who didn't have reason to say otherwise.
Carol wrote :Those who supported HT would continue to support him; those who wished to restore Edward V would have even more cause to rebel. It would, in short, do him no good at all.

Romane answers:Yes, but as you say, some would have supported Henry, the others Edward V. Instead of that, they all sided with Henry. 'Divide to rule' is a good policy. The knowledge that the children were alive, that even if Henry won and marry Elizabeth, she was still not the first in Edward IV's succession line, would have weakened Henry's position.

---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote :

Romanenemo wrote:

"This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't."
Carol responds:

Or because the boys were his illegitimate nephews in danger of being used (or killed) by forces opposing Richard and he considered it his duty to conceal their whereabouts (assuming that he knew them) by saying nothing. But Edward V was also a rival claimant whose whereabouts he would not want to advertise for his own sake.

As I said earlier, making the existence of the boys known by showing them or providing proof of their whereabouts (though it would end the not very widespread rumors) would not deter the rebels. Those who supported HT would continue to support him; those who wished to restore Edward V would have even more cause to rebel. It would, in short, do him no good at all.

Contrast his denying the rumor that he intended to marry his niece--he could safely deny that slur on his character because doing so would lead to no new rebellions--though he did move Elizabeth to Sheriff Hutton with little Warwick and, probably, his sister Margaret--again, out of sight, out of mind. (It's even possible that her brothers were there at some point given the instructions about "one breakfast" for "the children" quoted by Paul Murray Kendall). But, as I said, denying the rumor that the boys were dead (not necessarily by his hand) would only call attention to them and the uses to which they could be put by Richard's enemies. It would not stop the plots already in progress against him.

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 08:27:41
romanenemo
You're right David, I had forgotten that.But as I wrote to Marie, Von Popplau's statement proves that there were indeed strong rumors. And that episode also shows how Richard dreamt of chivalric glory. So even if at the moment there was no major political reason to prove that the children were alive (and there would be in october), there were nonetheless reasons enough to defend his good name. The fact that Richard seemed to feel surrounded by foes, and hoped fo his people support, shows as well, IMO, that if he's been able to defend himself, concerning the fate of the children, he would have done it.
Romane

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 12:47:25
Hilary Jones
Re your penultimate sentence, since his teens Richard had been surrounded in the North by families who had Hospitallers besieged in Rhodes. They would no doubt have kept him up to date with their adversities. It's not surprising that he said he wanted to fight the infidel; it was part of the culture up there. H

From: romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2017, 7:54
Subject: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

You're right, Marie, the death of Richard's son must have caused to wonder if it was a divine vengeance. And maybe Richard himself wondered, if the children had actually died under his care, even if he was not responsible of their death. He was a very pious man.
It's interesting to know that we have a confirmation of the rumors from a contemporary account, by someone who was well disposed toward Richard. This shows that we can utterly rule out the hypothesis that there were no more rumors in 1484, or that they were not widespread.
But as for Von Popplau's own opinion, here's the way it was phrased, according to what I found on the net : "many people say - and I agree with them - that they are still alive and kept in a very dark cellar'.
Von Popplau can't be suspected of wanting to malign Richard. In spite of the xenophobic remarks on the English in general that he otherwise expresses, he'd been thoroughly impressed by Richard's courtesy and by his "big heart" (meaning his courage and love for military glory, I think). So the fact that for him, the children had been locked up in a dark cellar, something that seems to us, people of the 21th century, only a little less barbaric than killing them, shows that for the people of the time, taking drastic actions in order to get rid of the children were seen as the logical thing to do in Richard's position. That generally shared point of view would have strengthen the rumors, of course.
I find Richard's sentence about the fact that if he lived near the Turks, alone with his people he would defeat them, and 'all his foes' as well, rather moving. It shows Richard's dream of chivalric glory, but also how aware was of his precarious position, in spite of the fact that it was a rather calm moment in his short reign.Did he already realize what threat Henry could pause, even if as David points out, he was not yet allied with France ? Or does he speak about the inside and hidden enemies, the people spreading the slandering rumors?
And would a man craving that much for well-earned fame allow himself to be slandered that way if he could do something, anything, against it ?
Romane

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 13:31:34
Hilary Jones
Hi David, who were these 400 escapees?
Here's the list that Carol asked for: I've split them into the various rebellion locations
Salisbury
John Averey - servant of Giles DaubenyRobert Bowden - servant of Giles DaubenyRobert Canon - servant of Giles DaubenyHumphrey Cheney - brother of John Cheney from KentJohn Cheney - from Kent (master of horse to Edward IV, also a Cade rebel)Robert Cheney - from Kent cousin of the othersGiles Daubeny - Lancastrian married to a StourtonJohn Forde - servant of Giles DaubenyJohn Shirewell - servant of Giles Daubeny
Kent
William Brandon Esquire of Body to EIVNicholas Gainsford HS of Kent and Esquire of Body to EWJohn Gainsford - his sonEdward Poynings Esquire of the Body and son in law of John Scott HS of Kent
Newbury
William Berkeley Lancastrian & Constable of Southampton married to another Stourton
Exeter
Thomas Arundel Knight of the Body- brother in law to Giles DaubenyWilliam Bolton from Bolterscombe Devon - part of the HS networkEdward Courtenay disinherited (by Edward) Earl of DevonPeter Courtenay Bishop of Exeter son of a Hungerford and brother of the rebel Sir Walter but also of Yorkists Sir William and Sir PhillipJohn Welles (later to marry Cecily) from Lancastrian family (and MB) brother of Sir Richard executed by Edward in 1470Robert Willoughby - Esquire of the Body, Receiver General for the Staffords in Cornwall. Brother was Dean of Exeter, other brother fought for HT at Bosworth. Father Yorkist
Torrington - NoneSomerset/Dorset - NoneBodmin - NoneDevon/Cornwall - None

Other
Thomas Brandon - brother of William aboveSir John Fortescue - One of the Devon/Cornwall HS groupRichard Fox (still be investigated)Evan Morgan (as above)Edward WoodvilleLionel Woodville



From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2017, 0:48
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Romane
Regarding Henry Tudor's position around Easter 1484, this actually corresponds to a low point for him. After the failure of the 1483 rebellion, a second force was being assembled in Brittany but it was abandoned about Easter. I think they thought they didn't have the resources. Henry was in limbo and the 400 or so escapees from 1483 were a drain on the treasury in Vannes.
It wasn't until October that he became aware of the plot between Richard and Landais and had to flee into France.
A Breton historian believes that it was the Landais plot that actually brought both Richard and Landais down.
RegardsDavid


On 14 Jun 2017 23:12, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Doug wrote :
OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.

I've found the text. It is from the Great Chronicle of London, the very same text where we find the passage I already quoted, about the children playing in the garden of the Tower :
"And during this mayor's year (sir Edmund Shaa, who laid down his mayoralty in october 1483) the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower at sundry times."
The quote about the children still being alive in 1484 is this one :
"All the winter season of this mayor's time ( Robert Billeson, whose mayoralty ended on 28 october 1484) the land was in good quiet, but after Easter there was much whispering among the people that the King had put the children of King Edward to death.

So you see, that piece of data doesn't prove anything. If we are to believe the author, the rumors didn't stop after 1483. On the contrary, they began to spread among the people, and not just among the rebels, after Easter 1484.
But anyway, what's next in the text is that Tyrell "was reported to be the doer". As we well know, that particular piece of crap only surfaced after 1502. So the source is not very reliable, to say the least.
If the text says the truth, it shows at least that the rumors of 1483 about the children's death were lies, as you say. But in the same time, it proves that there were still such rumors in 1484, and then, why didn't Richard deny them, if he had some way to prove his innocence ? In 1484, with Henry strengthening his position, it had become all the more important to do so.
Or, the text is a tissue of lies, and then the children might have been actually dead in 1483.
And to finish, whatever its reliability, there's no way that text can be used to prove that the rumors had disappeared in 1484, because it says just the contrary.
Unless you think of another text ? I didn't find anything else on the net about the date of Easter connected to the princes.
So, I'm afraid I'm more or less back to my previous opinion. -There were apparently rumors about the children's death in 1483. - The Chancelor of France accused Richard somehow officially (in front of the States Generals) to have killed his nephews, and that was before France supported Henry. For the moment, he was still allied with the Duke of Brittany, an enemy of France. - Another source (not a very reliable one, though) states there were rumors of the princes' death after Easter 1484. That's around the moment Henry fled to France and began to become a major threat. He had pledged to marry Elizabeth, and if her brothers were dead, that made him the future husband of the legitimate heir for the Woodville party and some other yorkists.
This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't.
Buckingham is still a good suspect, after all. Or something else happened to the children, in circumstances that wouldn't allow Richard to prove he had nothing to do with their death. So it was better to let the matter in doubt, as it was not his interest that the princes' death became a certainty for his enemies.
Romane

---In , <destama@...> wrote :

Romanre wrote:I completely agree with you Mary. For me, either he didn't know himself what had happened to the princes, or the explanation couldn't do him any good, as it would only have strengthened the suspicions. Doug here:If the boys had disappeared and Richard didn't know what had happened to them, then the question for us is: What did? Did someone other than Richard hide the boys away? Did someone kidnap them from the Tower and then kill them? We have nothing that says either of those scenarios occurred.OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.However, the only rumors we have concerning the boys being killed are in 1483; the first reported by Mancini as being in May/June of 1483 and the second sometime during Buckingham's Rebellion. Even the notation from 1485 that the boys were killed on the vise of Buckingham could only refer to some point before Buckingham's execution on 2 November, 1483. Well, unless one wants to believe that Buckingham arranged the boys' deaths before his execution and whoever was appointed to carry out the plan did so after Buckingham was executed!Which basically means the rumors weren't widespread, weren't continually floating around in the background during Richard's reign, thus necessitating any denials by Richard, and only assumed a prominent position when, after Richard's death at Bosworth, the boys' locations weren't known.Thus, as yet another bit of Tudor propaganda, the rumors that had almost certainly died away by late 1483, were resuscitated and emphasized, with the hope that people wouldn't notice that the times the rumors were out and about and the time when the boys were noticed to be missing from the Tower didn't match.IOW, Richard didn't have to allay any suspicions, spread via rumors about the boys being alive or not, because there most likely weren't any such rumors swirling about.DougMy apologies for the late reply. I thought I'd sent this, but only drafted it  as my sister puts it, Just another senior moment!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 13:46:17
Hilary Jones
Sorry this posted itself before I was finished! If the 400 were made up of these people's servants they must have had large retinues indeed. We're of course talking about those who joined HT in exile after 1483 (escapees), not those who joined at Bosworth, but even then the numbers are quite small. I make it about 40, including these. One could hardly call these Edward V lovers could one? H

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2017, 13:31
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Hi David, who were these 400 escapees?
Here's the list that Carol asked for: I've split them into the various rebellion locations
Salisbury
John Averey - servant of Giles DaubenyRobert Bowden - servant of Giles DaubenyRobert Canon - servant of Giles DaubenyHumphrey Cheney - brother of John Cheney from KentJohn Cheney - from Kent (master of horse to Edward IV, also a Cade rebel)Robert Cheney - from Kent cousin of the othersGiles Daubeny - Lancastrian married to a StourtonJohn Forde - servant of Giles DaubenyJohn Shirewell - servant of Giles Daubeny
Kent
William Brandon Esquire of Body to EIVNicholas Gainsford HS of Kent and Esquire of Body to EWJohn Gainsford - his sonEdward Poynings Esquire of the Body and son in law of John Scott HS of Kent
Newbury
William Berkeley Lancastrian & Constable of Southampton married to another Stourton
Exeter
Thomas Arundel Knight of the Body- brother in law to Giles DaubenyWilliam Bolton from Bolterscombe Devon - part of the HS networkEdward Courtenay disinherited (by Edward) Earl of DevonPeter Courtenay Bishop of Exeter son of a Hungerford and brother of the rebel Sir Walter but also of Yorkists Sir William and Sir PhillipJohn Welles (later to marry Cecily) from Lancastrian family (and MB) brother of Sir Richard executed by Edward in 1470Robert Willoughby - Esquire of the Body, Receiver General for the Staffords in Cornwall. Brother was Dean of Exeter, other brother fought for HT at Bosworth. Father Yorkist
Torrington - NoneSomerset/Dorset - NoneBodmin - NoneDevon/Cornwall - None

Other
Thomas Brandon - brother of William aboveSir John Fortescue - One of the Devon/Cornwall HS groupRichard Fox (still be investigated)Evan Morgan (as above)Edward WoodvilleLionel Woodville



From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2017, 0:48
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Romane
Regarding Henry Tudor's position around Easter 1484, this actually corresponds to a low point for him. After the failure of the 1483 rebellion, a second force was being assembled in Brittany but it was abandoned about Easter. I think they thought they didn't have the resources. Henry was in limbo and the 400 or so escapees from 1483 were a drain on the treasury in Vannes.
It wasn't until October that he became aware of the plot between Richard and Landais and had to flee into France.
A Breton historian believes that it was the Landais plot that actually brought both Richard and Landais down.
RegardsDavid


On 14 Jun 2017 23:12, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Doug wrote :
OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.

I've found the text. It is from the Great Chronicle of London, the very same text where we find the passage I already quoted, about the children playing in the garden of the Tower :
"And during this mayor's year (sir Edmund Shaa, who laid down his mayoralty in october 1483) the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower at sundry times."
The quote about the children still being alive in 1484 is this one :
"All the winter season of this mayor's time ( Robert Billeson, whose mayoralty ended on 28 october 1484) the land was in good quiet, but after Easter there was much whispering among the people that the King had put the children of King Edward to death.

So you see, that piece of data doesn't prove anything. If we are to believe the author, the rumors didn't stop after 1483. On the contrary, they began to spread among the people, and not just among the rebels, after Easter 1484.
But anyway, what's next in the text is that Tyrell "was reported to be the doer". As we well know, that particular piece of crap only surfaced after 1502. So the source is not very reliable, to say the least.
If the text says the truth, it shows at least that the rumors of 1483 about the children's death were lies, as you say. But in the same time, it proves that there were still such rumors in 1484, and then, why didn't Richard deny them, if he had some way to prove his innocence ? In 1484, with Henry strengthening his position, it had become all the more important to do so.
Or, the text is a tissue of lies, and then the children might have been actually dead in 1483.
And to finish, whatever its reliability, there's no way that text can be used to prove that the rumors had disappeared in 1484, because it says just the contrary.
Unless you think of another text ? I didn't find anything else on the net about the date of Easter connected to the princes.
So, I'm afraid I'm more or less back to my previous opinion. -There were apparently rumors about the children's death in 1483. - The Chancelor of France accused Richard somehow officially (in front of the States Generals) to have killed his nephews, and that was before France supported Henry. For the moment, he was still allied with the Duke of Brittany, an enemy of France. - Another source (not a very reliable one, though) states there were rumors of the princes' death after Easter 1484. That's around the moment Henry fled to France and began to become a major threat. He had pledged to marry Elizabeth, and if her brothers were dead, that made him the future husband of the legitimate heir for the Woodville party and some other yorkists.
This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't.
Buckingham is still a good suspect, after all. Or something else happened to the children, in circumstances that wouldn't allow Richard to prove he had nothing to do with their death. So it was better to let the matter in doubt, as it was not his interest that the princes' death became a certainty for his enemies.
Romane

---In , <destama@...> wrote :

Romanre wrote:I completely agree with you Mary. For me, either he didn't know himself what had happened to the princes, or the explanation couldn't do him any good, as it would only have strengthened the suspicions. Doug here:If the boys had disappeared and Richard didn't know what had happened to them, then the question for us is: What did? Did someone other than Richard hide the boys away? Did someone kidnap them from the Tower and then kill them? We have nothing that says either of those scenarios occurred.OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.However, the only rumors we have concerning the boys being killed are in 1483; the first reported by Mancini as being in May/June of 1483 and the second sometime during Buckingham's Rebellion. Even the notation from 1485 that the boys were killed on the vise of Buckingham could only refer to some point before Buckingham's execution on 2 November, 1483. Well, unless one wants to believe that Buckingham arranged the boys' deaths before his execution and whoever was appointed to carry out the plan did so after Buckingham was executed!Which basically means the rumors weren't widespread, weren't continually floating around in the background during Richard's reign, thus necessitating any denials by Richard, and only assumed a prominent position when, after Richard's death at Bosworth, the boys' locations weren't known.Thus, as yet another bit of Tudor propaganda, the rumors that had almost certainly died away by late 1483, were resuscitated and emphasized, with the hope that people wouldn't notice that the times the rumors were out and about and the time when the boys were noticed to be missing from the Tower didn't match.IOW, Richard didn't have to allay any suspicions, spread via rumors about the boys being alive or not, because there most likely weren't any such rumors swirling about.DougMy apologies for the late reply. I thought I'd sent this, but only drafted it  as my sister puts it, Just another senior moment!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.




Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 13:50:03
romanenemo
What is that list, Hilary ? I'm afraid I lost track here.
Romane

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 13:51:20
Hilary Jones
It is the list of 1483 rebels who joined HT in exile. Hope this helps. H

From: romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2017, 13:50
Subject: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

What is that list, Hilary ? I'm afraid I lost track here.
Romane

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 13:53:12
romanenemo
Ok, I see. What is the HS network though ?

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 14:25:44
Hilary Jones
You know the Hornby dispute is quite interesting because it's the first time Stanley ambitions encroached on the close supporters of Richard Neville and later Richard. As I've said on here before, the Stanleys seem to have been some of the most prolific marriage networkers for two or three hundred years. They had come from virtually nothing to a stage where they were jostling the Staffords for position in the NW and this could now be seen as spreading to the North as a whole. A lot of these Neville (and Percy) supporters on the other hand, came from quite impressive backgrounds (we've mentioned the Bretons) and had managed to keep their own closed circle of about 20 families for hundreds of years. One can see why they petitioned Richard for help and why he sympathised with them because, for a start, he shared their ideology.
You can also see why the Stanleys would be suspicious of Richard. One wonders how Sir Thomas managed to get so well in by 1483 - that is unless he was the last of Edward's old guard to turn to? H
From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 June 2017, 21:17
Subject: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Hi Carol I agree with your summary of Thomas Stanley's actions. People forget his assistance during the 1483 rebellion, I think it makes the suggestion that he was driven by revenge for the Hornby dispute very improbable.
RegardsDavid

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did it' :

2017-06-15 15:36:33
Doug Stamate
Romane, I've searched and been unable to discover where I read that the boys were no longer noted being in the Tower after Easter. I'll search again, but if anyone else has any input, I'd be most grateful. I'd also like to add that my position concerning the rumors isn't meant to support the idea that no rumors were floating about after late 1483, but that the topic wasn't the subject on everyone's lips. Romane wrote: Once again, that's very interesting, Doug. You're perfectly right to say that all the sources concerning the rumors were written in 1453, or at least are dealing with that very year. Even Rochefort's statement in front of the States Generals is very soon after that, in january 1484. Apart from the ones you quote, the Chronicle of London says that : 'During the year that Edward Shaw was Mayor of London, the children were seen shooting and playing in the garden if the Tower at sundry time'. So it means that the children could still be seen at least until october 1483, for Shaw was mayor of London until 28 october 1483. But what is that source saying that the boys were alive 'at least after Easter' ? For you're right, it would mean Easter 1484 or 1485. It's an extremely important source, if it's reliable. There is only one problem. The fact that people like Edward Woodville, and others who should have sustained Edward V's claim, seem to have stayed under Henry's banner even when it was obvious that the man would seize the crown for himself. Would these Yorkists of the Woodville party have done such a thing if they had thought that the boys were alive ? Edward Woodville fought at Henry's side at Bosworth, knowing fully well that the boys wouldn't stay alive very long if Henry was the victor. So it seems that he thought they were already dead. Do you have an explanation ? I hope you do, for my favorite version of the story would be with Henry as the responsible for the boy's disappearance.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 16:07:19
mariewalsh2003

Romane wrote:

But as for Von Popplau's own opinion, here's the way it was phrased, according to what I found on the net : "many people say - and I agree with them - that they are still alive and kept in a very dark cellar'.


Marie responds:

Indeed. I've just been a little cautious about quoting that verbatim. The first problems is that VP doesn't seem to have written up his traveller's notes into a proper account until 1486, after Richard was dead and the Princes had still failed to show up, so even if "a very dark cellar" is what he wrote in his account, it may not reflect what he had been thinking when he was with Richard. The second problem is that we don't have VP's own MS, only an 18th [?] century copy. If there is one thing we see with later copies of documents, it is that the copyists get tempted to "correct" bits that they don't find credible (such as Leland's copy of the Herald's Memoir of the 1st years of Henry VII's reign, where the original has the boy who was brought to Henry after Stoke give his name as John, but in Leland's version 'John' is changed to Lambert Symnel).

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did it' :

2017-06-15 16:11:31
Karen O
Yes they would have supported Henry.because the boys could not be located.
On Jun 15, 2017 10:36 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 

      Romane, I've searched and been unable to discover where I read that the boys were no longer noted being in the Tower after Easter. I'll search again, but if anyone else has any input, I'd be most grateful. I'd also like to add that my position concerning the rumors isn't meant to support the idea that no rumors were floating about after late 1483, but that the topic wasn't the subject on everyone's lips.   Romane wrote: Once again, that's very interesting, Doug. You're perfectly right to say that all the sources concerning the rumors were written in 1453, or at least are dealing with that very year. Even Rochefort's statement in front of the States Generals is very soon after that, in january 1484. Apart from the ones you quote, the Chronicle of London says that : 'During the year  that Edward Shaw was Mayor of London, the children were seen shooting and playing in the garden if the Tower at sundry time'. So it means that the children could still be seen at least until october 1483, for Shaw was mayor of London until 28 october 1483. But what is that source saying that the boys were alive 'at least after Easter' ? For you're right, it would mean Easter 1484 or 1485. It's an extremely important source, if it's reliable. There is only one problem. The fact that people like Edward Woodville, and others who should have sustained Edward V's claim, seem to have stayed under Henry's banner even when it was obvious that the man would seize the crown for himself. Would these Yorkists of the Woodville party have done such a thing if they had thought that the boys were alive ? Edward Woodville fought at Henry's side at Bosworth, knowing fully well that the boys wouldn't stay alive very long if Henry was the victor. So it seems that he thought they were already dead. Do you have an explanation ? I hope you do, for my favorite version of the story would be with Henry as the responsible for the boy's disappearance.
--
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: 'Buckingham did it' :

2017-06-15 16:12:00
Doug Stamate
Romane, I've included your post below in its entirety. Thank you for finding the after Easter source! I believe I read it in Audrey Williamson's book, but I haven't been able to locate it again! I rather think the quote below about Billeson's term as mayor supports my idea, though. If there had been rumors still floating around before Easter 1484, why weren't they noted as well? Say, something on the order of ...much whispering among the people that the King had put the children of King Edward to death continued, even after Easter. The inclusion of that reference to Tyrrell is puzzling. It's obvious from the construction of the sentence that the entry, or at least the reference to the boys, was made after Billeson's term as mayor had ended, but exactly when isn't apparent. I say that last because it's entirely possible that there may have been <i>rumors</i> about Tyrrell's involvement in the boys' disappearance. I seem to recall, from a previous thread I think, someone suggesting that the boys may been smuggled out of the Tower as additions to a group of henchmen*. Perhaps those henchmen were under the supervision of Tyrrell? *For a definition of henchmen as it applied to the Middle Ages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henchman Apparently, in medieval times, henchmen were nothing more or less than grooms, tending horses, etc. Not a particularly high station, but still honorable. The connotation of nefariousness came later. Doug Romane wrote: I've found the text. It is from the Great Chronicle of London, the very same text where we find the passage I already quoted, about the children playing in the garden of the Tower :
"And during this mayor's year (sir Edmund Shaa, who laid down his mayoralty in october 1483) the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower at sundry times." The quote about the children still being alive in 1484 is this one: "All the winter season of this mayor's time ( Robert Billeson, whose mayoralty ended on 28 october 1484) the land was in good quiet, but after Easter there was much whispering among the people that the King had put the children of King Edward to death. So you see, that piece of data doesn't prove anything. If we are to believe the author, the rumors didn't stop after 1483. On the contrary, they began to spread among the people, and not just among the rebels, after Easter 1484. But anyway, what's next in the text is that Tyrell "was reported to be the doer". As we well know, that particular piece of crap only surfaced after 1502. So the source is not very reliable, to say the least. If the text says the truth, it shows at least that the rumors of 1483 about the children's death were lies, as you say. But in the same time, it proves that there were still such rumors in 1484, and then, why didn't Richard deny them, if he had some way to prove his innocence ? In 1484, with Henry strengthening his position, it had become all the more important to do so. Or, the text is a tissue of lies, and then the children might have been actually dead in 1483. And to finish, whatever its reliability, there's no way that text can be used to prove that the rumors had disappeared in 1484, because it says just the contrary. Unless you think of another text ? I didn't find anything else on the net about the date of Easter connected to the princes. So, I'm afraid I'm more or less back to my previous opinion. -There were apparently rumors about the children's death in 1483. - The Chancelor of France accused Richard somehow officially (in front of the States Generals) to have killed his nephews, and that was before France supported Henry. For the moment, he was still allied with the Duke of Brittany, an enemy of France. - Another source (not a very reliable one, though) states there were rumors of the princes' death after Easter 1484. That's around the moment Henry fled to France and began to become a major threat. He had pledged to marry Elizabeth, and if her brothers were dead, that made him the future husband of the legitimate heir for the Woodville party and some other yorkists. This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't. Buckingham is still a good suspect, after all. Or something else happened to the children, in circumstances that wouldn't allow Richard to prove he had nothing to do with their death. So it was better to let the matter in doubt, as it was not his interest that the princes' death became a certainty for his enemies.
--
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: 'Buckingham did it' :

2017-06-15 16:26:59
mariewalsh2003

TA few unrelated thoughts:

1) The link between the rumours of the boys' death and support for HT is of course is an important point. There's no doubt that the first rumours of the boys' deaths emerged not around Easter 1484 but before the outbreak of Buckingham's Rebellion, just as Crowland says, and were responsible for the way that rebellion - whose original purpose was to restore Edward V - was hijacked by Buckingham and Henry Tudor for their own ends. Mancini's account, finished in December 1483, shows that people in France were wondering about them too.

2) As regards David's point, that Richard only needed to say they were alive, not where they were, I don't think that would necessarily have been much use unless he actually showed them (as Henry VII later found with Warwick). After all, people who have convinced themselves that a person has just had two children murdered are not going to presume that everything that person has to say on the subject is going to be gospel truth. Bringing the boys out for public display would have been risky.

3) When we're thinking of who believed Richard had killed the boys, we surely shouldn't overlook the behaviour of Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did it' :

2017-06-15 16:44:23
Doug Stamate
Marie wrote: Von Popplau, who visited Richard in May 1484, said the fate of the boys was being talked about. Some believed they had been killed, whilst others (with whom he himself agreed) thought they were just hidden away. Given christianised version of magical thinking current at the time, it is probable that the death of Richard's own son caused people to wonder if it was divine vengeance, and that is why the rumours got up that Easter. Doug here: What is your opinion of the idea that Richard moved the boys from the Tower after Easter partly in response to the political situation created by Edward of Middleham's death? My reasoning is that, with the death of his son, Richard no longer had a direct, acknowledged heir. Until an heir was designated, and acknowledged, Richard's position was weakened and he recognized that. So he moved the boys out of London and hid them away; thus simultaneously protecting them from any danger there may have been in, as he'd promised their mother, and also removing a potential center of opposition, even revolt, as represented by his nephew Edward V. I don't think anyone else has proposed such an idea, which definitely makes it a new idea, but I don't know whether it's also novel (as in fiction) territory... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-15 16:56:05
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Sorry this posted itself before I was finished! If the 400 were made up of these people's servants they must have had large retinues indeed. We're of course talking about those who joined HT in exile after 1483 (escapees), not those who joined at Bosworth, but even then the numbers are quite small. I make it about 40, including these. One could hardly call these Edward V lovers could one? Doug here: There's also the possibility that those numbers were being inflated to increase the sums being paid for their upkeep. Apparently, claiming more men on one's payroll than there actually were was an old, established stratagem when it came to military musters. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-15 17:00:55
Doug Stamate
Romane wrote: Ok, I see. What is the HS network though ? Doug here: It's a reference to High Sherriff. They were responsible for calling out men to support the King. Well, except when they called out men to support a rebellion. I believe they were later replaced by the Lords Lieutenant, but I'm not absolutely certain about that. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-15 17:08:49
Doug Stamate
Hilary, What were the Stanleys' relations with the Lancastrians, monarchs and supporters, like? Were they Yorkists in order to decrease the hold of Lancastrians, royal as well as non-royal, in their neck of the woods? Doug Hilary wrote: You know the Hornby dispute is quite interesting because it's the first time Stanley ambitions encroached on the close supporters of Richard Neville and later Richard. As I've said on here before, the Stanleys seem to have been some of the most prolific marriage networkers for two or three hundred years. They had come from virtually nothing to a stage where they were jostling the Staffords for position in the NW and this could now be seen as spreading to the North as a whole. A lot of these Neville (and Percy) supporters on the other hand, came from quite impressive backgrounds (we've mentioned the Bretons) and had managed to keep their own closed circle of about 20 families for hundreds of years. One can see why they petitioned Richard for help and why he sy mpathised with them because, for a start, he shared their ideology. You can also see why the Stanleys would be suspicious of Richard. One wonders how Sir Thomas managed to get so well in by 1483 - that is unless he was the last of Edward's old guard to turn to?
--
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: 'Buckingham did it' :

2017-06-15 17:23:23
ricard1an
Just a thought on the rumours, when someone reports something the person they report it to may pass on a different message. I had to do a peer observation on a colleague who was teaching customer Service skills. She wrote down a message and then she whispered it to the person sitting next to her and so it went around about 10 people. The last person had to report what was said to her and it didn't really bear much resemblance to what my colleague had written down. So by the time the rumours had reached the ears of the people they were probably nothing like the original gossip and we need to take into account that some people might have ulterior motives for spreading false rumours. Just a thought as I said.
Mary

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 17:40:01
Durose David
Hi HilaryThe trouble with trying to find evidence to support a particular view is that it is not scientific. Wilkinson tries to locate the 'earliest' trace of the rumours in order to draw an inference from that. With regard to the exiles, Prof Griffiths writes in the Making of the Tudor Dynasty, that of the several hundred who escaped to Vannes, only just over a hundred can be identified by name.
Without refering to alternative lists I can see a few missing ones at first glance. Willoughby (younger brother) Edgecumbe, Halewell or Halwell and I am sure there was a Guildford.
Griffiths also mentions a Harcourt from Hastings' retinue and that one of the others had several yeomen in their retinue.
The sums paid out for their keep were enormous 3400 livres in one month.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 at 13:31, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [], <> wrote:

Hi David, who were these 400 escapee
Here's the list that Carol asked for: I've split them into the various rebellion locations
Salisbury
John Averey - servant of Giles DaubenyRobert Bowden - servant of Giles DaubenyRobert Canon - servant of Giles DaubenyHumphrey Cheney - brother of John Cheney from KentJohn Cheney - from Kent (master of horse to Edward IV, also a Cade rebel)Robert Cheney - from Kent cousin of the othersGiles Daubeny - Lancastrian married to a StourtonJohn Forde - servant of Giles DaubenyJohn Shirewell - servant of Giles Daubeny
Kent
William Brandon Esquire of Body to EIVNicholas Gainsford HS of Kent and Esquire of Body to EWJohn Gainsford - his sonEdward Poynings Esquire of the Body and son in law of John Scott HS of Kent
Newbury
William Berkeley Lancastrian & Constable of Southampton married to another Stourton
Exeter
Thomas Arundel Knight of the Body- brother in law to Giles DaubenyWilliam Bolton from Bolterscombe Devon - part of the HS networkEdward Courtenay disinherited (by Edward) Earl of DevonPeter Courtenay Bishop of Exeter son of a Hungerford and brother of the rebel Sir Walter but also of Yorkists Sir William and Sir PhillipJohn Welles (later to marry Cecily) from Lancastrian family (and MB) brother of Sir Richard executed by Edward in 1470Robert Willoughby - Esquire of the Body, Receiver General for the Staffords in Cornwall. Brother was Dean of Exeter, other brother fought for HT at Bosworth. Father Yorkist
Torrington - NoneSomerset/Dorset - NoneBodmin - NoneDevon/Cornwall - None

Other
Thomas Brandon - brother of William aboveSir John Fortescue - One of the Devon/Cornwall HS groupRichard Fox (still be investigated)Evan Morgan (as above)Edward WoodvilleLionel Woodville



From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2017, 0:48
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Romane
Regarding Henry Tudor's position around Easter 1484, this actually corresponds to a low point for him. After the failure of the 1483 rebellion, a second force was being assembled in Brittany but it was abandoned about Easter. I think they thought they didn't have the resources. Henry was in limbo and the 400 or so escapees from 1483 were a drain on the treasury in Vannes.
It wasn't until October that he became aware of the plot between Richard and Landais and had to flee into France.
A Breton historian believes that it was the Landais plot that actually brought both Richard and Landais down.
RegardsDavid


On 14 Jun 2017 23:12, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Doug wrote :
OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.

I've found the text. It is from the Great Chronicle of London, the very same text where we find the passage I already quoted, about the children playing in the garden of the Tower :
"And during this mayor's year (sir Edmund Shaa, who laid down his mayoralty in october 1483) the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower at sundry times."
The quote about the children still being alive in 1484 is this one :
"All the winter season of this mayor's time ( Robert Billeson, whose mayoralty ended on 28 october 1484) the land was in good quiet, but after Easter there was much whispering among the people that the King had put the children of King Edward to death.

So you see, that piece of data doesn't prove anything. If we are to believe the author, the rumors didn't stop after 1483. On the contrary, they began to spread among the people, and not just among the rebels, after Easter 1484.
But anyway, what's next in the text is that Tyrell "was reported to be the doer". As we well know, that particular piece of crap only surfaced after 1502. So the source is not very reliable, to say the least.
If the text says the truth, it shows at least that the rumors of 1483 about the children's death were lies, as you say. But in the same time, it proves that there were still such rumors in 1484, and then, why didn't Richard deny them, if he had some way to prove his innocence ? In 1484, with Henry strengthening his position, it had become all the more important to do so.
Or, the text is a tissue of lies, and then the children might have been actually dead in 1483.
And to finish, whatever its reliability, there's no way that text can be used to prove that the rumors had disappeared in 1484, because it says just the contrary.
Unless you think of another text ? I didn't find anything else on the net about the date of Easter connected to the princes.
So, I'm afraid I'm more or less back to my previous opinion. -There were apparently rumors about the children's death in 1483. - The Chancelor of France accused Richard somehow officially (in front of the States Generals) to have killed his nephews, and that was before France supported Henry. For the moment, he was still allied with the Duke of Brittany, an enemy of France. - Another source (not a very reliable one, though) states there were rumors of the princes' death after Easter 1484. That's around the moment Henry fled to France and began to become a major threat. He had pledged to marry Elizabeth, and if her brothers were dead, that made him the future husband of the legitimate heir for the Woodville party and some other yorkists.
This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't.
Buckingham is still a good suspect, after all. Or something else happened to the children, in circumstances that wouldn't allow Richard to prove he had nothing to do with their death. So it was better to let the matter in doubt, as it was not his interest that the princes' death became a certainty for his enemies.
Romane

---In , <destama@...> wrote :

Romanre wrote:I completely agree with you Mary. For me, either he didn't know himself what had happened to the princes, or the explanation couldn't do him any good, as it would only have strengthened the suspicions. Doug here:If the boys had disappeared and Richard didn't know what had happened to them, then the question for us is: What did? Did someone other than Richard hide the boys away? Did someone kidnap them from the Tower and then kill them? We have nothing that says either of those scenarios occurred.OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.However, the only rumors we have concerning the boys being killed are in 1483; the first reported by Mancini as being in May/June of 1483 and the second sometime during Buckingham's Rebellion. Even the notation from 1485 that the boys were killed on the vise of Buckingham could only refer to some point before Buckingham's execution on 2 November, 1483. Well, unless one wants to believe that Buckingham arranged the boys' deaths before his execution and whoever was appointed to carry out the plan did so after Buckingham was executed!Which basically means the rumors weren't widespread, weren't continually floating around in the background during Richard's reign, thus necessitating any denials by Richard, and only assumed a prominent position when, after Richard's death at Bosworth, the boys' locations weren't known.Thus, as yet another bit of Tudor propaganda, the rumors that had almost certainly died away by late 1483, were resuscitated and emphasized, with the hope that people wouldn't notice that the times the rumors were out and about and the time when the boys were noticed to be missing from the Tower didn't match.IOW, Richard didn't have to allay any suspicions, spread via rumors about the boys being alive or not, because there most likely weren't any such rumors swirling about.DougMy apologies for the late reply. I thought I'd sent this, but only drafted it  as my sister puts it, Just another senior moment!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 18:16:09
justcarol67
Carol earlier:Those who supported HT would continue to support him; those who wished to restore Edward V would have even more cause to rebel. It would, in short, do him no good at all.

Romane answers:Yes, but as you say, some would have supported Henry, the others Edward V. Instead of that, they all sided with Henry. 'Divide to rule' is a good policy. The knowledge that the children were alive, that even if Henry won and marry Elizabeth, she was still not the first in Edward IV's succession line, would have weakened Henry's position.
Carol again:

I suspect that they would have joined forces to try to bring Richard down (as indeed they did) and then fought among themselves--enemies temporarily joining in a common cause against a common enemy. We see much the same thing with Margaret of Anjou and the Earl of Warwick (except that they were on the losing side).

I don't mean to imply that resentment or antagonism against Richard was widespread. It clearly wasn't. And though people (including the foreigner Von Popelau) speculated about the fate of Richard's nephews, the country clearly was not rising up against him on the boys' account. It was only the same malcontents, French mercenaries, and one contingent of Welshmen who fought against Richard at Bosworth.

The rumors did not hurt him (unless you count his reputation in France, an enemy country, and his subsequent reputation after his death). No new enemies arose because of them. They only caused the pro-Edward V rebels to switch to Tudor. Treachery in the form of William Stanley (whose motives I think we agree on) and Rhys ap Thomas (bribed by Tudor and perhaps led on by the quarter-Welsh Tudor's claims to be a savior of the Welsh), not a general uprising, brought Richard down. And, of course, the Earl of Oxford, a key factor at Bosworth and diehard Lancastrian, was an enemy of Edward IV long before he developed a secondary grudge against Richard which had nothing whatever to do with Richard's Yorkist nephews.

I still think that denying the rumors would have called attention to them and to his nephews, a situation that would not have helped Richard. Just denying that they were dead or having, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury do so would not have sufficed. Those who wanted the boys alive would have wanted proof and demanded to know their whereabouts. It was better to keep quiet. (It is, of course, possible that he didn't know what had happened to them, but that's another matter.)

Had he won at Bosworth, the country would have believed that God supported his cause and most people would have forgotten about the discredited boys, especially if Richard resumed his campaign of reforms and showed himself to be the good king he wanted to be. Instead, God seemed to have vindicated Tudor and punished Richard, leaving fertile ground for Tudor (the real usurper and regicide) to further damage the reputation of the "traitor" and "tyrant" he had replaced.

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 18:22:41
justcarol67

Hilary wrote:


"Here's the list that Carol asked for: I've split them into the various rebellion locations. (List snipped)"

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. But silly me--I've forgotten exactly what the list entails. Are these people participants in Buckingham's Rebellion who later fought at Bosworth?

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 18:31:10
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"We're of course talking about those who joined HT in exile after 1483 (escapees), not those who joined at Bosworth, but even then the numbers are quite small. I make it about 40, including these. One could hardly call these Edward V lovers could one?"

Carol responds:

I would certainly put John Cheney, William Brandon, Nicholas Gainsford, and the two Woodvilles in that category. I don't know about the rest.

Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-15 18:37:11
justcarol67



Hilary wrote:

"It is the list of 1483 rebels who joined HT in exile."


Thanks, Hilary. I assume that all of these men fought at Bosworth. (I know that William Brandon and John Cheney did!)

It would also be interesting to know how many of the rebels did *not* join Tudor (not counting the few who were executed). I think we can safely assume that none of them fought for Richard, but how many played it safe and stayed away from Tudor and, ultimately, Bosworth?

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did it' :

2017-06-15 19:03:56
justcarol67

Doug wrote:

"I seem to recall, from a previous thread I think, someone suggesting that the boys may been smuggled out of the Tower as additions to a group of henchmen*. Perhaps those henchmen were under the supervision of Tyrrell?"

Carol responds:

That was me (though someone else may have made the same suggestion at another point). Tyrrell was Richard's Master of Henchmen (pages) as well as his Master of Horse. Who better to smuggle the boys out of the Tower without suspicion and what better disguise could you find? That is, assuming that the boys knew themselves to be in danger after John Welles's raid on the Tower.)

There's also the tradition that Richard's nephews (and their mother, who could have been the person who convinced them) were at one time on Tyrrell's estate "by permission of the uncle" (Richard).

As for why the anti-Richard faction would point to Tyrrell as the murderer, he was known to have been in London on business for Richard at the time of the Prince of Wales" investiture (at which time Croyland says the boys were moved deeper into the Tower--maybe that wasn't where they were moved!), and, of course, he was known to be one of Richard's loyal men, so after his execution for helping another Yorkist claimant, Edmund de la Pole, he would be a convenient scapegoat. The "confession" More mentions is imaginary, but Henry could well have circulated rumors implicating Tyrrell after Tyrrell's execution in 1502, which is about the time that the Great Chronicle of London was written. (More and Vergil would have gotten the idea that Tyrrell was the murderer from that source. Interesting how greatly their versions of the story differ!)

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did it' :

2017-06-15 19:10:55
justcarol67
Marie wrote:

"When we're thinking of who believed Richard had killed the boys, we surely shouldn't overlook the behaviour of Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset."


Carol responds:


Exactly. Why would Elizabeth not only place her daughters in Richard's care but tell her son Dorset to come home because Richard would treat him well if she believed he had killed her two younger sons? And why would Dorset actually attempt to come home (thwarted by Tudor) if he believed that Richard (who had indeed executed his uncle Anthony Woodville and full brother Richard Grey) had murdered his young half-brothers? (They must, by the way, have known that Anthony W. and Richard G. were guilty of treason, not innocent victims of a tyrant, to have behaved as they did.)


Carol

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-16 08:42:23
romanenemo
Marie wrote :The first problems is that VP doesn't seem to have written up his traveller's notes into a proper account until 1486, after Richard was dead and the Princes had still failed to show up


Romane answers;Do you remember where you found that information ? Indeed, it seems important, for if VP only wrote this in 1486, as you say, he might very well have been influenced by what had happened since his visit to Richard.
The 'dark cellar' doesn't seem a very likely hypothesis in 1486 though, unless VP thought that Henry might have found the boys, but then kept them in the cellar as well, as he had much more reasons than Richard for doing that.

Anyway, if VP wrote this in 1486, he might have exaggerated retrospectively the importance of the rumors concerning the boys, and been influenced in his suggestion of that rather sinister explanation.
Romane

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did i

2017-06-16 08:54:18
Hilary Jones
Very good point Doug! H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2017, 16:56
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Hilary wrote: Sorry this posted itself before I was finished! If the 400 were made up of these people's servants they must have had large retinues indeed. We're of course talking about those who joined HT in exile after 1483 (escapees), not those who joined at Bosworth, but even then the numbers are quite small. I make it about 40, including these. One could hardly call these Edward V lovers could one? Doug here: There's also the possibility that those numbers were being inflated to increase the sums being paid for their upkeep. Apparently, claiming more men on one's payroll than there actually were was an old, established stratagem when it came to military musters. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

2017-06-16 09:11:45
Hilary Jones
Hi David, these certainly turned up at Bosworth (I mentioned younger Willoughby I think) and most were rebels in 1483; some former Lancastrian supporters, some Clarence supporters, but the ones I've listed are the only ones pinned down as having joined HT after the rebellion. I don't doubt there were others like Hungerford working to boost support (and funds) here.
BTW on a more general point, note how people, like the Cheneys, had been planted in other areas to stir up trouble. There were other Cheneys of course but they didn't go into exile. H


From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2017, 17:40
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Hi HilaryThe trouble with trying to find evidence to support a particular view is that it is not scientific. Wilkinson tries to locate the 'earliest' trace of the rumours in order to draw an inference from that. With regard to the exiles, Prof Griffiths writes in the Making of the Tudor Dynasty, that of the several hundred who escaped to Vannes, only just over a hundred can be identified by name.
Without refering to alternative lists I can see a few missing ones at first glance. Willoughby (younger brother) Edgecumbe, Halewell or Halwell and I am sure there was a Guildford.
Griffiths also mentions a Harcourt from Hastings' retinue and that one of the others had several yeomen in their retinue.
The sums paid out for their keep were enormous 3400 livres in one month.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 at 13:31, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [], <> wrote: Hi David, who were these 400 escapee
Here's the list that Carol asked for: I've split them into the various rebellion locations
Salisbury
John Averey - servant of Giles DaubenyRobert Bowden - servant of Giles DaubenyRobert Canon - servant of Giles DaubenyHumphrey Cheney - brother of John Cheney from KentJohn Cheney - from Kent (master of horse to Edward IV, also a Cade rebel)Robert Cheney - from Kent cousin of the othersGiles Daubeny - Lancastrian married to a StourtonJohn Forde - servant of Giles DaubenyJohn Shirewell - servant of Giles Daubeny
Kent
William Brandon Esquire of Body to EIVNicholas Gainsford HS of Kent and Esquire of Body to EWJohn Gainsford - his sonEdward Poynings Esquire of the Body and son in law of John Scott HS of Kent
Newbury
William Berkeley Lancastrian & Constable of Southampton married to another Stourton
Exeter
Thomas Arundel Knight of the Body- brother in law to Giles DaubenyWilliam Bolton from Bolterscombe Devon - part of the HS networkEdward Courtenay disinherited (by Edward) Earl of DevonPeter Courtenay Bishop of Exeter son of a Hungerford and brother of the rebel Sir Walter but also of Yorkists Sir William and Sir PhillipJohn Welles (later to marry Cecily) from Lancastrian family (and MB) brother of Sir Richard executed by Edward in 1470Robert Willoughby - Esquire of the Body, Receiver General for the Staffords in Cornwall. Brother was Dean of Exeter, other brother fought for HT at Bosworth. Father Yorkist
Torrington - NoneSomerset/Dorset - NoneBodmin - NoneDevon/Cornwall - None

Other
Thomas Brandon - brother of William aboveSir John Fortescue - One of the Devon/Cornwall HS groupRichard Fox (still be investigated)Evan Morgan (as above)Edward WoodvilleLionel Woodville



From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2017, 0:48
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Romane
Regarding Henry Tudor's position around Easter 1484, this actually corresponds to a low point for him. After the failure of the 1483 rebellion, a second force was being assembled in Brittany but it was abandoned about Easter. I think they thought they didn't have the resources. Henry was in limbo and the 400 or so escapees from 1483 were a drain on the treasury in Vannes.
It wasn't until October that he became aware of the plot between Richard and Landais and had to flee into France.
A Breton historian believes that it was the Landais plot that actually brought both Richard and Landais down.
RegardsDavid


On 14 Jun 2017 23:12, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Doug wrote :
OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.

I've found the text. It is from the Great Chronicle of London, the very same text where we find the passage I already quoted, about the children playing in the garden of the Tower :
"And during this mayor's year (sir Edmund Shaa, who laid down his mayoralty in october 1483) the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower at sundry times."
The quote about the children still being alive in 1484 is this one :
"All the winter season of this mayor's time ( Robert Billeson, whose mayoralty ended on 28 october 1484) the land was in good quiet, but after Easter there was much whispering among the people that the King had put the children of King Edward to death.

So you see, that piece of data doesn't prove anything. If we are to believe the author, the rumors didn't stop after 1483. On the contrary, they began to spread among the people, and not just among the rebels, after Easter 1484.
But anyway, what's next in the text is that Tyrell "was reported to be the doer". As we well know, that particular piece of crap only surfaced after 1502. So the source is not very reliable, to say the least.
If the text says the truth, it shows at least that the rumors of 1483 about the children's death were lies, as you say. But in the same time, it proves that there were still such rumors in 1484, and then, why didn't Richard deny them, if he had some way to prove his innocence ? In 1484, with Henry strengthening his position, it had become all the more important to do so.
Or, the text is a tissue of lies, and then the children might have been actually dead in 1483.
And to finish, whatever its reliability, there's no way that text can be used to prove that the rumors had disappeared in 1484, because it says just the contrary.
Unless you think of another text ? I didn't find anything else on the net about the date of Easter connected to the princes.
So, I'm afraid I'm more or less back to my previous opinion. -There were apparently rumors about the children's death in 1483. - The Chancelor of France accused Richard somehow officially (in front of the States Generals) to have killed his nephews, and that was before France supported Henry. For the moment, he was still allied with the Duke of Brittany, an enemy of France. - Another source (not a very reliable one,