Richard of Shrewsbury .......

......... was born today 535 years ago. What is the present members'
concensus about when he died:
i) Some time in 1483 in the Tower, murdered.
ii) November 1499 at Tyburn.
iii) Quietly in the 1530s, having lived as a bricklayer.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> ......... was born today 535 years ago. What is the present members'
> concensus about when he died:
> i) Some time in 1483 in the Tower, murdered.
> ii) November 1499 at Tyburn.
> iii) Quietly in the 1530s, having lived as a bricklayer.
>

Stephen - easy peasy (ii)

p.s. his brother died at the battle of Stoke

Eileen

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > ......... was born today 535 years ago. What is the present members'
> > concensus about when he died:
> > i) Some time in 1483 in the Tower, murdered.
> > ii) November 1499 at Tyburn.
> > iii) Quietly in the 1530s, having lived as a bricklayer.
> >
>
> Stephen - easy peasy (ii)
>
> p.s. his brother died at the battle of Stoke


I don't think so. I'm prepared to believe that Duke Richard was
executed as Perkin Warbeck, though I'm not convinced, but I don't
think Edward V was killed at Stoke. I don't think young Richard was,
either.


Katy

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> ......... was born today 535 years ago. What is the present members'
> concensus about when he died:
> i) Some time in 1483 in the Tower, murdered.
> ii) November 1499 at Tyburn.
> iii) Quietly in the 1530s, having lived as a bricklayer.


If I have to give an opinion, being congenitally undecided about most
things, I vote for (ii).

But not for Edward V dying at Stoke, or even being at Stoke.

Annette Carson has advised me of a book review website (link below) which is
mounting a Richard III week, staring tomorrow (18 August) and which will
include a review of Annette's recently published Richard III, the Maligned
King on Saturday 23 August.


<http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/coming-attractions-richard-iii
-week/>
http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/coming-attractions-richard-iii-
week/

Apologies to those of you have already knew about this - and also to those
of you who live in parts of the world where Annette's book is not (yet ?)
available!


Carole M. Rike
Word Catering, Ltd.
PRINTING SOLUTIONS
48299 Stafford Road . Tickfaw, LA 70466


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=10196/stime=1218998185/nc1=5008815/nc2=3848614/nc3=4025321>

Hi Stephen & All

<





......... was born today 535 years ago. What is the present members' concensus about when he died:
i) Some time in 1483 in the Tower, murdered.

ii) November 1499 at Tyburn.

iii) Quietly in the 1530s, having lived as a bricklayer.>

None of 'em! 


My fervent hope is a speculative iv) he ended up an anonymous middle-aged man in comfortable lodgings in Burgundy, reminiscing from time to time with those nice old codgers, Francis Lovell and the other Yorkist sympathisers, about life in Blighty!
;-)

Just concentrating on Francis Lovell for a minute, 'cos we know he drops in an out of view for a couple of years:

Think about it... All the writers seem OK with the notion that Margaret sheltered the Yorkist sympathisers.  This may well be true but Francis and the others had to be living *somewhere/somehow* that left a paper trail for his upkeep and whereabouts between the times when he was an outlaw with the gang at Furness Fell and Colchester after Bosworth and his entry on the Scottish safe passage warrant and his subsequent supposed death at Stoke.   But where is that paper trail now? 
Their bar bill and other records for all of their collective board,
lodgings and incidental purchases in Flanders are in an Archive, somewhere.  I'll bet my house
on it!  ;-)Regards, Lorraine

Carole wrote:
>
> Annette Carson has advised me of a website which is
> mounting a Richard III week, .....
> include a review of Annette's Richard III, the Maligned
> King.

Ann:

I took this to read on the plane last weekend. EXCELLENT. I especially
enjoyed the discussions of Edward IV's death and the Buck letter.

L.P.H.,

Ann

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> ......... was born today 535 years ago. What is the present members'
> concensus about when he died:
> i) Some time in 1483 in the Tower, murdered.
> ii) November 1499 at Tyburn.
> iii) Quietly in the 1530s, having lived as a bricklayer.
>
Carol responds:
Don't forget Jack Leslau theory's that he and his brother were members
of Thomas More's household, Edward dying in 1528 as Edward Guildford
and Richard still alive (at age 54) in that year as Dr. John Clement,
More's son-in-law. I don't pretend to understand Leslau's
interpretation of a (copy of) a Holbein painting as a rebus in which
Holbein "states" all this information for posterity.

http://www.holbeinartworks.org/bfourstmandtpitt.htm

I have a bit more faith in the Tyrrell family tradition that Richard
III's nephews were taken to Tyrrell's Gipping estate with the
knowledge and consent of their uncle. It makes sense to me that
Richard would want their whereabouts to be unknown to prevent
uprisings but would not have wanted them dead. That being the case,
Richard of Shrewsbury could well have been Perkin Warbeck, his older
brother having died of natural causes earlier. If they died in the
Tower, the only person with both motive and opportunity was
Buckingham, who may have conspired with the Bishop of Ely and Margaret
Beaufort from the beginning.

As for Richard Plantagenet, bricklayer, he may have been Richard III's
natural son, but, if so, why wasn't he acknowledged like Katherine and
John? Could he have been *George's* son?

The only thing I know is that we don't know what happened to Richard's
nephews, and I'm not about to take a firm stand on any of these options.

Carol, tentatively voting for ii

Carole Rike wrote:
> >
> > Annette Carson has advised me of a website which is mounting a
Richard III week, ..... include a review of Annette's Richard III, the
Maligned King.
>
Ann responded:

> I took this to read on the plane last weekend. EXCELLENT. I
especially enjoyed the discussions of Edward IV's death and the Buck
letter.

Carol adds:

Can you fill us in a bit, especially regarding the Buck letter? I
don't yet have access to Carson's book. I'm also curious, as I said
earlier, as to what she says with regard to the accusations of sorcery
against Elizabeth Woodville.

Carol, happy to hear about Richard III week and thanking Carole Rike
for the link

--- In , "Carol" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> >
> Ann responded:
>
> > I took this to read on the plane last weekend. EXCELLENT. I
> especially enjoyed the discussions of Edward IV's death and the Buck
> letter.
>
> Carol adds:
>
> Can you fill us in a bit, especially regarding the Buck letter? I
> don't yet have access to Carson's book.

Actually if we are filled in too much about this book (i.e. the best bits - like the Buck letter)
it will hardly be worth buying!!

Eileen


I'm also curious, as I said
> earlier, as to what she says with regard to the accusations of sorcery
> against Elizabeth Woodville.


>
> Carol, happy to hear about Richard III week and thanking Carole Rike
> for the link
>

Carol earlier:
> >
> > Can you fill us in a bit, especially regarding the Buck letter? I
> > don't yet have access to Carson's book.

Eileen responded:
> Actually if we are filled in too much about this book (i.e. the best
bits - like the Buck letter) it will hardly be worth buying!!


Carol again:
I don't want her to spoil the "best bits," of course, any more than I
would want spoilers in a book or movie review. But a few details or
short quotes to entice us (comparable to a book review or a teaser
trailer for a film) would be nice. The purpose of a review, after all,
is to create interest, not stifle it.

Carol, who wants to know whether the book is worth buying and finds
generalized praise inadequate to the purpose

Carol adds:

Can you fill us in a bit, especially regarding the Buck letter? I don't yet have access to Carson's book. I'm also curious, as I said earlier, as to what she says with regard to the accusations of sorcery against Elizabeth Woodville.

Ann again:

Carson thinks Buck did indeed see just the letter as described -- "my only joy and maker in this world" -- but that it referred to something other than any thought on Elizabeth's part to marry Richard. She tells us to what she thinks it did refer, and that the modern reader -- even in Buck's day -- might well have been confused by the medieval lack of punctuation.

Carson discusses the accusation of sorcery in Titulus Regius. She thinks it was non-trivial -- with everything else in Titulus Regius -- since various members of Parliament had the opportunity to examine Stillington and anyone else who supplied other information included in the act. Carson states what she thinks it meant or referred to, and points out that neither Elizabeth Woodville nor her relatives ever denied the claims made in the act.

L.P.H.,

Ann

I found this review of Richard III, The Maligned King online.
Essentially, the reviewer proclaims that she knows nothing about the
subject and couldn't care less, then proceeds to review the book.
Sort of.

For what it's worth:

http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/richard-iii-week-richard-iii-the-maligned-king-by-annette-carson/

or

http://tinyurl.com/69code

Katy

--- In , "oregonkaty"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> I found this review of Richard III, The Maligned King online.
> Essentially, the reviewer proclaims that she knows nothing about the
> subject and couldn't care less, then proceeds to review the book.
> Sort of.
>
> For what it's worth:
>
>
http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/richard-iii-week-richard-iii-the-maligned-king-by-annette-carson/
>
\

I received an email from Moira (no last name...don't reviewers usually
have one?) objecting to my post in this forum about her review of
Richard III, The Maligned King.

She points out that she didn't say she knew nothing about the subject
and didn't care, she said she had no position on the subject.

I stand corrected.

I also included the wrong link for the review. The long one is
correct. The Tiny URL takes you to an article on the comic strip For
Better or Worse ending its nearly-thirty year run of original material.

Katy

--- In , "oregonkaty"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "oregonkaty"
> <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > I found this review of Richard III, The Maligned King online.
> > Essentially, the reviewer proclaims that she knows nothing about the
> > subject and couldn't care less, then proceeds to review the book.
> > Sort of.
> >
> > For what it's worth:
> >
> >
>
http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/richard-iii-week-richard-iii-the-maligned-king-by-annette-carson/
> >
> \
>
> I received an email from Moira (no last name...don't reviewers usually
> have one?) objecting to my post in this forum about her review of
> Richard III, The Maligned King.
>
> She points out that she didn't say she knew nothing about the subject
> and didn't care, she said she had no position on the subject.
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> I also included the wrong link for the review. The long one is
> correct. The Tiny URL takes you to an article on the comic strip For
> Better or Worse ending its nearly-thirty year run of original material.
>
> Katy
>
Thank you, Katy. I appreciate the correction. If I said I'd never
mis-read or misunderstood someone else's post, it would be a
bare-faced untruth.

I do, indeed, stand bravely (!) in neutral territory when it comes to
Richard ... but I'm fascinated by the war that rages around him.

I'd thoroughly recommend Annette Carson's book to anyone interested in
the subject.

Regards,

Moira (Briggs!)
Vulpes Libris

I can second the recommendation below.
I have finally finished 'The Maligned King' (yeah, I know, I'm a slow
learner). I'll try to explain what it's worth buying for without
giving anything away. Basically, it takes the following themes, and
seeks to analyse the known facts: -
Edward IV's death (natural causes or poison?);
The plots of the protectorate;
The precontract;
Richard's assumption of the throne;
The legal implication of the reference to possible witchcraft by the
Woodvilles in bringing about Elizabeth's marriage to Edward IV, with
a very useful and sound summary of contemporary English ideas about
the use of witchcraft;
The origins of the plots that turned into Buckingham's Rebellion;
The Disappearance of the Princes;
The Bones;
Buckingham's Rebellion itself;
Tudor's evolving position in 1484, and what is implied by Elizabeth
Woodville's accord with Richard;
The rumours that Richard was poisoning his Queen to marry his niece;
Tudor behaviour, particularly as contrasted with Richard's.

She relies on published sources, but many of these are articles and
since it's so long since the last biography of Richard most people
will find material that is either new to them or they have forgotten
since first reading it in some dry paper. Her analysis is interesting
and mostly extremely insightful. What she does is to gather together
most of the things that are known, summarise them, put them in date
order and work out the implications.

Now, on the down side: I don't agree with every one of her arguments,
and there are one or two pertinent facts she has overlooked. For my
taste she also makes too much use of later 'histories', albeit after
having warned the reader of their pitfalls. But that is perhaps
nitpicking. It would be impossible for anyone to write a book that
pleased everybody all the time (or indeed any one person at all
points).
All in all, though, I would suggest this is essential reading for
anybody wishing to get to grips with the controversies of Richard's
kingship.
And it's a damn good read.

Now, if anyone buys it on the strength of this and doesn't like it,
it is no good coming to me for a refund; I'm skint.

Marie





--- In , "vulpeslibris"
<vulpeslibris@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "oregonkaty"
> <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "oregonkaty"
> > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I found this review of Richard III, The Maligned King online.
> > > Essentially, the reviewer proclaims that she knows nothing
about the
> > > subject and couldn't care less, then proceeds to review the
book.
> > > Sort of.
> > >
> > > For what it's worth:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/richard-iii-week-
richard-iii-the-maligned-king-by-annette-carson/
> > >
> > \
> >
> > I received an email from Moira (no last name...don't reviewers
usually
> > have one?) objecting to my post in this forum about her review of
> > Richard III, The Maligned King.
> >
> > She points out that she didn't say she knew nothing about the
subject
> > and didn't care, she said she had no position on the subject.
> >
> > I stand corrected.
> >
> > I also included the wrong link for the review. The long one is
> > correct. The Tiny URL takes you to an article on the comic strip
For
> > Better or Worse ending its nearly-thirty year run of original
material.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> Thank you, Katy. I appreciate the correction. If I said I'd never
> mis-read or misunderstood someone else's post, it would be a
> bare-faced untruth.
>
> I do, indeed, stand bravely (!) in neutral territory when it comes
to
> Richard ... but I'm fascinated by the war that rages around him.
>
> I'd thoroughly recommend Annette Carson's book to anyone interested
in
> the subject.
>
> Regards,
>
> Moira (Briggs!)
> Vulpes Libris
>