Ricardian books

Well I got my paycheck from work and it turns out I got a little more than I
expected. I decided I'm gonna buy some out of print books online with it. Any
recommendations for Ricardian books (preferably ones that aren't hostile, but
I think you all knew that lol). The only one that I'm interested in so far is
The Reluctant Queen by Jean Plaidy. Thanks!

*Vicky*
"But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
McKellen

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> Well I got my paycheck from work and it turns out I got a little
more than I
> expected. I decided I'm gonna buy some out of print books online
with it.

Well, I really enjoyed Cheetham's book, which is unfortunately out of
print but available at used bookstores (I paid $5) or some of the LOW
used prices here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
/1566490383/qid=1040977139/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8024997-0869534?
v=glance&s=books

I have a general military overview of the War of the Roses, but I
cannot remember the auther right now (I'm at work). The Osprey Man-
At-Arms series have nice colour plates, but the text can be a bit
sketchy at times.


- Lars

Some time ago I posted a request for any genuinely
moderate books arguing that Richard DID kill the
princes. Ross's (I think I've got the right author)
reads like he is acutely manic depressive. Noone had
any suggestions.

I found one in Half Price Books the other day. Found
"The Religious Life of Richard III: Piety and Prayer
in the North of England", by Jonathan Hughes. He says
the Richard III Society aren't in love with his
arguments. He believes Richard did everything he was
accused of, on the grounds that most contemporaries
believed it. He makes a reasonable argument, though
he doesn't go into the arguments that the
contempararies were wrong. He does not see Mancini,
for instance, as biased, and he does think that
Mancini and others reported what most people at the
time believed. He makes a far more reasoned sounding
argument than Ross does.

Despite this belief, it looks as though he has a very
balanced view of Richard's character.

I do think he is wrong about one thing. Certain
actions by Richard and Henry IV may have shocked
contemporaries, but they were not new in the annals of
English monarchy. From what Hughes said, Richard's
life reads like a Hercules tale. Medieval society
was breaking down, and Richard's problems, the Wars of
the Roses, and the Tudor reigns were largely about
this adn the transformation of the society. Hercules
was an actual prince, prone to very violent rages and
fits of madness, in a society where such feudal
warlord behavior had once been the rule, but which no
longer accepted it. Sounds like ditto for Henry IV
and Richard III. I think the execution of Hastings,
assuming it did happen without trial, was a Hercules
sort of fits of rage. Angevin kings had them all of
the time. One of the Henry's killed his best friend
at dinner one night, having imagined that he insulted
him, and Louis the Pious of France, who won sainthood
partly by struggling hard and for the most part
successfully with what probably was a serious mood
disorder, once killed a servant by hitting him with
his bare hand in a fit of temper. Their capacity to
inspire terror in people by being quite unpredictably
terrifying, did as much as their energy and ambition
to make these warlords a dynasty of kings. My mother
had fits like this, a counsellor had no trouble
understanding me when I said, worried about going to
my sister's wedding, that "she has a feudal warlord
temper", and when I started having them, a
psychiatrist called them "anger attacks". Something
of an understatement, though he knew what I was
talking about, too. Or he said he did. They typify
both acute depression and bipolar disorder. When a
housemate threw them, his psychiatrist called it
psychotic rage!

In fact, at one time, I thought we inherited our
problems from the Angevin kings, from whom we are
descended once or twice, and not six times as Family
Search would have us believe! Don't think it's quite
the same genes, just the eternal prediliction of
people with bipolar disorder to marry each other,
which happened consistently down some lines of my
ancestry. But at that time I was missing both a
proper diagnosis, and critical family medical history
that had been covered up.

Yours,
Dora

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

In a message dated 12/27/2002 6:50:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tiggernut24@... writes:


> Some time ago I posted a request for any genuinely
> moderate books arguing that Richard DID kill the
> princes. Ross's (I think I've got the right author)
> reads like he is acutely manic depressive. Noone had
> any suggestions.

Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower argues that Richard killed the
princes. I'm still in the middle of it, but it looks like she's siding with
Thomas More in that matter. The thing that bugs me is she keeps saying
"Croyland said..." or "Mancini said..." like she's taking their words as
concrete evidence. However, she gives the Wydvilles the blame for Clarence's
murder, saying Edward IV ordered it at their request.
*Vicky*
"But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
McKellen

Alison Weir definitely isn't the best argument that
Richard murdered the princes. Everyone writes that
her logic is poor and one can drive a truck through
the problems with her arguments.

Ross's book is supposed to be balanced and thorough,
which is why I was startled when it was anything but.

Dora


--- hockeygirl1016@... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/27/2002 6:50:17 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> tiggernut24@... writes:
>
>
> > Some time ago I posted a request for any genuinely
> > moderate books arguing that Richard DID kill the
> > princes. Ross's (I think I've got the right
> author)
> > reads like he is acutely manic depressive. Noone
> had
> > any suggestions.
>
> Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower argues that
> Richard killed the
> princes. I'm still in the middle of it, but it looks
> like she's siding with
> Thomas More in that matter. The thing that bugs me
> is she keeps saying
> "Croyland said..." or "Mancini said..." like she's
> taking their words as
> concrete evidence. However, she gives the Wydvilles
> the blame for Clarence's
> murder, saying Edward IV ordered it at their
> request.
> *Vicky*
> "But I love this troupe of players, this company,
> the regulars on Saturday
> Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he
> cute!"- The great Sir Ian
> McKellen
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

In a message dated 12/28/2002 6:14:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tiggernut24@... writes:


> Alison Weir definitely isn't the best argument that
> Richard murdered the princes. Everyone writes that
> her logic is poor and one can drive a truck through
> the problems with her arguments.

She seems conflicted. One minute she's praising Richard for standing up for
Clarence, the next she's calling him an ambitious power-hungry killer.
*Vicky*
"But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
McKellen

Richard's nephews, whom he bastardized (I bet they didn't like that)
would've been bastards in the sense of being ruthless and cruel to
Richard III & his family & friends had they escaped. The rebellion of
1483 was raised in their name. Not to have killed these 2 deep
enemies of Richard would've betrayed a weakness which he didn't show
against others: Rivers, Vaughan, Hastings, Buckingham, Collingbourne
and many others...interestingly, also Richard Grey: half-brother to
Edward V. If Richard could have HIM executed, then, why not an even
more dangerous individual like Edward V, who he may have convinced
himself was indeed the biggest bastard of all! Richard was a
religious type who probably was good at convincing himself that he was
always right, just as his greatnephew; Henry VIII, in his twisted way,
always thought that he was right.

Richard's silence about the princes, the fact that their sister had
become the main piece on the board by December, 1483 and the
contemporary accounts all point to Richard. Buckingham has been a
candidate as the killer, but Richard deposed them, probably wished
them dead, as they wished him dead & had the opportunity to do it. If
Buckingham had murdered them, Richard had nothing to lose in
announcing this, everyone thought Richard responsible, but his silence
either cried 'Guilt' or Richard was stupid. I've never thought him
stupid.



--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 12/28/2002 6:14:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> tiggernut24@y... writes:
>
>
> > Alison Weir definitely isn't the best argument that
> > Richard murdered the princes. Everyone writes that
> > her logic is poor and one can drive a truck through
> > the problems with her arguments.
>
> She seems conflicted. One minute she's praising Richard for standing
up for
> Clarence, the next she's calling him an ambitious power-hungry
killer.
> *Vicky*
> "But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on
Saturday
> Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great
Sir Ian
> McKellen
>
>
>

One of the most convincing arguments for Richard's
innocence is that it made no good political sense to
kill the boys before they reached adulthood, and
neither Edward IV nor Richard ever did such a thing at
any other time. They killed key rivals, yes. But
they did not kill women or children. They carefully
didn't kill Henry VI until everyone between him and
Edward IV in line for the succession was dead. If
Richard were going to kill the boys, he would have
waited until they were adults or lead a coup against
him.

Another of the most convincing arguments for Richard's
innocence is that neither Richard nor Henry ever
literally silenced a death they stood to benefit from.
They didn't say they killed Henry VI, but they did
let it be known he was dead!

The picture and the religiousity give me reason to
believe Kay Penman's explanation. Buckingham did it,
and convinced Richard not to tell anyone of the boy's
disappearance. Richard had the sort of personality
and the sort of misplaced faith in the likes of
Buckingham, that he went along with it. When Richard
found out the truth, having the sort of personality he
did, he believed it "too late" to tell people. You or
I would have had better sense - atleast I hope you
would. But I think Richard didn't. When I was in the
Gay Political Caucus in Albany, you should have seen
the strange arguments that could convince a closet
queen sort it wasn't the right time to speak up! And
you should have seen the legislators' aids who would
advance that argument!

Dora


--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> Richard's nephews, whom he bastardized (I bet they
> didn't like that)
> would've been bastards in the sense of being
> ruthless and cruel to
> Richard III & his family & friends had they escaped.
> The rebellion of
> 1483 was raised in their name. Not to have killed
> these 2 deep
> enemies of Richard would've betrayed a weakness
> which he didn't show
> against others: Rivers, Vaughan, Hastings,
> Buckingham, Collingbourne
> and many others...interestingly, also Richard Grey:
> half-brother to
> Edward V. If Richard could have HIM executed, then,
> why not an even
> more dangerous individual like Edward V, who he may
> have convinced
> himself was indeed the biggest bastard of all!
> Richard was a
> religious type who probably was good at convincing
> himself that he was
> always right, just as his greatnephew; Henry VIII,
> in his twisted way,
> always thought that he was right.
>
> Richard's silence about the princes, the fact that
> their sister had
> become the main piece on the board by December, 1483
> and the
> contemporary accounts all point to Richard.
> Buckingham has been a
> candidate as the killer, but Richard deposed them,
> probably wished
> them dead, as they wished him dead & had the
> opportunity to do it. If
> Buckingham had murdered them, Richard had nothing to
> lose in
> announcing this, everyone thought Richard
> responsible, but his silence
> either cried 'Guilt' or Richard was stupid. I've
> never thought him
> stupid.
>
>
>
> --- In ,
> hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote:
> > In a message dated 12/28/2002 6:14:24 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> > tiggernut24@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > Alison Weir definitely isn't the best argument
> that
> > > Richard murdered the princes. Everyone writes
> that
> > > her logic is poor and one can drive a truck
> through
> > > the problems with her arguments.
> >
> > She seems conflicted. One minute she's praising
> Richard for standing
> up for
> > Clarence, the next she's calling him an ambitious
> power-hungry
> killer.
> > *Vicky*
> > "But I love this troupe of players, this company,
> the regulars on
> Saturday
> > Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he
> cute!"- The great
> Sir Ian
> > McKellen
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

At 04:42 AM 12/29/02 -0000, you wrote:

>
>Richard's silence about the princes, the fact that their sister had
>become the main piece on the board by December, 1483 and the
>contemporary accounts all point to Richard.

As far as I know, there are only three contemporary accounts: Mancini,
Crowland and von Poppelau.

Mancini says there is a suspicion they have been done away with but he has
been unable to find out how. Crowland says that after Buckingham joined the
rebellion -- which originally, let's recall, was on behalf of the princes
-- it was rumored that the princes had been put to death. Von Poppelau says
he heard two different rumors, one that the princes were dead, and another
that Richard was keeping them at a secure location.

So our only contemporary accounts are accounts of rumors.

One can argue that Richard had motive and opportunity and must be included
on a list of suspects. The contemporary accounts, however, point to nothing
more than the fact that when times are troubled all kinds of rumors will
fly around.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Rumours which pointed to Richard as the killer. But why didn't
Richard scotch these damaging Rumours? If Buckingham was guilty
I'd have thought that Richard would've mentioned it; he certainly
was critical of him in other ways.

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 04:42 AM 12/29/02 -0000, you wrote:
>
> >
> >Richard's silence about the princes, the fact that their sister had
> >become the main piece on the board by December, 1483 and the
> >contemporary accounts all point to Richard.
>
> As far as I know, there are only three contemporary accounts:
Mancini,
> Crowland and von Poppelau.
>
> Mancini says there is a suspicion they have been done away with but
he has
> been unable to find out how. Crowland says that after Buckingham
joined the
> rebellion -- which originally, let's recall, was on behalf of the
princes
> -- it was rumored that the princes had been put to death. Von
Poppelau says
> he heard two different rumors, one that the princes were dead, and
another
> that Richard was keeping them at a secure location.
>
> So our only contemporary accounts are accounts of rumors.
>
> One can argue that Richard had motive and opportunity and must be
included
> on a list of suspects. The contemporary accounts, however, point to
nothing
> more than the fact that when times are troubled all kinds of rumors
will
> fly around.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

At 05:25 PM 12/29/02 -0000, you wrote:
>Rumours which pointed to Richard as the killer. But why didn't
>Richard scotch these damaging Rumours? If Buckingham was guilty
>I'd have thought that Richard would've mentioned it; he certainly
>was critical of him in other ways.
>


The only way to completely scotch the rumor was to put the boys on some
kind of public display, which would have the effect of encouraging the
folks who were agitating to reinstate them. Considering that "Buckingham's
rebellion" started with folks in Kent and elsewhere attempting to put the
boys on the throne, that would have been a calculated risk. The fact that
Von Poppelau heard another version of what happened to the boys in 1484
suggests that there was an attempt to put down the rumor.

The sad fact is that we have very little in the way of evidence one way or
the other. We don't know what steps Richrad may have taken from fall 1483
to summer 1485 -- there was, after all, no incentive to preserve the
Ricardian side of the story after Bosworth. The only "counter rumor" that
has survived is the Von Poppelau one, far, far away from England.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

If the boys had escaped from the Tower and captured Richard,
whether boys or not, they most certainly would've sanctioned the
death of Richard, so he had a very good reason for wanting them to
disappear. Their secret murder would remove the threat while
obscuring what really happened to them, thus attempting to remove the
opprobrium of the murder of children.

Women and children of course were murdered before and after that
time.
If Richard could murder Grey, why not his half-brother Edward V?
Edward V: a far greater threat then, as later, to Richard, who was in
Richard's lofty moral sense (, for himself,) a mere bastard. Was
Richard sentimental about a 12 year old, son of his ruthless brother
&
scheming sister-in-law?

I think what came out in Richard was the sheer hatred for Edward IV,
which he'd suppressed for years. Hence, his reference to Edward's
decline and his lashing out at Edward's family and sons. It's
noticeable that there was an attempt to bastardize Edward, too. This
is understandable, because Edward HAD become a monster, abusive and
bullying, but Richard could not do anything about him while he lived,
unless he wanted to take the plunge with George.

Richard had good reason to be relatively silent about the death of
the
princes, because (a) they were only children, (b) many thought their
title legal, (c) they may've been popular, as Edward IV probably was
in the public eye. (The public didn't really know him / not that
democracy counted for very much, unless public opinion turned
against you, as it did for Richard.) (d) Croyland, who seems to be
close to Richard's government, says that it was given out (by
Richard?) that the boys were dead, but how was not mentioned. This
fits with Richard's best way of dealing with the little bastards.

It would've been very noble of Richard to protect the reputation of
Buckingham, had he been the murderer, but Richard was very fond of
blackening others reputation usually: Dorset, Hastings, Edward IV,
his sons, Tudor, who were 'bastards' or licentious. I'm always
suspicious about people who denounce sex as something improper, given
that we've all come here because of it & it's very strange if people
don't enjoy it! Richard acting like a closet gay & concealing the
fact that his former, treacherous, pal was in fact a murderer doesn't
sound like Richard. He was very fond of broadcasting others' faults,
never mentioning his own!

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> One of the most convincing arguments for Richard's
> innocence is that it made no good political sense to
> kill the boys before they reached adulthood, and
> neither Edward IV nor Richard ever did such a thing at
> any other time. They killed key rivals, yes. But
> they did not kill women or children. They carefully
> didn't kill Henry VI until everyone between him and
> Edward IV in line for the succession was dead. If
> Richard were going to kill the boys, he would have
> waited until they were adults or lead a coup against
> him.


> Another of the most convincing arguments for Richard's
> innocence is that neither Richard nor Henry ever
> literally silenced a death they stood to benefit from.
> They didn't say they killed Henry VI, but they did
> let it be known he was dead!
>
> The picture and the religiousity give me reason to
> believe Kay Penman's explanation. Buckingham did it,
> and convinced Richard not to tell anyone of the boy's
> disappearance. Richard had the sort of personality
> and the sort of misplaced faith in the likes of
> Buckingham, that he went along with it. When Richard
> found out the truth, having the sort of personality he
> did, he believed it "too late" to tell people. You or
> I would have had better sense - atleast I hope you
> would. But I think Richard didn't. When I was in the
> Gay Political Caucus in Albany, you should have seen
> the strange arguments that could convince a closet
> queen sort it wasn't the right time to speak up! And
> you should have seen the legislators' aids who would
> advance that argument!
>
> Dora
>
>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Richard's nephews, whom he bastardized (I bet they
> > didn't like that)
> > would've been bastards in the sense of being
> > ruthless and cruel to
> > Richard III & his family & friends had they escaped.
> > The rebellion of
> > 1483 was raised in their name. Not to have killed
> > these 2 deep
> > enemies of Richard would've betrayed a weakness
> > which he didn't show
> > against others: Rivers, Vaughan, Hastings,
> > Buckingham, Collingbourne
> > and many others...interestingly, also Richard Grey:
> > half-brother to
> > Edward V. If Richard could have HIM executed, then,
> > why not an even
> > more dangerous individual like Edward V, who he may
> > have convinced
> > himself was indeed the biggest bastard of all!
> > Richard was a
> > religious type who probably was good at convincing
> > himself that he was
> > always right, just as his greatnephew; Henry VIII,
> > in his twisted way,
> > always thought that he was right.
> >
> > Richard's silence about the princes, the fact that
> > their sister had
> > become the main piece on the board by December, 1483
> > and the
> > contemporary accounts all point to Richard.
> > Buckingham has been a
> > candidate as the killer, but Richard deposed them,
> > probably wished
> > them dead, as they wished him dead & had the
> > opportunity to do it. If
> > Buckingham had murdered them, Richard had nothing to
> > lose in
> > announcing this, everyone thought Richard
> > responsible, but his silence
> > either cried 'Guilt' or Richard was stupid. I've
> > never thought him
> > stupid.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ,
> > hockeygirl1016@a...
> > wrote:
> > > In a message dated 12/28/2002 6:14:24 PM Eastern
> > Standard Time,
> > > tiggernut24@y... writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Alison Weir definitely isn't the best argument
> > that
> > > > Richard murdered the princes. Everyone writes
> > that
> > > > her logic is poor and one can drive a truck
> > through
> > > > the problems with her arguments.
> > >
> > > She seems conflicted. One minute she's praising
> > Richard for standing
> > up for
> > > Clarence, the next she's calling him an ambitious
> > power-hungry
> > killer.
> > > *Vicky*
> > > "But I love this troupe of players, this company,
> > the regulars on
> > Saturday
> > > Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he
> > cute!"- The great
> > Sir Ian
> > > McKellen
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com

So, Von Poppelau, presumably back in Germany, believed that the
princes were alive or dead. Stating the obvious!

The fact is that when Tudor announced in December, 1483 that he
planned to marry Elizabeth the lovely sister of Edward V, why was
this seen as important, unless her brothers with a prior claim to
Sovereignty were dead? Why did Richard make a public declaration in
London Guild Hall that HE had no interest in marrying her, unless they
were dead?

The behaviour of Richard, Tudor and the unscotched rumours all
point to the death of the princes. It may be that Richard wasn't
sentimental about these boys - he's not seen 19th century paintings
of these 'innocent' effeminately attractive boys - but he may've been
exposed to a clever, petulant Edward V, as described by Thomas More,
who didn't take Richard's side over the removal of Woodville
influence, as suggested by Hastings. Richard may've seen in Edward V
an embryo Edward IV, and he may well have had more than enough of that
type of abusive tyrant. Fear & ambition probably propelled him to the
throne.

Displaying the children before the 1483 rebellion may've been
provocative, but not after its suppression. In any case, displaying
their dead bodies, as I think was the case, would've been very unwise.



In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 05:25 PM 12/29/02 -0000, you wrote:
> >Rumours which pointed to Richard as the killer. But why didn't
> >Richard scotch these damaging Rumours? If Buckingham was guilty
> >I'd have thought that Richard would've mentioned it; he certainly
> >was critical of him in other ways.
> >
>
>
> The only way to completely scotch the rumor was to put the boys on
some
> kind of public display, which would have the effect of encouraging
the
> folks who were agitating to reinstate them. Considering that
"Buckingham's
> rebellion" started with folks in Kent and elsewhere attempting to
put the
> boys on the throne, that would have been a calculated risk. The
fact
that
> Von Poppelau heard another version of what happened to the boys in
1484
> suggests that there was an attempt to put down the rumor.
>
> The sad fact is that we have very little in the way of evidence one
way or
> the other. We don't know what steps Richrad may have taken from
fall
1483
> to summer 1485 -- there was, after all, no incentive to preserve the
> Ricardian side of the story after Bosworth. The only "counter
rumor"
that
> has survived is the Von Poppelau one, far, far away from England.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

very well put
----- Original Message -----
From: Laura Blanchard
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Richard & his 'bastard' nephews


At 04:42 AM 12/29/02 -0000, you wrote:

>
>Richard's silence about the princes, the fact that their sister had
>become the main piece on the board by December, 1483 and the
>contemporary accounts all point to Richard.

As far as I know, there are only three contemporary accounts: Mancini,
Crowland and von Poppelau.

Mancini says there is a suspicion they have been done away with but he has
been unable to find out how. Crowland says that after Buckingham joined the
rebellion -- which originally, let's recall, was on behalf of the princes
-- it was rumored that the princes had been put to death. Von Poppelau says
he heard two different rumors, one that the princes were dead, and another
that Richard was keeping them at a secure location.

So our only contemporary accounts are accounts of rumors.

One can argue that Richard had motive and opportunity and must be included
on a list of suspects. The contemporary accounts, however, point to nothing
more than the fact that when times are troubled all kinds of rumors will
fly around.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

If you listen to Weir, he also most probably killed kennedy
----- Original Message -----
From: hockeygirl1016@...
To:
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: Ricardian books - moderate anti-Richard book


In a message dated 12/27/2002 6:50:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tiggernut24@... writes:


> Some time ago I posted a request for any genuinely
> moderate books arguing that Richard DID kill the
> princes. Ross's (I think I've got the right author)
> reads like he is acutely manic depressive. Noone had
> any suggestions.

Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower argues that Richard killed the
princes. I'm still in the middle of it, but it looks like she's siding with
Thomas More in that matter. The thing that bugs me is she keeps saying
"Croyland said..." or "Mancini said..." like she's taking their words as
concrete evidence. However, she gives the Wydvilles the blame for Clarence's
murder, saying Edward IV ordered it at their request.
*Vicky*
"But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
McKellen





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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

LOL

Weir ain't nothin' but a Tudor groupie.

hewbyrd@... wrote:
>
> If you listen to Weir, he also most probably killed kennedy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: hockeygirl1016@...
> To:
> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 10:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Ricardian books - moderate anti-Richard book
>
> In a message dated 12/27/2002 6:50:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> tiggernut24@... writes:
>
> > Some time ago I posted a request for any genuinely
> > moderate books arguing that Richard DID kill the
> > princes. Ross's (I think I've got the right author)
> > reads like he is acutely manic depressive. Noone had
> > any suggestions.
>
> Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower argues that Richard killed the
> princes. I'm still in the middle of it, but it looks like she's siding with
> Thomas More in that matter. The thing that bugs me is she keeps saying
> "Croyland said..." or "Mancini said..." like she's taking their words as
> concrete evidence. However, she gives the Wydvilles the blame for Clarence's
> murder, saying Edward IV ordered it at their request.
> *Vicky*
> "But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
> Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
> McKellen
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

At 06:33 PM 12/29/02 -0000, you wrote:
>So, Von Poppelau, presumably back in Germany, believed that the
>princes were alive or dead. Stating the obvious!
>

I am not aware that I wrote anything about Von Poppelau's beliefs. I
mentioned that he reported two rumors. In point of fact, he commented that
he believed the report that they were alive.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

willison2001 <willison2001@...>29/12/2002
18:25willison2001@...

> Rumours which pointed to Richard as the killer. But why didn't
> Richard scotch these damaging Rumours? If Buckingham was guilty
> I'd have thought that Richard would've mentioned it; he certainly
> was critical of him in other ways.
Possibly because he had no proof beyond what Buckingham told him at the last
meeting in Gloucester. Also maybe guilt as he was responsible by giving
Buckingham the powers that enabled him to carry out the deed?
Paul

> Possibly because he had no proof beyond what Buckingham told him at the
last
> meeting in Gloucester. Also maybe guilt as he was responsible by giving
> Buckingham the powers that enabled him to carry out the deed?
> Paul
>
I must confess I have always suspected the Duke of Buck. The thing that
always exercises me is Brackenbury. "Gentle Brackenbury" according to Sir
Thomas More (I think). He was Constable of the Tower. Surely he must have
known whodunnit? And yet he died fighting for Richard at Bosworth.

I think the general view is that the dodgy moment(s) took place when Richard
was on progress in the Gloucester area. Why did he call Buckingham "The
most untrue creature living"? This was in a PS to a private letter.

On the other hand I think you can argue that the uncertainty over the death
of the Princes could have worked in Richard's favour. So arguably he could
have had them killed but not divulged it because the uncertainty....well I'm
not sure about this argument! Why would the uncertainty serve his cause???

Cheers

Jessica

tis true
happy new year






>From: Carol Rondou <lilith@...>
>Reply-To:
>To:
>Subject: Re: Ricardian books - moderate
>anti-Richard book
>Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 20:12:12 -0600
>


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf

--- In , "Jessica Rydill"
>
> On the other hand I think you can argue that the uncertainty over
the death
> of the Princes could have worked in Richard's favour. So arguably
he could
> have had them killed but not divulged it because the
uncertainty....well I'm
> not sure about this argument! Why would the uncertainty serve his
cause???
>
> Cheers
>
> Jessica

There is the idea of "plausible deniability". It would have served
his cause in that Henry Tudor, who was making his case as the only
legitimate (ha!) heir to the throne, might find it a little more
difficult to win over broad support from leading nobles of formerly
Yorkist stamp if the issue was in doubt. Given the elder Stanley's
reluctance to commit either way at Bosworth, it seems possible. With
William Stanley lying doggo, he had a fair chance of defeating Tudor,
even with young Thomas Stanley's support for the Welshman. The battle
and the months of manuever leading up to it (including Buckingham's
rebellion)might well cause Richard to not wish to confirm his
nephews' deaths. If Stanley had been given grounds to believe the
Princes dead and Richard responsible, his troops would have made the
historic outcome of Bosworth inevitable from the outset.

Of course, had Richard provided proof of Buckingham's responsibility
for the Princes' demise, might have eroded Tudor's support even
further.

Evan

> There is the idea of "plausible deniability". It would have served
> his cause in that Henry Tudor, who was making his case as the only
> legitimate (ha!) heir to the throne, might find it a little more
> difficult to win over broad support from leading nobles of formerly
> Yorkist stamp if the issue was in doubt.

I guess the problem I have with that argument is as follows:

Say Richard kills his nephews to defeat the initial object of the 1483
rebellion. He needs the rebels to believe them dead.

But with Tudor's claim to the fore in 1484-85, it would be better if they
were alive. (Tudor basing his claim on the assumption that they were dead
and he would be free to accede by marrying Elizabeth of York).

So, assuming the dirty deed took place in or around June-August 1483, the
Stanley/Tudor arguments don't apply. Richard would rather benefit from
proclaiming his nephews dead. At that stage, Richard's own son and heir was
alive and Tudor's claim must have seemed remote.

I do agree that the Buckingham argument is shaky. Unless Buckingham
disposed of circumstances in such a way that Richard could not prove the
Duke's guilt without implicating himself (surely this was the case?)

On the other hand I don't think anyone has ever brought forward contemporary
corroboration of a Buckingham-sponsored murder. Whereas for the death of
the Princes we have More's circumstantial account of the murder together
with Dighton, Forest etc.

(Although as usual this raises the inevitable question: what was More trying
to do? Possibly not to write a history at all...)

Jessica

If "Buckinghams rebellion" was created to free the princes then it would have been logical for Richard to announce their death if they were dead at the time
But if they were not dead at the time that kills lol my theory that Buckingham did it
However if Richard did it , it makes sense for me for Richard to take the stance , I killed them not what are you going to do about it.
This is why although I do not care for fictional mysteries ,real life mysteries fascinate me
----- Original Message -----
From: Evan <eherring_82@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Richard & his 'bastard' nephews


--- In , "Jessica Rydill"
>
> On the other hand I think you can argue that the uncertainty over
the death
> of the Princes could have worked in Richard's favour. So arguably
he could
> have had them killed but not divulged it because the
uncertainty....well I'm
> not sure about this argument! Why would the uncertainty serve his
cause???
>
> Cheers
>
> Jessica

There is the idea of "plausible deniability". It would have served
his cause in that Henry Tudor, who was making his case as the only
legitimate (ha!) heir to the throne, might find it a little more
difficult to win over broad support from leading nobles of formerly
Yorkist stamp if the issue was in doubt. Given the elder Stanley's
reluctance to commit either way at Bosworth, it seems possible. With
William Stanley lying doggo, he had a fair chance of defeating Tudor,
even with young Thomas Stanley's support for the Welshman. The battle
and the months of manuever leading up to it (including Buckingham's
rebellion)might well cause Richard to not wish to confirm his
nephews' deaths. If Stanley had been given grounds to believe the
Princes dead and Richard responsible, his troops would have made the
historic outcome of Bosworth inevitable from the outset.

Of course, had Richard provided proof of Buckingham's responsibility
for the Princes' demise, might have eroded Tudor's support even
further.

Evan


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Jessica Rydill30/12/2002 13:26la@...

> I must confess I have always suspected the Duke of Buck. The thing that
> always exercises me is Brackenbury. "Gentle Brackenbury" according to Sir
> Thomas More (I think). He was Constable of the Tower. Surely he must have
> known whodunnit? And yet he died fighting for Richard at Bosworth.
doesn't his behaviour speak volumes?
Of course it is Shakespeare who calls him 'gentle'. Then again you say "he
must have known whodunnit" which assumes there was a crime to do.
We also have to remember that the Tower was like a small town with lots of
people living and working there. So it is very odd that nothing but silence
surrounds this mystery. Or does it? We know Henry 7 gave carte blanche to
Vergil when he wrote his "history" and burned a lot of documents that
contradicted the Tudor version of events he wanted to write.
Now, I'd love to see what he destroyed. After all, Titulus Regius turned up,
which all thought all copies burned.
Paul

Jessica Rydill30/12/2002 13:26la@...

> On the other hand I think you can argue that the uncertainty over the death
> of the Princes could have worked in Richard's favour. So arguably he could
> have had them killed but not divulged it because the uncertainty.
meant to comment on this part of your post too Jessica.
Nobody has ever called Richard stupid, and I always say that had he killed
them he would have done what Edward did with Henry 6 and his son, displayed
the bodies with some tale of how they'd been struck by plague or whatever.
Uncertainty could only work against him.
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Jessica Rydill30/12/2002 13:26la@l...
>
> > On the other hand I think you can argue that the uncertainty over
the death
> > of the Princes could have worked in Richard's favour. So
arguably
he could
> > have had them killed but not divulged it because the uncertainty.
> meant to comment on this part of your post too Jessica.
> Nobody has ever called Richard stupid, and I always say that had he
killed
> them he would have done what Edward did with Henry 6 and his son,
displayed
> the bodies with some tale of how they'd been struck by plague or
whatever.
> Uncertainty could only work against him.
> Paul

If you've killed someone, keeping quiet about it is the norm, surely?
The death of Richard II was never clarified. Was he stabbed to
death, starved to death or did he die of natural causes?

Edward IV tried to make out that Henry VI had died of 'pure
displeasure & melancholy, despite the fact that Henry's head was
profusely bleeding!' Coincidental & suspicious?

Richard III may've felt that there was no need to make any
pronouncement over Edward V as he didn't see him as a King, but as a
mere 'BASTARD.' Why bother over such a person? That would account
for the fact that he didn't bother to do something about Edward's
bastard sister Elizabeth of York.

The fact that Richard could denounce others for bastardy,
licentiousness & ruthlessness while indulging in these himself is
contradictory & hyprocritical, but people are often that way. I'm
sure Hitler & Stalin thought they were the nicest guys in the world,
but that's not a view shared by many other people!

here's my argument. As I'm a fairly new Richard III-supporter, I confess I
used to go along with the Tudor belief that Richard was an evil jerk who
locked up his nephews and smothered them to death. But after reading into the
topic, my view has done a 180-degree turn. Firstly, if the two boys were
proclaimed bastards, wouldn't it be useless to have them killed? Illegitimate
offspring were able to have nice marriages and own land, but they couldn't
inherit titles. So if Richard III had killed them, it would have been
pointless, wouldn't it? But Henry VII would need all remnants of the Yorks
gone, so he had a reason to kill them. That, and the fact that all fingers
would point at Richard so it would kill his reputation. I forgot where I read
this, but Richard wasn't even in London at the time they disappeared (I think
I read he was on progress up north) so he couldn't have personally gone in
the tower and killed them himself. Just my take on it.

vQueen Victoriav

'But to kill them silently, to my mind, serves no purpose at all. Much
better to have them die of a convenient plague and display their
bodies publicly with much pomp. It's far more likely, to my mind,
that they either were alive or that Richard didn't have a clue where
they actually were.'

[email protected]:
if the two boys were> proclaimed bastards, wouldn't it be useless to
have them killed? Illegitimate> offspring were able to have nice
marriages and own land,but they couldn't> inherit titles. So if
Richard III had killed them, it would have been> pointless, wouldn't
it?

The princes would hardly have gone along with Richard's bastardization
of them, no more than their supporters! If Richard had discarded
them as mere bastards & no threat (not very likely as the 1483
rebellion was in their name) then this could've equally applied to
Henry VII. He claimed the throne in his own right, not that of his
wife. Both Tudor & Richard turned their attention to the sister
Elizabeth BEFORE August 1485 as though the boys were no longer
'players,' which suhggest to me that they were dead.

The idea that Richard 'didn't have a clue' where the princes were
sounds as though he was suffering from amnesia or had bungled their
imprisonment! If they'd escaped, why didn't they raise an army? If
they were alive & in prison they could've been displayed to offset the
ruin of Richard's reputation, presuming he was bothered about this?
He didn't have the gift of hindsight to know how his reputation was to
go & was too busy blackening those of his enemies, that's when he
wasn't killing them. It's all very well blaming a convenient plague,
but what if there were marks on the bodies showing they'd been
murdered?

Most damning of all, is the fact that every deposed monarch fell into
the grave: Edward II with the unfortunate poker up his anal cavity,
Richard II 'mysteriously died,' (from the way he behaved, I could've
murdered him myself,) Henry VI who died of 'melancholy,' but happened
to have a head which kept bleeding from a wound!!!

You gloss over the fact that Richard had a long record of killing his
enemies, but over the fictional legal technicality of their
illegitimisation you think Richard didn't see them as enemies and
wouldn't follow precedent like his brother Edward IV, Henry IV & the
politically incorrect Isabella of France, who clearly wasn't
impressed with her gay husband; Edward II (he of the aforesaid poker)?
Richard was prepared to do the decent thing with THEM (the bastards
in the Tower,) when with the Woodvilles, Hastings, Buckingham & many
others a brutal death was OK?

Thomas More...from what I've read, I have a feeling he wasn't really going
for an accurate biography with his History of Richard III. I'm so happy I can
talk about this, Thomas More is my area of expertise lol. He had spent two
years as a page with Archbishop Morton (who was Anti-Richard III) so I'm
guessing that's where some of his information from. And his own father was a
very devout subject of Edward IV, leaving in his will a request for an annual
repose of Edward's soul. He was surrounded by Anti-Richard III sources and he
was a subject of Henry VII/VIII so it's also filled with Tudor propaganda
(the stuff about Richard's deformities, how he was born by cesarean section,
etc). It wasn't even completed so I don't think he even intended for it to be
published. I think he was writing it as something to appease his king, with
some hints about himself in it, as his description of Richard III can also go
for himself as Erasmus stated that Thomas also had one shoulder that was
slightly higher than the other!

vQueen Victoriav

With regards to Richard's bastardization of his nephews: By all means they
wouldn't have gone along with it! Are you saying they didn't know he had done
it? Bear with me, as I'm still really new with this area of history.
vQueen Victoriav

At 07:23 PM 12/31/02 -0000, you wrote:

>You gloss over the fact that Richard had a long record of killing his
>enemies,

Well, there are the Woodviilles and Hastings during the protectorate. But
Richard hardly has a 'long record of killing his enemies.' No historian
seriously credits him with Henry VI's demise any longer, and whether
Clarence was an enemy and whether Richard had anything to do with his
imprisonment, trial and execution is by no means an open and shut case.

No, his silence means that we have virtually no record of him saying
anything and means no more than that. They could well have been alive and
in a secure location, as Von Poppelau had been told and believed, and these
reports may not have survived into the reign of Henry VII; or they could
have been removed (rescued, killed, whatever) by person or persons unknown;
or Richard could have ordered their murder and then scrupled to show the
bodies. The third strikes me as the most incredible.



--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

I agree
----- Original Message -----
From: P.T.Bale
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: Richard & his 'bastard' nephews


Jessica Rydill30/12/2002 13:26la@...

> I must confess I have always suspected the Duke of Buck. The thing that
> always exercises me is Brackenbury. "Gentle Brackenbury" according to Sir
> Thomas More (I think). He was Constable of the Tower. Surely he must have
> known whodunnit? And yet he died fighting for Richard at Bosworth.
doesn't his behaviour speak volumes?
Of course it is Shakespeare who calls him 'gentle'. Then again you say "he
must have known whodunnit" which assumes there was a crime to do.
We also have to remember that the Tower was like a small town with lots of
people living and working there. So it is very odd that nothing but silence
surrounds this mystery. Or does it? We know Henry 7 gave carte blanche to
Vergil when he wrote his "history" and burned a lot of documents that
contradicted the Tudor version of events he wanted to write.
Now, I'd love to see what he destroyed. After all, Titulus Regius turned up,
which all thought all copies burned.
Paul


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > Jessica Rydill30/12/2002 13:26la@l...
> >
> > > On the other hand I think you can argue that the uncertainty
over
> the death
> > > of the Princes could have worked in Richard's favour. So
> arguably
> he could
> > > have had them killed but not divulged it because the
uncertainty.
> > meant to comment on this part of your post too Jessica.
> > Nobody has ever called Richard stupid, and I always say that had
he
> killed
> > them he would have done what Edward did with Henry 6 and his son,
> displayed

> > the bodies with some tale of how they'd been struck by plague or
> whatever.
> > Uncertainty could only work against him.
> > Paul
>
> If you've killed someone, keeping quiet about it is the norm,
surely?
> The death of Richard II was never clarified. Was he stabbed to
> death, starved to death or did he die of natural causes?
>
> Edward IV tried to make out that Henry VI had died of 'pure
> displeasure & melancholy, despite the fact that Henry's head was
> profusely bleeding!' Coincidental & suspicious?
>
> Richard III may've felt that there was no need to make any
> pronouncement over Edward V as he didn't see him as a King, but as
a
> mere 'BASTARD.' Why bother over such a person? That would account
> for the fact that he didn't bother to do something about Edward's
> bastard sister Elizabeth of York.
>
> The fact that Richard could denounce others for bastardy,
> licentiousness & ruthlessness while indulging in these himself is
> contradictory & hyprocritical, but people are often that way. I'm
> sure Hitler & Stalin thought they were the nicest guys in the
world,
> but that's not a view shared by many other people!

Surely the fact that Richard had the princes confined in the Tower
means that even he did not really believe the 'bastard' accusation?
Why bother to confine the 'bastards' once that they have been exposed
as such?

michaelshankland <Infernus9@...>08/01/2003 0:07Infernus9@...

> Surely the fact that Richard had the princes confined in the Tower
> means that even he did not really believe the 'bastard' accusation?
well of course they were not "confined" there, but lodged there in the royal
apartments until Richard was made king, they were then moved to the Garden
Tower, hardly a prison.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> michaelshankland <Infernus9@a...>08/01/2003 0:07Infernus9@a...
>
> > Surely the fact that Richard had the princes confined in the Tower
> > means that even he did not really believe the 'bastard'
accusation?
> well of course they were not "confined" there, but lodged there in
the royal
> apartments until Richard was made king, they were then moved to the
Garden
> Tower, hardly a prison.

1. Do you think that Richard genuinely believed that his nephews were
bastards ? 2. Manchini claimed that "He (Edward V) and his brother
were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and by
day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at
length they ceased to appear altogether". ( quoted by Keith Dockray
'Richard III-A source book, p.77 Sutton publishing 1997. ) to me that
sounds like confinement!
Even if we choose not to count Manchini as a credible source, it
still begs the question, if the princes were 'bastards' why even
bother to 'lodge' or to confine them in the Tower. Either Richard
knew full well that they were legitimtate heirs to the throne or
alternately plenty of people would not accept that they were
illegitimate so the Princes were a threat to Richard's bid for power.

--- In , "michaelshankland
<Infernus9@a...>" <Infernus9@a...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > michaelshankland <Infernus9@a...>08/01/2003 0:07Infernus9@a...
> >
if we choose not to count Manchini as a credible source, it
> still begs the question, if the princes were 'bastards' why even
> bother to 'lodge' or to confine them in the Tower. Either Richard
> knew full well that they were legitimtate heirs to the throne or
> alternately plenty of people would not accept that they were
> illegitimate so the Princes were a threat to Richard's bid for
power.

I find it amazing that anyone could think that Richard was so naive
that he would not see the 'bastards' as a threat.

He must've noticed that the 1483 rebellion was in their name and that
THEY & their many supporters would not accept their bastardization.
Does Richard appear to have treated other enemies in a 'liberal' way:
Rivers, Grey, Hastings, Buckingham, the men he killed with his own
hand at Bosworth? Someone who is prepared to use an axe on someone
else's head could not be accused of naive liberalism.

It seems to me that Ricardians who take a rosy view of Richard over
the 'bastards' are projecting their own fluffy liberalism onto him,
which is as naive as Americana if they had not added security to their
airlines after 9/11.

>
>It seems to me that Ricardians who take a rosy view of Richard over
>the 'bastards' are projecting their own fluffy liberalism onto him,

I can assure you that I am neither liberal nor fluffy.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

fluffy liberalism? I'm just following the alternate theory

-Victoria
"Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-Oscar
Wilde

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "michaelshankland
> <Infernus9@a...>" <Infernus9@a...> wrote:
> > --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > > michaelshankland <Infernus9@a...>08/01/2003 0:07Infernus9@a...
> > >
> if we choose not to count Manchini as a credible source, it
> > still begs the question, if the princes were 'bastards' why even
> > bother to 'lodge' or to confine them in the Tower. Either Richard
> > knew full well that they were legitimtate heirs to the throne or
> > alternately plenty of people would not accept that they were
> > illegitimate so the Princes were a threat to Richard's bid for
> power.
>
> I find it amazing that anyone could think that Richard was so naive
> that he would not see the 'bastards' as a threat.
>
> He must've noticed that the 1483 rebellion was in their name and
that
> THEY & their many supporters would not accept their
bastardization.
> Does Richard appear to have treated other enemies in a 'liberal'
way:
> Rivers, Grey, Hastings, Buckingham, the men he killed with his own
> hand at Bosworth? Someone who is prepared to use an axe on someone
> else's head could not be accused of naive liberalism.
>
> It seems to me that Ricardians who take a rosy view of Richard over
> the 'bastards' are projecting their own fluffy liberalism onto him,
> which is as naive as Americana if they had not added security to
their
> airlines after 9/11.

Wow! Now we're politicizing the Plantagenets! Quick, was Richard a
conservative or a liberal? What about Tudor? What about me? Does
it matter? Hardly.

With your list of nobles Richard had executed, you are omitting, of
course, WHY they were executed and refraining from drawing parallels
to the Tudors. Ah, yes, the Tudors can judicially murder anyone they
like, but not Richard! Rivers, Grey, Hastings and Buckingham were
all implicated in coups against him, and Buckingham's rebellion took
place while Richard was King, if that makes any difference. Are you
SERIOUSLY counting William Brandon, Tudor's standard bearer, as a
casualty of Richard's despotism? I think that's going a bit too far,
don't you think?

But instead of naming the persons Richard DID kill, let's name those
he DIDN'T (but, perhaps, should have): Margaret Beaufort (mother of
Henry Tudor), Thomas and William Stanley, Thomas Stanley's son Lord
Strange (Richard's hostage at Bosworth), John Morton, Bishop of Ely,
John de Vere, the Earl of Oxford (prisoner of Haimes Castle until his
escape and a committed Lancastrian), the Marquess of Dorset,
Elizabeth Woodville, Jane Shore, ALL of whom were in some way
implicated in the various rebellions that took place before
Bosworth. Richard's "problem" was that he didn't kill ENOUGH
people. Let us not forget in our fluffy liberal way that Henry VIII
was STILL executing Plantagenets twenty years after the Battle of
Stoke and the end of the War of the Roses.

I think if you tally up the points, Richard comes out as being FAR
more restrained than the Tudor crowd. Or liberal, if you like. But
that's only if we can divorce him from Shakespeare's fiction.

'the Tudors can judicially murder anyone they> like, but not Richard!
Rivers, Grey, Hastings and Buckingham were> all implicated in coups
against him, and Buckingham's rebellion took> place while Richard was
King, if that makes any difference. Are you> SERIOUSLY counting
William Brandon, Tudor's standard bearer, as a > casualty of Richard's
despotism?'

You are very selective over Richard's attitude to others. Was
Margaret Beaufort (mother of Henry Tudor), worth executing? Thomas and
William Stanley weren't openly treacherous until it was too late.
Richard ordered the execution of Thomas Stanley's son Lord Strange
(Richard's hostage at Bosworth,) but this wasn't carried out.
John Morton, Bishop of Ely was imprisoned, as was John de Vere, the
Earl of Oxford, but both escaped. The Marquis of Dorset escaped.

Richard appeared to draw the line over the execution of women, which
stands to his credit: Elizabeth Woodville & Jane Shore, but both were
harassed. Richard was accused of murdering his wife, but I barely
credit that.

Personally, I'd place Henry VIII in the Monster Raving Loony Party! I
think the Tudors probably took a leaf out of the book of the Yorkists
for executions. However, Richard didn't even bother with farcical
trials for Rivers, Grey & Hastings & he wasn't even King when they
were beheaded.

The point I made was that Richard was perfectly capable of killing his
dangerous nephews and the refusal to see this says more about the rose
tinted view of certain Ricardians than anything else.

>
> The point I made was that Richard was perfectly capable of killing
his
> dangerous nephews and the refusal to see this says more about the
rose
> tinted view of certain Ricardians than anything else.

One reason I gave up being a 'Richardian' was that there seemed this
sad double standard when it comes to portraying Richard himself. He
has to be depicted as some sort of King Arthur figure and as a
consequence endless justifications and excuses have to be found for
him : For example I can not see how Richard could present himself as
being the Protector of Edward V before 24th June 1483 then suddenly
have it announced that Edward and his brother were really
illegitimate unles it was cynical bid for power on behalf of himself.
No wonder that there was a major rebellion in October 1483.

At 08:53 PM 1/9/03 -0000, you wrote:
>
>
>One reason I gave up being a 'Richardian' was that there seemed this
>sad double standard when it comes to portraying Richard himself.

That would be as opposed to being a 'Ricardian,' i.e., one who studies the
life, reign, and times of Richard III? That many 'Ricardians' are
'Richardians' is true, but I don't think it's at all fair to characterize
an entire group of people as possessing the attitudes and beliefs of a
subset thereof.

He
>has to be depicted as some sort of King Arthur figure

Not so. I know very few people prepared to argue that.

and as a
>consequence endless justifications and excuses have to be found for
>him : For example I can not see how Richard could present himself as
>being the Protector of Edward V before 24th June 1483 then suddenly
>have it announced that Edward and his brother were really
>illegitimate unles it was cynical bid for power on behalf of himself.

No? Try this: it's entirely possible that Richard began the protectorate
with every intention of being just that, the protector of his young nephew.
Now imagine if you will how *you* might react if, first, you found out that
another faction would like you out of power and possibly dead as well; and,
second, you were presented with a plausable excuse for taking power
yourself. Would you immediately announce "I have fears and doubts" so that
your opponents could question your loyalty and take potshots at you? No,
you wouldn't, and neither did Richard.

One of the leading historians of the reign, Rosemary Horrox, has written:

"The historian studying Richard, duke of Gloucester's seizure of the throne
in 1483 cannot know the precise proportions of ambition, fear and the
conviction thaht he was the best man to maintain political stability -- but
then nor, probably, did the duke himself. Self-interest and idealism not
only coexist, but blur into each other in complex and sometimes scarcely
admitted ways."

(Rosemary Horrox, "Personalities and Politics," in A. J. Pollard, ed. -The
Wars of the Roses_, St. Martins Press, 1995.)

I'd venture that Horrox knows the evidence in far greater detail than
either you or I, and her reading is a lot more nuanced than the extreme
alternatives you present us. She does not presume to read Richard's mind
and pronounce him cynical. As a Ricardian, I find Horrox's remarks to be
completely on target

>No wonder that there was a major rebellion in October 1483.
>

Not all that major, except insofar as it was a distraction from the
business of building relationships with his subjects. The major fallout
came from Richard's ill-judged policy of planting "alien" loyalists in
certain southern counties thereafter.


--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

At 04:18 PM 1/9/03 -0500, I wrote:


>One of the leading historians of the reign, Rosemary Horrox, has written:
>
>"The historian studying Richard, duke of Gloucester's seizure of the throne
>in 1483 cannot know the precise proportions of ambition, fear and the
>conviction that he was the best man to maintain political stability -- but
>then nor, probably, did the duke himself. Self-interest and idealism not
>only coexist, but blur into each other in complex and sometimes scarcely
>admitted ways."
>

It should read

"The historian studying Richard, duke of Gloucester's seizure of the throne
in 1483 cannot know the precise proportions of ambition, fear and the
conviction that he was the best man to maintain political stability which
motivated him -- but
then nor, probably, did the duke himself. Self-interest and idealism not
only coexist, but blur into each other in complex and sometimes scarcely
admitted ways."


>(Rosemary Horrox, "Personalities and Politics," in A. J. Pollard, ed. -The
>Wars of the Roses_, St. Martins Press, 1995.)
>
>I'd venture that Horrox knows the evidence in far greater detail than
>either you or I, and her reading is a lot more nuanced than the extreme
>alternatives you present us. She does not presume to read Richard's mind
>and pronounce him cynical. As a Ricardian, I find Horrox's remarks to be
>completely on target
>
>>No wonder that there was a major rebellion in October 1483.
>>
>
>Not all that major, except insofar as it was a distraction from the
>business of building relationships with his subjects. The major fallout
>came from Richard's ill-judged policy of planting "alien" loyalists in
>certain southern counties thereafter.
>
>
>--
>Laura Blanchard
>lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
>Collections Libraries
>lblanchard@... (all other mail)
>Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
>http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Richard appears to have confined the boys because they were the focus
of Woodville efforts to control the throne.

Dora


--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> michaelshankland <Infernus9@a...>08/01/2003 0:07Infernus9@a...
>
> > Surely the fact that Richard had the princes confined in the Tower
> > means that even he did not really believe the 'bastard'
accusation?
> well of course they were not "confined" there, but lodged there in
the royal
> apartments until Richard was made king, they were then moved to the
Garden
> Tower, hardly a prison.

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 08:53 PM 1/9/03 -0000, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >One reason I gave up being a 'Richardian' was that there seemed
this
> >sad double standard when it comes to portraying Richard himself.
>
> That would be as opposed to being a 'Ricardian,' i.e., one who
studies the
> life, reign, and times of Richard III? That many 'Ricardians' are
> 'Richardians' is true, but I don't think it's at all fair to
characterize
> an entire group of people as possessing the attitudes and beliefs
of a
> subset thereof.
>
> He
> >has to be depicted as some sort of King Arthur figure
>
> Not so. I know very few people prepared to argue that.
>
> and as a
> >consequence endless justifications and excuses have to be found
for
> >him : For example I can not see how Richard could present himself
as
> >being the Protector of Edward V before 24th June 1483 then
suddenly
> >have it announced that Edward and his brother were really
> >illegitimate unles it was cynical bid for power on behalf of
himself.
>
> No? Try this: it's entirely possible that Richard began the
protectorate
> with every intention of being just that, the protector of his young
nephew.
> Now imagine if you will how *you* might react if, first, you found
out that
> another faction would like you out of power and possibly dead as
well; and,
> second, you were presented with a plausable excuse for taking power
> yourself. Would you immediately announce "I have fears and doubts"
so that
> your opponents could question your loyalty and take potshots at
you? No,
> you wouldn't, and neither did Richard.
>
> One of the leading historians of the reign, Rosemary Horrox, has
written:
>
> "The historian studying Richard, duke of Gloucester's seizure of
the throne
> in 1483 cannot know the precise proportions of ambition, fear and
the
> conviction thaht he was the best man to maintain political
stability -- but
> then nor, probably, did the duke himself. Self-interest and
idealism not
> only coexist, but blur into each other in complex and sometimes
scarcely
> admitted ways."
>
> (Rosemary Horrox, "Personalities and Politics," in A. J. Pollard,
ed. -The
> Wars of the Roses_, St. Martins Press, 1995.)
>
> I'd venture that Horrox knows the evidence in far greater detail
than
> either you or I, and her reading is a lot more nuanced than the
extreme
> alternatives you present us. She does not presume to read Richard's
mind
> and pronounce him cynical. As a Ricardian, I find Horrox's remarks
to be
> completely on target
>
> >No wonder that there was a major rebellion in October 1483.
> >
>
> Not all that major, except insofar as it was a distraction from the
> business of building relationships with his subjects. The major
fallout
> came from Richard's ill-judged policy of planting "alien" loyalists
in
> certain southern counties thereafter.
>
To reply to Laura

1. I admire the dedication,commitment and interest that people who
try to redeem Richard display i.e. 'Richardians' but after four years
of being a member of one of the main Richardian organisations I began
to have severe doubts that Richard was such a benign figure.Re-
examining the 'bastardization' issue and re-considering Richard's
treatment of Hastings and of Jane Shore changed my mind.

2 On June 24th 1483 when the 'bastardization' of the princes was
proclaimed, what faction were trying to harm Richard? Even in
Richardian terms of reference, Hastings et al had been confronted on
13th June 1483.( I am not personally sure that such diverse parties
as Hastings and Woodvilles would unite to conspire but let's put that
to one side for the moment.)

3. The quote about idealism and self interest is valid and profound,
I will look out the piece by Horrocks, but at first reading, the
notion of self interest and idealism being combined could apply just
as well to Henry Tudor or Buckingham who are two equally complex
figures as Richard.

4. The most extensive history of the 1483 rebellion is Louise Gill's
'Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion, Sutton publishing, 1999
Ms. Gills starts her work
"Less than four months after his usurpation of the throne in late
June 1483, Richard III was confronted with a major uprising ....."
Her research in to the areas and the backgrounds of the rebels is
thorough. Ms. Gill points out that there were rebels from both
Yorkist and Lancastrian backgrounds opposing him. I would count this
revolt/rebellion/uprising as 'major' particularly so soon after he
had ascended the throne.
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

--- In , "michaelshankland
<Infernus9@a...>" <Infernus9@a...> wrote:
> --- In , Laura Blanchard
> <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> > At 08:53 PM 1/9/03 -0000, you wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >One reason I gave up being a 'Richardian' was that there seemed
> this
> > >sad double standard when it comes to portraying Richard himself.
> >
> > That would be as opposed to being a 'Ricardian,' i.e., one who
> studies the
> > life, reign, and times of Richard III? That many 'Ricardians' are
> > 'Richardians' is true, but I don't think it's at all fair to
> characterize
> > an entire group of people as possessing the attitudes and beliefs
> of a
> > subset thereof.
> >
> > He
> > >has to be depicted as some sort of King Arthur figure
> >
> > Not so. I know very few people prepared to argue that.
> >
> > and as a
> > >consequence endless justifications and excuses have to be
found
> for
> > >him : For example I can not see how Richard could present
himself
> as
> > >being the Protector of Edward V before 24th June 1483 then
> suddenly
> > >have it announced that Edward and his brother were really
> > >illegitimate unles it was cynical bid for power on behalf of
> himself.
> >
> > No? Try this: it's entirely possible that Richard began the
> protectorate
> > with every intention of being just that, the protector of his
young
> nephew.
> > Now imagine if you will how *you* might react if, first, you
found
> out that
> > another faction would like you out of power and possibly dead as
> well; and,
> > second, you were presented with a plausable excuse for taking
power
> > yourself. Would you immediately announce "I have fears and
doubts"
> so that
> > your opponents could question your loyalty and take potshots at
> you? No,
> > you wouldn't, and neither did Richard.
> >
> > One of the leading historians of the reign, Rosemary Horrox, has
> written:
> >
> > "The historian studying Richard, duke of Gloucester's seizure of
> the throne
> > in 1483 cannot know the precise proportions of ambition, fear and
> the
> > conviction thaht he was the best man to maintain political
> stability -- but
> > then nor, probably, did the duke himself. Self-interest and
> idealism not
> > only coexist, but blur into each other in complex and sometimes
> scarcely
> > admitted ways."
> >
> > (Rosemary Horrox, "Personalities and Politics," in A. J. Pollard,
> ed. -The
> > Wars of the Roses_, St. Martins Press, 1995.)
> >
> > I'd venture that Horrox knows the evidence in far greater detail
> than
> > either you or I, and her reading is a lot more nuanced than the
> extreme
> > alternatives you present us. She does not presume to read
Richard's
> mind
> > and pronounce him cynical. As a Ricardian, I find Horrox's
remarks
> to be
> > completely on target
> >
> > >No wonder that there was a major rebellion in October 1483.
> > >
> >
> > Not all that major, except insofar as it was a distraction from
the
> > business of building relationships with his subjects. The major
> fallout
> > came from Richard's ill-judged policy of planting "alien"
loyalists
> in
> > certain southern counties thereafter.
> >
> To reply to Laura
>
> 1. I admire the dedication,commitment and interest that people who
> try to redeem Richard display i.e. 'Richardians' but after four
years
> of being a member of one of the main Richardian organisations I
began
> to have severe doubts that Richard was such a benign figure.Re-
> examining the 'bastardization' issue and re-considering Richard's
> treatment of Hastings and of Jane Shore changed my mind.
>
> 2 On June 24th 1483 when the 'bastardization' of the princes was
> proclaimed, what faction were trying to harm Richard? Even in
> Richardian terms of reference, Hastings et al had been confronted
on
> 13th June 1483.( I am not personally sure that such diverse parties
> as Hastings and Woodvilles would unite to conspire but let's put
that
> to one side for the moment.)
>
> 3. The quote about idealism and self interest is valid and
profound,
> I will look out the piece by Horrocks, but at first reading, the
> notion of self interest and idealism being combined could apply
just
> as well to Henry Tudor or Buckingham who are two equally complex
> figures as Richard.
>
> 4. The most extensive history of the 1483 rebellion is Louise
Gill's
> 'Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion, Sutton publishing, 1999
> Ms. Gills starts her work
> "Less than four months after his usurpation of the throne in late
> June 1483, Richard III was confronted with a major uprising ....."
> Her research in to the areas and the backgrounds of the rebels is
> thorough. Ms. Gill points out that there were rebels from both
> Yorkist and Lancastrian backgrounds opposing him. I would count
this
> revolt/rebellion/uprising as 'major' particularly so soon after he
> had ascended the throne.
> > --
> > Laura Blanchard
> > lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> > Collections Libraries
> > lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> > Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> > http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

To reply to Michael, point by point:

1. "I admire the dedication,commitment and interest that people who
try to redeem Richard display i.e. 'Richardians' but after four
years of being a member of one of the main Richardian organisations I
began to have severe doubts that Richard was such a benign figure. Re-
examining the 'bastardization' issue and re-considering Richard's
treatment of Hastings and of Jane Shore changed my mind."

His treatment of Jane Shore? Writing a letter to her future husband
in a mildly disapproving tone? Would that the Tudors had "treated"
their enemies so badly!

From what I've heard--and this may be quite wrong--it took a week for
Hastings to be beheaded. He was collaborating with the Woodvilles,
the Stanleys, and Morton. What would you have done?

This was a lose-lose proposition for Richard. Either he moved
against the Woodvilles, Hastings, et al in a concrete fashion, or (in
one way or the other) he loses his head. So he survives the coup and
he's blamed for it.

2 "On June 24th 1483 when the 'bastardization' of the princes was
proclaimed, what faction were trying to harm Richard? Even in
Richardian terms of reference, Hastings et al had been confronted on
13th June 1483.( I am not personally sure that such diverse parties
as Hastings and Woodvilles would unite to conspire but let's put that
to one side for the moment.)"

He pardoned the Stanley brothers and Morton, but it was not as if
there wasn't a cloud in the sky. They were still around, and let's
remember that Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, Henry
Tudor's mother.

3. "The quote about idealism and self interest is valid and profound,
I will look out the piece by Horrocks, but at first reading, the
notion of self interest and idealism being combined could apply just
as well to Henry Tudor or Buckingham who are two equally complex
figures as Richard."

Totally agreed.

4. "The most extensive history of the 1483 rebellion is Louise Gill's
'Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion, Sutton publishing, 1999
Ms. Gills starts her work
"Less than four months after his usurpation of the throne in late
June 1483, Richard III was confronted with a major uprising ....."
Her research in to the areas and the backgrounds of the rebels is
thorough. Ms. Gill points out that there were rebels from both
Yorkist and Lancastrian backgrounds opposing him. I would count this
revolt/rebellion/uprising as 'major' particularly so soon after he
had ascended the throne."

Just because there was a "major" uprising (that Richard put down in a
matter of days)doesn't mean it was in any way valid. There was a
major uprising after Henry Tudor was crowned that included Irish,
Germans and Yorkists that almost succeeded. In fact, there were
minor uprisings all through Tudor's reign. The difference is he
survived them (having to execute his own Chamberlain, William
Stanley, in the process).

This is not to say that Richard never made any bad decisions or
errors of judgement, but these charges don't stick.

The question with Richard is 'was he dictating the events or were the
events dictating him?'

It was ludicrous to depict him as an evil monster or as a King Arthur.
He, like most people, could be both at different times.

Richard was in an extremely difficult situation, between a rock and a
hard place. He feared a Woodville controlled Edward V, was ambitious
to be King and saw the difficulties involved therein.

His 'bastard nephews' were not lovely and innocent, but budding Edward
IV's or Henry VIII's (Edward V's nephew,) and if Richard decided to
eradicate them, then, this was following the logic of REALPOLITIK:
that the dead don't cause any trouble and the precedent of the killing
of deposed monarchs, one of whom: Henry VI, Richard himself
experienced.

Richard in the NPG portrait and according to More comes over as a
competent man beset by conscience and I can well believe that he was
politician enough to eliminate his nephews and morally aware enough to
feel sorry about it. And he was a man for all that!

I don't see where political tendencies come in this. Does it matter? WHy is
that on a forum that's devoted to crusading for the improvement of RIchard's
reputation that we have messages making him sound worse than what Shakespear
wanted us to believe?

-Victoria
"Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-Oscar
Wilde

Much of th study of Richard is about political history surely? And we
ourselves with our views affect the way we interpret data. We're
bound to get different views about a controversial character like
Richard. Personally, I think he was a mixture like most people and
even if he was less than a Saint he was still a competent and
interesting character living in interesting times. Not as interesting
as Thomas More who really did become a Saint!


--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> I don't see where political tendencies come in this. Does it matter?
WHy is
> that on a forum that's devoted to crusading for the improvement of
RIchard's
> reputation that we have messages making him sound worse than what
Shakespear
> wanted us to believe?
>
> -Victoria
> "Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty
ones."-Oscar
> Wilde
>
>
>

Thank you! Richard was from being a saint (unlike Thomas More, whose
saintliness I do stand up for when it's challenged lol) but it's just so
interesting to speculate and provide theories as to what really happened with
him. I just don't find him as sinister as Shakespeare portrayed him to be

-Victoria
"Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-Oscar
Wilde

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:

I just don't find him as sinister as Shakespeare portrayed him
to be
>
Shakespeare was a dramatist, not a historian. Richard may've seemed
sinister if you put yourself in the place of some of his victims.
Rivers riding high & then finding himself being led out to have his
head chopped off. What did the princes really feel when they lost
their rank & found themselves inside the grim Tower of London? Were
they frightened? Were they murdered?

At 10:54 PM 1/9/03 -0000, you wrote:
>
>1. I admire the dedication,commitment and interest that people who
>try to redeem Richard display i.e. 'Richardians' but after four years
>of being a member of one of the main Richardian organisations I began
>to have severe doubts that Richard was such a benign figure.Re-
>examining the 'bastardization' issue and re-considering Richard's
>treatment of Hastings and of Jane Shore changed my mind.

[snip]

I don't know which "main Richardian society" you belonged to, but I belong
to one which allows breathing room for a diverse set of opinions, although
the majority (myself included) would agree that Richard III deserves to be
rescued from, to use Ross's words, "that lonely pinnacle of villainy" on
which Shakespeare and the Tudor historians placed him. I belong to the
Richard III Society. Although I am a confirmed agnostic where Richard's
guilt or innocence in the matter of the death of the boys are concerned, I
don't find it at all difficult to co-exist with members in the Society who
believe more strongly in Richard's innocence.

Possibly you've forgotten that when the Society was founded historians were
debating whether Richard aimed at the throne from 1471 onward or whether he
only decided to take it at the moment of his brother's death. We tend to
forget how far we've come in our knowledge of the time or our understanding
of what may have motivated Richard and his contemporaries.

>2 On June 24th 1483 when the 'bastardization' of the princes was
>proclaimed, what faction were trying to harm Richard? Even in
>Richardian terms of reference, Hastings et al had been confronted on
>13th June 1483.( I am not personally sure that such diverse parties
>as Hastings and Woodvilles would unite to conspire but let's put that
>to one side for the moment.)

By this time, Richard may well have been convinced, or have convinced
himself, of the justice of his cause. And folks whose lives have been
threatened once tend to like to make very sure it's not going to happen again.

>3. The quote about idealism and self interest is valid and profound,
>I will look out the piece by Horrocks, but at first reading, the
>notion of self interest and idealism being combined could apply just
>as well to Henry Tudor or Buckingham who are two equally complex
>figures as Richard.

Horrox. I mention this spelling error because if you go looking for
"Horrocks" you're not going to get very far. I don't see where the fact
that these remarks may be applicable to Buckingham or Tudor (a point I
don't argue) make them inapplicable in Richard's case. One seldom finds
people in history whose motivations are one-dimensional.

>4. The most extensive history of the 1483 rebellion is Louise Gill's
>'Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion, Sutton publishing, 1999
>Ms. Gills starts her work
>"Less than four months after his usurpation of the throne in late
>June 1483, Richard III was confronted with a major uprising ....."
>Her research in to the areas and the backgrounds of the rebels is
>thorough. Ms. Gill points out that there were rebels from both
>Yorkist and Lancastrian backgrounds opposing him. I would count this
>revolt/rebellion/uprising as 'major' particularly so soon after he
>had ascended the throne.

Only because ultimately Richard lost. The other three "usurpers" of the
fifteenth century also faced repeated rebellions in the first few years of
their reigns. Because they prevailed, the rebellions are generally
remembered as minor.


--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote:
>
> I just don't find him as sinister as Shakespeare portrayed him
> to be
> >
> Shakespeare was a dramatist, not a historian. Richard may've
seemed
> sinister if you put yourself in the place of some of his victims.
> Rivers riding high & then finding himself being led out to have his
> head chopped off. What did the princes really feel when they lost
> their rank & found themselves inside the grim Tower of London?
Were
> they frightened? Were they murdered?

But that's the whole point? WERE they indeed murdered? Many
historians believe that they were not, or if they were, Richard
didn't do it.

I don't know why you see the need to pick on Richard when there are
other monsters to examine (either of the subsequent Tudors, for
instance: let's see, what do you think Anne Boleyn felt as *her*
head was about to be chopped off?)

Poor Rivers. I grieve for him. Bertram Fields posits in the
addendum to his excellent anti-Weir book "The Princes in the Tower"
that *had* Richard let Rivers and Grey live and Edward V be crowned,
he would not have lived long after that. Would the saintly,
hairshirt-wearing Rivers have objected, Surely not.

Nate

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:

> You are very selective over Richard's attitude to others.

*I'm* selective? You just can't have it both ways! Either Richard
was a scheming Machiavellian akin to Shakespeare's creation, or he
was a man and a king living through one of the most violent periods
of British history. First you state that he disposed of all his
enemies, and then when most of his enemies seem to have easily
survived his reign and flourished, you start making excuses as to why
they weren't executed. Come, now!


> Was Margaret Beaufort (mother of Henry Tudor), worth executing?

Did she deserve it, you mean? Yes! She conspired with Buckingham to
put her son on the throne, which was proven. Her 'punishment' was
that her lands were given to her husband, the ultra-reliable
Stanley. Pretty lenient!

> Thomas and William Stanley weren't openly treacherous until it was
too late.

True and not true. Thomas was implicated in the Hastings/Woodville
conspiracy and detained. And released. I see a pattern here...

> Richard ordered the execution of Thomas Stanley's son Lord Strange
> (Richard's hostage at Bosworth,) but this wasn't carried out.

Or did he? Why wasn't it carried out? Weird behavior for a multiple
murderer! He's letting all of his 'victims' go!

> John Morton, Bishop of Ely was imprisoned, as was John de Vere, the
> Earl of Oxford, but both escaped.

Morton was sent to live with Buckingham, and he turned Buckingham
against the King. No escape and no imprisonment. Yes, Oxford was
imprisoned after Tewkesbury, but my point is that he was not executed
by Edward IV OR by RIII.


> The Marquis of Dorset escaped.

True, and made an attempt to return to England, his mother, and RIII
but was stopped by Henry's agent. He was afterwards a hostage to the
French king for the gold and troops borrowed by Henry.

> Richard appeared to draw the line over the execution of women,
which stands to his credit: Elizabeth Woodville & Jane Shore, but
both were harassed. Richard was accused of murdering his wife, but I
barely credit that.

No! He harrassed women who conspired against him? That monster!
What did HVIII do to women he *married?*

> Personally, I'd place Henry VIII in the Monster Raving Loony
Party! I
> think the Tudors probably took a leaf out of the book of the
Yorkists
> for executions.

You have it the other way around regarding executions. If you want
to tally the heads, I am sure any one of the subsequent Tudors
surpasses RIII. It's not even close.


> However, Richard didn't even bother with farcical trials for
Rivers, Grey & Hastings & he wasn't even King when they were beheaded.

Actually, I think they all were indeed tried but I have no evidence
to support that claim. Bad of me.

> The point I made was that Richard was perfectly capable of killing
his
> dangerous nephews and the refusal to see this says more about the
rose
> tinted view of certain Ricardians than anything else.

Sure! But they all were capable! All of them! I don't think any
Ricardian fanatic has ever said that he was incapable. Of course he
was capable. No one argues that. Did he or didn't he is the
question. And were they indeed dangerous? And IF they were, being
bastards, how about Warwick, Lincoln, Suffolk,and the others? They
seemed to do quite well as heirs.

Sure, some Ricardians have a rosy-tinted view. But the entire WORLD
has had, for five centuries, a BLACK view of RIII. So please excuse
the rose-tinted view as some of us are excusing centuries of Tudor
propaganda.

Nate

'Either Richard> was a scheming Machiavellian akin to Shakespeare's
creation'

I never said that he was like Shakespeare's creation. I pointed out
to Hockeygirl, which you quoted, that Shakespeare was a dramatist.

First you state that he disposed of all his> enemies'

I didn't say that he disposed of ALL of his enemies. He manifestly
couldn't do that, otherwise, he would've survived Bosworth. He'd
probably, because of his usurpation from Edward V, got too many
enemies to dispose of. If he'd killed at every opportunity he
would've alienated people even more than he had anyway! Nevertheless,
he had a very good shot at killing enemies: Rivers, Vaughan, Grey,
Hastings, Buckingham, Collingbourne &, as you say, the deep suspicion
that the princes were too problematical to leave alive.

Regarding Margaret Beaufort I said that Richard wasn't, as far as we
know, into killing women & I gave him credit for that.
>
> > Thomas and William Stanley weren't openly treacherous until it was
> too late.
>
> 'True and not true. Thomas was implicated in the Hastings/Woodville
> conspiracy and detained. And released.'

You're assuming here that there was a conspiracy. It was commonly
reported that Richard was not prepared to brook opposition to his
plans to illegimately take the Crown & therefore, made a pre-emptive
strike against Hastings. Stanley, Morton etc., were simply under
suspicion as friends of Hastings.

> > Richard ordered the execution of Thomas Stanley's son Lord Strange
> > (Richard's hostage at Bosworth,) but this wasn't carried out.
>
> Or did he? Why wasn't it carried out? Weird behavior for a multiple
> murderer! He's letting all of his 'victims' go!

Well, the report is that Richard DID order Strange's death, but, as we
know, Richard wasn't overwhelmed with supporters at Bosworth. That's
why he lost!

> Morton was sent to live with Buckingham, and he turned Buckingham
> against the King. No escape and no imprisonment.

Well, getting Buckingham on side did amount to escape, surely?

Yes, Oxford was> imprisoned after Tewkesbury, but my point is that
he was not executed> by Edward IV OR by RIII.

I think the point is that Richard was sufficiently ruthless to kill
the princes. The fact that Edward IV & Richard didn't always kill
everybody who came into their hands doesn't mean that they weren't
ruthless when it suited them.
>
> > The Marquis of Dorset escaped.> True, and made an attempt to
return to England, his mother, and RIII> but was stopped by Henry's
agent.

Richard had brokered a deal to win more support for himself & Dorset
felt he was better off with Richard rather than penniless Henry.
>
> No! He harrassed women who conspired against him? That monster!
> What did HVIII do to women he *married?*

Not many women were executed before or after Henry VIII, who is a one
off for psychopathy, but this isn't the Henry VIII Society! Does he
have one? He may be listed under 'serial killers.'
>
> You have it the other way around regarding executions. If you want
> to tally the heads, I am sure any one of the subsequent Tudors
> surpasses RIII.

If you tally heads it still leaves Richard capable of killing nephews.
The late Tudors were confronted by not only internal conspiracy
against them, but also an European religious war. This doesn't mean
that I'm a Tudor cheerleader, but we were talking about Richard's
capacity to kill.
>
> > However, Richard didn't even bother with farcical trials for
> Rivers, Grey & Hastings & he wasn't even King when they were
beheaded.
>
> Actually, I think they all were indeed tried but I have no evidence
> to support that claim. Bad of me.

Hastings was rushed out to be decapitated on Tower green immediately &
this hardly allowed for a trial. Richard wasn't King at this time &
even Clarence had been allowed a trial! It may be that Richard wanted
to gloss over the fact that it was his aiming for the Crown which was
the problem.
>
> > The point I made was that Richard was perfectly capable of killing
> his> > dangerous nephews and the refusal to see this says more about
the> rose tinted view of certain Ricardians than anything else.
>
> Sure! But they all were capable! All of them! I don't think any
> Ricardian fanatic has ever said that he was incapable. Of course he
> was capable. No one argues that. Did he or didn't he is the
> question. And were they indeed dangerous? And IF they were, being
> bastards, how about Warwick, Lincoln, Suffolk,and the others? They
> seemed to do quite well as heirs.

Richard hadn't illegally seized anything from them as with Edward V.
In fact, some Ricardians have suggested that Richard had no reason &
therefore was incapable of killing the princes, even on this list.
>
> Sure, some Ricardians have a rosy-tinted view. But the entire WORLD
> has had, for five centuries, a BLACK view of RIII. So please excuse
> the rose-tinted view as some of us are excusing centuries of Tudor
> propaganda.

Having a go at Tudor propaganda is fine. Did anyone ever believe that
Richard walked around the palace moaning about himself and everyone
else as depicted by Shakespeare? It was a good piece of Theatre, but
that doesn't mean that it's necessary to go to the other extreme & try
to santitise Richard as a type of 'creeping Jesus.'

What did the princes really feel when they lost
> > their rank & found themselves inside the grim Tower of London?
> Were > they frightened? Were they murdered?
>
> But that's the whole point? WERE they indeed murdered? Many
> historians believe that they were not, or if they were, Richard
> didn't do it.

And many think he did do it & his record, motive & opportunity
strongly suggest that he did.
>
> I don't know why you see the need to pick on Richard when there are
> other monsters to examine (either of the subsequent Tudors, for
> instance: let's see, what do you think Anne Boleyn felt as *her*
> head was about to be chopped off?)

I've every sympathy for Anne Boleyn who was subjected to a kangaroo
court to suit the whims of her psychopathic husband. She probably
lacked taste & judgement in marrying him in the first place, but then
MONEY does talk! How do you know that I haven't picked on the Tudors?
In fact, I'm very sceptical about monarchies in general & am not at
all opposed to what happened to Charles I & Louis XVI. When idiots
like Henry VI can be given supreme power over people's lives, there
must be something wrong with the system.
>
> Poor Rivers. I grieve for him. Bertram Fields posits in the
> addendum to his excellent anti-Weir book "The Princes in the Tower"
> that *had* Richard let Rivers and Grey live and Edward V be crowned,
> he would not have lived long after that. Would the saintly,
> hairshirt-wearing Rivers have objected, Surely not.
>
> Nate

I find it strange that you have no empathy for someone facing
decapitation, which must've been terrifying. Even though I don't care
much for what Charles I, Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette stood for, on a
human level I can emote for them.

Having said that, I agree that it was a case of kill or be killed for
Richard, but that doesn't make him into some Latter Day Saint as some
Ricardians suggest & to suggest that the princes weren't in his
'sites' is naive in the extreme!

At 11:05 AM 1/10/03 -0000, you wrote:

>
>I find it strange that you have no empathy for someone facing
>decapitation, which must've been terrifying. Even though I don't care
>much for what Charles I, Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette stood for, on a
>human level I can emote for them.

One of the things Louis XVI did for consolation while awaiting trial and
execution was to translate Horace Walpole's _Historic Doubts on the Life
and Reign of Richard III_ into French.

>Having said that, I agree that it was a case of kill or be killed for
>Richard, but that doesn't make him into some Latter Day Saint as some
>Ricardians suggest & to suggest that the princes weren't in his
>'sites' is naive in the extreme!
>

Sights. Not sites. People making disparaging remarks about other's opinions
have an obligation to get their spelling right.

I don't think that many people would argue that Richard never thought about
how convenient it would be if the boys died. (I certainly would have, and I
consider myself a reasonably principled human being.) I could conceive of
the possibility that he ordered their execution in a moment of panic. But I
doubt that he did it as part of any considered plan, or the uselessness of
secretly dead boys would have been pretty obvious to him. He'd have been
haunted by pretenders -- even as Henry VII was, ten years after Bosworth.
Those folks across the Channel were in the habit of supporting whatever
English underdog came to hand, simply to keep England's ruler off balance.

Many years ago I attended a Good Friday service in which the pastor in his
sermon asked us to consider the case of Pontius Pilate -- he ran down a
list of good things Pilate had done, including (if memory serves)
permanently solving the problem of Jerusalem's water supply, which saved
thousands of lives and made even more lives much easier. Put yourself in
Pilate's place, he suggested. It's early Friday morning. You were out
partying the night before. You have a hangover, and a delegation is giving
you a headache over some scruffy rabble rouser. So you wash your hands of
it and send the perp to Herod. For all eternity, all your good works will
be forgotten and you will be remembered only for one bad call. I think that
when we consider the life of Richard III we are encouraged to do the same,
forget all his work at consensus building in the North as Duke of
Gloucester, forget that in his time were many good laws made, to quote
Francis Bacon, and we concentrate on what steps Richard may have taken to
preserve his life (in his view). Over here we acquit defendants who we
believe acted in the reasonable belief that their lives are in jeopardy. I
think that in Richard's case we can at least grant him enough of the
benefit of the doubt to say we don't know what happened.








--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 11:05 AM 1/10/03 -0000, you wrote:
>
'Sights. Not sites. People making disparaging remarks about other's
opinions> have an obligation to get their spelling right.'

I was given 'sites' a long time ago, as the site one is aiming for,
but YOU may be right & either will do. I'm British, not American & we
do spell certain words differently: night, nite. Incidentally, I
think my opinions have been disparaged, too!

Croyland is vague as to who 'gave out' that the boys were dead in
1483. Was it Richard or Buckingham? If Richard then he wasn't
keeping it a useless secret. He never denied they were dead and moved
on in his speech in the Guildhall to their sister as the important
player as though they were dead, as I'm fairly sure they were at this
point.
>
I agree with you about Richard as a competent administrator as Duke &
King and I'm sure he acted in self-defence, but he did infringe the
legal and religious mores of his day: the usurpation of the Crown from
Edward V who most people thought was the rightful King, the execution
of Hastings without trial, even though Richard was not King.

I think it's true that the case of Richard showed up the inadequacies
in an inherited system of monarchy: Richard was more able than Edward
V, but couldn't rule, the system of justice with kangaroo trials was
grossly unfair, the system allowed schizophrenics to take charge, such
as Henry VI.

That's not to say that modern governments don't have their faults:
democracy elected Hitler & 15th century rulers didn't drop atomic
bombs on countries killing thousands ( Japan, 1945.)

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:

The gauntlet has been dropped! I will do my best with my poor
scholarship to find out IF Rivers, Grey, and Hastings actually had
trials. Then at least I can put my money where my mouth is.

Listen, we all seem to be coming to the same conclusions: basically,
that he MIGHT have killed his nephews and that he MIGHT have made a
few rash calls, MIGHT being the key word. We're not exactly breaking
new ground here, and even if this is a forum on Richard, it might get
a bit boring sticking the same pins in again and again.

Oooh, yes, he had Buckingham executed. GOOD! There is no account
that I am aware of that makes Buckingham out to be anything more than
an opportunist and a sociopath. Wow, he executed Rivers and Grey.
It was either them or him, and the Woodvilles were NOTORIOUS for
their greed and ambition. The same cannot be said for Richard who up
until his brother's death was a model prince.

Finally, we come to the 'usurpation.' Whether or not Edward's
children were bastards, was it so terrible to have an able
administrator and soldier on the throne? Rather than having Edward V
dominated by the Woodvilles? Call me crazy...

It just seems that harping till heartstrings break on
Richard's 'failings'--if indeed they are--treads the same, old, tired
ground as Weir and a host of Tudor historians. Unless one can
definitively prove that Rivers, Grey, Hastings, poor Buckingham, and
the princes were all a part of some monstrous conspiracy, then we are
simply splitting hairs. As I've said before, Richard is COMPLETELY
overshadowed by his Tudor 'descendants' where judicial murder and
executions are concerned, especially considering that as far as we
all know he had very good reasons (survival of the kingdom and
survival of self) for doing what he did. And no one has been able to
prove any differently.

--- In , "natusm
<nvenice2@a...>" <nvenice2@a...> wrote:
> --- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Listen, we all seem to be coming to the same conclusions:
basically,
> that he MIGHT have killed his nephews and that he MIGHT have made a
> few rash calls, MIGHT being the key word. We're not exactly
breaking
> new ground here, and even if this is a forum on Richard, it might
get
> a bit boring sticking the same pins in again and again.
>

>
> Finally, we come to the 'usurpation.' Whether or not Edward's
> children were bastards, was it so terrible to have an able
> administrator and soldier on the throne? Rather than having Edward
V
> dominated by the Woodvilles? Call me crazy...
>
> It just seems that harping till heartstrings break on
> Richard's 'failings'--if indeed they are--treads the same, old,
tired
> ground as Weir and a host of Tudor historians. Unless one can
> definitively prove that Rivers, Grey, Hastings, poor Buckingham,
and
> the princes were all a part of some monstrous conspiracy, then we
are
> simply splitting hairs. As I've said before, Richard is COMPLETELY
> overshadowed by his Tudor 'descendants' where judicial murder and
> executions are concerned, especially considering that as far as we
> all know he had very good reasons (survival of the kingdom and
> survival of self) for doing what he did. And no one has been able
to
> prove any differently.

For what it is worth my view is that Richard usurped the throne in
1483, that the nephews were not 'bastards' and that he had them
unjustly placed in the Tower. What happened to the Princes after late
Summer/Autumn 1483, know one can be sure.But why do Richardians
always assume that if one disagrees with them,than you are some sort
of rampant admirer of the Tudor family? You have not heard me on the
subject of Henry VIII !

At least with Anne BOleyn, the only thing she was guilty of was being the
antithesis of what a queen was supposed to be- quiet, meek and submissive.
RIvers, Grey and the like were actually plotting against Richard.

-Victoria
"Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-Oscar
Wilde

natusm <nvenice2@...>10/01/2003 18:21nvenice2@...

> Finally, we come to the 'usurpation.' Whether or not Edward's
> children were bastards, was it so terrible to have an able
> administrator and soldier on the throne? Rather than having Edward V
> dominated by the Woodvilles? Call me crazy...
if you're crazy I'm completely loopy and should be locked up as I totally
believe Richard did what he had to do under the circumstances to protect
himself and his own, and look after what his brother had left in his care, a
little thing called England.
Paul

At 07:19 PM 1/10/03 -0000, you wrote:

But why do Richardians
>always assume that if one disagrees with them,than you are some sort
>of rampant admirer of the Tudor family?

Why do you say "why do Richardians always assume" when what you really mean
is "some Ricardians assume" ? That's equally unfair.



--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

At 07:19 PM 1/10/03 +0000, michaelshankland <Infernus9@...> wrote:
>But why do Richardians
>always assume that if one disagrees with them,than you are some sort
>of rampant admirer of the Tudor family? You have not heard me on the
>subject of Henry VIII !

Pots deprecating kettle complexion tints.
Ricardians don't *always* do any such thing, and you most certainly have
not (and could not have) heard them all always do so.

Look, your points would be much more effective if you'd stick to the
factual/historical interpretation issues you have and avoid the repetitive
ad hominem attacks as you keep setting up this line of Ricardian straw
men. It's condescending and makes you look like a nut with a
personal agenda. Parts of your posts can make interesting reading, but
this stuff is rapidly moving you into the delete unread category.

Kim. undoubtedly thus proving herself in some minds to be 'another one'
pining away from unrequited love for her long lost prince R3 or some such
nonsense.

--- In , Kim Malo
<kimmalo@m...> wrote:
> At 07:19 PM 1/10/03 +0000, michaelshankland <Infernus9@a...> wrote:
> >But why do Richardians
> >always assume that if one disagrees with them,than you are some
sort
> >of rampant admirer of the Tudor family? You have not heard me on
the
> >subject of Henry VIII !
>
> Pots deprecating kettle complexion tints.
> Ricardians don't *always* do any such thing, and you most certainly
have
> not (and could not have) heard them all always do so.
>
> Look, your points would be much more effective if you'd stick to
the
> factual/historical interpretation issues you have and avoid the
repetitive
> ad hominem attacks as you keep setting up this line of Ricardian
straw
> men. It's condescending and makes you look like a nut with a
> personal agenda. Parts of your posts can make interesting reading,
but
> this stuff is rapidly moving you into the delete unread category.
>
> Kim. undoubtedly thus proving herself in some minds to be 'another
one'
> pining away from unrequited love for her long lost prince R3 or
some such
> nonsense.

Kim and Laura - After thinking over what you have written I think
that I have probably have been guilty of making sweeping
generalisations concerning 'Richardians'. I apologise and withdraw my
comments OK?

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> At least with Anne BOleyn, the only thing she was guilty of was
being the > antithesis of what a queen was supposed to be- quiet, meek
and submissive.

Yup...she certainly was that: feisty & raunchy, a would be mistress
who wouldn't say 'Yes!' She did a Elizabeth Woodville, in fact! How
many Queens were 'quiet, meek and submissive' is debateable.
Certainly, not Isabella, the 'she-wolf' of France who, understandably,
had her gay husband: Edward 2, attached to a red hot spit or poker in
a place where it hurt, not Margaret of Anjou, who led the Lancastrian
armies, Elizabeth Woodville...? I think not...not with the way she
courted power for herself & her family. Anne Boleyn's strong &
intelligent personality may've left its mark on her illustrious
daughter, possibly the greatest English monarch of all: Elizabeth I!

> RIvers, Grey and the like were actually plotting against Richard.
>
> -Victoria

I know that Richard claimed this bunch was plotting against him, but
the evidence is painfully thin. I thought Hastings had agreed that
Rivers with a reduced escort bring Edward V, who everyone (including
Richard) at that time accepted as King, to London & that's what Rivers
was doing? He politely visits Richard at Northampton & next day 'Wham
Bam' he's imprisoned & later executed.

Works for me.
With extra brownie points to your credit for apologizing about it publicly.
Thanks. Tired as that was getting, some of your other stuff was interesting
to read (whether or not I agree with it) and so I really didn't want to
killfile you.

Kim

At 11:16 PM 1/10/03 +0000, michaelshankland <Infernus9@...> wrote:
>Kim and Laura - After thinking over what you have written I think
>that I have probably have been guilty of making sweeping
>generalisations concerning 'Richardians'. I apologise and withdraw my
>comments OK?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and unfortunately what many historians have
been guilty of is assuming that the events of Edward V's reign and the
subsequent usurpation of Richard III are easily and glibbly explained by the
reign of Edward IV. What most Ricardians of my acquaintance do is to try
and sort the wheat from the chaf to try and discover if the traditional view
actually holds water based on the character involved and the way in which he
acted. Unfortunately that doesn't apply when it comes to anyone else
involved. Instead like most historians the traditional view is fine when
its applied to Richard's enemies - so Mancini, More, Vergil, Hall and many
more since up to and including Kendall, Ross, Hicks etc are spot on when
they are nice about Richard but very wide of the mark when being nice about
anyone else.

So Margaret Beaufort is a plotting, scheming, vengeful harpy who had been
nursing royal ambitions for her offspring since the day he was born. Of
course the historic Margaret Beaufort with her Lancastrian views was still a
virtual permanent fixture of the court of Edward IV (he even gave her and
hubby number 2 a manor so that they could attend court more often) - during
the 1470's this women, who was so consumed with dislike for the House of
York and was merely bidding her time to strike, was also happily tripping
along behind Elizabeth Wydeville and carrying her train on state occassions
(which role fell to the Lady Margaret by virtue of hubby no 3's job in the
Royal Household). Somewhere between the two extremes the truth can probably
be found.

Of course everyone's favourite panto villain of the Yorkist Court is of
course Elizabeth Wydeville and her family with their overweening greed and
ambition. Why question it when it's believed by everyone since time
immemorial. You could of course examine the grants made to the family -
Elizabeth as Queen Dowager enjoyed an income more on a par with the
traditional dower of a Queen Consort around the 4 to 5 thousand pound a year
mark considerably less than the inflated dowers given to the three
Lancastrian Consorts (Joan of Navarre, Katherine of Valois and Margaret of
Anjou) in addition to that she had her traditional feudal dues, her chamber
expenses and her personal property settled on her by Edward IV (mainly
furnishings plate etc) - on that she managed to live on her income despite
her increasing family of children by Edward - something that hadn't been
seen for almost two generations - a Queen living on her income. Her
household was modest compared to Margaret of Anjou and largely consisted of
family members and relations or people with a connection to the King's
household. Her relations were given the usual salaries depending on their
role and they weren't inflated due to their connection with the Queen.
Almost none of her family received land grants from Edward IV - its
arguable whether he had anything left to hand out after providing for his
own two brothers and Warwick's equally large and demanding family (grants to
Warwick himself, plus Montague and Archbishop George Neville aswell as
Fauconberg outnumber by far any others prior to 1469).

Certainly Edward and his wife helped her sisters into the marriage market
and it might have been a little more helpful if the Queen had had fewer
unmarried sisters - however with the exception of the Buckingham and Arundal
marriages the other grooms already had numerous family ties to the
Wydevilles - the Bourchiers and the Grey's being related by marriage and the
Herbert marriage (for which the marriage contract survives) was advantageous
on both sides and the Earl of Pembroke could hardly complain given he was
almost as parvenu as the Wydevilles were accused of being (like Hastings he
was probably more parvenu). Incidentally for a new regime like Edward's it
wasn't such a bad thing he might reasonably expect that the marriages would
tie the nobility to his regime if they were to become his brother's in law.

Only one member of the family got anything in the way of an office - her
father Richard Lord Rivers who was created an Earl and became Treasurer and
then Constable of England. Richard had been a Royal Councillor since the
1440's, seen service in France with York, and while made rich by his
marriage to Bedford's widow certainly seems to have gained what political
influence he had under the Lancastrians (which was little) by virtue of
military service rather than his wife's kinship to Margaret of Anjou. He
was also an early Yorkist convert (telling the Milanese that King Henry's
cause was dead in the water as early as 161) and was pardoned the same year
by Edward IV.

Did they get up people's noses I suspect because they were highly visible
they did - however during the following decade or so there is very little in
the way of hard evidence that they were disliked which means the main
evidence for their great unpopularity post dates the propoganda campaign of
the summer of 1483.

In terms of power its undeniable that during the second reign the
Wydeville's had their fair share of it - but its interesting to consider
what their so called greed had accumulated and whether it was exceptional
compared to their contemporaries. Anthony 2nd Earl Rivers held most of his
land by right of his first wife Lady Scales and had expectations through his
second wife Mary Fitzlewis but in his own right he held quite a modest
estate. In terms of influence his position in Wales was considerable
however it was entirely tied to the Crown, many of those who could be said
to belong to his affinity were primarily Royal Servants on estates held by
the Crown not personally by Lord Rivers therefore as was to prove the case
in 1483 many of them did not oppenly oppose Richard III's usurpation.
Essentially Edward IV had given Anthony political and regional influence and
power but it was all exercised in the name of the Prince of Wales.

The only other real player was of course Dorset - the King's stepson - well
he had to be provided for and he got in terms of title position and wealth
about the same as Henry VI gave his Tudor step brother - marriage to a
wealthy heiress and an Earldom. When the boy was older changes were made
swapping his Earldom for a Marquessate and a new heiress after the first one
Anne Holland (the King's niece) died. Thomas disappointed of the Exeter
heiress got another consolation prize in terms that his son by his new wife
would marry Anne Holland's half sister Anne St Leger and they would jointly
inherit the bulk of the Holland holdings in the South West. (Yes another
Edward IV dodgy property deal - however in fairness it was much the same as
the way Edward dealt with the Mowbray inheritance and the Warwick one - even
Richard III didn't restore the Holland properties to the rightful heirs -
the Percies by the way if memory serves).

In terms of gains Dorset did much better than Uncle Anthony but again you
have to consider what was appropriate for a man who would one day be the
step brother of a reigning monarch.

The rewards were in return for political service and important part of
Edward's political balancing act of how to manage the regions of England
which often gave trouble - the South West, Wales, and the North (which is
where the bulk of Richard's power was of course)

The acquisition of land, wealth and political influence was the life blood
of the medieval english aristocracy - and good marriages raising a family up
the social scale were nothing new (granted a Royal Marriage was a bit of a
leap for anyone <g>)

I don't doubt that the Wydeville's attracted their fair share of envy and
criticism (although there is barely a murmur of comment against the Queen
Consort for her behaviour while Queen Consort) however "notorious greed" is
rather strong and actually based on factual hard evidence simply untrue.
They came a cropper in 1483 because their power base and wealth was too
limited to fight the combined strength of the two Duke's - that they didn't
attract strong support from other toffs wasn't necessarily because they were
hated but because in terms of patronage and influence they had nothing with
which to bargain and buy support once they lost control of the young King.
The fact that Richard took control of his nephew so swiftly suggests that he
and everyone else knew that whatever their faults the Wydeville's weren't
strong at all without that child which means that after twenty years of
"greed and ambition" they'd achieved far less than anyone else.

As to Richard well he was certainly a "model prince" - politically
effective, influential, a good lord - hardly a fool. Nor was he above a bit
of typical medieval greed and ambition (for which he deserves no criticism
seeing as for him not to have been would have been miraculous). He happily
received the lands and wealth that his brother gave to him (which came from
some pretty dodgy dealing by Edward) - so let's not make him out to be any
different from Edward's in laws on that score.

The surviving pre 1483 evidence does not suggest that Richard resented the
Wydeville's nor does it suggest that he blamed them or anyone else for
Clarence's death - to suggest otherwise is to follow Mancini's blind alley
of trying to find some reason to explain why Richard behaved as he did and
to be honest it doesn't stand up.

Were the Wydeville's desperate to get rid of Richard to cling on to power
themselves - that only really makes sense if they feared Richard would
remove their influence - but there's no evidence of that either. Did
Richard believe they were moving against him I suspect he may have done
given how he behaved but I frequently suspect that the thought may have been
an imagined one placed in his head by someone who did have reason to fear
the Wydeville influence - primarily William Lord Hastings. If there was any
factional disputes at Edward's court then it was a long standing one between
Rivers and Hastings (and it wasn't over Dorset and Hastings penchant for the
King's leftover mistresses) not between the Wydeville's and Richard.


Enough for now I think....



----- Original Message -----
From: <nvenice2@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Richard & his 'bastard' nephews


> --- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
>
> The gauntlet has been dropped! I will do my best with my poor
> scholarship to find out IF Rivers, Grey, and Hastings actually had
> trials. Then at least I can put my money where my mouth is.
>
> Listen, we all seem to be coming to the same conclusions: basically,
> that he MIGHT have killed his nephews and that he MIGHT have made a
> few rash calls, MIGHT being the key word. We're not exactly breaking
> new ground here, and even if this is a forum on Richard, it might get
> a bit boring sticking the same pins in again and again.
>
> Oooh, yes, he had Buckingham executed. GOOD! There is no account
> that I am aware of that makes Buckingham out to be anything more than
> an opportunist and a sociopath. Wow, he executed Rivers and Grey.
> It was either them or him, and the Woodvilles were NOTORIOUS for
> their greed and ambition. The same cannot be said for Richard who up
> until his brother's death was a model prince.
>
> Finally, we come to the 'usurpation.' Whether or not Edward's
> children were bastards, was it so terrible to have an able
> administrator and soldier on the throne? Rather than having Edward V
> dominated by the Woodvilles? Call me crazy...
>
> It just seems that harping till heartstrings break on
> Richard's 'failings'--if indeed they are--treads the same, old, tired
> ground as Weir and a host of Tudor historians. Unless one can
> definitively prove that Rivers, Grey, Hastings, poor Buckingham, and
> the princes were all a part of some monstrous conspiracy, then we are
> simply splitting hairs. As I've said before, Richard is COMPLETELY
> overshadowed by his Tudor 'descendants' where judicial murder and
> executions are concerned, especially considering that as far as we
> all know he had very good reasons (survival of the kingdom and
> survival of self) for doing what he did. And no one has been able to
> prove any differently.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

At 11:16 PM 1/10/03 -0000, you wrote:

>
>Kim and Laura - After thinking over what you have written I think
>that I have probably have been guilty of making sweeping
>generalisations concerning 'Richardians'. I apologise and withdraw my
>comments OK?
>

A generous offer, accepted with thanks.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
> In terms of gains Dorset did much better than Uncle Anthony but
again you> have to consider what was appropriate for a man who would
one day be the> step brother of a reigning monarch.

Another well researched account by Tim. I think Dorset was half
brother to Edward V, not a step brother though.
>
If there was any> factional disputes at Edward's court then it was a
long standing one between> Rivers and Hastings (and it wasn't over
Dorset and Hastings penchant for the> King's leftover mistresses) not
between the Wydeville's and Richard.

Hastings in encouraging Richard to move against the Woodvilles created
a domino effect against Edward V, who, according to More, was moved to
tears because of the removal of his Uncle Rivers & half brother Grey,
and against Hastings himself, who probably enjoyed the attack on the
Woodvilles, but didn't want to alienate Edward V, to whose Father he'd
always been loyal & who he saw as the rightful King. How many people
in all conscience could buy the bastardy claim against Edward V,
someone who had been recognised as Prince of Wales for many years and
never doubted as heir to Edward IV until the King died & Richard felt
safe to concoct the story?

Speaking as a 'Ricardian' of 22 years, please don't confuse my and
others interest with the desire to consider Richard III a cuddly toy.
It's true, that some members would prefer to 'speak no treason', but
I personally think the thrust of the Society should be the desire to
delve into the 'facts' as we know them and offer some credible
refutations and alternative viewpoints, where appropriate, to the
life and times of Richard III and the cast of characters that
surround him. Again, judging 15th century people, their desires,
personalities, motivations and their milieu by 20th and 21st
century standards does not work. It seems perfectly possible, as
Laura said, that RIII took on the protectorate of EV and Richard of
York with all good intentions. There are choices that human beings
make - whether in the 15th century or in the 21st - that can be
considered morally reprehensible. What is intriguing is why they
made the choices they did and trying to illuminate those decisions.
I can assure you, I wear no rosy colored glasses when it comes to
Richard III. I simply don't believe the over-the-top, montrous
portrait that has come down to us from history and literature. This
was a human being, with all the failings that any human being is
subject to. There is not one of us that can credibly put ourselves in
his place. I don't consider putting 'the princes' under protective
custody in the Tower as particularly sinister, as it was a royal
residence, and the reputation the Tower earned as a mostly a horrific
prison was earned in subsequent centuries. That RIII made choices
that most of us have trouble stomaching is not surprising. I don't
think the Society need function as a agent of complete exoneration of
the charges that history has made against Richard III. It should
function as an agent of debate, and it should be concerned with
investigation of supposed historical fact, so that the life and reign
of Richard III can be presented, in as far as it is possible, in the
most realistic way possible. A complete white washing of Richard III
is just as detrimental as a complete demonizing of Richard III. It
just does not stand up as credible. Having studied his life and
reign for 2 decades, I have come to the conclusion that this was a
man with a conscience, who felt compelled to react against real
and perhaps projected threats and fears. He might have chosen
differently, and perhaps history would not have been so harsh to
him. Who knows? In any case, it is a healthy debate, and one that
can be applied to any historical and/or political figure. If we
could live long enough, it would be interesting to see what societies
are formed centuries from now to investigate and perhaps reabilitate
some of our own centuries montrous politicians and historical
figures. As I said in a previous post, we can't even decide on who
killed Kennedy and why, and we have far better resources at our
fingertips for that particular case than those available from the
15th century.

--- In , "Kim <kim@d...>"
<kim@d...> wrote:
> Speaking as a 'Ricardian' of 22 years, please don't confuse my and
> others interest with the desire to consider Richard III a cuddly
toy.

I personally never thought that anyone would or could see Richard as a
cuddly toy, unless they'd gone mad.

> It's true, that some members would prefer to 'speak no treason', but
> I personally think the thrust of the Society should be the desire to
> delve into the 'facts' as we know them and offer some credible
> refutations and alternative viewpoints, where appropriate, to the
> life and times of Richard III and the cast of characters that
> surround him.

Sounds fine. I do wonder about the people who don't want to 'speak
treason' about him. I suppose bias is inevitable in people. But
History is supposed to be an objective evaluation of facts, even if
Richard does appear to be less than pure on occasions, not propaganda!

Again, judging 15th century people, their desires,
> personalities, motivations and their milieu by 20th and 21st
> century standards does not work.

People can be selfish, greedy, kind and moral in any age, surely? The
high moral standards (Judaism, Christianity) were set well before the
15th century and have been ther as an option for everyone thoughout
time. The fact that people consistently fail to meet these standards
is 'by the by' and not very surprising. It seems that Henry VI was
someone who tried to be monklike & of course it simply didn't work.
He also was clinically mentally ill. Some values: 'Turn the other
cheek' & 'Love your enemy' have never been realsitc to some who want
to survive. Was it possible for Jews to love Hitler? Was it possible
for New Yorkers to love Bin Laden? Was it possible for Richard to
place himself as an underling to Edward V who was brought up & heavily
influenced by the Woodville bunch, who clearly Hastings & he DIDN'T
trust.

It seems perfectly possible, as > Laura said, that RIII took on the
protectorate of EV and Richard of> York with all good intentions.

Maybe, but I bet his good intentions didn't last very long when he
received the Hastings letter saying that the Woodville group was
already circling like vultures to gain an upper hand for power.
Richard had seen all this before with his Father & brother's bids for
power & the wriggling of Clarence to gain dominance. Richard was
probably similar to his brothers in that they wanted power & could be
ruthless in trying to get it!

There are choices that human beings> make - whether in the 15th
century or in the 21st - that can be> considered morally
reprehensible. What is intriguing is why they> made the choices they
did and trying to illuminate those decisions.

The desire to survive and greed are pretty normal ones. Some people
become Cistercian monks or nuns, but Richard wasn't that type.

> I can assure you, I wear no rosy colored glasses when it comes to
> Richard III. I simply don't believe the over-the-top, montrous
> portrait that has come down to us from history and literature.

I'm not sure that many people ever did. Shakespeare wrote an amusing
play, but I doubt if he saw Richard as any more authentic than say
King Lear. People are fascinated by the religious exemplar and love
to study good & evil: Shakespeare's Richard 3 or King Lear are studies
of where people go wrong. The Rous portrait of Richard was crude
propaganda because Rous wanted to creep around Henry VII & More wrote
a satirical tale on Richard. There's more to More than meets the eye.
As a clever writer and someone who tried to be srupulously
conscientious, he did seem to include some authentic details about
Richard: his conscience, the details about the Hsting's coup. More
had no doubt that Richard had killed his nephews.

This> was a human being, with all the failings that any human being
is> subject to. There is not one of us that can credibly put ourselves
in> his place.

I agree. I may have done as he did myself. Richard was confronted
with a dangerous situation in 1483 and dealt with it extremely
bravely. He wasn't enamoured of a Woodville dominated Edward V and
probably didn't like the lad himself, who may've been arrogant &
wilful like his Father & Mother. So, Richard was attracted by power
as King. This is what he was used to as virtual King of the North!
If Richard was ruthless, well, politics is!

I don't consider putting 'the princes' under protective
> custody in the Tower as particularly sinister, as it was a royal
> residence, and the reputation the Tower earned as a mostly a
horrific> prison was earned in subsequent centuries.

Well, the Tower had also been used as a prison during the French wars
as it was for Henry VI and he was killed there, too. But there was no
guarantee that the princes were to be killed there. However, every
report, whether suspicion from Mancini, Croyland's account that
Richard had destroyed them, Richard's own movement away from them as
important in his Guild Hall speech, the London Chronicle reports,
More's varnished account ALL suggest that the princes were killed.
Richard's record, motivation & opportunity don't suggest that he
didn't kill them and as the pro-Richard Kendall pointed out: 'Where
else could they go?' To have left them alive would've been political
folly. Why were Edward 2, Richard 2 & Henry 6 killed? Because they
posed a threat! Richard may've felt that he could ride the resentment
over their deaths. Isabella, Henry 4 & Edward 4 - the killers of
monarchs - managed!

That RIII made choices > that most of us have trouble stomaching is
not surprising. I don't> think the Society need function as a agent
of complete exoneration of> the charges that history has made against
Richard III. It should> function as an agent of debate, and it should
be concerned with investigation of supposed historical fact, so that
the life and reign> of Richard III can be presented, in as far as it
is possible, in the> most realistic way possible.

I agree.

A complete white washing of Richard III> is just as detrimental as a
complete demonizing of Richard III. It> just does not stand up as
credible.

Well, it doesn't for ANYONE. We all have our foibles. Even saints
could be sinners sometimes, e.g. St. Peter denying Christ!

Having studied his life and > reign for 2 decades, I have come to
the conclusion that this was a > man with a conscience, who felt
compelled to react against real> and perhaps projected threats and
fears. He might have chosen> differently, and perhaps history would
not have been so harsh to> him. Who knows?

So, Richard chose to be a King and not a pawn. Good for him. He
probably did break a few rules en route, but this is very human &
rather typical of his brothers!

In any case, it is a healthy debate, and one that> can be applied to
any historical and/or political figure. If we> could live long
enough, it would be interesting to see what societies> are formed
centuries from now to investigate and perhaps reabilitate
> some of our own centuries montrous politicians and historical
> figures.

They already exist. Adolf Hitler is seen by some as someone who stood
up for his own people and tried to create a German Empire on the lines
of the British one & in the process he treated other people the way
that Indians were treated in America, which he quoted!

It does come down to taking sides, unless we recognise that all sides
have their point of view.

As I said in a previous post, we can't even decide on who> killed
Kennedy and why, and we have far better resources at our> fingertips
for that particular case than those available from the> 15th century.

This makes any investigation sound impossible & we could end up saying
'Why bother?' Most people still blame Oswald, but maybe there was a
right-wing conspiracy? Do you think Richard Nixon was behind it? At
least we can't criticise Richard III over that one!

What fascinates me about King Richard and his times is not so much what he did or didn/t do but what would we or I would have done
----- Original Message -----
From: willison2001 <willison2001@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Richard & his 'bastard' nephews


--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 11:05 AM 1/10/03 -0000, you wrote:
>
'Sights. Not sites. People making disparaging remarks about other's
opinions> have an obligation to get their spelling right.'

I was given 'sites' a long time ago, as the site one is aiming for,
but YOU may be right & either will do. I'm British, not American & we
do spell certain words differently: night, nite. Incidentally, I
think my opinions have been disparaged, too!

Croyland is vague as to who 'gave out' that the boys were dead in
1483. Was it Richard or Buckingham? If Richard then he wasn't
keeping it a useless secret. He never denied they were dead and moved
on in his speech in the Guildhall to their sister as the important
player as though they were dead, as I'm fairly sure they were at this
point.
>
I agree with you about Richard as a competent administrator as Duke &
King and I'm sure he acted in self-defence, but he did infringe the
legal and religious mores of his day: the usurpation of the Crown from
Edward V who most people thought was the rightful King, the execution
of Hastings without trial, even though Richard was not King.

I think it's true that the case of Richard showed up the inadequacies
in an inherited system of monarchy: Richard was more able than Edward
V, but couldn't rule, the system of justice with kangaroo trials was
grossly unfair, the system allowed schizophrenics to take charge, such
as Henry VI.

That's not to say that modern governments don't have their faults:
democracy elected Hitler & 15th century rulers didn't drop atomic
bombs on countries killing thousands ( Japan, 1945.)


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Tim suggests:
"I frequently suspect that the thought may have been
an imagined one placed in his head by someone who did have reason to
fear
the Wydeville influence - primarily William Lord Hastings."

This statement in Tim's intelligent post reminded me that it was
Hasitngs, after all, who sent word to Richard of Edward's death.
It has always puzzled me why the word took two weeks to get to
Richard. I can understand why he might be upset over not being
speedily informed of his brother's death.

Janet

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hindsight is a wonderful thing and unfortunately what many
historians have
> been guilty of is assuming that the events of Edward V's reign and
the
> subsequent usurpation of Richard III are easily and glibbly
explained by the
> reign of Edward IV. What most Ricardians of my acquaintance do is
to try
> and sort the wheat from the chaf to try and discover if the
traditional view
> actually holds water based on the character involved and the way
in which he
> acted. Unfortunately that doesn't apply when it comes to anyone
else
> involved. Instead like most historians the traditional view is
fine when
> its applied to Richard's enemies - so Mancini, More, Vergil, Hall
and many
> more since up to and including Kendall, Ross, Hicks etc are spot
on when
> they are nice about Richard but very wide of the mark when being
nice about
> anyone else.
>
> So Margaret Beaufort is a plotting, scheming, vengeful harpy who
had been
> nursing royal ambitions for her offspring since the day he was
born. Of
> course the historic Margaret Beaufort with her Lancastrian views
was still a
> virtual permanent fixture of the court of Edward IV (he even gave
her and
> hubby number 2 a manor so that they could attend court more
often) - during
> the 1470's this women, who was so consumed with dislike for the
House of
> York and was merely bidding her time to strike, was also happily
tripping
> along behind Elizabeth Wydeville and carrying her train on state
occassions
> (which role fell to the Lady Margaret by virtue of hubby no 3's
job in the
> Royal Household). Somewhere between the two extremes the truth
can probably
> be found.
>
> Of course everyone's favourite panto villain of the Yorkist Court
is of
> course Elizabeth Wydeville and her family with their overweening
greed and
> ambition. Why question it when it's believed by everyone since
time
> immemorial. You could of course examine the grants made to the
family -
> Elizabeth as Queen Dowager enjoyed an income more on a par with the
> traditional dower of a Queen Consort around the 4 to 5 thousand
pound a year
> mark considerably less than the inflated dowers given to the three
> Lancastrian Consorts (Joan of Navarre, Katherine of Valois and
Margaret of
> Anjou) in addition to that she had her traditional feudal dues,
her chamber
> expenses and her personal property settled on her by Edward IV
(mainly
> furnishings plate etc) - on that she managed to live on her income
despite
> her increasing family of children by Edward - something that
hadn't been
> seen for almost two generations - a Queen living on her income.
Her
> household was modest compared to Margaret of Anjou and largely
consisted of
> family members and relations or people with a connection to the
King's
> household. Her relations were given the usual salaries depending
on their
> role and they weren't inflated due to their connection with the
Queen.
> Almost none of her family received land grants from Edward IV -
its
> arguable whether he had anything left to hand out after providing
for his
> own two brothers and Warwick's equally large and demanding family
(grants to
> Warwick himself, plus Montague and Archbishop George Neville
aswell as
> Fauconberg outnumber by far any others prior to 1469).
>
> Certainly Edward and his wife helped her sisters into the marriage
market
> and it might have been a little more helpful if the Queen had had
fewer
> unmarried sisters - however with the exception of the Buckingham
and Arundal
> marriages the other grooms already had numerous family ties to the
> Wydevilles - the Bourchiers and the Grey's being related by
marriage and the
> Herbert marriage (for which the marriage contract survives) was
advantageous
> on both sides and the Earl of Pembroke could hardly complain given
he was
> almost as parvenu as the Wydevilles were accused of being (like
Hastings he
> was probably more parvenu). Incidentally for a new regime like
Edward's it
> wasn't such a bad thing he might reasonably expect that the
marriages would
> tie the nobility to his regime if they were to become his
brother's in law.
>
> Only one member of the family got anything in the way of an
office - her
> father Richard Lord Rivers who was created an Earl and became
Treasurer and
> then Constable of England. Richard had been a Royal Councillor
since the
> 1440's, seen service in France with York, and while made rich by
his
> marriage to Bedford's widow certainly seems to have gained what
political
> influence he had under the Lancastrians (which was little) by
virtue of
> military service rather than his wife's kinship to Margaret of
Anjou. He
> was also an early Yorkist convert (telling the Milanese that King
Henry's
> cause was dead in the water as early as 161) and was pardoned the
same year
> by Edward IV.
>
> Did they get up people's noses I suspect because they were highly
visible
> they did - however during the following decade or so there is very
little in
> the way of hard evidence that they were disliked which means the
main
> evidence for their great unpopularity post dates the propoganda
campaign of
> the summer of 1483.
>
> In terms of power its undeniable that during the second reign the
> Wydeville's had their fair share of it - but its interesting to
consider
> what their so called greed had accumulated and whether it was
exceptional
> compared to their contemporaries. Anthony 2nd Earl Rivers held
most of his
> land by right of his first wife Lady Scales and had expectations
through his
> second wife Mary Fitzlewis but in his own right he held quite a
modest
> estate. In terms of influence his position in Wales was
considerable
> however it was entirely tied to the Crown, many of those who could
be said
> to belong to his affinity were primarily Royal Servants on estates
held by
> the Crown not personally by Lord Rivers therefore as was to prove
the case
> in 1483 many of them did not oppenly oppose Richard III's
usurpation.
> Essentially Edward IV had given Anthony political and regional
influence and
> power but it was all exercised in the name of the Prince of Wales.
>
> The only other real player was of course Dorset - the King's
stepson - well
> he had to be provided for and he got in terms of title position
and wealth
> about the same as Henry VI gave his Tudor step brother - marriage
to a
> wealthy heiress and an Earldom. When the boy was older changes
were made
> swapping his Earldom for a Marquessate and a new heiress after the
first one
> Anne Holland (the King's niece) died. Thomas disappointed of the
Exeter
> heiress got another consolation prize in terms that his son by his
new wife
> would marry Anne Holland's half sister Anne St Leger and they
would jointly
> inherit the bulk of the Holland holdings in the South West. (Yes
another
> Edward IV dodgy property deal - however in fairness it was much
the same as
> the way Edward dealt with the Mowbray inheritance and the Warwick
one - even
> Richard III didn't restore the Holland properties to the rightful
heirs -
> the Percies by the way if memory serves).
>
> In terms of gains Dorset did much better than Uncle Anthony but
again you
> have to consider what was appropriate for a man who would one day
be the
> step brother of a reigning monarch.
>
> The rewards were in return for political service and important
part of
> Edward's political balancing act of how to manage the regions of
England
> which often gave trouble - the South West, Wales, and the North
(which is
> where the bulk of Richard's power was of course)
>
> The acquisition of land, wealth and political influence was the
life blood
> of the medieval english aristocracy - and good marriages raising a
family up
> the social scale were nothing new (granted a Royal Marriage was a
bit of a
> leap for anyone <g>)
>
> I don't doubt that the Wydeville's attracted their fair share of
envy and
> criticism (although there is barely a murmur of comment against
the Queen
> Consort for her behaviour while Queen Consort) however "notorious
greed" is
> rather strong and actually based on factual hard evidence simply
untrue.
> They came a cropper in 1483 because their power base and wealth
was too
> limited to fight the combined strength of the two Duke's - that
they didn't
> attract strong support from other toffs wasn't necessarily because
they were
> hated but because in terms of patronage and influence they had
nothing with
> which to bargain and buy support once they lost control of the
young King.
> The fact that Richard took control of his nephew so swiftly
suggests that he
> and everyone else knew that whatever their faults the Wydeville's
weren't
> strong at all without that child which means that after twenty
years of
> "greed and ambition" they'd achieved far less than anyone else.
>
> As to Richard well he was certainly a "model prince" - politically
> effective, influential, a good lord - hardly a fool. Nor was he
above a bit
> of typical medieval greed and ambition (for which he deserves no
criticism
> seeing as for him not to have been would have been miraculous).
He happily
> received the lands and wealth that his brother gave to him (which
came from
> some pretty dodgy dealing by Edward) - so let's not make him out
to be any
> different from Edward's in laws on that score.
>
> The surviving pre 1483 evidence does not suggest that Richard
resented the
> Wydeville's nor does it suggest that he blamed them or anyone else
for
> Clarence's death - to suggest otherwise is to follow Mancini's
blind alley
> of trying to find some reason to explain why Richard behaved as he
did and
> to be honest it doesn't stand up.
>
> Were the Wydeville's desperate to get rid of Richard to cling on
to power
> themselves - that only really makes sense if they feared Richard
would
> remove their influence - but there's no evidence of that either.
Did
> Richard believe they were moving against him I suspect he may have
done
> given how he behaved but I frequently suspect that the thought may
have been
> an imagined one placed in his head by someone who did have reason
to fear
> the Wydeville influence - primarily William Lord Hastings. If
there was any
> factional disputes at Edward's court then it was a long standing
one between
> Rivers and Hastings (and it wasn't over Dorset and Hastings
penchant for the
> King's leftover mistresses) not between the Wydeville's and
Richard.
>
>
> Enough for now I think....
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <nvenice2@a...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard & his 'bastard'
nephews
>
>
> > --- In , "willison2001
> > <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> >
> > The gauntlet has been dropped! I will do my best with my poor
> > scholarship to find out IF Rivers, Grey, and Hastings actually
had
> > trials. Then at least I can put my money where my mouth is.
> >
> > Listen, we all seem to be coming to the same conclusions:
basically,
> > that he MIGHT have killed his nephews and that he MIGHT have
made a
> > few rash calls, MIGHT being the key word. We're not exactly
breaking
> > new ground here, and even if this is a forum on Richard, it
might get
> > a bit boring sticking the same pins in again and again.
> >
> > Oooh, yes, he had Buckingham executed. GOOD! There is no
account
> > that I am aware of that makes Buckingham out to be anything more
than
> > an opportunist and a sociopath. Wow, he executed Rivers and
Grey.
> > It was either them or him, and the Woodvilles were NOTORIOUS for
> > their greed and ambition. The same cannot be said for Richard
who up
> > until his brother's death was a model prince.
> >
> > Finally, we come to the 'usurpation.' Whether or not Edward's
> > children were bastards, was it so terrible to have an able
> > administrator and soldier on the throne? Rather than having
Edward V
> > dominated by the Woodvilles? Call me crazy...
> >
> > It just seems that harping till heartstrings break on
> > Richard's 'failings'--if indeed they are--treads the same, old,
tired
> > ground as Weir and a host of Tudor historians. Unless one can
> > definitively prove that Rivers, Grey, Hastings, poor Buckingham,
and
> > the princes were all a part of some monstrous conspiracy, then
we are
> > simply splitting hairs. As I've said before, Richard is
COMPLETELY
> > overshadowed by his Tudor 'descendants' where judicial murder and
> > executions are concerned, especially considering that as far as
we
> > all know he had very good reasons (survival of the kingdom and
> > survival of self) for doing what he did. And no one has been
able to
> > prove any differently.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >

--- In , "michaelshankland
<Infernus9@a...>" <Infernus9@a...> wrote:
>
> For what it is worth my view is that Richard usurped the throne in
> 1483, that the nephews were not 'bastards' and that he had them
> unjustly placed in the Tower. What happened to the Princes after
late
> Summer/Autumn 1483, know one can be sure.But why do Richardians
> always assume that if one disagrees with them,than you are some
sort
> of rampant admirer of the Tudor family? You have not heard me on
the
> subject of Henry VIII !

To answer your last question, it is because we have these two killing
macines, Henry Tudor and Son, who exterminated the remaining
Plantagenets and many other people besides whom NOBODY mentions at
all as being in any way villainous. But RIII executes plotters
trying to dispose of him and he's Stalin by comparison. Notice I'm
not even mentioning the princes because that's just conjecture at
this point.

Now, wait! Let's also be very clear about what we mean regarding the
bastardy of the princes. It was posited that Edward IV was
contracted to Eleanor Butler, which in that day meant marriage.
Therefore, his seconf "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was null and
void and thus her children with Edward IV were declared bastards.
The princes were not bastards in the way we would recognize it today
or even 200 years ago. With this, let me remind you that Tudor had
the Act proclaiming Edward's children bastards destroyed--unread,
which was unorthodox. Funny stuff going on there....

Unjustly placed in the Tower? That's where many of the royals lived
and it was not uncommon for relations of the king to live there. The
Tower then did not mean the same thing as it means today.

Again, I'm eager to be corrected if I'm mistaken!

Nate

You would think that people would actually read what was posted and
at least
refrain from repeating some of this. It hard to exterminate a
family that
was virtually extinct. Again for the benefit of the forgetful.
There was
only one male Plantagenet alive after Bosworth - Edward Earl of
Warwick and
as you say that killing machine Henry VII executed him a decade or
so later.
As to the female Plantagenets - Henry VII married the senior one, her
sisters were all married off and all of them died in their beds.
The Essex
descendants behaved themselves and survived Henry VII's and Henry
VIII's
reign - the only descendant of Isabel Plantagenet Countess of Essex
to die
on the block was her female descendant the Deveraux Earl of Essex
executed
by Elizabeth for treason at the end of her reign, the Buckingham's
survived
Henry VII's reign but fell out with Henry VIII and the Duke was
executed -
however his children and his brother survived and their descendants
survived, Margaret Plantagenet Countess of Salisbury was married
off - and
created Countess of Salisbury (along with lands that she was
entitled to
inherit through her maternal descent from the Montague's that were
still in
Royal Hands when Henry VIII decided to grant her the Earldom shortly
after
his accession), her death owed more to religion and dynastic
problems that
affected the Tudors than the fact she was Henry's late mother's
cousin. The
de la Pole's were initially favoured by Henry VII - but after Stoke
became
persona non grata at court, deprived of their dukedom after the Duke
of
Suffolk's death - they wandered Europe and eventually wiped out so to
speak - however useful to remember that until they rebelled there
was no
indication of any threat to them - Lincoln happily trotted along to
court
and attended Prince Arthur's christening. Richard III's only other
surviving niece Anne St Leger lived happily died in her bed and her
descendants are living today.

It's worth remembering the death toll of Plantagenets between 1450
and 1485
and then comparing it to the number of half Plantagenets who died
between
1485 and 1603. If the Tudors were exterminating alternate claims
then they
were particularly bad at it. The Tudors record on executions or
judicial
murders if you like is particularly high compared to other
sovereigns though
that doesn't take into account their own internal dynastic problems
with
regard the succession which hadn't affected the English Monarchy
prior to
that period and secondly doesn't take into account the religious
struggles
that hit Europe in the 16th Century.

As to the bastardy allegations against the issue of Edward IV -
firstly the
pre-contract allegation is just one of the allegations included in
Titulus
Regius although it is of course the main one. However no Court ever
examined the validity of the marriage and the person who should have
brought
a complaint was hardly able to do so (Elizabeth Wydeville as the
wronged
woman of the allegations) when it was posited. The principal
problems with
the pre-contract allegations are that they were very convenient to
have just
happened upon in the late spring early summer of 1483, that it was
extremely
convenient that both Eleanor Butler and Edward IV were dead, its also
surprising that Eleanor's relations kept stumm for so long given
that if the
pre-contract existed then they watched a blasphemous coronation when
Elizabeth Wydeville was crowned.
The Act also goes on to set out in full Richard's claim which is why
it was
repealed unread you would hardly want a Parliament to listen to your
recently defeated enemies justifications for his actions and equally
you
would hardly want Parliament to recall the alleged bastardy of your
future
wife and her siblings however little you wanted to rely on her for
your
claim to the throne.

Incidentally does anyone have a copy or knowledge of the content of
the
bidding prayer for the first part of Henry VII's reign - interesting
to know
if it prayed just for Henry in the first few months of his reign and
how it
was amended following his marriage. The prayer is usually changed
quite
quickly but i think the form was officially confirmed by the two
convocations of York and Canterbury. The prayer for Edward IV and
his Queen
(and children etc) was amended to pray for the King Edward V and his
mother
the Queen Dowager in 1483 and presumably again amended shortly
thereafter to
pray for Richard and his Queen Anne.

Tim

> To answer your last question, it is because we have these two
killing
> macines, Henry Tudor and Son, who exterminated the remaining
> Plantagenets and many other people besides whom NOBODY mentions at
> all as being in any way villainous. But RIII executes plotters
> trying to dispose of him and he's Stalin by comparison. Notice I'm
> not even mentioning the princes because that's just conjecture at
> this point.
>
> Now, wait! Let's also be very clear about what we mean regarding
the
> bastardy of the princes. It was posited that Edward IV was
> contracted to Eleanor Butler, which in that day meant marriage.
> Therefore, his seconf "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was null
and
> void and thus her children with Edward IV were declared bastards.
> The princes were not bastards in the way we would recognize it
today
> or even 200 years ago. With this, let me remind you that Tudor had
> the Act proclaiming Edward's children bastards destroyed--unread,
> which was unorthodox. Funny stuff going on there....
>
> Unjustly placed in the Tower? That's where many of the royals
lived
> and it was not uncommon for relations of the king to live there.
The
> Tower then did not mean the same thing as it means today.
>
> Again, I'm eager to be corrected if I'm mistaken!
>
> Nate
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In , "tim <tmc_dale@y...>"
<tmc_dale@y...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> As to the bastardy allegations against the issue of Edward IV -
> firstly the
> pre-contract allegation is just one of the allegations included in
> Titulus
> Regius although it is of course the main one. However no Court ever
> examined the validity of the marriage and the person who should
have
> brought
> a complaint was hardly able to do so (Elizabeth Wydeville as the
> wronged
> woman of the allegations) when it was posited. The principal
> problems with
> the pre-contract allegations are that they were very convenient to
> have just
> happened upon in the late spring early summer of 1483, that it was
> extremely
> convenient that both Eleanor Butler and Edward IV were dead, its
also
> surprising that Eleanor's relations kept stumm for so long given
> that if the
> pre-contract existed then they watched a blasphemous coronation when
> Elizabeth Wydeville was crowned.
> The Act also goes on to set out in full Richard's claim which is
why
> it was
> repealed unread you would hardly want a Parliament to listen to your
> recently defeated enemies justifications for his actions and
equally
> you
> would hardly want Parliament to recall the alleged bastardy of your
> future
> wife and her siblings however little you wanted to rely on her for
> your
> claim to the throne.
>
> Incidentally does anyone have a copy or knowledge of the content of
> the
> bidding prayer for the first part of Henry VII's reign -
interesting
> to know
> if it prayed just for Henry in the first few months of his reign
and
> how it
> was amended following his marriage. The prayer is usually changed
> quite
> quickly but i think the form was officially confirmed by the two
> convocations of York and Canterbury. The prayer for Edward IV and
> his Queen
> (and children etc) was amended to pray for the King Edward V and
his
> mother
> the Queen Dowager in 1483 and presumably again amended shortly
> thereafter to
> pray for Richard and his Queen Anne.

With regard to the 'bastard' allegation and the sermon at Saint Pauls
Cross, 22nd June 1483, would Richard and one bishop have the
authority to make the Princes 'illegitimate'? Why not bring the
matter to an Ecclesiatical Court? What would the standard procedure
be in the 15th century -if there was one? ( I ask this more as an
open question as I really have no idea how such cases were dealt
with).
>
> Tim
>
> > To answer your last question, it is because we have these two
> killing
> > macines, Henry Tudor and Son, who exterminated the remaining
> > Plantagenets and many other people besides whom NOBODY mentions at
> > all as being in any way villainous. But RIII executes plotters
> > trying to dispose of him and he's Stalin by comparison. Notice
I'm
> > not even mentioning the princes because that's just conjecture at
> > this point.
> >
> > Now, wait! Let's also be very clear about what we mean regarding
> the
> > bastardy of the princes. It was posited that Edward IV was
> > contracted to Eleanor Butler, which in that day meant marriage.
> > Therefore, his seconf "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was null
> and
> > void and thus her children with Edward IV were declared bastards.
> > The princes were not bastards in the way we would recognize it
> today
> > or even 200 years ago. With this, let me remind you that Tudor
had
> > the Act proclaiming Edward's children bastards destroyed--unread,
> > which was unorthodox. Funny stuff going on there....
> >
> > Unjustly placed in the Tower? That's where many of the royals
> lived
> > and it was not uncommon for relations of the king to live there.
> The
> > Tower then did not mean the same thing as it means today.
> >
> > Again, I'm eager to be corrected if I'm mistaken!
> >
> > Nate
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >

tim <tmc_dale@...>12/01/2003 14:00tmc_dale@...

> There was
> only one male Plantagenet alive after Bosworth - Edward Earl of
> Warwick
what about Lincoln, and Buckingham, they were Plantagenets too.
Paul

--- In , "tim <tmc_dale@y...>"
<tmc_dale@y...> wrote:
> You would think that people would actually read what was posted and
> at least
> refrain from repeating some of this. It hard to exterminate a
> family that
> was virtually extinct. Again for the benefit of the forgetful.
> There was
> only one male Plantagenet alive after Bosworth - Edward Earl of
> Warwick and
> as you say that killing machine Henry VII executed him a decade or
> so later.
> As to the female Plantagenets - Henry VII married the senior one,
her
> sisters were all married off and all of them died in their beds.
> The Essex
> descendants behaved themselves and survived Henry VII's and Henry
> VIII's
> reign - the only descendant of Isabel Plantagenet Countess of Essex
> to die
> on the block was her female descendant the Deveraux Earl of Essex
> executed
> by Elizabeth for treason at the end of her reign, the Buckingham's
> survived
> Henry VII's reign but fell out with Henry VIII and the Duke was
> executed -
> however his children and his brother survived and their descendants
> survived, Margaret Plantagenet Countess of Salisbury was married
> off - and
> created Countess of Salisbury (along with lands that she was
> entitled to
> inherit through her maternal descent from the Montague's that were
> still in
> Royal Hands when Henry VIII decided to grant her the Earldom
shortly
> after
> his accession), her death owed more to religion and dynastic
> problems that
> affected the Tudors than the fact she was Henry's late mother's
> cousin. The
> de la Pole's were initially favoured by Henry VII - but after Stoke
> became
> persona non grata at court, deprived of their dukedom after the
Duke
> of
> Suffolk's death - they wandered Europe and eventually wiped out so
to
> speak - however useful to remember that until they rebelled there
> was no
> indication of any threat to them - Lincoln happily trotted along to
> court
> and attended Prince Arthur's christening. Richard III's only other
> surviving niece Anne St Leger lived happily died in her bed and her
> descendants are living today.
>
> It's worth remembering the death toll of Plantagenets between 1450
> and 1485
> and then comparing it to the number of half Plantagenets who died
> between
> 1485 and 1603. If the Tudors were exterminating alternate claims
> then they
> were particularly bad at it. The Tudors record on executions or
> judicial
> murders if you like is particularly high compared to other
> sovereigns though
> that doesn't take into account their own internal dynastic problems
> with
> regard the succession which hadn't affected the English Monarchy
> prior to
> that period and secondly doesn't take into account the religious
> struggles
> that hit Europe in the 16th Century.
>
> As to the bastardy allegations against the issue of Edward IV -
> firstly the
> pre-contract allegation is just one of the allegations included in
> Titulus
> Regius although it is of course the main one. However no Court ever
> examined the validity of the marriage and the person who should
have
> brought
> a complaint was hardly able to do so (Elizabeth Wydeville as the
> wronged
> woman of the allegations) when it was posited. The principal
> problems with
> the pre-contract allegations are that they were very convenient to
> have just
> happened upon in the late spring early summer of 1483, that it was
> extremely
> convenient that both Eleanor Butler and Edward IV were dead, its
also
> surprising that Eleanor's relations kept stumm for so long given
> that if the
> pre-contract existed then they watched a blasphemous coronation when
> Elizabeth Wydeville was crowned.
> The Act also goes on to set out in full Richard's claim which is
why
> it was
> repealed unread you would hardly want a Parliament to listen to your
> recently defeated enemies justifications for his actions and
equally
> you
> would hardly want Parliament to recall the alleged bastardy of your
> future
> wife and her siblings however little you wanted to rely on her for
> your
> claim to the throne.
>
> Incidentally does anyone have a copy or knowledge of the content of
> the
> bidding prayer for the first part of Henry VII's reign -
interesting
> to know
> if it prayed just for Henry in the first few months of his reign
and
> how it
> was amended following his marriage. The prayer is usually changed
> quite
> quickly but i think the form was officially confirmed by the two
> convocations of York and Canterbury. The prayer for Edward IV and
> his Queen
> (and children etc) was amended to pray for the King Edward V and
his
> mother
> the Queen Dowager in 1483 and presumably again amended shortly
> thereafter to
> pray for Richard and his Queen Anne.
>
> Tim


As one of the forgetful,

Tim, you're just like some of the other members here, educated as you
are: "The Tudors didn't exterminate the Plantagenets. They
just...well...hem...haw...um...they just exterminated them!"

As a recent poster just mentioned, there was not only Warwick, but
John Earl of Lincoln, his brother Edmund of Suffolk, John of
Gloucester (Richard's bastard, while we're at it), Buckingham,
Montague, and the 80-year-old Countess of Salisbury (Warwick's
sister), who was chopped up under Henry VIII. Am I missing someone?

Strangely, all of them died, and while we cannot blame Tudor for
Lincoln's death (he *did* rebel), all the others went down the hatch
with little reason *other* than their bloodlines.

I am, of course, not mentioning Edward's five girls, and assorted
other sisters, cousins, and aunts. Far from extinct, I think. And
yes, for the most part the Tudors eschewed executing women, but until
Elizabeth was crowned who would have thought of such a thing. And
yes, a lot of Plantagenets died pre-Tudor, but then there was a war
on. That speeds things along.

Regarding the pre-contract, I have heard that Stillington was
arrested and released under Edward IV, and of course not a peep was
heard from anyone during his reign, but why is that astonishing? Who
on earth would want to accuse the reigning king of bigamy? So, it
does make sense for the rumor to come out during the Protectorate.

That said, the pre-contract could have been untrue and Richard could
have been a usurper, but it's also just as easy to beleive that
Edward IV was a womanizer and had gotten himself into some hot water
previous to his hot water marriage to Elizabeth Woodville.

Again, I'm writing as a non-scholar who has limited research
capabilities, and I apologize for all the forgetting I am wont to do.

Nate

Hey, this topic is so complex, I've FORGOTTEN
information that I've posted!

Dora

--- "tim <tmc_dale@...>"
<tmc_dale@...> wrote:
> You would think that people would actually read what
> was posted and
> at least
> refrain from repeating some of this. It hard to
> exterminate a
> family that
> was virtually extinct

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> Hey, this topic is so complex, I've FORGOTTEN
> information that I've posted!
>
> Dora
>
Alas! This may mean that you'll have to read all 1393 postings to
bring you up to steam!

At 02:12 PM 1/12/03 -0000, you wrote:

>
>With regard to the 'bastard' allegation and the sermon at Saint Pauls
>Cross, 22nd June 1483, would Richard and one bishop have the
>authority to make the Princes 'illegitimate'? Why not bring the
>matter to an Ecclesiatical Court? What would the standard procedure
>be in the 15th century -if there was one? ( I ask this more as an
>open question as I really have no idea how such cases were dealt
>with).

R. M. Helmholz did an analysis of the claim of the boys' illegitimacy
within the context of canon law. See R.H. Helmholtz, 'The Sons of Edward
IV: A Canonical Assessment of the Claim that they were illegitimate', in
Loyalty, Lordship and Law, ed. P.W. Hammond, (1986), pp. 91-103. Helmholtz
is at the University of Chicago and is a very well-respected scholar. As I
recall, the article includes an overview of "standard procedure."



--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

One more Plantagenet falls foul of the Tudors! LOVE IT! Any idea
what he did after Bosworth? Was he at Court? In exile? Did he
fight for Richard? Against him? Did he and John of Gloucester
strike up The Bastard's Glee Club?

Details, please! I've got to know!

Nate

Firstly he wasn't a plantagenet - he was a bastard. Oh and the
Tudor's raised him to the peerage he lived happily at the Tudor Court
briefly ended up in chokey. Hardly a life of persecution.


--- In , "natusm
<nvenice2@a...>" <nvenice2@a...> wrote:
> One more Plantagenet falls foul of the Tudors! LOVE IT! Any idea
> what he did after Bosworth? Was he at Court? In exile? Did he
> fight for Richard? Against him? Did he and John of Gloucester
> strike up The Bastard's Glee Club?
>
> Details, please! I've got to know!
>
> Nate

At 06:25 AM 1/14/03 -0000, you wrote:
>Firstly he wasn't a plantagenet - he was a bastard.

I am reminded of my son's actions at a large Detter family reunion when he
was about eight. He went around querying the assembled multitudes -- "Are
you a real Detter?" No surname, no claim to be part of the family, in his
eight-year-old literal mindedness.

I would argue that some of us are defining "Plantagenet" a little more
broadly, as anyone descended from Richard duke of York.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

I think it's a matter of what you mean by a plot. This was a full
scale political conflict! To whatever degree either party could
claim to legitimately hold the government, the other party was guilty
of treason. Richard's position, which I find valid from what I have
read so far, was that he validly held power and needed to do so to
keep the peace, and they were traitors.

Dora

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote:
> > At least with Anne BOleyn, the only thing she was guilty of was
> being the > antithesis of what a queen was supposed to be- quiet,
meek
> and submissive.
>
> Yup...she certainly was that: feisty & raunchy, a would be mistress
> who wouldn't say 'Yes!' She did a Elizabeth Woodville, in fact!
How
> many Queens were 'quiet, meek and submissive' is debateable.
> Certainly, not Isabella, the 'she-wolf' of France who,
understandably,
> had her gay husband: Edward 2, attached to a red hot spit or poker
in
> a place where it hurt, not Margaret of Anjou, who led the
Lancastrian
> armies, Elizabeth Woodville...? I think not...not with the way she
> courted power for herself & her family. Anne Boleyn's strong &
> intelligent personality may've left its mark on her illustrious
> daughter, possibly the greatest English monarch of all: Elizabeth I!
>
> > RIvers, Grey and the like were actually plotting against Richard.
> >
> > -Victoria
>
> I know that Richard claimed this bunch was plotting against him,
but
> the evidence is painfully thin. I thought Hastings had agreed that
> Rivers with a reduced escort bring Edward V, who everyone
(including
> Richard) at that time accepted as King, to London & that's what
Rivers
> was doing? He politely visits Richard at Northampton & next
day 'Wham
> Bam' he's imprisoned & later executed.

It is clear that Hastings was involved in a plan to grab the
government from Richard, and it is correct to think they would
additionally have imprisoned or more likely killed Richard.

Richard, with agreement from those who agreed to put him in power,
thought that Woodville control of the government necessarily met
civil war because the aristocracy and the rest of the country just
weren't going to have the Woodvilles' greed and complete lack of
skill at governing.

I don't agree that Anthony Woodville was a wonderful and skilled
Renaissance whatever; the evidence is he was jsut another sicko in
the York court; maybe one of the more articulate of them.

Dora


I!
>
> > RIvers, Grey and the like were actually plotting against Richard.
> >
> > -Victoria
>
> I know that Richard claimed this bunch was plotting against him,
but
> the evidence is painfully thin. I thought Hastings had agreed that
> Rivers with a reduced escort bring Edward V, who everyone
(including
> Richard) at that time accepted as King, to London & that's what
Rivers
> was doing? He politely visits Richard at Northampton & next
day 'Wham
> Bam' he's imprisoned & later executed.

That's so easy to do that, without having seen what you said, I
wonder if you said anything wrong.

I have followed some of the diehard Ricardians on this list by using
the word Ricardian as a code word for extremely neurotic. For
instance, the actor Rees, who played Charles in Unhappily Ever After,
is said to look "Ricardian".

We rather explicitly agreed to do this, and Richard's admirers on the
list did it first. Several people on the list who weren't about to
identify for me their present day warrior heroes, ie, that missionary
in Africa, who they think are like Richard, so that I could get a
clearer view of how they see Richard, and where in God's name they
are coming from when they look at Richard, labelled Rees "Ricardian",
ie, "I have always thought Rees was rather Ricardian". Since I agree
that Rees in that movie is completely like Richard III, that spoke to
me volumes of what traits these people admire. We pretty much have
the same vision of Richard. I took up the use of the
term "Ricardian" for a Rees set of personality traits, and it is
reasonable to think that others did, too.

It is very important to use code words, because this allows people to
use common vocabulary to speak tactfully to people who just don't see
the same thing the same way, and to decode common vocabulary such
that people have a common vision of exactly what is being described,
into individual meanings of what that really is. Everyone knows what
Rees played in Unhappily Ever After. To most of the people on the
list, that is a wonderful, heroic, warrior kind of person! I have my
own take on just what it is, and my experience overwhelmingly leads
me to think I am right.

Instead of arguing more than I do, I jsut use the term "Ricardian"
and everyone knows what kind of personality type I'm describing
without arguing about the value judgement of this personality type.

We all know that "Ricardian" also means, very interested in Richard
III, which it wouldn't be all that unreasonable to think means very
neurotic too! But it isn't ordinarily hard to get the meaning from
the context.

I honestly don't know another accurate way to characterize Richard
than neurotic besides "Ricardian", so that term works for me.

Dora


/03 +0000, michaelshankland <Infernus9@a...> wrote:
> >Kim and Laura - After thinking over what you have written I think
> >that I have probably have been guilty of making sweeping
> >generalisations concerning 'Richardians'. I apologise and withdraw
my
> >comments OK?

"The Sunne in Splendor" was the first Ricardian book I read and
the mention of a Richard III Society lead me to search for a
chapter. I found it at the Ohio State University Renaissance Faire
in 1989. There were several members of the American Branch Ohio
Chapter at a booth, in medieval garb, and distibuting literature
about the Society. I signed up right away!
It has been many years since that reading and I have not
revisited it. I do remember "We Speak No Treason" as well. My more
recent readings have tended to be non-fiction but I wouldn't mind a
good fictionalized version. Too bad they aways end the same way.
Except for John Ford's book, of course :-)

Janet Trimbath

Janet <forevere@...> wrote: "The Sunne in Splendor" was the first Ricardian book I read and
the mention of a Richard III Society lead me to search for a
chapter. I found it at the Ohio State University Renaissance Faire
in 1989. There were several members of the American Branch Ohio
Chapter at a booth, in medieval garb, and distibuting literature
about the Society. I signed up right away!
It has been many years since that reading and I have not
revisited it. I do remember "We Speak No Treason" as well. My more
recent readings have tended to be non-fiction but I wouldn't mind a
good fictionalized version. Too bad they aways end the same way.
Except for John Ford's book, of course :-)

Janet Trimbath


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Always interested in books that I can read, can you give the title of the book by John Ford - would very much appreciate it.




---------------------------------
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!Messenger