Richard III Society Forum

Welcome, This is the Yahoo! Message Board for Richard III Society Forum community.

Reminder - there will be a chat this Sunday starting at 21:00 GMT for anyone interested.

How likely is it that Francis Lovel was holed up in Minster Lovell? Not a lot is known about Francis and I am interested in learning what there is to know about him. Can any one help me?

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

Thanks for that! I have always thought it rather
stupid that priest holes and the like were only
accessible from the outside. I cannot see why there could
not have been a method of escape for the unfortunate
occupant! Poor Francis!<br><br>Jane

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

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

This 'Forum' area is not exclusivley for Richard III Society members. It is open to any one who wishes to discuss Richard and his times.

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

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

at a RRIII club at Yahoo, I am delighted that somebody else has picked up the banner of the White Boar.<br><br>Loyulte me lie!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has happened to the old message archive? Is
it still accessible somewhere? I was particularly
interested in following up a discussion about whether Henry
Tudor was responsible for the deaths of the little
princes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would Bill's motto be?<br><br>Loyalty? I lie!

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

I figured. I just couldn't resist! ;)

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

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

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

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

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

Ok-- I grant that historians not writing in England were unlikely to be charged with high treason for being fair to Richard! :)

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

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

Well, I'm not about to say "NEIGHHHHHH!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quite agree with you but the point I was making was that Henry VII didn't shed pints of blood to secure his throne - one person died on the block - Edward Earl Of Warwick.

And Henry VIII finished the job off by executing several people with Plantagenet blood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Market Bosworth, today:<br><a href=http://www.pipemedia.net/mbos2.htm target=new>http://www.pipemedia.net/mbos2.htm</a>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a pleasant walk on a warm day. The only practical alternative is to hire a taxi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John, Earl of Lincoln was the next male heir in back of Richard, with the exception of Edward, Earl of Warwick who was said to have been retarded, and attainted for his fathers treason.

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

Or is it merely an accident that the authority of a Protector would effectively end the instant the Crown touched young Edward's head?

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

Nor should it be forgotten that the last reigning Queen of England had been Mathilda. By precident, women did not rule England any more than France under the Salic Law.

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

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

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

Actually, I think you can participate even without software by goint to the "chat" section of Yahoo<br>(unless you mean Java).

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

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

I would like to know where is it mentioned that Richard considered a match with Joanna of Portugal, or anyone else.

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

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

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

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

New photo added of a sculptor of Richard on horse back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does anyone have any info on the previously mentioned Richard III portrait?

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

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

I have found another portait of Richard which
states it is owned by thee Society of Antiquaries.
Unfortunately it doesn't say where it is housed. I found it in
a book by Desmond Seward "The Wars of the Roses".
Eddie

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

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

I just looked at the photo you posted. The Arundel portrait, I believe, faces the other way. I am fairly certain that the portrait at Arundel is actually owned by the Duke of Norfolk.

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

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

Is the picture of Richard in the eyewitness book in the history section?

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

If you go to the Society web site and visit the 'Hot Topic' page, you will see a response to the article by Hicks<br><br>www.richardiii.net

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

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

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

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

Check out my Penman movie site:<br><br><a href=http://members.xoom.com/Revlongirl/cast.htm target=new>http://members.xoom.com/Revlongirl/cast.htm</a>

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

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

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

I still think Tom Cruise would have made a terrific older Richard! Go ahead ...scream at me

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

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

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

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

That's "effeminate," obviously.

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

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

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

I haven't actually read any of Penman's books but I thought I would have a look at your site anyway. I thought your suggestion of Steven Mackintosh as Tudor inspired!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have more details on this performance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been a "fan" of Richard III for quite a few years now... I live in Canberra, Australia and cannot locate A R3 society to join in my local area. Any clues?

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

Great! I'd appreciate that!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll dig up the book and see what i can find... It's somewhere in the deep recesses of my bookshelves (and I'm a book addict lol!)

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

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

Thanks for your thoughts Laura! I had speculated on something similar... but I was wondering about the absence or otherwise of rumours. <br><br>Heather<br>medieval_village@...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm you're brave to post about Shakespeare in a Richard III forum!!!

I suspect if it hadn't been for Shaky there would be no Richard 111 debate!

And judging by your user name you're even braver!

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

Tim has a point here Also I find richard a far more interesting character as a normal medieval prince than as a dashing white knight

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

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

I'm seeking opinions on why Richard had Hastings executed so quickly, or executed at all. I find this to be as much a mystery as the disappearance of the princes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not from the new King per se. From the Woodvilles, and especially from the Queen Mother, who would not have suffered Richard to live long.

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

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

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

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

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

Howl!!!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was said that Margaret Beauforts marriage to Stanley was in name only, she had vowed to remain celibate.

Could you say where you read this please? If it was a marriage of convenience, who for? It would be interesting to know. Thanks.

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

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

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

Thanks for that!

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

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

quite right aquaeus,<br>you are close to making
the salient point here!!<br>discussions of legitimacy
are irrelevant here!!<br>in the situation R111 was in
legitimacy didnt matter !!! survival did in terms of his
position if the woodvilles came to power under the young
king

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

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

...to us all! (Ricardians are contrarians in all sorts of ways...)

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

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

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

The last "minority" rule was Richard II wasn't it? And that hardly turned out well...

Henry VI was only 8 months old when his father Henry V died. Which is when the problems started, England was ruled by council and then later the Queens favourites.

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

Neither for Richard II himself nor for Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester (gulp!), the Lord Protector who lost his head upon Richard's majority!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes and look what happened to humphrey the previous duke of gloucester!!

Thank you all so much! I just ordered it online from Qualiton dist. here in New York. I cant wait! There is nothing more beautiful than 15th century music.

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

The dates are the 18th and 19th August and the Society will be at Bosworth on the 19th.

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

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

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

Is this a weekly thing or will you "post ahead" to let us know? Would love to learn in "real time".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have never even heard of "Royal Blood" (and there was me thinking I knew everything)! I don't suppose you can remember the author's name?? How recently was it written?

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

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

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

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

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

Due to the 'Foot and Mouth' crisis Bosworth
Battlefield and Middleham Castle are closed until further
notice. Updates will appear as I hear about them. I'll
check on other sites and update as and when.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

didn't mean to post that twice. i don't know what happened. <br>Crystal

Have you seen the video Al Pacino's "Looking For Richard"? Totally from the Shakespearian "guilty" side, but enlightening nonetheless.

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

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

Yes! such a wonderful film... so
(unintentionally) funny! I had the good fortune to see it with a
well informed audience, so I was not a lone voice
laughing at "Al" playing fast and lose with the
bard.<br>Lynda

The Battlefield is closed until the end of April, the situation will then be reviewed to see if it can re-open again.

Barnard Castle open<br>Berkhamsted Castle to open
1st April<br>Berwick Castle open<br>Clifford's Tower
open<br>Dartmouth Castle open<br>Eltham Palace open<br>Farnham
Castle Keep to open 1st April<br>Fountains Abbey
closed<br>Kenilworth Castle open<br>Mount Grace Priory
closed<br>Pickering Castle open<br>Richmond Castle open<br>Rievaulx
Abbey open <br>Scarborough Castle open<br>Warkworth
Castle open

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

A full list can be found at:-<br><br><a href=http://www.richardiii.net/topic.htm target=new>http://www.richardiii.net/topic.htm</a>

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, this is about where I reckon it stood too.

Sudeley Castle will be open from Saturday 31st March. <br>Opening times are 10.30 to 5.30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about the papal dispensation that Richard needed to marry Anne Neville? He never bothered to get one! What does that make his son?

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

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

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

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

It is also a fact that the "story" of Eleanor Butler came before, not after, Richard ascended the throne.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What everyone here refers to as Tudor propaganda was what Englishmen of the 15th century called public opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we all had the same views the world would be a really dull place. No newsgroups, no debates, no freedom of expression etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does anyone happen to know what type of armur Richard wore at Bosworth and if it was made in Germany? thanks, Lynda

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

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

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

Your main "argument" against the precontract seems to be the argument ipse dixit. Again, I personally see the suppression of Titulus Regis as far more suspicious than the document itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, make that Henry VII, not Henry VIII. <br><br>Follow the power. If you do so, Glouster stands acquitted, and Buckingham stands convicted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed what do you want -<br><br>Her bloodline was impressive - numerous Plantagenet descents aswell.

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

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

Lady Eleanor Talbot and Lady Eleanor Butler are one and the same - Talbot by birth Butler by marriage. Sister to the Duchess of Norfolk and therefore Aunt to Anne Mowbray aswell.

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

Right. Which explains why I confused the two :)!<br><br>Her precise relationship to the Carmelites is the subject of some debate. More on this later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But his dynastic claims were far superior to Tudor's, or to anyone else in a position to assert theirs!

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

Sorry for the double post.

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

It's called Yahooification. You will be able to see the messages at some point. At SOME point.

I am on the look out for paintings and etchings of Richard. If any of you out there know of a particularly nice or rare one please let me know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone posted the address of the Courtauld Institute in London, I wrote and requested a copy of the portrait of Richard that is in Arundel castle. Does anybody know the address?

If not, I could try to dig it up somewhere. It is a wonderful portrait of Richard.

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

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

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

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

He did however name him his heir? How could he do this without legally reversing the attainder? (Not doubting you, just wondering...)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for this post. When I read Aquaeus' correction i thought I was truly going mad lol!

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

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

Goody. I get to go back to my theory that she may have been barren *grin* This was most informative, thankyou!

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

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

In fact, with the Princes and Richard dead (not including Warwick), he was next in line to the throne.

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

Not in TR, but in More's work.

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

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

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