The bastard nephews again
The bastard nephews again
2002-12-30 01:45:58
> 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
I see from the use of the words "two deep enemies" that you're referring
back to Shakespeare. Frankly (!) I'm flabberghasted at this interpretation
of Richard's motives in terms of the purest cynicism. And I find the
anti-religious polemic quite disturbing! It seems to buy the whole
tradionalist argument that Richard was a hypocrite without question. If
however he was not a hypocrite but a religious fanatic who believed in his
own rightness, the poor man is still damned!
There is no evidence beyond the circumstantial that Richard killed the
princes. All that can be said is that they were no longer seen after (?)
June 1483. Of course Richard had the primary opportunity and motive BUT
surely (assuming he was so astute) he would have realised what a public
relations disaster it would prove to be? All the contemporary accusations
suggest how gravely his contemporaries viewed the killing of children - as
opposed to adults. But Mancini concludes that he does not know whether the
boys have been killed; the Crowland continuator never asserts that they
were, but merely that a rumour was spread to that effect.
People in the 15th century didn't have different minds to us: but they had a
very different culture, mores, lexicon...
"Give me my battle-axe in my hand
And set the crown upon my head so high
For by him that made both land and sea
King of England this day will I die"
from "The Song of the Lady Bessy" written - ahem! - by a supporter of the
Stanleys.
Cheers
Jessica
> 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
I see from the use of the words "two deep enemies" that you're referring
back to Shakespeare. Frankly (!) I'm flabberghasted at this interpretation
of Richard's motives in terms of the purest cynicism. And I find the
anti-religious polemic quite disturbing! It seems to buy the whole
tradionalist argument that Richard was a hypocrite without question. If
however he was not a hypocrite but a religious fanatic who believed in his
own rightness, the poor man is still damned!
There is no evidence beyond the circumstantial that Richard killed the
princes. All that can be said is that they were no longer seen after (?)
June 1483. Of course Richard had the primary opportunity and motive BUT
surely (assuming he was so astute) he would have realised what a public
relations disaster it would prove to be? All the contemporary accusations
suggest how gravely his contemporaries viewed the killing of children - as
opposed to adults. But Mancini concludes that he does not know whether the
boys have been killed; the Crowland continuator never asserts that they
were, but merely that a rumour was spread to that effect.
People in the 15th century didn't have different minds to us: but they had a
very different culture, mores, lexicon...
"Give me my battle-axe in my hand
And set the crown upon my head so high
For by him that made both land and sea
King of England this day will I die"
from "The Song of the Lady Bessy" written - ahem! - by a supporter of the
Stanleys.
Cheers
Jessica
Re: The bastard nephews again
2002-12-30 02:07:33
All the contemporary accusations suggest how gravely his
contemporaries viewed the killing of children - as opposed to adults.
But Mancini concludes that he does not know whether the boys have been
killed; the Crowland continuator never asserts that they were, but
merely that a rumour was spread to that effect.
People in the 15th century didn't have different minds to us: but they
had a very different culture, mores, lexicon...--- In
, "Jessica Rydill"
<la@l...> wrote:
Some of the ecclesiastical writers of the Chronicles were aghast at
murdering children, but nevertheless many WERE in reality killed.
Many died from starvation from the seiges of towns by Henry V's
armies, a war which ended within 20 years of Richard's birth. Giles
de Rais (15th century) brutalised and murdered many! Richard was
cetainly capable of killing people, but YOU think he thought the
'princes,' whom he called 'bastards,' were too precious for this. It
may've been a PR disaster killing them, but Richard may've felt that
his older brother had survived the killing of the 'saintly' Henry VI &
better a PR disaster than a more material disaster of a released
Edward V leading an army to do all sorts of nasty things to Richard,
his family & friends.
contemporaries viewed the killing of children - as opposed to adults.
But Mancini concludes that he does not know whether the boys have been
killed; the Crowland continuator never asserts that they were, but
merely that a rumour was spread to that effect.
People in the 15th century didn't have different minds to us: but they
had a very different culture, mores, lexicon...--- In
, "Jessica Rydill"
<la@l...> wrote:
Some of the ecclesiastical writers of the Chronicles were aghast at
murdering children, but nevertheless many WERE in reality killed.
Many died from starvation from the seiges of towns by Henry V's
armies, a war which ended within 20 years of Richard's birth. Giles
de Rais (15th century) brutalised and murdered many! Richard was
cetainly capable of killing people, but YOU think he thought the
'princes,' whom he called 'bastards,' were too precious for this. It
may've been a PR disaster killing them, but Richard may've felt that
his older brother had survived the killing of the 'saintly' Henry VI &
better a PR disaster than a more material disaster of a released
Edward V leading an army to do all sorts of nasty things to Richard,
his family & friends.
Did Buckingham do it?
2002-12-31 03:38:51
Presuming the princes were dead by the end of 1483 and Tudor AND
Richard both behaved as though they were, then did that 'most untrue
creature,' the 'deep, revolving, witty Buckingham' perpetrate the act?
Surely, if he had, he would've needed a warrant signed by his King
(Richard) to be permitted to do it? Richard,indeed no contemporary,
suggested that he did. There was a reference to Buckingham
persuading Richard to kill them, but that leaves the responsibility
with Richard: a seasoned leader & military man and not some great
girl's blouse to be pushed around by Buckingham. Presuming that the
princes were murdered in the Tower, it's possible that 'gentle
Brackenbury' wasn't present at the murder and was as much in a
mystery about what happened to them as virtually everyone else. They
could've been moved! Therefore, his fighting for Richard at Bosworth,
rather than risking rebellion and his position, was logical.
The fact is that Richard WAS responsible for steamrollering his
enemies: Rivers, Vaughan, Grey, Haute, Hastings, Collingbourne,
Buckingham and was responsible for the deaths of many at Barnet,
Tewkesbury, in Scotland and at Bosworth (some with his own hand,) so
the 'bastard' princes may have fell victim to Richard's direct &
lethal way of dealing with enemies, whether this was through
decapitation, hanging, drawing & quatering, sword thrust, whatever
(not nice!)
Edward V was the son - the bastard son, as Richard's high moral mind
indignantly saw him - of Edward IV & its clear from Titulus Regius
that Richard had concealed a loathing for his abusive tyrant of a
brother and his grasping, scheming family.
If Richard didn't kill his nephews he must've been planning their
deaths & if he wasn't planning their deaths, he must've killed them,
because this was the logic in dealing with a clever, Woodville
biased, probably soon to be another tyrant like his Father, Edward V.
The son of ruthless Edward IV and the scheming, selfcentred Elizabeth
Woodville was, indeed, not likely to be a monarch Richard would
relish, because it's fairly obvious that he was resentful in the
extreme what had gone before and his way, as we know, of dealing with
enemies was to KILL them, as Buckingham found out.
In fact, this entire idea that Richard was overawed by Clarence &
then, Buckingham suggests that Richard, who was a far better leader,
survivor and military captain than the 2 combined, was in some way
weaker than them and is a Paul Murray Kendall view, but where's the
evidence?
If Edward V had broken from the Tower, his own personality & the
views of his supporters would've been poison for Richard, far more
formidable than Tudor & does anyone doubt what Richard had in mind
for HIM?
Anyway, I hope I've not upset anyone. It's only History and a very
long time ago. I hope your present and the future New Year is a good
one!
Richard both behaved as though they were, then did that 'most untrue
creature,' the 'deep, revolving, witty Buckingham' perpetrate the act?
Surely, if he had, he would've needed a warrant signed by his King
(Richard) to be permitted to do it? Richard,indeed no contemporary,
suggested that he did. There was a reference to Buckingham
persuading Richard to kill them, but that leaves the responsibility
with Richard: a seasoned leader & military man and not some great
girl's blouse to be pushed around by Buckingham. Presuming that the
princes were murdered in the Tower, it's possible that 'gentle
Brackenbury' wasn't present at the murder and was as much in a
mystery about what happened to them as virtually everyone else. They
could've been moved! Therefore, his fighting for Richard at Bosworth,
rather than risking rebellion and his position, was logical.
The fact is that Richard WAS responsible for steamrollering his
enemies: Rivers, Vaughan, Grey, Haute, Hastings, Collingbourne,
Buckingham and was responsible for the deaths of many at Barnet,
Tewkesbury, in Scotland and at Bosworth (some with his own hand,) so
the 'bastard' princes may have fell victim to Richard's direct &
lethal way of dealing with enemies, whether this was through
decapitation, hanging, drawing & quatering, sword thrust, whatever
(not nice!)
Edward V was the son - the bastard son, as Richard's high moral mind
indignantly saw him - of Edward IV & its clear from Titulus Regius
that Richard had concealed a loathing for his abusive tyrant of a
brother and his grasping, scheming family.
If Richard didn't kill his nephews he must've been planning their
deaths & if he wasn't planning their deaths, he must've killed them,
because this was the logic in dealing with a clever, Woodville
biased, probably soon to be another tyrant like his Father, Edward V.
The son of ruthless Edward IV and the scheming, selfcentred Elizabeth
Woodville was, indeed, not likely to be a monarch Richard would
relish, because it's fairly obvious that he was resentful in the
extreme what had gone before and his way, as we know, of dealing with
enemies was to KILL them, as Buckingham found out.
In fact, this entire idea that Richard was overawed by Clarence &
then, Buckingham suggests that Richard, who was a far better leader,
survivor and military captain than the 2 combined, was in some way
weaker than them and is a Paul Murray Kendall view, but where's the
evidence?
If Edward V had broken from the Tower, his own personality & the
views of his supporters would've been poison for Richard, far more
formidable than Tudor & does anyone doubt what Richard had in mind
for HIM?
Anyway, I hope I've not upset anyone. It's only History and a very
long time ago. I hope your present and the future New Year is a good
one!
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Did Buckingham do it?
2002-12-31 03:55:00
At 03:38 AM 12/31/02 -0000, you wrote:
>Presuming the princes were dead by the end of 1483 and Tudor AND
>Richard both behaved as though they were,
You presume a great deal when you presume that Richard was acting as though
the princes were dead.
--
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
>Presuming the princes were dead by the end of 1483 and Tudor AND
>Richard both behaved as though they were,
You presume a great deal when you presume that Richard was acting as though
the princes were dead.
--
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
Re: Did Buckingham do it?
2002-12-31 14:03:13
--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Surely, if he had, he would've needed a warrant signed by his King
> (Richard) to be permitted to do it?
That is something of an assumption. We really don't know if he would
have needed any sort of royal warrant to take de facto command at the
Tower, or of the persons of the two boys. The history of the period
is fraught with instances in which legal mechanisms such as warrants
were circumvented in favor of baronial privilege.
> Edward V was the son - the bastard son, as Richard's high moral
mind
> indignantly saw him
I'm sorry, but isn't this characterization somewhat logically at odds
with your previous statement that Richard took the law into his own
hands in the deaths of Clarence, Rivers, Hastings, etc.?
> If Richard didn't kill his nephews he must've been planning their
> deaths & if he wasn't planning their deaths, he must've killed
them,
> because this was the logic in dealing with a clever, Woodville
> biased, probably soon to be another tyrant like his Father, Edward
V.
> The son of ruthless Edward IV and the scheming, selfcentred
Elizabeth
> Woodville was, indeed, not likely to be a monarch Richard would
> relish, because it's fairly obvious that he was resentful in the
> extreme what had gone before and his way, as we know, of dealing
with
> enemies was to KILL them, as Buckingham found out.
Again, this seems logically faulty. You are saying that Richard
objected to Edward IV's tyrranny, and yet you maintain that Richard
himself acted in what can only be termed a ruthless tyrannical way
when dealing with the Princes. Certainly fifteenth century men could
behave in such an illogical way (Lord knows twenty-first century men
do), but as a rhetorical exercise, your argument is somewhat
contradictory.
> In fact, this entire idea that Richard was overawed by Clarence &
> then, Buckingham suggests that Richard, who was a far better
leader,
> survivor and military captain than the 2 combined, was in some way
> weaker than them and is a Paul Murray Kendall view, but where's the
> evidence?
Overawed? No. That he found Buckingham necessary to his own political
position is likely. His power in Wales was a nice balance to the
power of the Stanleys in Lancashire and Cheshire, whom Richard
obviously couldn't trust, with their family connections to Tudor. But
when Buckingham came out for Tudor in '84, Buckingham forfeited
support from the Yorkist lords and nobles of the kingdom, and Richard
could move against him with little danger of alienating the majority
of his Yorkist allies.
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Surely, if he had, he would've needed a warrant signed by his King
> (Richard) to be permitted to do it?
That is something of an assumption. We really don't know if he would
have needed any sort of royal warrant to take de facto command at the
Tower, or of the persons of the two boys. The history of the period
is fraught with instances in which legal mechanisms such as warrants
were circumvented in favor of baronial privilege.
> Edward V was the son - the bastard son, as Richard's high moral
mind
> indignantly saw him
I'm sorry, but isn't this characterization somewhat logically at odds
with your previous statement that Richard took the law into his own
hands in the deaths of Clarence, Rivers, Hastings, etc.?
> If Richard didn't kill his nephews he must've been planning their
> deaths & if he wasn't planning their deaths, he must've killed
them,
> because this was the logic in dealing with a clever, Woodville
> biased, probably soon to be another tyrant like his Father, Edward
V.
> The son of ruthless Edward IV and the scheming, selfcentred
Elizabeth
> Woodville was, indeed, not likely to be a monarch Richard would
> relish, because it's fairly obvious that he was resentful in the
> extreme what had gone before and his way, as we know, of dealing
with
> enemies was to KILL them, as Buckingham found out.
Again, this seems logically faulty. You are saying that Richard
objected to Edward IV's tyrranny, and yet you maintain that Richard
himself acted in what can only be termed a ruthless tyrannical way
when dealing with the Princes. Certainly fifteenth century men could
behave in such an illogical way (Lord knows twenty-first century men
do), but as a rhetorical exercise, your argument is somewhat
contradictory.
> In fact, this entire idea that Richard was overawed by Clarence &
> then, Buckingham suggests that Richard, who was a far better
leader,
> survivor and military captain than the 2 combined, was in some way
> weaker than them and is a Paul Murray Kendall view, but where's the
> evidence?
Overawed? No. That he found Buckingham necessary to his own political
position is likely. His power in Wales was a nice balance to the
power of the Stanleys in Lancashire and Cheshire, whom Richard
obviously couldn't trust, with their family connections to Tudor. But
when Buckingham came out for Tudor in '84, Buckingham forfeited
support from the Yorkist lords and nobles of the kingdom, and Richard
could move against him with little danger of alienating the majority
of his Yorkist allies.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Did Buckingham do it?
2002-12-31 18:17:10
> At 03:38 AM 12/31/02 -0000, you wrote:
> >Presuming the princes were dead by the end of 1483 and Tudor AND
> >Richard both behaved as though they were,
>
> You presume a great deal when you presume that Richard was acting as
though
> the princes were dead.
>
Laura, that's an intriguing point! How would you say Richard was acting?
Jessica
> >Presuming the princes were dead by the end of 1483 and Tudor AND
> >Richard both behaved as though they were,
>
> You presume a great deal when you presume that Richard was acting as
though
> the princes were dead.
>
Laura, that's an intriguing point! How would you say Richard was acting?
Jessica
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Did Buckingham do it?
2002-12-31 18:44:50
At 06:17 PM 12/31/02 -0000, you wrote:
>> At 03:38 AM 12/31/02 -0000, you wrote:
>> >Presuming the princes were dead by the end of 1483 and Tudor AND
>> >Richard both behaved as though they were,
>>
>> You presume a great deal when you presume that Richard was acting as
>though
>> the princes were dead.
>>
>Laura, that's an intriguing point! How would you say Richard was acting?
>
>Jessica
I'd say that he was acting like a man who has decided that his best course
was to say nothing...or perhaps he was acting like a man whose response has
not survived in any records.
Consider this: he'd only been reigning a few months. Any change in dynasty
in England during the past century was marked by some years of rebellions.
(Consider the early years of the reigns of Henry IV and of Edward IV.)
In October 1483 some rebels would rally round the boys as long as they
thought they were alive. Parading the boys would only encourage them. Other
rebels were happy to consider a Lancastrian restoration. Letting them know
the boys were dead would only encourage *them.*
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.
--
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 03:38 AM 12/31/02 -0000, you wrote:
>> >Presuming the princes were dead by the end of 1483 and Tudor AND
>> >Richard both behaved as though they were,
>>
>> You presume a great deal when you presume that Richard was acting as
>though
>> the princes were dead.
>>
>Laura, that's an intriguing point! How would you say Richard was acting?
>
>Jessica
I'd say that he was acting like a man who has decided that his best course
was to say nothing...or perhaps he was acting like a man whose response has
not survived in any records.
Consider this: he'd only been reigning a few months. Any change in dynasty
in England during the past century was marked by some years of rebellions.
(Consider the early years of the reigns of Henry IV and of Edward IV.)
In October 1483 some rebels would rally round the boys as long as they
thought they were alive. Parading the boys would only encourage them. Other
rebels were happy to consider a Lancastrian restoration. Letting them know
the boys were dead would only encourage *them.*
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.
--
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
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Did Buckingham do it?
2002-12-31 19:10:49
did that 'most untrue
> creature,' the 'deep, revolving, witty Buckingham' perpetrate the act?
>
> Surely, if he had, he would've needed a warrant signed by his King
> (Richard) to be permitted to do it? Richard,indeed no contemporary,
> suggested that he did.
First off - Happy New Year!
Back to auld lang syne...I tend to agree with Evan about Buckingham and the
warrant. Right now, I'm blowed if I can remember what Buckingham's status
was. As Constable of the Tower, Brackenbury must have been answerable to
somebody. Was Buckingham Constable of England, for instance?
However, given B's prominence as an over-mighty subject, I don't see people
in the Tower opposing him if he turned up with secret orders for
assassination?
> The fact is that Richard WAS responsible for steamrollering his
> enemies: Rivers, Vaughan, Grey, Haute, Hastings, Collingbourne,
> Buckingham and was responsible for the deaths of many at Barnet,
> Tewkesbury, in Scotland and at Bosworth (some with his own hand,)
Ok, Rivers, Vaughan Grey and Haute. They got taken out in the power
struggle for control of Edward IV's heirs and the Council.
Hastings: executed on account of an alleged conspiracy to depose the
Protector
Collingbourne: executed for treason during the reign of Richard III
As for the deaths in battle, good grief, it was a battle! That's what they
did in them thar days. Of course it wasn't "nice". But killing someone in
a battle is surely not the same as having them executed (maybe on a thin
pretext?) not to mention having them assassinated.
The point is that insofar as contemporary sources condemn Richard, they seem
to treat the murder of the princes - as they see it - as exceptional.
> Edward V was the son - the bastard son, as Richard's high moral mind
> indignantly saw him - of Edward IV & its clear from Titulus Regius
> that Richard had concealed a loathing for his abusive tyrant of a
> brother and his grasping, scheming family.
>
I'm not up on my Titulus Regius here but at risk of starting the Edward IV
thread again, on what grounds do you call him a tyrant? In no way do I see
him standing comparison with the tyranny of his grandson, Henry VIII.
Phew! (wipes perspiration from brow)
Jessica
> creature,' the 'deep, revolving, witty Buckingham' perpetrate the act?
>
> Surely, if he had, he would've needed a warrant signed by his King
> (Richard) to be permitted to do it? Richard,indeed no contemporary,
> suggested that he did.
First off - Happy New Year!
Back to auld lang syne...I tend to agree with Evan about Buckingham and the
warrant. Right now, I'm blowed if I can remember what Buckingham's status
was. As Constable of the Tower, Brackenbury must have been answerable to
somebody. Was Buckingham Constable of England, for instance?
However, given B's prominence as an over-mighty subject, I don't see people
in the Tower opposing him if he turned up with secret orders for
assassination?
> The fact is that Richard WAS responsible for steamrollering his
> enemies: Rivers, Vaughan, Grey, Haute, Hastings, Collingbourne,
> Buckingham and was responsible for the deaths of many at Barnet,
> Tewkesbury, in Scotland and at Bosworth (some with his own hand,)
Ok, Rivers, Vaughan Grey and Haute. They got taken out in the power
struggle for control of Edward IV's heirs and the Council.
Hastings: executed on account of an alleged conspiracy to depose the
Protector
Collingbourne: executed for treason during the reign of Richard III
As for the deaths in battle, good grief, it was a battle! That's what they
did in them thar days. Of course it wasn't "nice". But killing someone in
a battle is surely not the same as having them executed (maybe on a thin
pretext?) not to mention having them assassinated.
The point is that insofar as contemporary sources condemn Richard, they seem
to treat the murder of the princes - as they see it - as exceptional.
> Edward V was the son - the bastard son, as Richard's high moral mind
> indignantly saw him - of Edward IV & its clear from Titulus Regius
> that Richard had concealed a loathing for his abusive tyrant of a
> brother and his grasping, scheming family.
>
I'm not up on my Titulus Regius here but at risk of starting the Edward IV
thread again, on what grounds do you call him a tyrant? In no way do I see
him standing comparison with the tyranny of his grandson, Henry VIII.
Phew! (wipes perspiration from brow)
Jessica
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Did Buckingham do it?
2002-12-31 19:45:26
> 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.
>
Personally, my favourite theory is that Sir Edward Brampton conveyed them
somewhere. The only thing that troubles me is that, if they were alive, why
didn't they turn up again later? (Of course there is always Perkin Warbeck
who did turn up later).
The only problem with Richard not knowing where they were is - who did know?
(Maybe that's what Buckingham would have divulged in the final interview
that never took place).
Jessica
> 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.
>
Personally, my favourite theory is that Sir Edward Brampton conveyed them
somewhere. The only thing that troubles me is that, if they were alive, why
didn't they turn up again later? (Of course there is always Perkin Warbeck
who did turn up later).
The only problem with Richard not knowing where they were is - who did know?
(Maybe that's what Buckingham would have divulged in the final interview
that never took place).
Jessica
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Did Buckingham do it?
2002-12-31 21:49:42
Jessica wrote:
>>
>I'm not up on my Titulus Regius here but at risk of starting the Edward IV
>thread again, on what grounds do you call him a tyrant? In no way do I see
>him standing comparison with the tyranny of his grandson, Henry VIII.
>
For shame! for shame!
We have the text online somewhere in our online library section. Go to
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/ and scroll through the contents.
--
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'm not up on my Titulus Regius here but at risk of starting the Edward IV
>thread again, on what grounds do you call him a tyrant? In no way do I see
>him standing comparison with the tyranny of his grandson, Henry VIII.
>
For shame! for shame!
We have the text online somewhere in our online library section. Go to
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/ and scroll through the contents.
--
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
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Did Buckingham do it?
2003-01-01 16:47:07
The key may lay in the way Richard conducted the battle of bosworth as if he had to win today. why?
----- Original Message -----
From: Laura Blanchard
To:
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Did Buckingham do it?
At 03:38 AM 12/31/02 -0000, you wrote:
>Presuming the princes were dead by the end of 1483 and Tudor AND
>Richard both behaved as though they were,
You presume a great deal when you presume that Richard was acting as though
the princes were dead.
--
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
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: Laura Blanchard
To:
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Did Buckingham do it?
At 03:38 AM 12/31/02 -0000, you wrote:
>Presuming the princes were dead by the end of 1483 and Tudor AND
>Richard both behaved as though they were,
You presume a great deal when you presume that Richard was acting as though
the princes were dead.
--
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
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.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Did Buckingham do it?
2003-01-01 17:34:31
--- In , "Hewlett Byrd"
<hewbyrd@m...> wrote:
> The key may lay in the way Richard conducted the battle of bosworth
as if he had to win today. why?
How about to survive? If Richard couldn't beat Tudor - an outsider
with a very shaky claim who wanted, according to Richard, to marry
the bastard daughter of Edward IV, then he may've felt that he stood
no chance later. After all, Richard had already seen Tudor off in
1483.
Richard also may've felt this was his only chance, because, as no
fool, he probably guessed that his usurpation wasn't immensely
popular. He probably saw it on people's faces. Buckingham's oration
on behalf of Richard in 1483 had fallen like a lead balloon. If
Richard did guess that he wasn't immensely popular, he was right.
Only his own men, including Norfolk whom Richard had created Duke,
fought for him, while Tudor, Oxford, the Stanleys fought against &
Northumberland didn't lift a finger.
It's all very well suggesting that some other account of the prince's
fate was missing, but it's equally strange that try that the killers
might want to conceal the murders of Kings: Edward II, Richard II &
Henry VI their fates came down to us well enough. We conclude all 3
were killed. Must we assume that there was some conspiracy amongst
ALL contemporary writers & Tudor historians to blacken Richard's
name, when writers such as Mancini & Croyland & the Chronicle of
London,who all pointed to Richard as the probable murderer, were not
in the pay of Henry VII? The idea that More was in love with Henry 7
is barely credible, as More had written about his rejoicing at the
death of that monarch. More's account was a satire on Kingship, but
he does show conscience in Richard & he speaks as though he was
certain that Richard was the murderer. It could be argued that Edward
2, Richard 2 & Henry 6 needed to be killed, but, from Richard's
viewpoint, so did Edward 5.
<hewbyrd@m...> wrote:
> The key may lay in the way Richard conducted the battle of bosworth
as if he had to win today. why?
How about to survive? If Richard couldn't beat Tudor - an outsider
with a very shaky claim who wanted, according to Richard, to marry
the bastard daughter of Edward IV, then he may've felt that he stood
no chance later. After all, Richard had already seen Tudor off in
1483.
Richard also may've felt this was his only chance, because, as no
fool, he probably guessed that his usurpation wasn't immensely
popular. He probably saw it on people's faces. Buckingham's oration
on behalf of Richard in 1483 had fallen like a lead balloon. If
Richard did guess that he wasn't immensely popular, he was right.
Only his own men, including Norfolk whom Richard had created Duke,
fought for him, while Tudor, Oxford, the Stanleys fought against &
Northumberland didn't lift a finger.
It's all very well suggesting that some other account of the prince's
fate was missing, but it's equally strange that try that the killers
might want to conceal the murders of Kings: Edward II, Richard II &
Henry VI their fates came down to us well enough. We conclude all 3
were killed. Must we assume that there was some conspiracy amongst
ALL contemporary writers & Tudor historians to blacken Richard's
name, when writers such as Mancini & Croyland & the Chronicle of
London,who all pointed to Richard as the probable murderer, were not
in the pay of Henry VII? The idea that More was in love with Henry 7
is barely credible, as More had written about his rejoicing at the
death of that monarch. More's account was a satire on Kingship, but
he does show conscience in Richard & he speaks as though he was
certain that Richard was the murderer. It could be argued that Edward
2, Richard 2 & Henry 6 needed to be killed, but, from Richard's
viewpoint, so did Edward 5.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Did Buckingham do it?
2003-01-02 01:40:56
At 11:46 AM 1/1/03 -0500, you wrote:
>The key may lay in the way Richard conducted the battle of bosworth as if
he had to win today. why?
Most commanders conduct battles as though they have to win. I'm afraid I
don't see your point.
--
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
>The key may lay in the way Richard conducted the battle of bosworth as if
he had to win today. why?
Most commanders conduct battles as though they have to win. I'm afraid I
don't see your point.
--
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 III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.