Richard III the maligned king
Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-18 21:31:42
Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
warm regards,
robin mcalister
warm regards,
robin mcalister
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-19 00:49:01
Hello Robin,
I think Margaret Beaufort was a formidable person. I wish she'd been on Richard's side. I doubt if Henry Tudor could have defeated Richard without her.
Buckingham is a puzzle to me. I've read as much as I can find about him. But I still don't understand why he switched sides after Richard had given him so much power and his share of the Bohun inheritance.
I'd also like to hear others' opinions.
Marion
--- In , "rlmcalister77" <rlmcalister77@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
> warm regards,
> robin mcalister
>
I think Margaret Beaufort was a formidable person. I wish she'd been on Richard's side. I doubt if Henry Tudor could have defeated Richard without her.
Buckingham is a puzzle to me. I've read as much as I can find about him. But I still don't understand why he switched sides after Richard had given him so much power and his share of the Bohun inheritance.
I'd also like to hear others' opinions.
Marion
--- In , "rlmcalister77" <rlmcalister77@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
> warm regards,
> robin mcalister
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-19 03:51:17
Hi Marion,
that is something that has always puzzled me about buckingham...he was
the most powerful man in the kingdom under Richard III..I wonder if he
thought he was trying for the crown itself and was using Beaufort/Tudor
as a stepping stone..Almost everything you read about him is his
arrogance and he was distant from the court of Edward IV...where he
should have had alot of power and influence...
warm regards,
robin
--- In , "phaecilia"
<phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Robin,
>
> I think Margaret Beaufort was a formidable person. I wish she'd been
on Richard's side. I doubt if Henry Tudor could have defeated Richard
without her.
>
> Buckingham is a puzzle to me. I've read as much as I can find about
him. But I still don't understand why he switched sides after Richard
had given him so much power and his share of the Bohun inheritance.
>
> I'd also like to hear others' opinions.
>
> Marion
>
> --- In , "rlmcalister77"
rlmcalister77@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have
been away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have
read Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also
Weir's book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I
always wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or
Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
> > warm regards,
> > robin mcalister
> >
>
that is something that has always puzzled me about buckingham...he was
the most powerful man in the kingdom under Richard III..I wonder if he
thought he was trying for the crown itself and was using Beaufort/Tudor
as a stepping stone..Almost everything you read about him is his
arrogance and he was distant from the court of Edward IV...where he
should have had alot of power and influence...
warm regards,
robin
--- In , "phaecilia"
<phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Robin,
>
> I think Margaret Beaufort was a formidable person. I wish she'd been
on Richard's side. I doubt if Henry Tudor could have defeated Richard
without her.
>
> Buckingham is a puzzle to me. I've read as much as I can find about
him. But I still don't understand why he switched sides after Richard
had given him so much power and his share of the Bohun inheritance.
>
> I'd also like to hear others' opinions.
>
> Marion
>
> --- In , "rlmcalister77"
rlmcalister77@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have
been away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have
read Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also
Weir's book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I
always wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or
Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
> > warm regards,
> > robin mcalister
> >
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-19 05:24:57
--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Buckingham is a puzzle to me. I've read as much as I can find about him. But I still don't understand why he switched sides after Richard had given him so much power and his share of the Bohun inheritance.
I think Buckingham is a puzzle to everyone. At least I've never read a convincing explanation for his fateful actions. As with Clarence's behavior, there are missing pieces in the puzzle. I'm sure both men acted on reasons that seemed good to them -- matters of life and death, as a matter of fact -- but which seem inexplicable to us. Maybe eventually information will turn up, even after all thee centuries.
Perhaps Stephen will agree that the Staffords were an impulsive bunch, from Buckingham's great-grandfather, Edmund Stafford, who led the charge that got his men mired down in a bog at the Battle of Shrewsbury, to Buckingham's descendants who came up against the Crown in various, often fatal, ways.
Still, something spurred Buckingham into his ill-conceived, ill-planned, and fatal rebellion against Richard III, under whom he had enjoyed great success and privilege. Obviously it was something profound. Wish we knew what it was.
Katy
>
> Buckingham is a puzzle to me. I've read as much as I can find about him. But I still don't understand why he switched sides after Richard had given him so much power and his share of the Bohun inheritance.
I think Buckingham is a puzzle to everyone. At least I've never read a convincing explanation for his fateful actions. As with Clarence's behavior, there are missing pieces in the puzzle. I'm sure both men acted on reasons that seemed good to them -- matters of life and death, as a matter of fact -- but which seem inexplicable to us. Maybe eventually information will turn up, even after all thee centuries.
Perhaps Stephen will agree that the Staffords were an impulsive bunch, from Buckingham's great-grandfather, Edmund Stafford, who led the charge that got his men mired down in a bog at the Battle of Shrewsbury, to Buckingham's descendants who came up against the Crown in various, often fatal, ways.
Still, something spurred Buckingham into his ill-conceived, ill-planned, and fatal rebellion against Richard III, under whom he had enjoyed great success and privilege. Obviously it was something profound. Wish we knew what it was.
Katy
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-19 08:41:07
--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@> wrote:
>
> >
> > Buckingham is a puzzle to me. I've read as much as I can find about him. But I still don't understand why he switched sides after Richard had given him so much power and his share of the Bohun inheritance.
>
>
> I think Buckingham is a puzzle to everyone. At least I've never read a convincing explanation for his fateful actions. As with Clarence's behavior, there are missing pieces in the puzzle. I'm sure both men acted on reasons that seemed good to them -- matters of life and death, as a matter of fact -- but which seem inexplicable to us. Maybe eventually information will turn up, even after all thee centuries.
>
> Perhaps Stephen will agree that the Staffords were an impulsive bunch, from Buckingham's great-grandfather, Edmund Stafford, who led the charge that got his men mired down in a bog at the Battle of Shrewsbury, to Buckingham's descendants who came up against the Crown in various, often fatal, ways.
>
> Still, something spurred Buckingham into his ill-conceived, ill-planned, and fatal rebellion against Richard III, under whom he had enjoyed great success and privilege. Obviously it was something profound. Wish we knew what it was.
>
> Katy
>
I can endorse that and it didn't end in 1483!
>
> --- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@> wrote:
>
> >
> > Buckingham is a puzzle to me. I've read as much as I can find about him. But I still don't understand why he switched sides after Richard had given him so much power and his share of the Bohun inheritance.
>
>
> I think Buckingham is a puzzle to everyone. At least I've never read a convincing explanation for his fateful actions. As with Clarence's behavior, there are missing pieces in the puzzle. I'm sure both men acted on reasons that seemed good to them -- matters of life and death, as a matter of fact -- but which seem inexplicable to us. Maybe eventually information will turn up, even after all thee centuries.
>
> Perhaps Stephen will agree that the Staffords were an impulsive bunch, from Buckingham's great-grandfather, Edmund Stafford, who led the charge that got his men mired down in a bog at the Battle of Shrewsbury, to Buckingham's descendants who came up against the Crown in various, often fatal, ways.
>
> Still, something spurred Buckingham into his ill-conceived, ill-planned, and fatal rebellion against Richard III, under whom he had enjoyed great success and privilege. Obviously it was something profound. Wish we knew what it was.
>
> Katy
>
I can endorse that and it didn't end in 1483!
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-19 18:13:17
margaret was always a lancasterian, from birth. she would have never publically supported the yorks, unless it was to promote her own best interest. with the continuing wars for the throne, she knew her and her issue were slowly becoming the top candidates to inherit the throne, if only they could somehow get past the legalities barring the beaufort line from inheriting. conquest in 1485 provided that opportunity.
to understand buckingham, you have to get past the red herrings.
buckingham knew he too had a very strong claim to the throne. he liked using his social alliances, and e4 saw that, and never trusted him. buckingham was simply e4's henchman. a man who would gladly do his overlord's dirty work in hopes of big prizes.
when e4 died, it was buckingham who scurried to his cousin richard's side. he had the dirt on the woodville marriage. he knew what george had said in the "mock trial" that condemned george to death. buckingham was greedy and unscrupulous.
he pushed and prodded richard to do away with princes. and when given the opportunity, buckingham did so with or without richard's overt consent and knowledge. personally, i believe the evidence is, is that richard trusted buckingham with the boys, and that trust was betrayed.
the boys were also a buffer zone for richard. buckingham would have to have the boys eliminated to move closer to claiming the throne. so, buckingham took care of business. meanwhile he kept currying favour with richard. up steps margaret beaufort and does a bit more agitating. we are led to believe that buckingham asked tudor to come to england and to claim the throne from the bad ole richard who killed children.
what a great way to erode support for the newly crowned king, accuse him of such a dastardly deed. a deed buckingham was responsible for. margaret encouraged buckingham at taking down richard and the yorkists. she and her own family would most surely benefit.
tudor had no battle experience, but his protector and uncle jasper did. jasper went on to marry buckingham's widow, and sister to elizabeth woodville. but, i digress. it would work well for margaret that buckingham led a rebellion. her son and his battle experienced uncle could arrive by ship, and wait to see how "things" were going. if buckingham had been more successful, i doubt if all the gale force winds in the world would have stopped tudor from coming ashore to join in the frey.
but, as buckingham was defeated by climate and lack of troop loyalty. tudor sailed back to france.
the goal of buckingham's rebellion was to put buckingham on the throne. margaret and her son would happily wait in the background for their turn to strike. buckingham's rebellion set the stage for tudor to come to england 2 years later.
the beaufort claimants didn't care which of the other 2 claimants to the throne died during the rebellion. it was just one less they'd have to do in the future. if the fates had been with the beauforts both richard and buckingham would die.
basically, buckingham got out devioused by the beaufort/tudor clan. but, then henry was hanging out with the universal spider, louis. an awesome mentor on double dealing for a royal in waiting. this was the era that provided the information for machavelli to pen the prince. well worth the read if you want to understand how these powerful people functioned.
beaufort/tudor knew how to hold their friends near, and their enemies closer. buckingham was never really good at it. he could make the contacts, but didn't have the diplomacy, nor the patience to wait and plan for his glory. he was haphazard, rash and greedy.
the beauforts knew this..and they played him. because even if he had elminated richard and took the crown, it would be too long before buckingham had alienated the peers of the realm. rebellion would have been soon coming. maggie and hank could proudly step forward as the dynamic duo who would return england to the idyllic days of lancaster before the yorkists said..hey! that king is nuts and his foreign queen rules us.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 5/18/09, phaecilia <phaecilia@...> wrote:
From: phaecilia <phaecilia@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III the maligned king
To:
Received: Monday, May 18, 2009, 7:48 PM
Hello Robin,
I think Margaret Beaufort was a formidable person. I wish she'd been on Richard's side. I doubt if Henry Tudor could have defeated Richard without her.
Buckingham is a puzzle to me. I've read as much as I can find about him. But I still don't understand why he switched sides after Richard had given him so much power and his share of the Bohun inheritance.
I'd also like to hear others' opinions.
Marion
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "rlmcalister77" <rlmcalister77@ ...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or Buckingham.. what does anyone else think?
> warm regards,
> robin mcalister
>
to understand buckingham, you have to get past the red herrings.
buckingham knew he too had a very strong claim to the throne. he liked using his social alliances, and e4 saw that, and never trusted him. buckingham was simply e4's henchman. a man who would gladly do his overlord's dirty work in hopes of big prizes.
when e4 died, it was buckingham who scurried to his cousin richard's side. he had the dirt on the woodville marriage. he knew what george had said in the "mock trial" that condemned george to death. buckingham was greedy and unscrupulous.
he pushed and prodded richard to do away with princes. and when given the opportunity, buckingham did so with or without richard's overt consent and knowledge. personally, i believe the evidence is, is that richard trusted buckingham with the boys, and that trust was betrayed.
the boys were also a buffer zone for richard. buckingham would have to have the boys eliminated to move closer to claiming the throne. so, buckingham took care of business. meanwhile he kept currying favour with richard. up steps margaret beaufort and does a bit more agitating. we are led to believe that buckingham asked tudor to come to england and to claim the throne from the bad ole richard who killed children.
what a great way to erode support for the newly crowned king, accuse him of such a dastardly deed. a deed buckingham was responsible for. margaret encouraged buckingham at taking down richard and the yorkists. she and her own family would most surely benefit.
tudor had no battle experience, but his protector and uncle jasper did. jasper went on to marry buckingham's widow, and sister to elizabeth woodville. but, i digress. it would work well for margaret that buckingham led a rebellion. her son and his battle experienced uncle could arrive by ship, and wait to see how "things" were going. if buckingham had been more successful, i doubt if all the gale force winds in the world would have stopped tudor from coming ashore to join in the frey.
but, as buckingham was defeated by climate and lack of troop loyalty. tudor sailed back to france.
the goal of buckingham's rebellion was to put buckingham on the throne. margaret and her son would happily wait in the background for their turn to strike. buckingham's rebellion set the stage for tudor to come to england 2 years later.
the beaufort claimants didn't care which of the other 2 claimants to the throne died during the rebellion. it was just one less they'd have to do in the future. if the fates had been with the beauforts both richard and buckingham would die.
basically, buckingham got out devioused by the beaufort/tudor clan. but, then henry was hanging out with the universal spider, louis. an awesome mentor on double dealing for a royal in waiting. this was the era that provided the information for machavelli to pen the prince. well worth the read if you want to understand how these powerful people functioned.
beaufort/tudor knew how to hold their friends near, and their enemies closer. buckingham was never really good at it. he could make the contacts, but didn't have the diplomacy, nor the patience to wait and plan for his glory. he was haphazard, rash and greedy.
the beauforts knew this..and they played him. because even if he had elminated richard and took the crown, it would be too long before buckingham had alienated the peers of the realm. rebellion would have been soon coming. maggie and hank could proudly step forward as the dynamic duo who would return england to the idyllic days of lancaster before the yorkists said..hey! that king is nuts and his foreign queen rules us.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 5/18/09, phaecilia <phaecilia@...> wrote:
From: phaecilia <phaecilia@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III the maligned king
To:
Received: Monday, May 18, 2009, 7:48 PM
Hello Robin,
I think Margaret Beaufort was a formidable person. I wish she'd been on Richard's side. I doubt if Henry Tudor could have defeated Richard without her.
Buckingham is a puzzle to me. I've read as much as I can find about him. But I still don't understand why he switched sides after Richard had given him so much power and his share of the Bohun inheritance.
I'd also like to hear others' opinions.
Marion
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "rlmcalister77" <rlmcalister77@ ...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or Buckingham.. what does anyone else think?
> warm regards,
> robin mcalister
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-19 19:21:14
Hi, Robin - When you use the word 'guilty' do you mean 'of murdering the
princes in the Tower'? But nobody knows whether the princes were
murdered or not. Nobody knows that 'Perkin Warbeck' wasn't Richard of
York! I'd rather start with an open mind and try to construct a case
from what little evidence exists, otherwise we're in the world of pure
speculation, and if we're speculating we can't complain when Alison Weir
does too ....
When looking at the question of the alleged murder, you first have to
establish when it happened, and where, and how. I think we can agree
from Henry VII's behaviour that he was totally unable to ascertain the
truth about the fate of the princes, and we can agree equally that he
must have put some high-powered minds to work on it and offered some
serious rewards. If the princes had suddenly gone missing one night at
the Tower, with its hundreds of residents and enormous daily supply
chain, SOME people would have noticed and there would have been tongues
wagging merrily next morning. Instead we have a mystery. OK, they could
have been silenced in 1483 if the murderer's agents bought them off, but
after August 1485 there was profit to be gained from telling the new
regime all they knew. So why did it take Henry 17 years to come up with
a story placing the blame on Richard III?
I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved to
a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
normal fashion. No secret burials at midnight, and no chests of clothes
and books and playthings left behind for people to wonder over the next
morning (unless we think all their belongings were secretly buried with
their murdered bodies ....).
Anyway, that's the point I started from when I came to grapple with the
fate of Edward and Richard - WHY did it remain a mystery? WHY didn't
anyone at the Tower know anything, and WHY was Henry Tudor floundering
in the dark?
Regards, Annette
--- In , "rlmcalister77"
<rlmcalister77@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been
away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read
Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's
book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always
wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or
Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
> warm regards,
> robin mcalister
>
princes in the Tower'? But nobody knows whether the princes were
murdered or not. Nobody knows that 'Perkin Warbeck' wasn't Richard of
York! I'd rather start with an open mind and try to construct a case
from what little evidence exists, otherwise we're in the world of pure
speculation, and if we're speculating we can't complain when Alison Weir
does too ....
When looking at the question of the alleged murder, you first have to
establish when it happened, and where, and how. I think we can agree
from Henry VII's behaviour that he was totally unable to ascertain the
truth about the fate of the princes, and we can agree equally that he
must have put some high-powered minds to work on it and offered some
serious rewards. If the princes had suddenly gone missing one night at
the Tower, with its hundreds of residents and enormous daily supply
chain, SOME people would have noticed and there would have been tongues
wagging merrily next morning. Instead we have a mystery. OK, they could
have been silenced in 1483 if the murderer's agents bought them off, but
after August 1485 there was profit to be gained from telling the new
regime all they knew. So why did it take Henry 17 years to come up with
a story placing the blame on Richard III?
I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved to
a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
normal fashion. No secret burials at midnight, and no chests of clothes
and books and playthings left behind for people to wonder over the next
morning (unless we think all their belongings were secretly buried with
their murdered bodies ....).
Anyway, that's the point I started from when I came to grapple with the
fate of Edward and Richard - WHY did it remain a mystery? WHY didn't
anyone at the Tower know anything, and WHY was Henry Tudor floundering
in the dark?
Regards, Annette
--- In , "rlmcalister77"
<rlmcalister77@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been
away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read
Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's
book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always
wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or
Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
> warm regards,
> robin mcalister
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-19 19:49:22
I've been leaning toward the Princes' transportation ever since reading that William Stanley (foolishly and fatally) stated that, if Perkin Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he wouldn't stand in his way. My feeling is that if a Stanley family member, who made it his business to be certain about almost anything, wasn't sure if young Richard had been killed, then *no one* could be.
My understanding of Buckingham's pre-1483 life is that he didn't really have much to do at all, that he was more or less pushed to the side of things, and that this rankled. The push to Richard might have been motivated by a perceived chance to become a force that he hadn't been before and likely felt he deserved. The question is why Richard accepted him to the extent of loading him with *so many* honors; when I wrote my play, I found my motivation(s) in Buckingham's decision to steer Richard's trust away from Hastings by implying indirect participation in leading Edward to his death (by over-indulgence), and things snowballing from there to the point of catastrophe in the beheading of Hastings. I then capitalized on More's conference between Morton and Buckingham and headed it in the direction of Morton having deduced how and why Buckingham went up and Hastings plummeted, and that his threats to undermine Buckingham's position with Richard by using that knowledge sort of dragged Buckingham into the rebellion. Morton, for me, is a major driving force behind the events of 1483, as he was also a loyal Lancastrian, served Edward out of survivor instinct, I think, and, I believe, always felt Edward IV to have been a usurper, and that Morton wouldn't have felt any obligation to be loyal to Edward's heirs. My guess is that he was angling things away from Edward V from extremely early on, and worked with Margaret B.
Rushed from work,
Maria
elena@...
-----Original Message-----
>From: "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...>
>Sent: May 19, 2009 2:20 PM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Richard III the maligned king
>
>
>Hi, Robin - When you use the word 'guilty' do you mean 'of murdering the
>princes in the Tower'? But nobody knows whether the princes were
>murdered or not. Nobody knows that 'Perkin Warbeck' wasn't Richard of
>York! I'd rather start with an open mind and try to construct a case
>from what little evidence exists, otherwise we're in the world of pure
>speculation, and if we're speculating we can't complain when Alison Weir
>does too ....
>
>When looking at the question of the alleged murder, you first have to
>establish when it happened, and where, and how. I think we can agree
>from Henry VII's behaviour that he was totally unable to ascertain the
>truth about the fate of the princes, and we can agree equally that he
>must have put some high-powered minds to work on it and offered some
>serious rewards. If the princes had suddenly gone missing one night at
>the Tower, with its hundreds of residents and enormous daily supply
>chain, SOME people would have noticed and there would have been tongues
>wagging merrily next morning. Instead we have a mystery. OK, they could
>have been silenced in 1483 if the murderer's agents bought them off, but
>after August 1485 there was profit to be gained from telling the new
>regime all they knew. So why did it take Henry 17 years to come up with
>a story placing the blame on Richard III?
>
>I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved to
>a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
>would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
>naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
>place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
>belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
>normal fashion. No secret burials at midnight, and no chests of clothes
>and books and playthings left behind for people to wonder over the next
>morning (unless we think all their belongings were secretly buried with
>their murdered bodies ....).
>
>Anyway, that's the point I started from when I came to grapple with the
>fate of Edward and Richard - WHY did it remain a mystery? WHY didn't
>anyone at the Tower know anything, and WHY was Henry Tudor floundering
>in the dark?
>
>Regards, Annette
>
>
>--- In , "rlmcalister77"
><rlmcalister77@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been
>away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read
>Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's
>book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always
>wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or
>Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
>> warm regards,
>> robin mcalister
>>
>
>
>
>
My understanding of Buckingham's pre-1483 life is that he didn't really have much to do at all, that he was more or less pushed to the side of things, and that this rankled. The push to Richard might have been motivated by a perceived chance to become a force that he hadn't been before and likely felt he deserved. The question is why Richard accepted him to the extent of loading him with *so many* honors; when I wrote my play, I found my motivation(s) in Buckingham's decision to steer Richard's trust away from Hastings by implying indirect participation in leading Edward to his death (by over-indulgence), and things snowballing from there to the point of catastrophe in the beheading of Hastings. I then capitalized on More's conference between Morton and Buckingham and headed it in the direction of Morton having deduced how and why Buckingham went up and Hastings plummeted, and that his threats to undermine Buckingham's position with Richard by using that knowledge sort of dragged Buckingham into the rebellion. Morton, for me, is a major driving force behind the events of 1483, as he was also a loyal Lancastrian, served Edward out of survivor instinct, I think, and, I believe, always felt Edward IV to have been a usurper, and that Morton wouldn't have felt any obligation to be loyal to Edward's heirs. My guess is that he was angling things away from Edward V from extremely early on, and worked with Margaret B.
Rushed from work,
Maria
elena@...
-----Original Message-----
>From: "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...>
>Sent: May 19, 2009 2:20 PM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Richard III the maligned king
>
>
>Hi, Robin - When you use the word 'guilty' do you mean 'of murdering the
>princes in the Tower'? But nobody knows whether the princes were
>murdered or not. Nobody knows that 'Perkin Warbeck' wasn't Richard of
>York! I'd rather start with an open mind and try to construct a case
>from what little evidence exists, otherwise we're in the world of pure
>speculation, and if we're speculating we can't complain when Alison Weir
>does too ....
>
>When looking at the question of the alleged murder, you first have to
>establish when it happened, and where, and how. I think we can agree
>from Henry VII's behaviour that he was totally unable to ascertain the
>truth about the fate of the princes, and we can agree equally that he
>must have put some high-powered minds to work on it and offered some
>serious rewards. If the princes had suddenly gone missing one night at
>the Tower, with its hundreds of residents and enormous daily supply
>chain, SOME people would have noticed and there would have been tongues
>wagging merrily next morning. Instead we have a mystery. OK, they could
>have been silenced in 1483 if the murderer's agents bought them off, but
>after August 1485 there was profit to be gained from telling the new
>regime all they knew. So why did it take Henry 17 years to come up with
>a story placing the blame on Richard III?
>
>I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved to
>a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
>would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
>naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
>place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
>belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
>normal fashion. No secret burials at midnight, and no chests of clothes
>and books and playthings left behind for people to wonder over the next
>morning (unless we think all their belongings were secretly buried with
>their murdered bodies ....).
>
>Anyway, that's the point I started from when I came to grapple with the
>fate of Edward and Richard - WHY did it remain a mystery? WHY didn't
>anyone at the Tower know anything, and WHY was Henry Tudor floundering
>in the dark?
>
>Regards, Annette
>
>
>--- In , "rlmcalister77"
><rlmcalister77@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been
>away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read
>Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's
>book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always
>wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or
>Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
>> warm regards,
>> robin mcalister
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-19 20:17:13
--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi, Robin - When you use the word 'guilty' do you mean 'of murdering the
> princes in the Tower'? But nobody knows whether the princes were
> murdered or not. Nobody knows that 'Perkin Warbeck' wasn't Richard of
> York!
Annette
Elizabeth Woodville's behaviour is very strange if it was the case that the princes had been murdered. Richard must have told her what had happened to them one way or the other to encourage her,along with her daughters,to come out of Sanctuary. It is a bit beyond belief that she would have let her daughters dance at the Christmas revels, where Elizabeth of York was presented with beautiful clothes that were the same cut and style as Queen Annes....or that she would have encouraged her son Dorset to abandon Henry Weasle and return home....if she had thought that Richard was behind the death of her sons.
Even after Bosworth, when it was safe to say so she did not let it be known loud and clear that Richard had murdered them. No ....she went to her grave silent on that matter. Of course if she was in possession of the facts and knew that one/both of her sons was still alive she would have had no option that to keep her mouth shut.
But the most tellingly of all she supported Lambert Simnell.....even though her daughter was Queen and would have been chucked off the throne if this rebellion had been successful.....this tells me that she did know for sure that at least one of her sons was alive and kicking. Soon after this she was despatched to Bermondsey Abbey where when she died there at a later date according to her Will she was practically penniless.
Robin .....besides Annette's book which if you have not read already you must I can thoroughly recommend Royal Blood by Bertram Fields....another excellent book.
eileen
I'd rather start with an open mind and try to construct a case
> from what little evidence exists, otherwise we're in the world of pure
> speculation, and if we're speculating we can't complain when Alison Weir
> does too ....
>
> When looking at the question of the alleged murder, you first have to
> establish when it happened, and where, and how. I think we can agree
> from Henry VII's behaviour that he was totally unable to ascertain the
> truth about the fate of the princes, and we can agree equally that he
> must have put some high-powered minds to work on it and offered some
> serious rewards. If the princes had suddenly gone missing one night at
> the Tower, with its hundreds of residents and enormous daily supply
> chain, SOME people would have noticed and there would have been tongues
> wagging merrily next morning. Instead we have a mystery. OK, they could
> have been silenced in 1483 if the murderer's agents bought them off, but
> after August 1485 there was profit to be gained from telling the new
> regime all they knew. So why did it take Henry 17 years to come up with
> a story placing the blame on Richard III?
>
> I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved to
> a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
> would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
> place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> normal fashion. No secret burials at midnight, and no chests of clothes
> and books and playthings left behind for people to wonder over the next
> morning (unless we think all their belongings were secretly buried with
> their murdered bodies ....).
>
> Anyway, that's the point I started from when I came to grapple with the
> fate of Edward and Richard - WHY did it remain a mystery? WHY didn't
> anyone at the Tower know anything, and WHY was Henry Tudor floundering
> in the dark?
>
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> --- In , "rlmcalister77"
> <rlmcalister77@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been
> away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read
> Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's
> book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always
> wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or
> Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
> > warm regards,
> > robin mcalister
> >
>
>
>
> Hi, Robin - When you use the word 'guilty' do you mean 'of murdering the
> princes in the Tower'? But nobody knows whether the princes were
> murdered or not. Nobody knows that 'Perkin Warbeck' wasn't Richard of
> York!
Annette
Elizabeth Woodville's behaviour is very strange if it was the case that the princes had been murdered. Richard must have told her what had happened to them one way or the other to encourage her,along with her daughters,to come out of Sanctuary. It is a bit beyond belief that she would have let her daughters dance at the Christmas revels, where Elizabeth of York was presented with beautiful clothes that were the same cut and style as Queen Annes....or that she would have encouraged her son Dorset to abandon Henry Weasle and return home....if she had thought that Richard was behind the death of her sons.
Even after Bosworth, when it was safe to say so she did not let it be known loud and clear that Richard had murdered them. No ....she went to her grave silent on that matter. Of course if she was in possession of the facts and knew that one/both of her sons was still alive she would have had no option that to keep her mouth shut.
But the most tellingly of all she supported Lambert Simnell.....even though her daughter was Queen and would have been chucked off the throne if this rebellion had been successful.....this tells me that she did know for sure that at least one of her sons was alive and kicking. Soon after this she was despatched to Bermondsey Abbey where when she died there at a later date according to her Will she was practically penniless.
Robin .....besides Annette's book which if you have not read already you must I can thoroughly recommend Royal Blood by Bertram Fields....another excellent book.
eileen
I'd rather start with an open mind and try to construct a case
> from what little evidence exists, otherwise we're in the world of pure
> speculation, and if we're speculating we can't complain when Alison Weir
> does too ....
>
> When looking at the question of the alleged murder, you first have to
> establish when it happened, and where, and how. I think we can agree
> from Henry VII's behaviour that he was totally unable to ascertain the
> truth about the fate of the princes, and we can agree equally that he
> must have put some high-powered minds to work on it and offered some
> serious rewards. If the princes had suddenly gone missing one night at
> the Tower, with its hundreds of residents and enormous daily supply
> chain, SOME people would have noticed and there would have been tongues
> wagging merrily next morning. Instead we have a mystery. OK, they could
> have been silenced in 1483 if the murderer's agents bought them off, but
> after August 1485 there was profit to be gained from telling the new
> regime all they knew. So why did it take Henry 17 years to come up with
> a story placing the blame on Richard III?
>
> I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved to
> a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
> would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
> place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> normal fashion. No secret burials at midnight, and no chests of clothes
> and books and playthings left behind for people to wonder over the next
> morning (unless we think all their belongings were secretly buried with
> their murdered bodies ....).
>
> Anyway, that's the point I started from when I came to grapple with the
> fate of Edward and Richard - WHY did it remain a mystery? WHY didn't
> anyone at the Tower know anything, and WHY was Henry Tudor floundering
> in the dark?
>
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> --- In , "rlmcalister77"
> <rlmcalister77@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been
> away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read
> Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's
> book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always
> wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or
> Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
> > warm regards,
> > robin mcalister
> >
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-19 20:29:17
--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> I've been leaning toward the Princes' transportation ever since reading that William Stanley (foolishly and fatally) stated that, if Perkin Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he wouldn't stand in his way. My feeling is that if a Stanley family member, who made it his business to be certain about almost anything, wasn't sure if young Richard had been killed, then *no one* could be.
Maria
Im thinking on those lines too Maria. I wonder if taking the Princes overseas was the Kings"great business" that Tyrell was well rewarded for. Im sure Margaret would have provided a safe haven for them in Burgundy.
>
> My understanding of Buckingham's pre-1483 life is that he didn't really have much to do at all, that he was more or less pushed to the side of things, and that this rankled. The push to Richard might have been motivated by a perceived chance to become a force that he hadn't been before and likely felt he deserved. The question is why Richard accepted him to the extent of loading him with *so many* honors;
I agree with you on this one too Maria. I think one of Richard's failings would seem to be, prima facie, that he sometimes misjudged people and put too much faith in them. Combined with being too lenient with others and letting them off scott free to plot against him (Margaret Beaufort) a fatal combination.
eileen
when I wrote my play, I found my motivation(s) in Buckingham's decision to steer Richard's trust away from Hastings by implying indirect participation in leading Edward to his death (by over-indulgence), and things snowballing from there to the point of catastrophe in the beheading of Hastings. I then capitalized on More's conference between Morton and Buckingham and headed it in the direction of Morton having deduced how and why Buckingham went up and Hastings plummeted, and that his threats to undermine Buckingham's position with Richard by using that knowledge sort of dragged Buckingham into the rebellion. Morton, for me, is a major driving force behind the events of 1483, as he was also a loyal Lancastrian, served Edward out of survivor instinct, I think, and, I believe, always felt Edward IV to have been a usurper, and that Morton wouldn't have felt any obligation to be loyal to Edward's heirs. My guess is that he was angling things away from Edward V from extremely early on, and worked with Margaret B.
>
> Rushed from work,
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...>
> >Sent: May 19, 2009 2:20 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Richard III the maligned king
> >
> >
> >Hi, Robin - When you use the word 'guilty' do you mean 'of murdering the
> >princes in the Tower'? But nobody knows whether the princes were
> >murdered or not. Nobody knows that 'Perkin Warbeck' wasn't Richard of
> >York! I'd rather start with an open mind and try to construct a case
> >from what little evidence exists, otherwise we're in the world of pure
> >speculation, and if we're speculating we can't complain when Alison Weir
> >does too ....
> >
> >When looking at the question of the alleged murder, you first have to
> >establish when it happened, and where, and how. I think we can agree
> >from Henry VII's behaviour that he was totally unable to ascertain the
> >truth about the fate of the princes, and we can agree equally that he
> >must have put some high-powered minds to work on it and offered some
> >serious rewards. If the princes had suddenly gone missing one night at
> >the Tower, with its hundreds of residents and enormous daily supply
> >chain, SOME people would have noticed and there would have been tongues
> >wagging merrily next morning. Instead we have a mystery. OK, they could
> >have been silenced in 1483 if the murderer's agents bought them off, but
> >after August 1485 there was profit to be gained from telling the new
> >regime all they knew. So why did it take Henry 17 years to come up with
> >a story placing the blame on Richard III?
> >
> >I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved to
> >a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
> >would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> >naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
> >place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> >belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> >normal fashion. No secret burials at midnight, and no chests of clothes
> >and books and playthings left behind for people to wonder over the next
> >morning (unless we think all their belongings were secretly buried with
> >their murdered bodies ....).
> >
> >Anyway, that's the point I started from when I came to grapple with the
> >fate of Edward and Richard - WHY did it remain a mystery? WHY didn't
> >anyone at the Tower know anything, and WHY was Henry Tudor floundering
> >in the dark?
> >
> >Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> >--- In , "rlmcalister77"
> ><rlmcalister77@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been
> >away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read
> >Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's
> >book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always
> >wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or
> >Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
> >> warm regards,
> >> robin mcalister
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> I've been leaning toward the Princes' transportation ever since reading that William Stanley (foolishly and fatally) stated that, if Perkin Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he wouldn't stand in his way. My feeling is that if a Stanley family member, who made it his business to be certain about almost anything, wasn't sure if young Richard had been killed, then *no one* could be.
Maria
Im thinking on those lines too Maria. I wonder if taking the Princes overseas was the Kings"great business" that Tyrell was well rewarded for. Im sure Margaret would have provided a safe haven for them in Burgundy.
>
> My understanding of Buckingham's pre-1483 life is that he didn't really have much to do at all, that he was more or less pushed to the side of things, and that this rankled. The push to Richard might have been motivated by a perceived chance to become a force that he hadn't been before and likely felt he deserved. The question is why Richard accepted him to the extent of loading him with *so many* honors;
I agree with you on this one too Maria. I think one of Richard's failings would seem to be, prima facie, that he sometimes misjudged people and put too much faith in them. Combined with being too lenient with others and letting them off scott free to plot against him (Margaret Beaufort) a fatal combination.
eileen
when I wrote my play, I found my motivation(s) in Buckingham's decision to steer Richard's trust away from Hastings by implying indirect participation in leading Edward to his death (by over-indulgence), and things snowballing from there to the point of catastrophe in the beheading of Hastings. I then capitalized on More's conference between Morton and Buckingham and headed it in the direction of Morton having deduced how and why Buckingham went up and Hastings plummeted, and that his threats to undermine Buckingham's position with Richard by using that knowledge sort of dragged Buckingham into the rebellion. Morton, for me, is a major driving force behind the events of 1483, as he was also a loyal Lancastrian, served Edward out of survivor instinct, I think, and, I believe, always felt Edward IV to have been a usurper, and that Morton wouldn't have felt any obligation to be loyal to Edward's heirs. My guess is that he was angling things away from Edward V from extremely early on, and worked with Margaret B.
>
> Rushed from work,
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...>
> >Sent: May 19, 2009 2:20 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Richard III the maligned king
> >
> >
> >Hi, Robin - When you use the word 'guilty' do you mean 'of murdering the
> >princes in the Tower'? But nobody knows whether the princes were
> >murdered or not. Nobody knows that 'Perkin Warbeck' wasn't Richard of
> >York! I'd rather start with an open mind and try to construct a case
> >from what little evidence exists, otherwise we're in the world of pure
> >speculation, and if we're speculating we can't complain when Alison Weir
> >does too ....
> >
> >When looking at the question of the alleged murder, you first have to
> >establish when it happened, and where, and how. I think we can agree
> >from Henry VII's behaviour that he was totally unable to ascertain the
> >truth about the fate of the princes, and we can agree equally that he
> >must have put some high-powered minds to work on it and offered some
> >serious rewards. If the princes had suddenly gone missing one night at
> >the Tower, with its hundreds of residents and enormous daily supply
> >chain, SOME people would have noticed and there would have been tongues
> >wagging merrily next morning. Instead we have a mystery. OK, they could
> >have been silenced in 1483 if the murderer's agents bought them off, but
> >after August 1485 there was profit to be gained from telling the new
> >regime all they knew. So why did it take Henry 17 years to come up with
> >a story placing the blame on Richard III?
> >
> >I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved to
> >a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
> >would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> >naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
> >place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> >belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> >normal fashion. No secret burials at midnight, and no chests of clothes
> >and books and playthings left behind for people to wonder over the next
> >morning (unless we think all their belongings were secretly buried with
> >their murdered bodies ....).
> >
> >Anyway, that's the point I started from when I came to grapple with the
> >fate of Edward and Richard - WHY did it remain a mystery? WHY didn't
> >anyone at the Tower know anything, and WHY was Henry Tudor floundering
> >in the dark?
> >
> >Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> >--- In , "rlmcalister77"
> ><rlmcalister77@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have been
> >away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have read
> >Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's
> >book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always
> >wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or
> >Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
> >> warm regards,
> >> robin mcalister
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-19 20:31:30
Hi Anette,
You bring up a very good point..there is so much speculation surrounding
the disappearances of the Princes it just makes you wonder what really
happened..If they were murdered..then on who/what orders? Historically,
it has always been blamed on Richard III after the Tudor Dynasty was
established..I would like to believe that they were spirited away by
some loyal subjects and were able to live and love..laugh,,get
married,,children...all things that we all have as humans...So I
shouldn't rush to judgement..I have read books and such about
speculation of Buckingham being responsible or having a hand in it..I
don't think King Henry VII new..as you said,,it took 17 yrs. for some
kind of explanation of the Princes...Alot of people believe that the
bones that were found in the tower back in Charles II's reign were the
princes..but they were reexamined in the early 1900's I am trying to
remember my history...so bear with me..they were shown that the bones
were from older skeletons..so it will always be a fascinating
debate...One thing is for sure,,King Richard III was not
responsible...just imagine what more he could have achieved if he had
longer to rule...
warm regards,
Robin
--- In , "annettecarson@..."
<ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi, Robin - When you use the word 'guilty' do you mean 'of murdering
the
> princes in the Tower'? But nobody knows whether the princes were
> murdered or not. Nobody knows that 'Perkin Warbeck' wasn't Richard of
> York! I'd rather start with an open mind and try to construct a case
> from what little evidence exists, otherwise we're in the world of pure
> speculation, and if we're speculating we can't complain when Alison
Weir
> does too ....
>
> When looking at the question of the alleged murder, you first have to
> establish when it happened, and where, and how. I think we can agree
> from Henry VII's behaviour that he was totally unable to ascertain the
> truth about the fate of the princes, and we can agree equally that he
> must have put some high-powered minds to work on it and offered some
> serious rewards. If the princes had suddenly gone missing one night at
> the Tower, with its hundreds of residents and enormous daily supply
> chain, SOME people would have noticed and there would have been
tongues
> wagging merrily next morning. Instead we have a mystery. OK, they
could
> have been silenced in 1483 if the murderer's agents bought them off,
but
> after August 1485 there was profit to be gained from telling the new
> regime all they knew. So why did it take Henry 17 years to come up
with
> a story placing the blame on Richard III?
>
> I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved
to
> a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
> would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
> place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> normal fashion. No secret burials at midnight, and no chests of
clothes
> and books and playthings left behind for people to wonder over the
next
> morning (unless we think all their belongings were secretly buried
with
> their murdered bodies ....).
>
> Anyway, that's the point I started from when I came to grapple with
the
> fate of Edward and Richard - WHY did it remain a mystery? WHY didn't
> anyone at the Tower know anything, and WHY was Henry Tudor floundering
> in the dark?
>
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> --- In , "rlmcalister77"
> rlmcalister77@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have
been
> away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have
read
> Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's
> book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always
> wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or
> Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
> > warm regards,
> > robin mcalister
> >
>
You bring up a very good point..there is so much speculation surrounding
the disappearances of the Princes it just makes you wonder what really
happened..If they were murdered..then on who/what orders? Historically,
it has always been blamed on Richard III after the Tudor Dynasty was
established..I would like to believe that they were spirited away by
some loyal subjects and were able to live and love..laugh,,get
married,,children...all things that we all have as humans...So I
shouldn't rush to judgement..I have read books and such about
speculation of Buckingham being responsible or having a hand in it..I
don't think King Henry VII new..as you said,,it took 17 yrs. for some
kind of explanation of the Princes...Alot of people believe that the
bones that were found in the tower back in Charles II's reign were the
princes..but they were reexamined in the early 1900's I am trying to
remember my history...so bear with me..they were shown that the bones
were from older skeletons..so it will always be a fascinating
debate...One thing is for sure,,King Richard III was not
responsible...just imagine what more he could have achieved if he had
longer to rule...
warm regards,
Robin
--- In , "annettecarson@..."
<ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi, Robin - When you use the word 'guilty' do you mean 'of murdering
the
> princes in the Tower'? But nobody knows whether the princes were
> murdered or not. Nobody knows that 'Perkin Warbeck' wasn't Richard of
> York! I'd rather start with an open mind and try to construct a case
> from what little evidence exists, otherwise we're in the world of pure
> speculation, and if we're speculating we can't complain when Alison
Weir
> does too ....
>
> When looking at the question of the alleged murder, you first have to
> establish when it happened, and where, and how. I think we can agree
> from Henry VII's behaviour that he was totally unable to ascertain the
> truth about the fate of the princes, and we can agree equally that he
> must have put some high-powered minds to work on it and offered some
> serious rewards. If the princes had suddenly gone missing one night at
> the Tower, with its hundreds of residents and enormous daily supply
> chain, SOME people would have noticed and there would have been
tongues
> wagging merrily next morning. Instead we have a mystery. OK, they
could
> have been silenced in 1483 if the murderer's agents bought them off,
but
> after August 1485 there was profit to be gained from telling the new
> regime all they knew. So why did it take Henry 17 years to come up
with
> a story placing the blame on Richard III?
>
> I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved
to
> a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
> would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
> place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> normal fashion. No secret burials at midnight, and no chests of
clothes
> and books and playthings left behind for people to wonder over the
next
> morning (unless we think all their belongings were secretly buried
with
> their murdered bodies ....).
>
> Anyway, that's the point I started from when I came to grapple with
the
> fate of Edward and Richard - WHY did it remain a mystery? WHY didn't
> anyone at the Tower know anything, and WHY was Henry Tudor floundering
> in the dark?
>
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> --- In , "rlmcalister77"
> rlmcalister77@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone..this is my first post since my intial hello..I have
been
> away from my pc for about a week so I am trying to catch up..I have
read
> Kendall's book on Richard but it has been a few years and also Weir's
> book..but I think she assumes Richard guilty before the end..I always
> wondered about Henry Tudor's mum Margaret Beaufort and/or
> Buckingham..what does anyone else think?
> > warm regards,
> > robin mcalister
> >
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-20 03:24:57
oregonkaty wrote:
>--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
>
>Still, something spurred Buckingham into his ill-conceived, ill-planned, and fatal rebellion against Richard III, under whom he had enjoyed great success and privilege. Obviously it was something profound. Wish we knew what it was.
>
>Katy
>
>
>
Actually all it takes to explain Buckingham's actions are overconfidence
and ambition. There are plenty of examples in history of men like this.
Of course, I expect a lot of traditionalist historians take Buckingham's
actions as 'proof' that Richard had the Princes killed. Which makes no
sense - if Buckingham had broken with Ricard for that reason he'd have
said so as loudly and often as he could. Standing up to a brutal tyrant
who slaughtered innocent children looks good on the press releases.
Of course, Buckingham made no such claims.
>--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
>
>Still, something spurred Buckingham into his ill-conceived, ill-planned, and fatal rebellion against Richard III, under whom he had enjoyed great success and privilege. Obviously it was something profound. Wish we knew what it was.
>
>Katy
>
>
>
Actually all it takes to explain Buckingham's actions are overconfidence
and ambition. There are plenty of examples in history of men like this.
Of course, I expect a lot of traditionalist historians take Buckingham's
actions as 'proof' that Richard had the Princes killed. Which makes no
sense - if Buckingham had broken with Ricard for that reason he'd have
said so as loudly and often as he could. Standing up to a brutal tyrant
who slaughtered innocent children looks good on the press releases.
Of course, Buckingham made no such claims.
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-20 17:41:49
--- In , Ed Simons <easimons@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> Actually all it takes to explain Buckingham's actions are overconfidence
> and ambition.
Combine that with being an idiot and we're probably barking up the right tree. We must not forget that he was beguiled, probably easily, by that epitome of craftiness, Morton. How easily he must have swallowed Morton's lies. We can tell from Richard's letter written in his own hand how gobsmacked he was at the treachery of Buckingham......"Here, loved be God, is all well and truely determined and for to resist the Duke of Buckingham, the most untrue creature living, whom with God/s grace we shall not be long until that we will be in that parts and subdue his malice. We assure you that never was false traitor provided for as this bearer, Gloucester, can show."
Of course be married off to Elizabeth Woodville's sister at an early age probably did him no good whatsoever, and probably goes some way to explain why he was such a screwed up character....
Eileen
There are plenty of examples in history of men like this.
>
> Of course, I expect a lot of traditionalist historians take Buckingham's
> actions as 'proof' that Richard had the Princes killed. Which makes no
> sense - if Buckingham had broken with Ricard for that reason he'd have
> said so as loudly and often as he could. Standing up to a brutal tyrant
> who slaughtered innocent children looks good on the press releases.
>
> Of course, Buckingham made no such claims.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> Actually all it takes to explain Buckingham's actions are overconfidence
> and ambition.
Combine that with being an idiot and we're probably barking up the right tree. We must not forget that he was beguiled, probably easily, by that epitome of craftiness, Morton. How easily he must have swallowed Morton's lies. We can tell from Richard's letter written in his own hand how gobsmacked he was at the treachery of Buckingham......"Here, loved be God, is all well and truely determined and for to resist the Duke of Buckingham, the most untrue creature living, whom with God/s grace we shall not be long until that we will be in that parts and subdue his malice. We assure you that never was false traitor provided for as this bearer, Gloucester, can show."
Of course be married off to Elizabeth Woodville's sister at an early age probably did him no good whatsoever, and probably goes some way to explain why he was such a screwed up character....
Eileen
There are plenty of examples in history of men like this.
>
> Of course, I expect a lot of traditionalist historians take Buckingham's
> actions as 'proof' that Richard had the Princes killed. Which makes no
> sense - if Buckingham had broken with Ricard for that reason he'd have
> said so as loudly and often as he could. Standing up to a brutal tyrant
> who slaughtered innocent children looks good on the press releases.
>
> Of course, Buckingham made no such claims.
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-21 05:09:29
--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved to
> a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
> would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
> place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> normal fashion.
And it seems to me that the logical person to have been put in charge of their moving would have been Buckingham. Probably not personally, but by people under him. He was, after all, Constable of London and Constable of the Tower. He certainly had the authority and his orders would not have been questioned.
By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was accused of having?
Katy
>
> I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved to
> a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
> would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
> place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> normal fashion.
And it seems to me that the logical person to have been put in charge of their moving would have been Buckingham. Probably not personally, but by people under him. He was, after all, Constable of London and Constable of the Tower. He certainly had the authority and his orders would not have been questioned.
By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was accused of having?
Katy
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-21 10:09:35
Aha, Buckingham again! Now unfortunately I have to quibble with this, because of what happened when. In my book I've suggested evidence, too lengthy to reproduce here, that right up to mid September there was an active movement to restore Edward V to the throne. Plus the Crowland Chronicle and Vergil agree that the princes were still in the Tower of London while Richard was celebrating in York in the first week of September. What was Buckingham doing at that time? Well, on 23 August he was at Brecon, and on 28 August he was appointed to commissions of oyer and terminer to deal with disaffection in the southern counties. I guess it would take four days riding at speed (compared to the normal rate of progress for a royal duke) to get to London from Brecon. By around 10 September at the latest he was leading the rebellion whose aim was to restore Edward V. Crowland says that only AFTER he became its leader was the rumour spread that the princes had 'met their fate' and the rebels chose Henry Tudor as their replacement captain.
Obviously we don't know Buckingham's whereabouts around this time, but risings had been simmering since early August, so Buckingham would have been faced with the task of persuading a group of existing rebel leaders that Richard's loyal lieutenant and Constable of England had suddenly changed sides (I wonder what story he told them?). He certainly didn't wave a wand and get accepted overnight, and there were some serious distances to be travelled from county to county, identifying the malcontents and persuading them to meet him - he could scarcely summon them to come to him - so my suggestion is that Buckingham was pretty busy establishing his credentials as a rebel supporting Edward V at the crucial moment when the princes supposedly died or disappeared.
I have doubts about Buckingham being at the Tower himself, whether on Richard's orders (people would remember!) or on his own recognizance (in which latter case Brackenbury would have rushed the information to Richard as soon as Buckingham proclaimed himself a rebel). I also have doubts about the alternative likelihood that he could have organized the assassination from a distance without at least some personal evidence of involvement - a letter, a pass, a token, something must have got his men access to the princes - and again, once the rumour was spread that they had died, Brackenbury would have ordered a full investigation. If anything untoward really did happen, which I feel is doubtful, men would have informed him that they had obeyed the High Constable's warrant.
All things considered, it seems difficult to believe that Buckingham could have been at the bottom of their disappearance without Richard knowing in advance or finding out pretty soon after, and in either case he would certainly have added that crime to the list for which Buckingham was executed (what did he have to lose? - it was already common knowledge that Buckingham was a traitor and a turncoat).
I freely admit these arguments are merely practical deductions based on meagre surviving documentation, in which of course there are large gaps, and there are those who would challenge the accuracy of reports like the Crowland Chronicle. Unfortunately, if we throw out the only contemporaneous reports that exist, the whole thing becomes totally speculative.
I think the bottom line in all this is that what happened to the princes remains an enduring mystery. No one ever revealed that they knew anything about what happened to the princes (leaving aside the tall tales of the Tudor dramatists). Now consider this: some people must have known. If the boys were dead, there was every incentive for these people to talk once Henry VII came to the throne; but if they were alive, there was every reason to remain silent.
Regards, Annette
--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "annettecarson@" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved to
> > a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
> > would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> > naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
> > place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> > belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> > normal fashion.
>
> And it seems to me that the logical person to have been put in charge of their moving would have been Buckingham. Probably not personally, but by people under him. He was, after all, Constable of London and Constable of the Tower. He certainly had the authority and his orders would not have been questioned.
>
> By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was accused of having?
>
> Katy
>
Obviously we don't know Buckingham's whereabouts around this time, but risings had been simmering since early August, so Buckingham would have been faced with the task of persuading a group of existing rebel leaders that Richard's loyal lieutenant and Constable of England had suddenly changed sides (I wonder what story he told them?). He certainly didn't wave a wand and get accepted overnight, and there were some serious distances to be travelled from county to county, identifying the malcontents and persuading them to meet him - he could scarcely summon them to come to him - so my suggestion is that Buckingham was pretty busy establishing his credentials as a rebel supporting Edward V at the crucial moment when the princes supposedly died or disappeared.
I have doubts about Buckingham being at the Tower himself, whether on Richard's orders (people would remember!) or on his own recognizance (in which latter case Brackenbury would have rushed the information to Richard as soon as Buckingham proclaimed himself a rebel). I also have doubts about the alternative likelihood that he could have organized the assassination from a distance without at least some personal evidence of involvement - a letter, a pass, a token, something must have got his men access to the princes - and again, once the rumour was spread that they had died, Brackenbury would have ordered a full investigation. If anything untoward really did happen, which I feel is doubtful, men would have informed him that they had obeyed the High Constable's warrant.
All things considered, it seems difficult to believe that Buckingham could have been at the bottom of their disappearance without Richard knowing in advance or finding out pretty soon after, and in either case he would certainly have added that crime to the list for which Buckingham was executed (what did he have to lose? - it was already common knowledge that Buckingham was a traitor and a turncoat).
I freely admit these arguments are merely practical deductions based on meagre surviving documentation, in which of course there are large gaps, and there are those who would challenge the accuracy of reports like the Crowland Chronicle. Unfortunately, if we throw out the only contemporaneous reports that exist, the whole thing becomes totally speculative.
I think the bottom line in all this is that what happened to the princes remains an enduring mystery. No one ever revealed that they knew anything about what happened to the princes (leaving aside the tall tales of the Tudor dramatists). Now consider this: some people must have known. If the boys were dead, there was every incentive for these people to talk once Henry VII came to the throne; but if they were alive, there was every reason to remain silent.
Regards, Annette
--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "annettecarson@" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply moved to
> > a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I believe
> > would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> > naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more suitable
> > place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> > belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> > normal fashion.
>
> And it seems to me that the logical person to have been put in charge of their moving would have been Buckingham. Probably not personally, but by people under him. He was, after all, Constable of London and Constable of the Tower. He certainly had the authority and his orders would not have been questioned.
>
> By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was accused of having?
>
> Katy
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-21 11:48:50
Sorry, Katy, you wrote: By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was accused of having?
Can you expand on where this came from?
Regards, Annette
Can you expand on where this came from?
Regards, Annette
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-21 14:33:31
--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Katy, you wrote: By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was accused of having?
> Can you expand on where this came from?
I read it somewhere, but who knows where? Not in a novel, in some nonfiction work And I read it in the mid to late 80s, when I first got interested in Richard III but had no one to discuss him with. I didn't take notes because I didn't know my interest would endure for decades and that I'd eventually find other interested persons.
It's from some fairly contemporaneous work, I think. Croyland or More's little treatise on R III come to mind, but but I don't have either one at hand and if it was from either of them, I'm sure you'd be familiar with it, Annette. Hopefully someone on the forum here can pin it down.
I'm pretty sure I didn't make it up.
Katy
>
> Sorry, Katy, you wrote: By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was accused of having?
> Can you expand on where this came from?
I read it somewhere, but who knows where? Not in a novel, in some nonfiction work And I read it in the mid to late 80s, when I first got interested in Richard III but had no one to discuss him with. I didn't take notes because I didn't know my interest would endure for decades and that I'd eventually find other interested persons.
It's from some fairly contemporaneous work, I think. Croyland or More's little treatise on R III come to mind, but but I don't have either one at hand and if it was from either of them, I'm sure you'd be familiar with it, Annette. Hopefully someone on the forum here can pin it down.
I'm pretty sure I didn't make it up.
Katy
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-21 16:39:50
I think everyone has always wondered about Buckingham..I personally
agree with you..he had to be planning ahead for the rebellion...he would
not have accepted overnight..I do have a question about Brackenbury..was
he killed at Bosworth with King Richard III? I am trying to remember for
sure..I think I have read where he was...I also heard he was a honorable
man and would not have let the Princes be done in..but as said
before,,that is the enduring mystery.
Warm Regards,
robin
--- In , "annettecarson@..."
<ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Aha, Buckingham again! Now unfortunately I have to quibble with this,
because of what happened when. In my book I've suggested evidence, too
lengthy to reproduce here, that right up to mid September there was an
active movement to restore Edward V to the throne. Plus the Crowland
Chronicle and Vergil agree that the princes were still in the Tower of
London while Richard was celebrating in York in the first week of
September. What was Buckingham doing at that time? Well, on 23 August he
was at Brecon, and on 28 August he was appointed to commissions of oyer
and terminer to deal with disaffection in the southern counties. I guess
it would take four days riding at speed (compared to the normal rate of
progress for a royal duke) to get to London from Brecon. By around 10
September at the latest he was leading the rebellion whose aim was to
restore Edward V. Crowland says that only AFTER he became its leader was
the rumour spread that the princes had 'met their fate' and the rebels
chose Henry Tudor as their replacement captain.
>
> Obviously we don't know Buckingham's whereabouts around this time, but
risings had been simmering since early August, so Buckingham would have
been faced with the task of persuading a group of existing rebel leaders
that Richard's loyal lieutenant and Constable of England had suddenly
changed sides (I wonder what story he told them?). He certainly didn't
wave a wand and get accepted overnight, and there were some serious
distances to be travelled from county to county, identifying the
malcontents and persuading them to meet him - he could scarcely summon
them to come to him - so my suggestion is that Buckingham was pretty
busy establishing his credentials as a rebel supporting Edward V at the
crucial moment when the princes supposedly died or disappeared.
>
> I have doubts about Buckingham being at the Tower himself, whether on
Richard's orders (people would remember!) or on his own recognizance (in
which latter case Brackenbury would have rushed the information to
Richard as soon as Buckingham proclaimed himself a rebel). I also have
doubts about the alternative likelihood that he could have organized the
assassination from a distance without at least some personal evidence of
involvement - a letter, a pass, a token, something must have got his men
access to the princes - and again, once the rumour was spread that they
had died, Brackenbury would have ordered a full investigation. If
anything untoward really did happen, which I feel is doubtful, men would
have informed him that they had obeyed the High Constable's warrant.
>
> All things considered, it seems difficult to believe that Buckingham
could have been at the bottom of their disappearance without Richard
knowing in advance or finding out pretty soon after, and in either case
he would certainly have added that crime to the list for which
Buckingham was executed (what did he have to lose? - it was already
common knowledge that Buckingham was a traitor and a turncoat).
>
> I freely admit these arguments are merely practical deductions based
on meagre surviving documentation, in which of course there are large
gaps, and there are those who would challenge the accuracy of reports
like the Crowland Chronicle. Unfortunately, if we throw out the only
contemporaneous reports that exist, the whole thing becomes totally
speculative.
>
> I think the bottom line in all this is that what happened to the
princes remains an enduring mystery. No one ever revealed that they knew
anything about what happened to the princes (leaving aside the tall
tales of the Tudor dramatists). Now consider this: some people must have
known. If the boys were dead, there was every incentive for these people
to talk once Henry VII came to the throne; but if they were alive, there
was every reason to remain silent.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> --- In , "oregonkaty"
oregon_katy@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "annettecarson@"
<ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply
moved to
> > > a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I
believe
> > > would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> > > naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more
suitable
> > > place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> > > belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> > > normal fashion.
> >
> > And it seems to me that the logical person to have been put in
charge of their moving would have been Buckingham. Probably not
personally, but by people under him. He was, after all, Constable of
London and Constable of the Tower. He certainly had the authority and
his orders would not have been questioned.
> >
> > By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was
accused of having?
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
agree with you..he had to be planning ahead for the rebellion...he would
not have accepted overnight..I do have a question about Brackenbury..was
he killed at Bosworth with King Richard III? I am trying to remember for
sure..I think I have read where he was...I also heard he was a honorable
man and would not have let the Princes be done in..but as said
before,,that is the enduring mystery.
Warm Regards,
robin
--- In , "annettecarson@..."
<ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Aha, Buckingham again! Now unfortunately I have to quibble with this,
because of what happened when. In my book I've suggested evidence, too
lengthy to reproduce here, that right up to mid September there was an
active movement to restore Edward V to the throne. Plus the Crowland
Chronicle and Vergil agree that the princes were still in the Tower of
London while Richard was celebrating in York in the first week of
September. What was Buckingham doing at that time? Well, on 23 August he
was at Brecon, and on 28 August he was appointed to commissions of oyer
and terminer to deal with disaffection in the southern counties. I guess
it would take four days riding at speed (compared to the normal rate of
progress for a royal duke) to get to London from Brecon. By around 10
September at the latest he was leading the rebellion whose aim was to
restore Edward V. Crowland says that only AFTER he became its leader was
the rumour spread that the princes had 'met their fate' and the rebels
chose Henry Tudor as their replacement captain.
>
> Obviously we don't know Buckingham's whereabouts around this time, but
risings had been simmering since early August, so Buckingham would have
been faced with the task of persuading a group of existing rebel leaders
that Richard's loyal lieutenant and Constable of England had suddenly
changed sides (I wonder what story he told them?). He certainly didn't
wave a wand and get accepted overnight, and there were some serious
distances to be travelled from county to county, identifying the
malcontents and persuading them to meet him - he could scarcely summon
them to come to him - so my suggestion is that Buckingham was pretty
busy establishing his credentials as a rebel supporting Edward V at the
crucial moment when the princes supposedly died or disappeared.
>
> I have doubts about Buckingham being at the Tower himself, whether on
Richard's orders (people would remember!) or on his own recognizance (in
which latter case Brackenbury would have rushed the information to
Richard as soon as Buckingham proclaimed himself a rebel). I also have
doubts about the alternative likelihood that he could have organized the
assassination from a distance without at least some personal evidence of
involvement - a letter, a pass, a token, something must have got his men
access to the princes - and again, once the rumour was spread that they
had died, Brackenbury would have ordered a full investigation. If
anything untoward really did happen, which I feel is doubtful, men would
have informed him that they had obeyed the High Constable's warrant.
>
> All things considered, it seems difficult to believe that Buckingham
could have been at the bottom of their disappearance without Richard
knowing in advance or finding out pretty soon after, and in either case
he would certainly have added that crime to the list for which
Buckingham was executed (what did he have to lose? - it was already
common knowledge that Buckingham was a traitor and a turncoat).
>
> I freely admit these arguments are merely practical deductions based
on meagre surviving documentation, in which of course there are large
gaps, and there are those who would challenge the accuracy of reports
like the Crowland Chronicle. Unfortunately, if we throw out the only
contemporaneous reports that exist, the whole thing becomes totally
speculative.
>
> I think the bottom line in all this is that what happened to the
princes remains an enduring mystery. No one ever revealed that they knew
anything about what happened to the princes (leaving aside the tall
tales of the Tudor dramatists). Now consider this: some people must have
known. If the boys were dead, there was every incentive for these people
to talk once Henry VII came to the throne; but if they were alive, there
was every reason to remain silent.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> --- In , "oregonkaty"
oregon_katy@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "annettecarson@"
<ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply
moved to
> > > a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I
believe
> > > would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> > > naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more
suitable
> > > place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> > > belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> > > normal fashion.
> >
> > And it seems to me that the logical person to have been put in
charge of their moving would have been Buckingham. Probably not
personally, but by people under him. He was, after all, Constable of
London and Constable of the Tower. He certainly had the authority and
his orders would not have been questioned.
> >
> > By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was
accused of having?
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-21 16:48:23
brackenbury was killed at bosworth.
--- On Thu, 5/21/09, rlmcalister77 <rlmcalister77@...> wrote:
From: rlmcalister77 <rlmcalister77@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III the maligned king
To:
Received: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 11:39 AM
I think everyone has always wondered about Buckingham.. I personally
agree with you..he had to be planning ahead for the rebellion... he would
not have accepted overnight..I do have a question about Brackenbury. .was
he killed at Bosworth with King Richard III? I am trying to remember for
sure..I think I have read where he was...I also heard he was a honorable
man and would not have let the Princes be done in..but as said
before,,that is the enduring mystery.
Warm Regards,
robin
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "annettecarson@ ..."
<ajcarson@.. .> wrote:
>
> Aha, Buckingham again! Now unfortunately I have to quibble with this,
because of what happened when. In my book I've suggested evidence, too
lengthy to reproduce here, that right up to mid September there was an
active movement to restore Edward V to the throne. Plus the Crowland
Chronicle and Vergil agree that the princes were still in the Tower of
London while Richard was celebrating in York in the first week of
September. What was Buckingham doing at that time? Well, on 23 August he
was at Brecon, and on 28 August he was appointed to commissions of oyer
and terminer to deal with disaffection in the southern counties. I guess
it would take four days riding at speed (compared to the normal rate of
progress for a royal duke) to get to London from Brecon. By around 10
September at the latest he was leading the rebellion whose aim was to
restore Edward V. Crowland says that only AFTER he became its leader was
the rumour spread that the princes had 'met their fate' and the rebels
chose Henry Tudor as their replacement captain.
>
> Obviously we don't know Buckingham's whereabouts around this time, but
risings had been simmering since early August, so Buckingham would have
been faced with the task of persuading a group of existing rebel leaders
that Richard's loyal lieutenant and Constable of England had suddenly
changed sides (I wonder what story he told them?). He certainly didn't
wave a wand and get accepted overnight, and there were some serious
distances to be travelled from county to county, identifying the
malcontents and persuading them to meet him - he could scarcely summon
them to come to him - so my suggestion is that Buckingham was pretty
busy establishing his credentials as a rebel supporting Edward V at the
crucial moment when the princes supposedly died or disappeared.
>
> I have doubts about Buckingham being at the Tower himself, whether on
Richard's orders (people would remember!) or on his own recognizance (in
which latter case Brackenbury would have rushed the information to
Richard as soon as Buckingham proclaimed himself a rebel). I also have
doubts about the alternative likelihood that he could have organized the
assassination from a distance without at least some personal evidence of
involvement - a letter, a pass, a token, something must have got his men
access to the princes - and again, once the rumour was spread that they
had died, Brackenbury would have ordered a full investigation. If
anything untoward really did happen, which I feel is doubtful, men would
have informed him that they had obeyed the High Constable's warrant.
>
> All things considered, it seems difficult to believe that Buckingham
could have been at the bottom of their disappearance without Richard
knowing in advance or finding out pretty soon after, and in either case
he would certainly have added that crime to the list for which
Buckingham was executed (what did he have to lose? - it was already
common knowledge that Buckingham was a traitor and a turncoat).
>
> I freely admit these arguments are merely practical deductions based
on meagre surviving documentation, in which of course there are large
gaps, and there are those who would challenge the accuracy of reports
like the Crowland Chronicle. Unfortunately, if we throw out the only
contemporaneous reports that exist, the whole thing becomes totally
speculative.
>
> I think the bottom line in all this is that what happened to the
princes remains an enduring mystery. No one ever revealed that they knew
anything about what happened to the princes (leaving aside the tall
tales of the Tudor dramatists). Now consider this: some people must have
known. If the boys were dead, there was every incentive for these people
to talk once Henry VII came to the throne; but if they were alive, there
was every reason to remain silent.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "oregonkaty"
oregon_katy@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "annettecarson@ "
<ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply
moved to
> > > a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I
believe
> > > would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> > > naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more
suitable
> > > place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> > > belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> > > normal fashion.
> >
> > And it seems to me that the logical person to have been put in
charge of their moving would have been Buckingham. Probably not
personally, but by people under him. He was, after all, Constable of
London and Constable of the Tower. He certainly had the authority and
his orders would not have been questioned.
> >
> > By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was
accused of having?
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
--- On Thu, 5/21/09, rlmcalister77 <rlmcalister77@...> wrote:
From: rlmcalister77 <rlmcalister77@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III the maligned king
To:
Received: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 11:39 AM
I think everyone has always wondered about Buckingham.. I personally
agree with you..he had to be planning ahead for the rebellion... he would
not have accepted overnight..I do have a question about Brackenbury. .was
he killed at Bosworth with King Richard III? I am trying to remember for
sure..I think I have read where he was...I also heard he was a honorable
man and would not have let the Princes be done in..but as said
before,,that is the enduring mystery.
Warm Regards,
robin
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "annettecarson@ ..."
<ajcarson@.. .> wrote:
>
> Aha, Buckingham again! Now unfortunately I have to quibble with this,
because of what happened when. In my book I've suggested evidence, too
lengthy to reproduce here, that right up to mid September there was an
active movement to restore Edward V to the throne. Plus the Crowland
Chronicle and Vergil agree that the princes were still in the Tower of
London while Richard was celebrating in York in the first week of
September. What was Buckingham doing at that time? Well, on 23 August he
was at Brecon, and on 28 August he was appointed to commissions of oyer
and terminer to deal with disaffection in the southern counties. I guess
it would take four days riding at speed (compared to the normal rate of
progress for a royal duke) to get to London from Brecon. By around 10
September at the latest he was leading the rebellion whose aim was to
restore Edward V. Crowland says that only AFTER he became its leader was
the rumour spread that the princes had 'met their fate' and the rebels
chose Henry Tudor as their replacement captain.
>
> Obviously we don't know Buckingham's whereabouts around this time, but
risings had been simmering since early August, so Buckingham would have
been faced with the task of persuading a group of existing rebel leaders
that Richard's loyal lieutenant and Constable of England had suddenly
changed sides (I wonder what story he told them?). He certainly didn't
wave a wand and get accepted overnight, and there were some serious
distances to be travelled from county to county, identifying the
malcontents and persuading them to meet him - he could scarcely summon
them to come to him - so my suggestion is that Buckingham was pretty
busy establishing his credentials as a rebel supporting Edward V at the
crucial moment when the princes supposedly died or disappeared.
>
> I have doubts about Buckingham being at the Tower himself, whether on
Richard's orders (people would remember!) or on his own recognizance (in
which latter case Brackenbury would have rushed the information to
Richard as soon as Buckingham proclaimed himself a rebel). I also have
doubts about the alternative likelihood that he could have organized the
assassination from a distance without at least some personal evidence of
involvement - a letter, a pass, a token, something must have got his men
access to the princes - and again, once the rumour was spread that they
had died, Brackenbury would have ordered a full investigation. If
anything untoward really did happen, which I feel is doubtful, men would
have informed him that they had obeyed the High Constable's warrant.
>
> All things considered, it seems difficult to believe that Buckingham
could have been at the bottom of their disappearance without Richard
knowing in advance or finding out pretty soon after, and in either case
he would certainly have added that crime to the list for which
Buckingham was executed (what did he have to lose? - it was already
common knowledge that Buckingham was a traitor and a turncoat).
>
> I freely admit these arguments are merely practical deductions based
on meagre surviving documentation, in which of course there are large
gaps, and there are those who would challenge the accuracy of reports
like the Crowland Chronicle. Unfortunately, if we throw out the only
contemporaneous reports that exist, the whole thing becomes totally
speculative.
>
> I think the bottom line in all this is that what happened to the
princes remains an enduring mystery. No one ever revealed that they knew
anything about what happened to the princes (leaving aside the tall
tales of the Tudor dramatists). Now consider this: some people must have
known. If the boys were dead, there was every incentive for these people
to talk once Henry VII came to the throne; but if they were alive, there
was every reason to remain silent.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "oregonkaty"
oregon_katy@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "annettecarson@ "
<ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply
moved to
> > > a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I
believe
> > > would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> > > naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more
suitable
> > > place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> > > belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in the
> > > normal fashion.
> >
> > And it seems to me that the logical person to have been put in
charge of their moving would have been Buckingham. Probably not
personally, but by people under him. He was, after all, Constable of
London and Constable of the Tower. He certainly had the authority and
his orders would not have been questioned.
> >
> > By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was
accused of having?
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-21 16:55:08
thanks I thought I had where he had been killed there..just wasn't sure.
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
> brackenbury was killed at bosworth.
>
> --- On Thu, 5/21/09, rlmcalister77 rlmcalister77@... wrote:
>
>
> From: rlmcalister77 rlmcalister77@...
> Subject: Re: Richard III the maligned king
> To:
> Received: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 11:39 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think everyone has always wondered about Buckingham.. I personally
> agree with you..he had to be planning ahead for the rebellion... he
would
> not have accepted overnight..I do have a question about Brackenbury.
.was
> he killed at Bosworth with King Richard III? I am trying to remember
for
> sure..I think I have read where he was...I also heard he was a
honorable
> man and would not have let the Princes be done in..but as said
> before,,that is the enduring mystery.
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> robin
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "annettecarson@ ..."
> ajcarson@ .> wrote:
> >
> > Aha, Buckingham again! Now unfortunately I have to quibble with
this,
> because of what happened when. In my book I've suggested evidence, too
> lengthy to reproduce here, that right up to mid September there was an
> active movement to restore Edward V to the throne. Plus the Crowland
> Chronicle and Vergil agree that the princes were still in the Tower of
> London while Richard was celebrating in York in the first week of
> September. What was Buckingham doing at that time? Well, on 23 August
he
> was at Brecon, and on 28 August he was appointed to commissions of
oyer
> and terminer to deal with disaffection in the southern counties. I
guess
> it would take four days riding at speed (compared to the normal rate
of
> progress for a royal duke) to get to London from Brecon. By around 10
> September at the latest he was leading the rebellion whose aim was to
> restore Edward V. Crowland says that only AFTER he became its leader
was
> the rumour spread that the princes had 'met their fate' and the rebels
> chose Henry Tudor as their replacement captain.
> >
> > Obviously we don't know Buckingham's whereabouts around this time,
but
> risings had been simmering since early August, so Buckingham would
have
> been faced with the task of persuading a group of existing rebel
leaders
> that Richard's loyal lieutenant and Constable of England had suddenly
> changed sides (I wonder what story he told them?). He certainly didn't
> wave a wand and get accepted overnight, and there were some serious
> distances to be travelled from county to county, identifying the
> malcontents and persuading them to meet him - he could scarcely summon
> them to come to him - so my suggestion is that Buckingham was pretty
> busy establishing his credentials as a rebel supporting Edward V at
the
> crucial moment when the princes supposedly died or disappeared.
> >
> > I have doubts about Buckingham being at the Tower himself, whether
on
> Richard's orders (people would remember!) or on his own recognizance
(in
> which latter case Brackenbury would have rushed the information to
> Richard as soon as Buckingham proclaimed himself a rebel). I also have
> doubts about the alternative likelihood that he could have organized
the
> assassination from a distance without at least some personal evidence
of
> involvement - a letter, a pass, a token, something must have got his
men
> access to the princes - and again, once the rumour was spread that
they
> had died, Brackenbury would have ordered a full investigation. If
> anything untoward really did happen, which I feel is doubtful, men
would
> have informed him that they had obeyed the High Constable's warrant.
> >
> > All things considered, it seems difficult to believe that Buckingham
> could have been at the bottom of their disappearance without Richard
> knowing in advance or finding out pretty soon after, and in either
case
> he would certainly have added that crime to the list for which
> Buckingham was executed (what did he have to lose? - it was already
> common knowledge that Buckingham was a traitor and a turncoat).
> >
> > I freely admit these arguments are merely practical deductions based
> on meagre surviving documentation, in which of course there are large
> gaps, and there are those who would challenge the accuracy of reports
> like the Crowland Chronicle. Unfortunately, if we throw out the only
> contemporaneous reports that exist, the whole thing becomes totally
> speculative.
> >
> > I think the bottom line in all this is that what happened to the
> princes remains an enduring mystery. No one ever revealed that they
knew
> anything about what happened to the princes (leaving aside the tall
> tales of the Tudor dramatists). Now consider this: some people must
have
> known. If the boys were dead, there was every incentive for these
people
> to talk once Henry VII came to the throne; but if they were alive,
there
> was every reason to remain silent.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "oregonkaty"
> oregon_katy@ wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "annettecarson@ "
> <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply
> moved to
> > > > a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I
> believe
> > > > would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> > > > naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more
> suitable
> > > > place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> > > > belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in
the
> > > > normal fashion.
> > >
> > > And it seems to me that the logical person to have been put in
> charge of their moving would have been Buckingham. Probably not
> personally, but by people under him. He was, after all, Constable of
> London and Constable of the Tower. He certainly had the authority and
> his orders would not have been questioned.
> > >
> > > By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was
> accused of having?
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
> brackenbury was killed at bosworth.
>
> --- On Thu, 5/21/09, rlmcalister77 rlmcalister77@... wrote:
>
>
> From: rlmcalister77 rlmcalister77@...
> Subject: Re: Richard III the maligned king
> To:
> Received: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 11:39 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think everyone has always wondered about Buckingham.. I personally
> agree with you..he had to be planning ahead for the rebellion... he
would
> not have accepted overnight..I do have a question about Brackenbury.
.was
> he killed at Bosworth with King Richard III? I am trying to remember
for
> sure..I think I have read where he was...I also heard he was a
honorable
> man and would not have let the Princes be done in..but as said
> before,,that is the enduring mystery.
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> robin
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "annettecarson@ ..."
> ajcarson@ .> wrote:
> >
> > Aha, Buckingham again! Now unfortunately I have to quibble with
this,
> because of what happened when. In my book I've suggested evidence, too
> lengthy to reproduce here, that right up to mid September there was an
> active movement to restore Edward V to the throne. Plus the Crowland
> Chronicle and Vergil agree that the princes were still in the Tower of
> London while Richard was celebrating in York in the first week of
> September. What was Buckingham doing at that time? Well, on 23 August
he
> was at Brecon, and on 28 August he was appointed to commissions of
oyer
> and terminer to deal with disaffection in the southern counties. I
guess
> it would take four days riding at speed (compared to the normal rate
of
> progress for a royal duke) to get to London from Brecon. By around 10
> September at the latest he was leading the rebellion whose aim was to
> restore Edward V. Crowland says that only AFTER he became its leader
was
> the rumour spread that the princes had 'met their fate' and the rebels
> chose Henry Tudor as their replacement captain.
> >
> > Obviously we don't know Buckingham's whereabouts around this time,
but
> risings had been simmering since early August, so Buckingham would
have
> been faced with the task of persuading a group of existing rebel
leaders
> that Richard's loyal lieutenant and Constable of England had suddenly
> changed sides (I wonder what story he told them?). He certainly didn't
> wave a wand and get accepted overnight, and there were some serious
> distances to be travelled from county to county, identifying the
> malcontents and persuading them to meet him - he could scarcely summon
> them to come to him - so my suggestion is that Buckingham was pretty
> busy establishing his credentials as a rebel supporting Edward V at
the
> crucial moment when the princes supposedly died or disappeared.
> >
> > I have doubts about Buckingham being at the Tower himself, whether
on
> Richard's orders (people would remember!) or on his own recognizance
(in
> which latter case Brackenbury would have rushed the information to
> Richard as soon as Buckingham proclaimed himself a rebel). I also have
> doubts about the alternative likelihood that he could have organized
the
> assassination from a distance without at least some personal evidence
of
> involvement - a letter, a pass, a token, something must have got his
men
> access to the princes - and again, once the rumour was spread that
they
> had died, Brackenbury would have ordered a full investigation. If
> anything untoward really did happen, which I feel is doubtful, men
would
> have informed him that they had obeyed the High Constable's warrant.
> >
> > All things considered, it seems difficult to believe that Buckingham
> could have been at the bottom of their disappearance without Richard
> knowing in advance or finding out pretty soon after, and in either
case
> he would certainly have added that crime to the list for which
> Buckingham was executed (what did he have to lose? - it was already
> common knowledge that Buckingham was a traitor and a turncoat).
> >
> > I freely admit these arguments are merely practical deductions based
> on meagre surviving documentation, in which of course there are large
> gaps, and there are those who would challenge the accuracy of reports
> like the Crowland Chronicle. Unfortunately, if we throw out the only
> contemporaneous reports that exist, the whole thing becomes totally
> speculative.
> >
> > I think the bottom line in all this is that what happened to the
> princes remains an enduring mystery. No one ever revealed that they
knew
> anything about what happened to the princes (leaving aside the tall
> tales of the Tudor dramatists). Now consider this: some people must
have
> known. If the boys were dead, there was every incentive for these
people
> to talk once Henry VII came to the throne; but if they were alive,
there
> was every reason to remain silent.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "oregonkaty"
> oregon_katy@ wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "annettecarson@ "
> <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know it's boring and humdrum to suggest that they were simply
> moved to
> > > > a different location, but that's the only kind of event that I
> believe
> > > > would have gone virtually unnoticed: workers at the Tower would
> > > > naturally expect the boys to be moved at some point to a more
> suitable
> > > > place, and their attendants would have simply packed up their
> > > > belongings, arranged transport, and taken them on their way in
the
> > > > normal fashion.
> > >
> > > And it seems to me that the logical person to have been put in
> charge of their moving would have been Buckingham. Probably not
> personally, but by people under him. He was, after all, Constable of
> London and Constable of the Tower. He certainly had the authority and
> his orders would not have been questioned.
> > >
> > > By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was
> accused of having?
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-22 14:42:39
--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Katy, you wrote: By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was accused of having?
> Can you expand on where this came from?
> Regards, Annette
I suppose this could only have been the foreknowledge that there was a plot to remove Richard from the throne. That slimy Morton could have divulged this to him when they spent time together at Buckingham's Brecon Castle where Moreton had been sent.
However it would not have made sense for Moreton to have told him that they were plotting to put the Weasle on the throne. What sense would it have made for Buckingham who had had power and wealth bestowed upon him by Richard. Morton may twisted the facts and led him, Buckingham to believe that it was he, Buckingham they were going to bestow kingship upon.. Guesswork of course but what else have we to go on??
>
>
> Sorry, Katy, you wrote: By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was accused of having?
> Can you expand on where this came from?
> Regards, Annette
I suppose this could only have been the foreknowledge that there was a plot to remove Richard from the throne. That slimy Morton could have divulged this to him when they spent time together at Buckingham's Brecon Castle where Moreton had been sent.
However it would not have made sense for Moreton to have told him that they were plotting to put the Weasle on the throne. What sense would it have made for Buckingham who had had power and wealth bestowed upon him by Richard. Morton may twisted the facts and led him, Buckingham to believe that it was he, Buckingham they were going to bestow kingship upon.. Guesswork of course but what else have we to go on??
>
Re: Richard III the maligned king
2009-05-22 15:54:31
--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "annettecarson@" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, Katy, you wrote: By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was accused of having?
> > Can you expand on where this came from?
> > Regards, Annette
>
> I suppose this could only have been the foreknowledge that there was a plot to remove Richard from the throne.
For anyone who is scratching his or her head and trying to figure out where my "guilty foreknowledge" business came from, let me add that those were the very words I recall from whatever I read long ago.
Katy
>
> --- In , "annettecarson@" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, Katy, you wrote: By the way, what was that "guilty foreknowledge" Buckingham was accused of having?
> > Can you expand on where this came from?
> > Regards, Annette
>
> I suppose this could only have been the foreknowledge that there was a plot to remove Richard from the throne.
For anyone who is scratching his or her head and trying to figure out where my "guilty foreknowledge" business came from, let me add that those were the very words I recall from whatever I read long ago.
Katy
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.