Richard on trial.

I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.

As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0

Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.

Paul Neville.

Welcome Paul! (Love your last name! Any relation?)



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:50 AM
To:
Subject: Richard on trial.





I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say
hello to all group members.

As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial
of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii
<http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0>
&aq=0

Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t
reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and
facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing
aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even
then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and
for that point alone the production is well worth watching.

Paul Neville.

Thanks you Sally. No relation as far as I`m aware, but I live in hope. I have an interest in the Neville family of antiquity, for obvious reasons.

--- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome Paul! (Love your last name! Any relation?)
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:50 AM
> To:
> Subject: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
>
>
> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say
> hello to all group members.
>
> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial
> of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes.
> http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii
> <http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0>
> &aq=0
>
> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t
> reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and
> facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing
> aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even
> then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and
> for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
>
> Paul Neville.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!

The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
Best wishes, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
Subject: Richard on trial.



I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.

As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0

Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.

Paul Neville.

Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...

Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?



--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
>
> The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> Best wishes, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> Subject: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
>
> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
>
> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
>
> Paul Neville.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.

Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC. It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me, also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I keep 'em...)

http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
(Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
From: pneville49
Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.





Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...

Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
>
> The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> Best wishes, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> Subject: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
>
> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
>
> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
>
> Paul Neville.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Maria. Will the play be produced further afield?

Oh by the way, I work and live near Dublin at present but hail from Nuneaton.

--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.
>
> Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC. It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me, also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I keep 'em...)
>
> http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
> (Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pneville49
> Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
>
>
> Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
>
> Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> >
> > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > Best wishes, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > Subject: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> >
> > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
> >
> > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
> >
> > Paul Neville.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Time will tell -- I want to tinker with it a little more before I send it out again.

I have yet to get to Ireland; would love to, and may try planning something with my nephew, who's 22 now, and part Irish, with an interest in discovering some roots. However, I must confess that a major incentive would be to travel northward to County Down in order to track down traces of Patrick Bronte, the much-maligned father of the Bronte siblings.

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
From: pneville49
Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:58 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.

Thanks Maria. Will the play be produced further afield?

Oh by the way, I work and live near Dublin at present but hail from Nuneaton.

--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.
>
> Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC. It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me, also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I keep 'em...)
>
> http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
> (Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pneville49
> Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
>
>
> Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
>
> Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> >
> > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > Best wishes, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > Subject: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> >
> > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
> >
> > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
> >
> > Paul Neville.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Haven`t been north of the border. Only here for a month or so then it`s back to Nuneaton. George Eliot`s our girl. :-)
Hope the play gets more coverage. Who was YOUR culprit?

--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Time will tell -- I want to tinker with it a little more before I send it out again.
>
> I have yet to get to Ireland; would love to, and may try planning something with my nephew, who's 22 now, and part Irish, with an interest in discovering some roots. However, I must confess that a major incentive would be to travel northward to County Down in order to track down traces of Patrick Bronte, the much-maligned father of the Bronte siblings.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pneville49
> Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:58 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
> Thanks Maria. Will the play be produced further afield?
>
> Oh by the way, I work and live near Dublin at present but hail from Nuneaton.
>
> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.
> >
> > Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC. It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me, also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I keep 'em...)
> >
> > http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
> > (Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pneville49
> > Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> >
> > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > >
> > > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > > Best wishes, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: pneville49
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > > Subject: Richard on trial.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > >
> > > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
> > >
> > > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
> > >
> > > Paul Neville.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

There's a lot of writing talent in our membership - Philippa Langley (Scotland) has written a TV series which I haven't read, but understand is being considered for production, and Paul Trevor Bale (London area) has written a first-rate film script which I have read, but wouldn't dream of giving the plot away! In the interests of throwing cats among pigeons, does your query about the 'culprit' mean that you assume someone murdered Edward V and/or his brother ....... ?
Best wishes, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Maria
To: ;
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard on trial.



Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.

Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC. It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me, also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I keep 'em...)

http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
(Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
From: pneville49
Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.

Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...

Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
>
> The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> Best wishes, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> Subject: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
>
> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
>
> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
>
> Paul Neville.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

My take is that the boys were shipped out of the country immediately after the "Buckingham Rebellion" (though in my play only Edward appears). My clue for this is William Stanley, who, when hearing that Perkin Warbeck was claiming to be young Richard of York, said that if it were so, he wouldn't stand in the way. I say that if a Stanley didn't think the boys' survival impossible, there's a lot of wriggle-room for that argument.

There is a kind of collective culpability, together with fatal misinterpretations of facts, some deliberate, some accidental. I don't think John Morton ever intended to support the son of Edward IV, whom he considered a usurper. And my Anne Neville ends up being a surprisingly major player.

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
From: pneville49
Sent: Aug 17, 2010 10:23 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.

Haven`t been north of the border. Only here for a month or so then it`s back to Nuneaton. George Eliot`s our girl. :-)
Hope the play gets more coverage. Who was YOUR culprit?

--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Time will tell -- I want to tinker with it a little more before I send it out again.
>
> I have yet to get to Ireland; would love to, and may try planning something with my nephew, who's 22 now, and part Irish, with an interest in discovering some roots. However, I must confess that a major incentive would be to travel northward to County Down in order to track down traces of Patrick Bronte, the much-maligned father of the Bronte siblings.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pneville49
> Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:58 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
> Thanks Maria. Will the play be produced further afield?
>
> Oh by the way, I work and live near Dublin at present but hail from Nuneaton.
>
> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.
> >
> > Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC. It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me, also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I keep 'em...)
> >
> > http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
> > (Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pneville49
> > Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> >
> > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > >
> > > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > > Best wishes, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: pneville49
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > > Subject: Richard on trial.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > >
> > > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
> > >
> > > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
> > >
> > > Paul Neville.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I didn`t really expect an answer to my question regarding Maria`s "culprit". :-) Regardless of whether or not the princes were killed or somehow rescued and hidden, there has to be a culprit who engineered the whole scenario against Richard. Buckingham perhaps, the Lady Margaret, Henry Tudor, the Woodvilles, even Morton, or all of them conspiring together.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> There's a lot of writing talent in our membership - Philippa Langley (Scotland) has written a TV series which I haven't read, but understand is being considered for production, and Paul Trevor Bale (London area) has written a first-rate film script which I have read, but wouldn't dream of giving the plot away! In the interests of throwing cats among pigeons, does your query about the 'culprit' mean that you assume someone murdered Edward V and/or his brother ....... ?
> Best wishes, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Maria
> To: ;
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.
>
> Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC. It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me, also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I keep 'em...)
>
> http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
> (Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pneville49
> Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
> Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
>
> Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> >
> > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > Best wishes, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > Subject: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> >
> > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
> >
> > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
> >
> > Paul Neville.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Paul,

Welcome! I'm part of the American branch--I live in Connecticut and also
am a member of the New England chapter.

I wrote a book, This Time, that features Richard III in the 21st
century. I came to the conclusion that the princes survived Richard and
do present that theory in my novel. You can read the first chapter on my
website (in my signature). It's on the Excerpt page.

IIRC, Maria presented a reading of "Loyalty Lies" at one of the AGM's I
attended. I would have loved to have seen it on stage.

I've been watching the HBO TV series, True Blood, and one of the leading
roles is played by Stephen Moyer, who I think bears a striking
resemblance to the NPG portrait of Richard. I'll put my jpg of Moyers
next to NPG image in the photo section here so you can see what I mean.
Physically, I think he'd make a good Richard and I think he's a helluva
actor too.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist

--- In , "Annette Carson"
<ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> There's a lot of writing talent in our membership - Philippa Langley
(Scotland) has written a TV series which I haven't read, but understand
is being considered for production, and Paul Trevor Bale (London area)
has written a first-rate film script which I have read, but wouldn't
dream of giving the plot away! In the interests of throwing cats among
pigeons, does your query about the 'culprit' mean that you assume
someone murdered Edward V and/or his brother ....... ?
> Best wishes, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Maria
> To: ;

> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.
>
> Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC.
It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An
earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General
Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who
was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me,
also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I
keep 'em...)
>
> http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
> (Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pneville49
> Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
> Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a
question...
>
> Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help
from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was
produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called
"Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually
put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would
dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483,
I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from
his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t
advocated such a project...or have they?
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
ajcarson@ wrote:
> >
> > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on
this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South
Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the
1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> >
> > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a
strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > Best wishes, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > Subject: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this
opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> >
> > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to
"The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on
Youtubes.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=\
0
> >
> > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and
doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the
falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians.
One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then
very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor
expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well
worth watching.
> >
> > Paul Neville.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree with you Maria. Although just how the boys would have been rescued, and by whom, is another mystery.

--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> My take is that the boys were shipped out of the country immediately after the "Buckingham Rebellion" (though in my play only Edward appears). My clue for this is William Stanley, who, when hearing that Perkin Warbeck was claiming to be young Richard of York, said that if it were so, he wouldn't stand in the way. I say that if a Stanley didn't think the boys' survival impossible, there's a lot of wriggle-room for that argument.
>
> There is a kind of collective culpability, together with fatal misinterpretations of facts, some deliberate, some accidental. I don't think John Morton ever intended to support the son of Edward IV, whom he considered a usurper. And my Anne Neville ends up being a surprisingly major player.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pneville49
> Sent: Aug 17, 2010 10:23 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
> Haven`t been north of the border. Only here for a month or so then it`s back to Nuneaton. George Eliot`s our girl. :-)
> Hope the play gets more coverage. Who was YOUR culprit?
>
> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > Time will tell -- I want to tinker with it a little more before I send it out again.
> >
> > I have yet to get to Ireland; would love to, and may try planning something with my nephew, who's 22 now, and part Irish, with an interest in discovering some roots. However, I must confess that a major incentive would be to travel northward to County Down in order to track down traces of Patrick Bronte, the much-maligned father of the Bronte siblings.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pneville49
> > Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:58 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> > Thanks Maria. Will the play be produced further afield?
> >
> > Oh by the way, I work and live near Dublin at present but hail from Nuneaton.
> >
> > --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.
> > >
> > > Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC. It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me, also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I keep 'em...)
> > >
> > > http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
> > > (Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).
> > >
> > > Maria
> > > elena@
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pneville49
> > > Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> > >
> > > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> > > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > > >
> > > > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > > > Best wishes, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: pneville49
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > > > Subject: Richard on trial.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > > >
> > > > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
> > > >
> > > > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
> > > >
> > > > Paul Neville.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Thanks for the links Joan. I`ll go through them. I`ve read the Daughter of Time, which has been produced on BBC radio in book form, and Kendall`s excellent biography, but what I`d really like to see is a major movie which debunks all the Tudor crap about Richard. A movie which would open the eyes of the many who still believe that Richard was the devil incarnate, and put the record straight once and for all.
But wouldn`t we all? :-)

--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Welcome! I'm part of the American branch--I live in Connecticut and also
> am a member of the New England chapter.
>
> I wrote a book, This Time, that features Richard III in the 21st
> century. I came to the conclusion that the princes survived Richard and
> do present that theory in my novel. You can read the first chapter on my
> website (in my signature). It's on the Excerpt page.
>
> IIRC, Maria presented a reading of "Loyalty Lies" at one of the AGM's I
> attended. I would have loved to have seen it on stage.
>
> I've been watching the HBO TV series, True Blood, and one of the leading
> roles is played by Stephen Moyer, who I think bears a striking
> resemblance to the NPG portrait of Richard. I'll put my jpg of Moyers
> next to NPG image in the photo section here so you can see what I mean.
> Physically, I think he'd make a good Richard and I think he's a helluva
> actor too.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > There's a lot of writing talent in our membership - Philippa Langley
> (Scotland) has written a TV series which I haven't read, but understand
> is being considered for production, and Paul Trevor Bale (London area)
> has written a first-rate film script which I have read, but wouldn't
> dream of giving the plot away! In the interests of throwing cats among
> pigeons, does your query about the 'culprit' mean that you assume
> someone murdered Edward V and/or his brother ....... ?
> > Best wishes, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Maria
> > To: ;
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.
> >
> > Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC.
> It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An
> earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General
> Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who
> was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me,
> also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I
> keep 'em...)
> >
> > http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
> > (Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pneville49
> > Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a
> question...
> >
> > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help
> from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was
> produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called
> "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually
> put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would
> dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483,
> I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from
> his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t
> advocated such a project...or have they?
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> ajcarson@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on
> this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South
> Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the
> 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > >
> > > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a
> strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > > Best wishes, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: pneville49
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > > Subject: Richard on trial.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this
> opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > >
> > > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to
> "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on
> Youtubes.
> http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=\
> 0
> > >
> > > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and
> doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the
> falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians.
> One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then
> very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor
> expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well
> worth watching.
> > >
> > > Paul Neville.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Aha! I'm really interested to see how a consensus is forming around the idea that the boys were simply moved from the Tower, not murdered within it. Since we're mentioning books we've written, my own suggests this very scenario. Not that they were rescued, or needed rescuing, but that Richard realised the perils of leaving them there and arranged for a perfectly ordinary departure to somewhere safer. I'm sure no one seriously expected them to remain in such an unsuitable place, especially after the discovery of at least one plot to abduct them, and scheming in high places to restore Edward to the throne. I'm also with Maria on the significance of what Sir William Stanley said. A lot of historians pooh-pooh it, claiming that he was framed, but the Stanley family were such experts at massaging their public reputation that I'm convinced they would have successfully squashed the story if there hadn't been irrefutable proof.
Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.



I agree with you Maria. Although just how the boys would have been rescued, and by whom, is another mystery.

--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> My take is that the boys were shipped out of the country immediately after the "Buckingham Rebellion" (though in my play only Edward appears). My clue for this is William Stanley, who, when hearing that Perkin Warbeck was claiming to be young Richard of York, said that if it were so, he wouldn't stand in the way. I say that if a Stanley didn't think the boys' survival impossible, there's a lot of wriggle-room for that argument.
>
> There is a kind of collective culpability, together with fatal misinterpretations of facts, some deliberate, some accidental. I don't think John Morton ever intended to support the son of Edward IV, whom he considered a usurper. And my Anne Neville ends up being a surprisingly major player.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pneville49
> Sent: Aug 17, 2010 10:23 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
> Haven`t been north of the border. Only here for a month or so then it`s back to Nuneaton. George Eliot`s our girl. :-)
> Hope the play gets more coverage. Who was YOUR culprit?
>
> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > Time will tell -- I want to tinker with it a little more before I send it out again.
> >
> > I have yet to get to Ireland; would love to, and may try planning something with my nephew, who's 22 now, and part Irish, with an interest in discovering some roots. However, I must confess that a major incentive would be to travel northward to County Down in order to track down traces of Patrick Bronte, the much-maligned father of the Bronte siblings.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pneville49
> > Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:58 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> > Thanks Maria. Will the play be produced further afield?
> >
> > Oh by the way, I work and live near Dublin at present but hail from Nuneaton.
> >
> > --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.
> > >
> > > Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC. It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me, also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I keep 'em...)
> > >
> > > http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
> > > (Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).
> > >
> > > Maria
> > > elena@
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pneville49
> > > Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> > >
> > > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> > > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > > >
> > > > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > > > Best wishes, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: pneville49
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > > > Subject: Richard on trial.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > > >
> > > > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
> > > >
> > > > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
> > > >
> > > > Paul Neville.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Don't forget their (younger) cousin Robert was a pathologist in the early C20.

----- Original Message -----
From: Maria
To: ;
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard on trial.



Time will tell -- I want to tinker with it a little more before I send it out again.

I have yet to get to Ireland; would love to, and may try planning something with my nephew, who's 22 now, and part Irish, with an interest in discovering some roots. However, I must confess that a major incentive would be to travel northward to County Down in order to track down traces of Patrick Bronte, the much-maligned father of the Bronte siblings.

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
From: pneville49
Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:58 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.

Thanks Maria. Will the play be produced further afield?

Oh by the way, I work and live near Dublin at present but hail from Nuneaton.

--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.
>
> Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC. It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me, also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I keep 'em...)
>
> http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
> (Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pneville49
> Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
>
>
> Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
>
> Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> >
> > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > Best wishes, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > Subject: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> >
> > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
> >
> > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
> >
> > Paul Neville.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

The actor Richard Armitage (Robin Hood, Spooks) has mentioned in a number of interviews that he is working on a drama giving a sympathetic portrait of Richard, but I have no idea at what stage this is currently.

Richard G

--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
>
> Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
>
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> >
> > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > Best wishes, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > Subject: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> >
> > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
> >
> > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
> >
> > Paul Neville.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I believe Richard Armitage is involved in the projected TV series written by Philippa.
Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.



The actor Richard Armitage (Robin Hood, Spooks) has mentioned in a number of interviews that he is working on a drama giving a sympathetic portrait of Richard, but I have no idea at what stage this is currently.

Richard G

--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
>
> Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
>
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> >
> > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > Best wishes, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > Subject: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> >
> > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
> >
> > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
> >
> > Paul Neville.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hello Paul
I have been trying to raise finance for my screenplay for some time
now, but it is hard as I don't have a track record in the business
as a writer or director, only a mere editor me.
It is also going to be very expensive,though in this age of computers
a lot less than a few years ago, but even so I have 3 fill scale
battles and the coronation. And the there is the size of the cast
which is enormous. I am still chasing actors of "stature" to get them
on board, but is not easy. But I am never going to give up.
And I've been told by a few unbiased people that the script is very
good!
Only problem for me is I want to change the ending......
Paul

On 17 Aug 2010, at 14:21, pneville49 wrote:

> Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
>
> Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help
> from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie
> was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play
> called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which
> eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and
> although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind
> behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to
> be a little unbelievable.
> Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from
> his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society
> hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
>
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>>
>> Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on
>> this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in
>> South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking
>> foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
>>
>> The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a
>> strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
>> Best wishes, Annette
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: pneville49
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
>> Subject: Richard on trial.
>>
>>
>>
>> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this
>> opportunity to say hello to all group members.
>>
>> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to
>> "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on
>> Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of
>> +richard+iii&aq=0
>>
>> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and
>> doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and
>> the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most
>> Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put
>> down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant,
>> self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone
>> the production is well worth watching.
>>
>> Paul Neville.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

How many TV programmes/plays/movies/books etc etc have been produced which portray the Tudors in all their "glory"? I`ve lost count. Although have you noticed that Henry VII seems to be missing from most of them, coincidence or what? Surely the powers that be in the movie and TV world can spare a few dollars for clearing Richard`s name? If I had the wherewithal Paul, you could have it. Unfortunately I don`t. I can offer you all the wishes in the world, but that wouldn`t help put Richard in the cinematic spotlight. Notwithstanding I wish you well and hope the finances materialise.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Paul
> I have been trying to raise finance for my screenplay for some time
> now, but it is hard as I don't have a track record in the business
> as a writer or director, only a mere editor me.
> It is also going to be very expensive,though in this age of computers
> a lot less than a few years ago, but even so I have 3 fill scale
> battles and the coronation. And the there is the size of the cast
> which is enormous. I am still chasing actors of "stature" to get them
> on board, but is not easy. But I am never going to give up.
> And I've been told by a few unbiased people that the script is very
> good!
> Only problem for me is I want to change the ending......
> Paul
>
> On 17 Aug 2010, at 14:21, pneville49 wrote:
>
> > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> >
> > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help
> > from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie
> > was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play
> > called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which
> > eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and
> > although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind
> > behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to
> > be a little unbelievable.
> > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from
> > his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society
> > hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on
> >> this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in
> >> South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking
> >> foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> >>
> >> The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a
> >> strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> >> Best wishes, Annette
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: pneville49
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> >> Subject: Richard on trial.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this
> >> opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> >>
> >> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to
> >> "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on
> >> Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of
> >> +richard+iii&aq=0
> >>
> >> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and
> >> doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and
> >> the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most
> >> Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put
> >> down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant,
> >> self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone
> >> the production is well worth watching.
> >>
> >> Paul Neville.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

This point may have been discussed many times by the group, but I ask you to indulge me.

I recently watched the 1984 production of "The Trial of Richard III". There is great play made of Edward 1V`s contraction of marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler, which at the time would have invalidated his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and so make bastards of the Princes.
But nothing was said about Edward IV`s own suspected illegitimacy, by either side.
I thought perhaps this was because proof of Cecilia`s alleged affair with the so-called Archer of Rouen while her husband was away fighting hadn`t been found in 1984. Such proof of such an affair and has since been found in the records of Rouen Cathedral. However did Richard himself know of such illegitimacy of his sibling? It`s said that Edward looked nothing like Richard, Duke of York, and it`s certain he looked nothing like Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Furthermore Edward`s birth was a hushed-up event, whereas his younger brother Richard`s was celebrated with all regal pomp.
Was Richard told of Edward`s illegitimacy by Clarence or someone else in Court, or even by Cecilia? Or did he just guess as much when looking at his brother and then in the mirror? As Shakespeare puts it (said by Gloucester)...

"Tell them, when that my mother went with child
Of that unsatiate Edward, noble York
My princely father then had wars in France
And, by just computation of the time,
Found that the issue was not his begot;
Which well appeared in his lineaments,
Being nothing like the noble duke my father:
But touch this sparingly, as 'twere far off,
Because you know, my lord, my mother lives."

[Rich III Act 3 Scene 5]

So all in all I found it strange that this point wasn`t raised at the "trial".

Paul.



--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> How many TV programmes/plays/movies/books etc etc have been produced which portray the Tudors in all their "glory"? I`ve lost count. Although have you noticed that Henry VII seems to be missing from most of them, coincidence or what? Surely the powers that be in the movie and TV world can spare a few dollars for clearing Richard`s name? If I had the wherewithal Paul, you could have it. Unfortunately I don`t. I can offer you all the wishes in the world, but that wouldn`t help put Richard in the cinematic spotlight. Notwithstanding I wish you well and hope the finances materialise.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Paul
> > I have been trying to raise finance for my screenplay for some time
> > now, but it is hard as I don't have a track record in the business
> > as a writer or director, only a mere editor me.
> > It is also going to be very expensive,though in this age of computers
> > a lot less than a few years ago, but even so I have 3 fill scale
> > battles and the coronation. And the there is the size of the cast
> > which is enormous. I am still chasing actors of "stature" to get them
> > on board, but is not easy. But I am never going to give up.
> > And I've been told by a few unbiased people that the script is very
> > good!
> > Only problem for me is I want to change the ending......
> > Paul
> >
> > On 17 Aug 2010, at 14:21, pneville49 wrote:
> >
> > > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> > >
> > > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help
> > > from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie
> > > was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play
> > > called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which
> > > eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and
> > > although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind
> > > behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to
> > > be a little unbelievable.
> > > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from
> > > his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society
> > > hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on
> > >> this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in
> > >> South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking
> > >> foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > >>
> > >> The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a
> > >> strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > >> Best wishes, Annette
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: pneville49
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > >> Subject: Richard on trial.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this
> > >> opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > >>
> > >> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to
> > >> "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on
> > >> Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of
> > >> +richard+iii&aq=0
> > >>
> > >> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and
> > >> doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and
> > >> the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most
> > >> Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put
> > >> down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant,
> > >> self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone
> > >> the production is well worth watching.
> > >>
> > >> Paul Neville.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Oh, heavens, Paul, now you've opened a can of worms! It's a topic that was indeed well chewed over when Michael K Jones published his book in 2002, and reached a wider audience when he managed to stir up interest with a TV programme, as a result of which his theory seems to have permeated into wider public consciousness.

Now, it's not my job to speak for others, but I think you will find that Edward IV's alleged illegitimacy is not widely believed among Ricardians. I, too, have a theory : that there's a possibility Edward might have been assassinated rather than died of natural causes. But I am careful to emphasise that, although interesting, it's a theory for which there is no proof. Mike Jones is not so circumspect about his theory, and presents it as fact - but there is very little actual supporting evidence. Let me try to summarize:

1. Myths and legends grew up around some famous people in mediaeval times (e.g. John of Gaunt was alleged to have been a changeling), and often there was xenophobia about whether you were truly 'English' if born overseas. Edward was vulnerable because he was born at Rouen.

2. Mike Jones relies a lot on what he believes to be the improbability of a 40-week pregnancy. However, I know a prominent Ricardian whose first son took 40 weeks gestation.

3. Set aside the unusually long pregnancy and Jones's only other supporting evidence (apart from allegations by Edward's enemies) is that the baby was given a modest christening compared with a more lavish one for his next brother, Edmund. This modest christening is all there is in the records of Rouen cathedral - there is no actual proof of anything else. There could be a myriad reasons for this, ranging from uncertainty around his birth (when would it be? ..... would he survive? .... would his mother survive?) - to the possibility of something like a plague scare in the town - even to the possibility that his father might have originally intended Cecily to take him back to England for christening, with plans going awry when the baby didn't arrive on time. Really, an extra-long pregnancy and a low-key christening don't amount to very much.

4. At the time of Warwick's rebellion and the readeption of Henry VI, it appears that Warwick spread the rumour far and wide that Edward IV was illegitimate. This was reinforced by an agreement drawn up at the time which made George of Clarence the Yorkist heir to the house of Lancaster, bypassing Edward (reported in diplomatic letters and also confirmed in the charges later brought by Edward against Clarence). But Warwick had an agenda - he was whipping up opposition to Edward.

5. I think we can agree that Clarence was essentially unstable, let's say a victim of his own ambition and envy, and probably pushed over the edge by the death of his wife and baby. If we are to believe the charges against him - and they survive on record - then Clarence was the one who kept the stories about Edward alive into the late 1470s. By the time of Edward's death they were deeply ingrained in the public consciousness.

6. Contrary to common belief, there is no entirely reliable record of what was publicly preached on 22 June about Richard III's right to the throne. The report by Mancini mentions that Edward's illegitimacy was brought up, but the rest of his report is inaccurate and there's no reason to believe that he got this bit right while getting the rest wrong. His evidence is also suspect due to his unfamiliarity with the English language. Polydore Vergil categorically denies that Edward was ever accused of being illegitimate. All chroniclers except the writer of Crowland are totally off-beam not only in their reports of what was supposedly preached, but also of what was written in the petition (see summary in "Richard III: The Maligned King" page 100 onwards). Fortunately the petition still exists in the Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius, so that's how we know all the others got it wrong. Neither Titulus Regius, nor Crowland in his summary of it, mentions anything about Edward being illegitimate.

So, to recap, I would reply to your question by saying that it never came up in "The Trial" of 1984 because to the best of my knowledge no historian before Mike Jones took the slur seriously, and there was no reason to do so since no actual proof exists that (a) it was true or (b) Richard used it to gain the throne. Nevertheless I am a great believer in unorthodox thinking, and I applaud Jones for exploring this possibility in a very good book which is full of important and interesting information. Now, let's see who agrees and disagrees!
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.



This point may have been discussed many times by the group, but I ask you to indulge me.

I recently watched the 1984 production of "The Trial of Richard III". There is great play made of Edward 1V`s contraction of marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler, which at the time would have invalidated his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and so make bastards of the Princes.
But nothing was said about Edward IV`s own suspected illegitimacy, by either side.
I thought perhaps this was because proof of Cecilia`s alleged affair with the so-called Archer of Rouen while her husband was away fighting hadn`t been found in 1984. Such proof of such an affair and has since been found in the records of Rouen Cathedral. However did Richard himself know of such illegitimacy of his sibling? It`s said that Edward looked nothing like Richard, Duke of York, and it`s certain he looked nothing like Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Furthermore Edward`s birth was a hushed-up event, whereas his younger brother Richard`s was celebrated with all regal pomp.
Was Richard told of Edward`s illegitimacy by Clarence or someone else in Court, or even by Cecilia? Or did he just guess as much when looking at his brother and then in the mirror? As Shakespeare puts it (said by Gloucester)...

"Tell them, when that my mother went with child
Of that unsatiate Edward, noble York
My princely father then had wars in France
And, by just computation of the time,
Found that the issue was not his begot;
Which well appeared in his lineaments,
Being nothing like the noble duke my father:
But touch this sparingly, as 'twere far off,
Because you know, my lord, my mother lives."

[Rich III Act 3 Scene 5]

So all in all I found it strange that this point wasn`t raised at the "trial".

Paul.

--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
g>
> How many TV programmes/plays/movies/books etc etc have been produced which portray the Tudors in all their "glory"? I`ve lost count. Although have you noticed that Henry VII seems to be missing from most of them, coincidence or what? Surely the powers that be in the movie and TV world can spare a few dollars for clearing Richard`s name? If I had the wherewithal Paul, you could have it. Unfortunately I don`t. I can offer you all the wishes in the world, but that wouldn`t help put Richard in the cinematic spotlight. Notwithstanding I wish you well and hope the finances materialise.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Paul
> > I have been trying to raise finance for my screenplay for some time
> > now, but it is hard as I don't have a track record in the business
> > as a writer or director, only a mere editor me.
> > It is also going to be very expensive,though in this age of computers
> > a lot less than a few years ago, but even so I have 3 fill scale
> > battles and the coronation. And the there is the size of the cast
> > which is enormous. I am still chasing actors of "stature" to get them
> > on board, but is not easy. But I am never going to give up.
> > And I've been told by a few unbiased people that the script is very
> > good!
> > Only problem for me is I want to change the ending......
> > Paul
> >
> > On 17 Aug 2010, at 14:21, pneville49 wrote:
> >
> > > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> > >
> > > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help
> > > from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie
> > > was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play
> > > called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which
> > > eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and
> > > although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind
> > > behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to
> > > be a little unbelievable.
> > > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from
> > > his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society
> > > hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on
> > >> this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in
> > >> South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking
> > >> foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > >>
> > >> The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a
> > >> strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > >> Best wishes, Annette
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: pneville49
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > >> Subject: Richard on trial.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this
> > >> opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > >>
> > >> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to
> > >> "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on
> > >> Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of
> > >> +richard+iii&aq=0
> > >>
> > >> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and
> > >> doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and
> > >> the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most
> > >> Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put
> > >> down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant,
> > >> self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone
> > >> the production is well worth watching.
> > >>
> > >> Paul Neville.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Thanks Annette. The most important point being of course that if Richard knew and could prove that his brother Edward`s conception was from the "wrong side of the sheets", he would, after Clarence`s attainder for treason, be the next in line to the throne, and as such would have no reason to permanently dispose of the Princes. They wouldn`t even have a claim to the throne. I would have thought that would strengthen the Ricardians` cause.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, heavens, Paul, now you've opened a can of worms! It's a topic that was indeed well chewed over when Michael K Jones published his book in 2002, and reached a wider audience when he managed to stir up interest with a TV programme, as a result of which his theory seems to have permeated into wider public consciousness.
>
> Now, it's not my job to speak for others, but I think you will find that Edward IV's alleged illegitimacy is not widely believed among Ricardians. I, too, have a theory : that there's a possibility Edward might have been assassinated rather than died of natural causes. But I am careful to emphasise that, although interesting, it's a theory for which there is no proof. Mike Jones is not so circumspect about his theory, and presents it as fact - but there is very little actual supporting evidence. Let me try to summarize:
>
> 1. Myths and legends grew up around some famous people in mediaeval times (e.g. John of Gaunt was alleged to have been a changeling), and often there was xenophobia about whether you were truly 'English' if born overseas. Edward was vulnerable because he was born at Rouen.
>
> 2. Mike Jones relies a lot on what he believes to be the improbability of a 40-week pregnancy. However, I know a prominent Ricardian whose first son took 40 weeks gestation.
>
> 3. Set aside the unusually long pregnancy and Jones's only other supporting evidence (apart from allegations by Edward's enemies) is that the baby was given a modest christening compared with a more lavish one for his next brother, Edmund. This modest christening is all there is in the records of Rouen cathedral - there is no actual proof of anything else. There could be a myriad reasons for this, ranging from uncertainty around his birth (when would it be? ..... would he survive? .... would his mother survive?) - to the possibility of something like a plague scare in the town - even to the possibility that his father might have originally intended Cecily to take him back to England for christening, with plans going awry when the baby didn't arrive on time. Really, an extra-long pregnancy and a low-key christening don't amount to very much.
>
> 4. At the time of Warwick's rebellion and the readeption of Henry VI, it appears that Warwick spread the rumour far and wide that Edward IV was illegitimate. This was reinforced by an agreement drawn up at the time which made George of Clarence the Yorkist heir to the house of Lancaster, bypassing Edward (reported in diplomatic letters and also confirmed in the charges later brought by Edward against Clarence). But Warwick had an agenda - he was whipping up opposition to Edward.
>
> 5. I think we can agree that Clarence was essentially unstable, let's say a victim of his own ambition and envy, and probably pushed over the edge by the death of his wife and baby. If we are to believe the charges against him - and they survive on record - then Clarence was the one who kept the stories about Edward alive into the late 1470s. By the time of Edward's death they were deeply ingrained in the public consciousness.
>
> 6. Contrary to common belief, there is no entirely reliable record of what was publicly preached on 22 June about Richard III's right to the throne. The report by Mancini mentions that Edward's illegitimacy was brought up, but the rest of his report is inaccurate and there's no reason to believe that he got this bit right while getting the rest wrong. His evidence is also suspect due to his unfamiliarity with the English language. Polydore Vergil categorically denies that Edward was ever accused of being illegitimate. All chroniclers except the writer of Crowland are totally off-beam not only in their reports of what was supposedly preached, but also of what was written in the petition (see summary in "Richard III: The Maligned King" page 100 onwards). Fortunately the petition still exists in the Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius, so that's how we know all the others got it wrong. Neither Titulus Regius, nor Crowland in his summary of it, mentions anything about Edward being illegitimate.
>
> So, to recap, I would reply to your question by saying that it never came up in "The Trial" of 1984 because to the best of my knowledge no historian before Mike Jones took the slur seriously, and there was no reason to do so since no actual proof exists that (a) it was true or (b) Richard used it to gain the throne. Nevertheless I am a great believer in unorthodox thinking, and I applaud Jones for exploring this possibility in a very good book which is full of important and interesting information. Now, let's see who agrees and disagrees!
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> This point may have been discussed many times by the group, but I ask you to indulge me.
>
> I recently watched the 1984 production of "The Trial of Richard III". There is great play made of Edward 1V`s contraction of marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler, which at the time would have invalidated his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and so make bastards of the Princes.
> But nothing was said about Edward IV`s own suspected illegitimacy, by either side.
> I thought perhaps this was because proof of Cecilia`s alleged affair with the so-called Archer of Rouen while her husband was away fighting hadn`t been found in 1984. Such proof of such an affair and has since been found in the records of Rouen Cathedral. However did Richard himself know of such illegitimacy of his sibling? It`s said that Edward looked nothing like Richard, Duke of York, and it`s certain he looked nothing like Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Furthermore Edward`s birth was a hushed-up event, whereas his younger brother Richard`s was celebrated with all regal pomp.
> Was Richard told of Edward`s illegitimacy by Clarence or someone else in Court, or even by Cecilia? Or did he just guess as much when looking at his brother and then in the mirror? As Shakespeare puts it (said by Gloucester)...
>
> "Tell them, when that my mother went with child
> Of that unsatiate Edward, noble York
> My princely father then had wars in France
> And, by just computation of the time,
> Found that the issue was not his begot;
> Which well appeared in his lineaments,
> Being nothing like the noble duke my father:
> But touch this sparingly, as 'twere far off,
> Because you know, my lord, my mother lives."
>
> [Rich III Act 3 Scene 5]
>
> So all in all I found it strange that this point wasn`t raised at the "trial".
>
> Paul.
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> g>
> > How many TV programmes/plays/movies/books etc etc have been produced which portray the Tudors in all their "glory"? I`ve lost count. Although have you noticed that Henry VII seems to be missing from most of them, coincidence or what? Surely the powers that be in the movie and TV world can spare a few dollars for clearing Richard`s name? If I had the wherewithal Paul, you could have it. Unfortunately I don`t. I can offer you all the wishes in the world, but that wouldn`t help put Richard in the cinematic spotlight. Notwithstanding I wish you well and hope the finances materialise.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Paul
> > > I have been trying to raise finance for my screenplay for some time
> > > now, but it is hard as I don't have a track record in the business
> > > as a writer or director, only a mere editor me.
> > > It is also going to be very expensive,though in this age of computers
> > > a lot less than a few years ago, but even so I have 3 fill scale
> > > battles and the coronation. And the there is the size of the cast
> > > which is enormous. I am still chasing actors of "stature" to get them
> > > on board, but is not easy. But I am never going to give up.
> > > And I've been told by a few unbiased people that the script is very
> > > good!
> > > Only problem for me is I want to change the ending......
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 17 Aug 2010, at 14:21, pneville49 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> > > >
> > > > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help
> > > > from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie
> > > > was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play
> > > > called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which
> > > > eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and
> > > > although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind
> > > > behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to
> > > > be a little unbelievable.
> > > > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from
> > > > his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society
> > > > hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on
> > > >> this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in
> > > >> South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking
> > > >> foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > > >>
> > > >> The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a
> > > >> strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > > >> Best wishes, Annette
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: pneville49
> > > >> To:
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > > >> Subject: Richard on trial.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this
> > > >> opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > > >>
> > > >> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to
> > > >> "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on
> > > >> Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of
> > > >> +richard+iii&aq=0
> > > >>
> > > >> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and
> > > >> doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and
> > > >> the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most
> > > >> Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put
> > > >> down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant,
> > > >> self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone
> > > >> the production is well worth watching.
> > > >>
> > > >> Paul Neville.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The extraordinary thing is that after Bosworth no-one seems to have known for sure what became of the sons of Edward IV. The implication is that those who knew must have died without revealing what they knew, whether about their deaths or their removal elsewhere - this could mean Buckingham, Norfolk or Richard, or even Ratcliffe, Catesby or Lovell. Henry VII's trumped-up charges against Tyrell in 1501/2 have the feeling of being an attempt to provide closure to a story that he did not really know the truth of.

The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not, remains a fascinating question.

Richard G

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Aha! I'm really interested to see how a consensus is forming around the idea that the boys were simply moved from the Tower, not murdered within it. Since we're mentioning books we've written, my own suggests this very scenario. Not that they were rescued, or needed rescuing, but that Richard realised the perils of leaving them there and arranged for a perfectly ordinary departure to somewhere safer. I'm sure no one seriously expected them to remain in such an unsuitable place, especially after the discovery of at least one plot to abduct them, and scheming in high places to restore Edward to the throne. I'm also with Maria on the significance of what Sir William Stanley said. A lot of historians pooh-pooh it, claiming that he was framed, but the Stanley family were such experts at massaging their public reputation that I'm convinced they would have successfully squashed the story if there hadn't been irrefutable proof.
> Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 5:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> I agree with you Maria. Although just how the boys would have been rescued, and by whom, is another mystery.
>
> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > My take is that the boys were shipped out of the country immediately after the "Buckingham Rebellion" (though in my play only Edward appears). My clue for this is William Stanley, who, when hearing that Perkin Warbeck was claiming to be young Richard of York, said that if it were so, he wouldn't stand in the way. I say that if a Stanley didn't think the boys' survival impossible, there's a lot of wriggle-room for that argument.
> >
> > There is a kind of collective culpability, together with fatal misinterpretations of facts, some deliberate, some accidental. I don't think John Morton ever intended to support the son of Edward IV, whom he considered a usurper. And my Anne Neville ends up being a surprisingly major player.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pneville49
> > Sent: Aug 17, 2010 10:23 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> > Haven`t been north of the border. Only here for a month or so then it`s back to Nuneaton. George Eliot`s our girl. :-)
> > Hope the play gets more coverage. Who was YOUR culprit?
> >
> > --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Time will tell -- I want to tinker with it a little more before I send it out again.
> > >
> > > I have yet to get to Ireland; would love to, and may try planning something with my nephew, who's 22 now, and part Irish, with an interest in discovering some roots. However, I must confess that a major incentive would be to travel northward to County Down in order to track down traces of Patrick Bronte, the much-maligned father of the Bronte siblings.
> > >
> > > Maria
> > > elena@
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pneville49
> > > Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:58 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> > >
> > > Thanks Maria. Will the play be produced further afield?
> > >
> > > Oh by the way, I work and live near Dublin at present but hail from Nuneaton.
> > >
> > > --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Paul, and welcome, from the Brooklyn contingent.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I do have a play that was produced for a short run in NYC. It's called _Loyalty Lies_, and covers my take on the events of 1483. An earlier draft was presented at the 2000 Richard III Annual General Meeting, in NYC, and with the same very lovely actor, Kurt Elftmann, who was my Richard in the later production (he also played Diderot for me, also Napoleon and the Brooklyn Dodger Dixie Walker -- when I like 'em, I keep 'em...)
> > > >
> > > > http://www.njrep.org/men.htm
> > > > (Kurt is about 11 entries from the top).
> > > >
> > > > Maria
> > > > elena@
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: pneville49
> > > > Sent: Aug 17, 2010 9:21 AM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> > > >
> > > > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to be a little unbelievable.
> > > > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > > > >
> > > > > The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > > > > Best wishes, Annette
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: pneville49
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > > > > Subject: Richard on trial.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > > > >
> > > > > As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of+richard+iii&aq=0
> > > > >
> > > > > Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant, self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone the production is well worth watching.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul Neville.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:

> The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not, remains a fascinating question.


That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the Richard of York claimants.

Katy

It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that the children sighted were actually the Princes?
I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507, when in the service of Henry VII.

Paul


--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
>
> > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not, remains a fascinating question.
>
>
> That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the Richard of York claimants.
>
> Katy
>

My theory is that both boys survived Richard but that Edward died
shortly before Stoke and that it's entirely possible that Warbec was
Richard of York. Granted, there's nothing definitive to support this. I
won't go into the Warbec piece because that's been worked over
thoroughly before. I think Edward died either accidentally, through
illness, or killed very close to Stoke because Margaret of Burgundy
underwrote the rebellion--would she have supported an impostor from the
beginning? I think Simnel was used as a place holder, maybe even
"schooled" with Edward V, with the intention of having him be at the
battle so that the real Edward couldn't be captured or killed.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist

--- In , "oregonkaty"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Richard" RSG_Corris@
wrote:
>
> > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in
Perkin Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was
because Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder
to impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was
not, remains a fascinating question.
>
>
> That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no
one claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped
the Richard of York claimants.
>
> Katy
>

Joan, your views almost exactly coincide with those of Sir George Buck in his "History of Richard III", who believes that 'Perkin Warbeck' was indeed Richard of York, and that Edward V died quite early on, from unknown causes. I agree that Buck was a partisan of Richard, and sometimes skewed material to put him in a better light (or to modulate some of the outright bias in the written records). However, Buck was one of those antiquaries in the early 1600s who cultivated a scientific approach based on scrutiny of historical documents, and he was the first to use the Crowland Chronicle and Titulus Regius as sources, so his methods were absolutely in line with those of today. His modern editor, Arthur Kincaid, thinks very highly of him, and Kincaid's notes alone make his edition well worth reading.

Buck was researching and writing only 130 years after the events in question, and his high position in society gave him access to people with immense collections of records and documents, not to mention oral traditions among families who had grandparents alive in the 1490s and great-grandparents who fought at the rebellions of 'Lambert Simnel' and 'Perkin Warbeck'. So I personally feel that he should be taken very seriously.

Buck has always suffered from the cult of admiration for Sir Thomas More, especially so since he nailed More for believing the Tudor propaganda put out by Archbishop Morton. Worse still, people have dismissed Buck's "History" for centuries because until 1975 it was available only in a plagiarized and bowdlerized version by his nephew, also named George Buck, which everyone thought was the (flawed) original. Even today, 35 years after the scholarly Kincaid edition, you will look in vain for Buck's arguments - with the exception of one or two sensational bits - to be thoughtfully analysed by historians. .... Although ..... there have been a couple of recent biographies - Hipshon and Wilkinson - published since my own book, which I haven't yet had the opportunity to read, so maybe anyone who has read them will please tell me whether they give Buck any credence? I can't get round to them myself until I'm back in civilisation where there are libraries!

It seems perverse for so many historians to believe More's "History", of which so much is demonstrably untrue and invented, while dismissing Buck who went into the most enormous detail based on original documentary evidence which he saw with his own eyes. There seems to be a real blind spot about Buck (no pun intended), which is very poor scholarship if you ask me.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Joan
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on trial)



My theory is that both boys survived Richard but that Edward died
shortly before Stoke and that it's entirely possible that Warbec was
Richard of York. Granted, there's nothing definitive to support this. I
won't go into the Warbec piece because that's been worked over
thoroughly before. I think Edward died either accidentally, through
illness, or killed very close to Stoke because Margaret of Burgundy
underwrote the rebellion--would she have supported an impostor from the
beginning? I think Simnel was used as a place holder, maybe even
"schooled" with Edward V, with the intention of having him be at the
battle so that the real Edward couldn't be captured or killed.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist

--- In , "oregonkaty"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Richard" RSG_Corris@
wrote:
>
> > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in
Perkin Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was
because Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder
to impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was
not, remains a fascinating question.
>
>
> That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no
one claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped
the Richard of York claimants.
>
> Katy
>

Paul, I entirely agree with you about Dr Argentine. I am given to understand that his personal records and papers are in one of the big university libraries (Oxford or Cambridge, I forget for the moment), and if so there's a crying need for them to be edited and published.
Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:59 AM
Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on trial)



It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that the children sighted were actually the Princes?
I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507, when in the service of Henry VII.

Paul

--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
>
> > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not, remains a fascinating question.
>
>
> That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the Richard of York claimants.
>
> Katy
>

Hmmm, this idea that Edward's illegitimacy would automatically debar his heirs is a debatable point. Look at it this way - illegitimacy was not in itself a bar to the throne, provided that the man in question was capable of gaining it and holding it by military force. Military victory always trumped inheritance - look at William the Conqueror, whose family retained the throne for generations. Once Edward IV had successfully claimed the throne, defended his right at Towton, been crowned and anointed, and had oaths of allegiance sworn to him, his dynasty was thoroughly well established. Others might challenge him, as Warwick did, but the mere accusation that he was illegitimate wouldn't secure anyone the succession - they would have to defeat him in battle. Moreover, when Edward was victorious over Warwick and the readepted Henry VI, he was able simply to resume the throne despite the recent accusations of bastardy. So if his sons Edward and Richard were legitimate, it was their automatic right to succeed him - and in accordance with this Richard of Gloucester proclaimed Edward V king, swore allegiance himself, and got his followers to do the same.



----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.



Thanks Annette. The most important point being of course that if Richard knew and could prove that his brother Edward`s conception was from the "wrong side of the sheets", he would, after Clarence`s attainder for treason, be the next in line to the throne, and as such would have no reason to permanently dispose of the Princes. They wouldn`t even have a claim to the throne. I would have thought that would strengthen the Ricardians` cause.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, heavens, Paul, now you've opened a can of worms! It's a topic that was indeed well chewed over when Michael K Jones published his book in 2002, and reached a wider audience when he managed to stir up interest with a TV programme, as a result of which his theory seems to have permeated into wider public consciousness.
>
> Now, it's not my job to speak for others, but I think you will find that Edward IV's alleged illegitimacy is not widely believed among Ricardians. I, too, have a theory : that there's a possibility Edward might have been assassinated rather than died of natural causes. But I am careful to emphasise that, although interesting, it's a theory for which there is no proof. Mike Jones is not so circumspect about his theory, and presents it as fact - but there is very little actual supporting evidence. Let me try to summarize:
>
> 1. Myths and legends grew up around some famous people in mediaeval times (e.g. John of Gaunt was alleged to have been a changeling), and often there was xenophobia about whether you were truly 'English' if born overseas. Edward was vulnerable because he was born at Rouen.
>
> 2. Mike Jones relies a lot on what he believes to be the improbability of a 40-week pregnancy. However, I know a prominent Ricardian whose first son took 40 weeks gestation.
>
> 3. Set aside the unusually long pregnancy and Jones's only other supporting evidence (apart from allegations by Edward's enemies) is that the baby was given a modest christening compared with a more lavish one for his next brother, Edmund. This modest christening is all there is in the records of Rouen cathedral - there is no actual proof of anything else. There could be a myriad reasons for this, ranging from uncertainty around his birth (when would it be? ..... would he survive? .... would his mother survive?) - to the possibility of something like a plague scare in the town - even to the possibility that his father might have originally intended Cecily to take him back to England for christening, with plans going awry when the baby didn't arrive on time. Really, an extra-long pregnancy and a low-key christening don't amount to very much.
>
> 4. At the time of Warwick's rebellion and the readeption of Henry VI, it appears that Warwick spread the rumour far and wide that Edward IV was illegitimate. This was reinforced by an agreement drawn up at the time which made George of Clarence the Yorkist heir to the house of Lancaster, bypassing Edward (reported in diplomatic letters and also confirmed in the charges later brought by Edward against Clarence). But Warwick had an agenda - he was whipping up opposition to Edward.
>
> 5. I think we can agree that Clarence was essentially unstable, let's say a victim of his own ambition and envy, and probably pushed over the edge by the death of his wife and baby. If we are to believe the charges against him - and they survive on record - then Clarence was the one who kept the stories about Edward alive into the late 1470s. By the time of Edward's death they were deeply ingrained in the public consciousness.
>
> 6. Contrary to common belief, there is no entirely reliable record of what was publicly preached on 22 June about Richard III's right to the throne. The report by Mancini mentions that Edward's illegitimacy was brought up, but the rest of his report is inaccurate and there's no reason to believe that he got this bit right while getting the rest wrong. His evidence is also suspect due to his unfamiliarity with the English language. Polydore Vergil categorically denies that Edward was ever accused of being illegitimate. All chroniclers except the writer of Crowland are totally off-beam not only in their reports of what was supposedly preached, but also of what was written in the petition (see summary in "Richard III: The Maligned King" page 100 onwards). Fortunately the petition still exists in the Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius, so that's how we know all the others got it wrong. Neither Titulus Regius, nor Crowland in his summary of it, mentions anyth ing about Edward being illegitimate.
>
> So, to recap, I would reply to your question by saying that it never came up in "The Trial" of 1984 because to the best of my knowledge no historian before Mike Jones took the slur seriously, and there was no reason to do so since no actual proof exists that (a) it was true or (b) Richard used it to gain the throne. Nevertheless I am a great believer in unorthodox thinking, and I applaud Jones for exploring this possibility in a very good book which is full of important and interesting information. Now, let's see who agrees and disagrees!
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> This point may have been discussed many times by the group, but I ask you to indulge me.
>
> I recently watched the 1984 production of "The Trial of Richard III". There is great play made of Edward 1V`s contraction of marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler, which at the time would have invalidated his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and so make bastards of the Princes.
> But nothing was said about Edward IV`s own suspected illegitimacy, by either side.
> I thought perhaps this was because proof of Cecilia`s alleged affair with the so-called Archer of Rouen while her husband was away fighting hadn`t been found in 1984. Such proof of such an affair and has since been found in the records of Rouen Cathedral. However did Richard himself know of such illegitimacy of his sibling? It`s said that Edward looked nothing like Richard, Duke of York, and it`s certain he looked nothing like Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Furthermore Edward`s birth was a hushed-up event, whereas his younger brother Richard`s was celebrated with all regal pomp.
> Was Richard told of Edward`s illegitimacy by Clarence or someone else in Court, or even by Cecilia? Or did he just guess as much when looking at his brother and then in the mirror? As Shakespeare puts it (said by Gloucester)...
>
> "Tell them, when that my mother went with child
> Of that unsatiate Edward, noble York
> My princely father then had wars in France
> And, by just computation of the time,
> Found that the issue was not his begot;
> Which well appeared in his lineaments,
> Being nothing like the noble duke my father:
> But touch this sparingly, as 'twere far off,
> Because you know, my lord, my mother lives."
>
> [Rich III Act 3 Scene 5]
>
> So all in all I found it strange that this point wasn`t raised at the "trial".
>
> Paul.
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> g>
> > How many TV programmes/plays/movies/books etc etc have been produced which portray the Tudors in all their "glory"? I`ve lost count. Although have you noticed that Henry VII seems to be missing from most of them, coincidence or what? Surely the powers that be in the movie and TV world can spare a few dollars for clearing Richard`s name? If I had the wherewithal Paul, you could have it. Unfortunately I don`t. I can offer you all the wishes in the world, but that wouldn`t help put Richard in the cinematic spotlight. Notwithstanding I wish you well and hope the finances materialise.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Paul
> > > I have been trying to raise finance for my screenplay for some time
> > > now, but it is hard as I don't have a track record in the business
> > > as a writer or director, only a mere editor me.
> > > It is also going to be very expensive,though in this age of computers
> > > a lot less than a few years ago, but even so I have 3 fill scale
> > > battles and the coronation. And the there is the size of the cast
> > > which is enormous. I am still chasing actors of "stature" to get them
> > > on board, but is not easy. But I am never going to give up.
> > > And I've been told by a few unbiased people that the script is very
> > > good!
> > > Only problem for me is I want to change the ending......
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 17 Aug 2010, at 14:21, pneville49 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> > > >
> > > > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help
> > > > from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie
> > > > was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play
> > > > called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which
> > > > eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and
> > > > although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind
> > > > behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to
> > > > be a little unbelievable.
> > > > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from
> > > > his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society
> > > > hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on
> > > >> this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in
> > > >> South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking
> > > >> foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > > >>
> > > >> The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a
> > > >> strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > > >> Best wishes, Annette
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: pneville49
> > > >> To:
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > > >> Subject: Richard on trial.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this
> > > >> opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > > >>
> > > >> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to
> > > >> "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on
> > > >> Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of
> > > >> +richard+iii&aq=0
> > > >>
> > > >> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and
> > > >> doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and
> > > >> the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most
> > > >> Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put
> > > >> down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant,
> > > >> self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone
> > > >> the production is well worth watching.
> > > >>
> > > >> Paul Neville.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I`d rather see them published and unedited Annette, unless they`re written in Swahili or some such language. Forgive me for probably stating the obvious, but why haven`t they been published? He`s been dead for over 500 years. Have they only recently been found, or are they danger to national security or something?
Paul

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Paul, I entirely agree with you about Dr Argentine. I am given to understand that his personal records and papers are in one of the big university libraries (Oxford or Cambridge, I forget for the moment), and if so there's a crying need for them to be edited and published.
> Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:59 AM
> Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on trial)
>
>
>
> It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that the children sighted were actually the Princes?
> I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
> If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507, when in the service of Henry VII.
>
> Paul
>
> --- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not, remains a fascinating question.
> >
> >
> > That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the Richard of York claimants.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

..wasn't Dr Argentine also in the service of/known well by Margaret
Beaufort? If so, then Richard would definitely not want Dr Argentine to know
the whereabouts of the princes..



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
trial)





I`d rather see them published and unedited Annette, unless they`re written
in Swahili or some such language. Forgive me for probably stating the
obvious, but why haven`t they been published? He`s been dead for over 500
years. Have they only recently been found, or are they danger to national
security or something?
Paul

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
<ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Paul, I entirely agree with you about Dr Argentine. I am given to
understand that his personal records and papers are in one of the big
university libraries (Oxford or Cambridge, I forget for the moment), and if
so there's a crying need for them to be edited and published.
> Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:59 AM
> Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard
on trial)
>
>
>
> It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the
Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that the
children sighted were actually the Princes?
> I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known
about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the
king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for
sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance,
because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
> If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or
suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507,
when in the service of Henry VII.
>
> Paul
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregonkaty"
<oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@>
wrote:
> >
> > > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin
Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because
Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to
impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not,
remains a fascinating question.
> >
> >
> > That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one
claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the
Richard of York claimants.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I recall Dr Argentine, as played by John Castle, had a central role in the Princes In The Tower TV play a few years ago.

Richard G

--- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@...> wrote:
>
> ..wasn't Dr Argentine also in the service of/known well by Margaret
> Beaufort? If so, then Richard would definitely not want Dr Argentine to know
> the whereabouts of the princes..
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
> trial)
>
>
>
>
>
> I`d rather see them published and unedited Annette, unless they`re written
> in Swahili or some such language. Forgive me for probably stating the
> obvious, but why haven`t they been published? He`s been dead for over 500
> years. Have they only recently been found, or are they danger to national
> security or something?
> Paul
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Paul, I entirely agree with you about Dr Argentine. I am given to
> understand that his personal records and papers are in one of the big
> university libraries (Oxford or Cambridge, I forget for the moment), and if
> so there's a crying need for them to be edited and published.
> > Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard
> on trial)
> >
> >
> >
> > It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the
> Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that the
> children sighted were actually the Princes?
> > I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known
> about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the
> king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for
> sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance,
> because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
> > If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or
> suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507,
> when in the service of Henry VII.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregonkaty"
> <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin
> Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because
> Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to
> impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not,
> remains a fascinating question.
> > >
> > >
> > > That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one
> claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the
> Richard of York claimants.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That`s right Richard. For anyone who hasn`t seen it, it`s available at the moment on Youtubes too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eVQ16UXoMo&feature=search
Paul

--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> I recall Dr Argentine, as played by John Castle, had a central role in the Princes In The Tower TV play a few years ago.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@> wrote:
> >
> > ..wasn't Dr Argentine also in the service of/known well by Margaret
> > Beaufort? If so, then Richard would definitely not want Dr Argentine to know
> > the whereabouts of the princes..
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:51 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
> > trial)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I`d rather see them published and unedited Annette, unless they`re written
> > in Swahili or some such language. Forgive me for probably stating the
> > obvious, but why haven`t they been published? He`s been dead for over 500
> > years. Have they only recently been found, or are they danger to national
> > security or something?
> > Paul
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul, I entirely agree with you about Dr Argentine. I am given to
> > understand that his personal records and papers are in one of the big
> > university libraries (Oxford or Cambridge, I forget for the moment), and if
> > so there's a crying need for them to be edited and published.
> > > Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: pneville49
> > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:59 AM
> > > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard
> > on trial)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the
> > Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that the
> > children sighted were actually the Princes?
> > > I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known
> > about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the
> > king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for
> > sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance,
> > because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
> > > If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or
> > suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507,
> > when in the service of Henry VII.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregonkaty"
> > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin
> > Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because
> > Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to
> > impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not,
> > remains a fascinating question.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one
> > claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the
> > Richard of York claimants.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Paul,

My view is that Edward of Westminster died of his mystery illness whereas Richard of Shrewsbury escaped, with assistance. He may have become Warbeck or Baldwin's bricklayer but we don't know.

Stephen.

----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on trial)



That`s right Richard. For anyone who hasn`t seen it, it`s available at the moment on Youtubes too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eVQ16UXoMo&feature=search
Paul

--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> I recall Dr Argentine, as played by John Castle, had a central role in the Princes In The Tower TV play a few years ago.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@> wrote:
> >
> > ..wasn't Dr Argentine also in the service of/known well by Margaret
> > Beaufort? If so, then Richard would definitely not want Dr Argentine to know
> > the whereabouts of the princes..
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:51 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
> > trial)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I`d rather see them published and unedited Annette, unless they`re written
> > in Swahili or some such language. Forgive me for probably stating the
> > obvious, but why haven`t they been published? He`s been dead for over 500
> > years. Have they only recently been found, or are they danger to national
> > security or something?
> > Paul
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul, I entirely agree with you about Dr Argentine. I am given to
> > understand that his personal records and papers are in one of the big
> > university libraries (Oxford or Cambridge, I forget for the moment), and if
> > so there's a crying need for them to be edited and published.
> > > Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: pneville49
> > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:59 AM
> > > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard
> > on trial)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the
> > Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that the
> > children sighted were actually the Princes?
> > > I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known
> > about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the
> > king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for
> > sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance,
> > because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
> > > If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or
> > suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507,
> > when in the service of Henry VII.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregonkaty"
> > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin
> > Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because
> > Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to
> > impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not,
> > remains a fascinating question.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one
> > claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the
> > Richard of York claimants.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Of course you`re right Annette. The one who is in the box seat, and has credible back-up can make or break the rules. But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the throne.

btw --- This is a repeat. I sent the same answer hours ago, but it seems to have lost its way. :-)

Paul

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Hmmm, this idea that Edward's illegitimacy would automatically debar his heirs is a debatable point. Look at it this way - illegitimacy was not in itself a bar to the throne, provided that the man in question was capable of gaining it and holding it by military force. Military victory always trumped inheritance - look at William the Conqueror, whose family retained the throne for generations. Once Edward IV had successfully claimed the throne, defended his right at Towton, been crowned and anointed, and had oaths of allegiance sworn to him, his dynasty was thoroughly well established. Others might challenge him, as Warwick did, but the mere accusation that he was illegitimate wouldn't secure anyone the succession - they would have to defeat him in battle. Moreover, when Edward was victorious over Warwick and the readepted Henry VI, he was able simply to resume the throne despite the recent accusations of bastardy. So if his sons Edward and Richard were legitimate, it was their automatic right to succeed him - and in accordance with this Richard of Gloucester proclaimed Edward V king, swore allegiance himself, and got his followers to do the same.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> Thanks Annette. The most important point being of course that if Richard knew and could prove that his brother Edward`s conception was from the "wrong side of the sheets", he would, after Clarence`s attainder for treason, be the next in line to the throne, and as such would have no reason to permanently dispose of the Princes. They wouldn`t even have a claim to the throne. I would have thought that would strengthen the Ricardians` cause.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, heavens, Paul, now you've opened a can of worms! It's a topic that was indeed well chewed over when Michael K Jones published his book in 2002, and reached a wider audience when he managed to stir up interest with a TV programme, as a result of which his theory seems to have permeated into wider public consciousness.
> >
> > Now, it's not my job to speak for others, but I think you will find that Edward IV's alleged illegitimacy is not widely believed among Ricardians. I, too, have a theory : that there's a possibility Edward might have been assassinated rather than died of natural causes. But I am careful to emphasise that, although interesting, it's a theory for which there is no proof. Mike Jones is not so circumspect about his theory, and presents it as fact - but there is very little actual supporting evidence. Let me try to summarize:
> >
> > 1. Myths and legends grew up around some famous people in mediaeval times (e.g. John of Gaunt was alleged to have been a changeling), and often there was xenophobia about whether you were truly 'English' if born overseas. Edward was vulnerable because he was born at Rouen.
> >
> > 2. Mike Jones relies a lot on what he believes to be the improbability of a 40-week pregnancy. However, I know a prominent Ricardian whose first son took 40 weeks gestation.
> >
> > 3. Set aside the unusually long pregnancy and Jones's only other supporting evidence (apart from allegations by Edward's enemies) is that the baby was given a modest christening compared with a more lavish one for his next brother, Edmund. This modest christening is all there is in the records of Rouen cathedral - there is no actual proof of anything else. There could be a myriad reasons for this, ranging from uncertainty around his birth (when would it be? ..... would he survive? .... would his mother survive?) - to the possibility of something like a plague scare in the town - even to the possibility that his father might have originally intended Cecily to take him back to England for christening, with plans going awry when the baby didn't arrive on time. Really, an extra-long pregnancy and a low-key christening don't amount to very much.
> >
> > 4. At the time of Warwick's rebellion and the readeption of Henry VI, it appears that Warwick spread the rumour far and wide that Edward IV was illegitimate. This was reinforced by an agreement drawn up at the time which made George of Clarence the Yorkist heir to the house of Lancaster, bypassing Edward (reported in diplomatic letters and also confirmed in the charges later brought by Edward against Clarence). But Warwick had an agenda - he was whipping up opposition to Edward.
> >
> > 5. I think we can agree that Clarence was essentially unstable, let's say a victim of his own ambition and envy, and probably pushed over the edge by the death of his wife and baby. If we are to believe the charges against him - and they survive on record - then Clarence was the one who kept the stories about Edward alive into the late 1470s. By the time of Edward's death they were deeply ingrained in the public consciousness.
> >
> > 6. Contrary to common belief, there is no entirely reliable record of what was publicly preached on 22 June about Richard III's right to the throne. The report by Mancini mentions that Edward's illegitimacy was brought up, but the rest of his report is inaccurate and there's no reason to believe that he got this bit right while getting the rest wrong. His evidence is also suspect due to his unfamiliarity with the English language. Polydore Vergil categorically denies that Edward was ever accused of being illegitimate. All chroniclers except the writer of Crowland are totally off-beam not only in their reports of what was supposedly preached, but also of what was written in the petition (see summary in "Richard III: The Maligned King" page 100 onwards). Fortunately the petition still exists in the Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius, so that's how we know all the others got it wrong. Neither Titulus Regius, nor Crowland in his summary of it, mentions anyth ing about Edward being illegitimate.
> >
> > So, to recap, I would reply to your question by saying that it never came up in "The Trial" of 1984 because to the best of my knowledge no historian before Mike Jones took the slur seriously, and there was no reason to do so since no actual proof exists that (a) it was true or (b) Richard used it to gain the throne. Nevertheless I am a great believer in unorthodox thinking, and I applaud Jones for exploring this possibility in a very good book which is full of important and interesting information. Now, let's see who agrees and disagrees!
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:34 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > This point may have been discussed many times by the group, but I ask you to indulge me.
> >
> > I recently watched the 1984 production of "The Trial of Richard III". There is great play made of Edward 1V`s contraction of marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler, which at the time would have invalidated his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and so make bastards of the Princes.
> > But nothing was said about Edward IV`s own suspected illegitimacy, by either side.
> > I thought perhaps this was because proof of Cecilia`s alleged affair with the so-called Archer of Rouen while her husband was away fighting hadn`t been found in 1984. Such proof of such an affair and has since been found in the records of Rouen Cathedral. However did Richard himself know of such illegitimacy of his sibling? It`s said that Edward looked nothing like Richard, Duke of York, and it`s certain he looked nothing like Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Furthermore Edward`s birth was a hushed-up event, whereas his younger brother Richard`s was celebrated with all regal pomp.
> > Was Richard told of Edward`s illegitimacy by Clarence or someone else in Court, or even by Cecilia? Or did he just guess as much when looking at his brother and then in the mirror? As Shakespeare puts it (said by Gloucester)...
> >
> > "Tell them, when that my mother went with child
> > Of that unsatiate Edward, noble York
> > My princely father then had wars in France
> > And, by just computation of the time,
> > Found that the issue was not his begot;
> > Which well appeared in his lineaments,
> > Being nothing like the noble duke my father:
> > But touch this sparingly, as 'twere far off,
> > Because you know, my lord, my mother lives."
> >
> > [Rich III Act 3 Scene 5]
> >
> > So all in all I found it strange that this point wasn`t raised at the "trial".
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> > g>
> > > How many TV programmes/plays/movies/books etc etc have been produced which portray the Tudors in all their "glory"? I`ve lost count. Although have you noticed that Henry VII seems to be missing from most of them, coincidence or what? Surely the powers that be in the movie and TV world can spare a few dollars for clearing Richard`s name? If I had the wherewithal Paul, you could have it. Unfortunately I don`t. I can offer you all the wishes in the world, but that wouldn`t help put Richard in the cinematic spotlight. Notwithstanding I wish you well and hope the finances materialise.
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Paul
> > > > I have been trying to raise finance for my screenplay for some time
> > > > now, but it is hard as I don't have a track record in the business
> > > > as a writer or director, only a mere editor me.
> > > > It is also going to be very expensive,though in this age of computers
> > > > a lot less than a few years ago, but even so I have 3 fill scale
> > > > battles and the coronation. And the there is the size of the cast
> > > > which is enormous. I am still chasing actors of "stature" to get them
> > > > on board, but is not easy. But I am never going to give up.
> > > > And I've been told by a few unbiased people that the script is very
> > > > good!
> > > > Only problem for me is I want to change the ending......
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 17 Aug 2010, at 14:21, pneville49 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help
> > > > > from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie
> > > > > was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play
> > > > > called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which
> > > > > eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and
> > > > > although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind
> > > > > behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to
> > > > > be a little unbelievable.
> > > > > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from
> > > > > his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society
> > > > > hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on
> > > > >> this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in
> > > > >> South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking
> > > > >> foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a
> > > > >> strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > > > >> Best wishes, Annette
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >> From: pneville49
> > > > >> To:
> > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > > > >> Subject: Richard on trial.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this
> > > > >> opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to
> > > > >> "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on
> > > > >> Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of
> > > > >> +richard+iii&aq=0
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and
> > > > >> doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and
> > > > >> the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most
> > > > >> Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put
> > > > >> down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant,
> > > > >> self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone
> > > > >> the production is well worth watching.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Paul Neville.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just a note to all. I do know the Tower story fairly well, and have read into it up to a reasonably knowledgeable level, and have even formulated some ideas, but I haven`t done the wide and deep background that you guys have, so forgive me if I ask some rather mundane questions at times, and make comments that you`ve probably discussed many times.
Paul

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> My view is that Edward of Westminster died of his mystery illness whereas Richard of Shrewsbury escaped, with assistance. He may have become Warbeck or Baldwin's bricklayer but we don't know.
>
> Stephen.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on trial)
>
>
>
> That`s right Richard. For anyone who hasn`t seen it, it`s available at the moment on Youtubes too.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eVQ16UXoMo&feature=search
> Paul
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall Dr Argentine, as played by John Castle, had a central role in the Princes In The Tower TV play a few years ago.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@> wrote:
> > >
> > > ..wasn't Dr Argentine also in the service of/known well by Margaret
> > > Beaufort? If so, then Richard would definitely not want Dr Argentine to know
> > > the whereabouts of the princes..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:51 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
> > > trial)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I`d rather see them published and unedited Annette, unless they`re written
> > > in Swahili or some such language. Forgive me for probably stating the
> > > obvious, but why haven`t they been published? He`s been dead for over 500
> > > years. Have they only recently been found, or are they danger to national
> > > security or something?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul, I entirely agree with you about Dr Argentine. I am given to
> > > understand that his personal records and papers are in one of the big
> > > university libraries (Oxford or Cambridge, I forget for the moment), and if
> > > so there's a crying need for them to be edited and published.
> > > > Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: pneville49
> > > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:59 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard
> > > on trial)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the
> > > Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that the
> > > children sighted were actually the Princes?
> > > > I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known
> > > about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the
> > > king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for
> > > sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance,
> > > because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
> > > > If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or
> > > suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507,
> > > when in the service of Henry VII.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregonkaty"
> > > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin
> > > Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because
> > > Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to
> > > impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not,
> > > remains a fascinating question.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one
> > > claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the
> > > Richard of York claimants.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

OK, regarding the first part of your comment: many would argue, and I would agree with them, that the ordinary conventions of patrimony were not the sole factor governing accession to the crown. The sovereign had a job description as well as a title, and general assent was also an important factor. Sometimes the succession did not follow from father to son, but rather went to the next person suitable for the job or claiming it, or by mutual arrangement to resolve a feud. Cf Henry I, Henry II, Henry IV, and Edward IV's father Richard of York.There were also constitutional arguments about whether a reigning monarch could stipulate an heir and/or entail the crown. Thus it is difficult to enumerate exactly what the mediaeval rules of succession were (if any).

Regarding the second part, a two-generation illegitimacy might have been useful if Richard had been looking for an excuse to seize the throne. Although I'm not actually sure how anyone could ever prove Edward's illegitimacy! Nor is there any indication that Richard was looking for such an excuse. All the records show that up till around 8 June he was purely seeking to serve as protector, and putting up with a lot of grief and aggro while doing so. Russell's draft opening address for Edward V's planned coronation (still extant) sets out a timetable with Richard's term as protector due to be extended.

Whether the boys presented a threat sufficient to warrant eliminating them is a topic for another day .....

Regarding part three, an attainder could be reversed, yes, but it would have to be done by Parliament. And Parliament could not legally sit and enact anything until there was a king to open Parliament. So first you need a legitimate king who is not barred by attainder, preferably the next in line from the royal family, i.e. Richard III. And if he happens to be a competent adult that the majority of people are satisfied with, why throw a spanner into the works by nullifying an attainder that would immediately promote Clarence's son to a place in the royal succession senior to the chap sitting on the throne? Richard had enough to contend with trying to deal with the Woodville-Beaufort-Tudor threat. I seriously doubt whether he named Edward of Warwick as his heir - the story is unique to Rous, who is really not a reliable source as I think you'll agree.

I personally think that Richard was quite content with the succession as it stood when Edward IV died, only he got sucked into the politics of a situation where the Westminster crowd were at each other's throats and jockeying for position, which meant that he had to exercise control and take charge of the boy whom everybody saw as their key to power. Then in the midst of this fussin' and feudin' he was suddenly told that his brother's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and the boy was a bastard. It was a bell that couldn't be un-rung, and from that moment onward Edward V's legitimacy to rule would always be in question - a recipe for civil strife if he were crowned. Richard was recognised as the best replacement, quickly overcame a rather desultory rebellion, sent the disinherited boys to be raised quietly by his sister, and should have reigned long and happily ever after. Only he was dogged by some of the worst luck that any king ever endured. That's my take on it, and I would actually like to see some proof (not just speculation and deduction) to back up suggestions that he (a) was looking for an excuse to seize the throne, (b) imprisoned Edward and Richard so that they needed rescuing, or (c) had one or other of them killed.

Reverting to our discussion of the trial of 1984, although it was excellent television, I was sorry that the Ricardian witnesses seemed to accept that a double murder took place for which there was no reliable evidence. As a result the prosecution was able to divert them into trying to identify who did it and why, which I thought weakened their position by leading them up all sorts of blind alleys. Had I been organising the case for the defence, I would have concentrated my efforts on demolishing the prosecution's allegation that a murder was ever committed. However, it wouldn't have been such an entertaining show.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.



Of course you`re right Annette. The one who is in the box seat, and has credible back-up can make or break the rules. But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the throne.

btw --- This is a repeat. I sent the same answer hours ago, but it seems to have lost its way. :-)

Paul

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Hmmm, this idea that Edward's illegitimacy would automatically debar his heirs is a debatable point. Look at it this way - illegitimacy was not in itself a bar to the throne, provided that the man in question was capable of gaining it and holding it by military force. Military victory always trumped inheritance - look at William the Conqueror, whose family retained the throne for generations. Once Edward IV had successfully claimed the throne, defended his right at Towton, been crowned and anointed, and had oaths of allegiance sworn to him, his dynasty was thoroughly well established. Others might challenge him, as Warwick did, but the mere accusation that he was illegitimate wouldn't secure anyone the succession - they would have to defeat him in battle. Moreover, when Edward was victorious over Warwick and the readepted Henry VI, he was able simply to resume the throne despite the recent accusations of bastardy. So if his sons Edward and Richard were legitimate, it was their automatic right to succeed him - and in accordance with this Richard of Gloucester proclaimed Edward V king, swore allegiance himself, and got his followers to do the same.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> Thanks Annette. The most important point being of course that if Richard knew and could prove that his brother Edward`s conception was from the "wrong side of the sheets", he would, after Clarence`s attainder for treason, be the next in line to the throne, and as such would have no reason to permanently dispose of the Princes. They wouldn`t even have a claim to the throne. I would have thought that would strengthen the Ricardians` cause.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, heavens, Paul, now you've opened a can of worms! It's a topic that was indeed well chewed over when Michael K Jones published his book in 2002, and reached a wider audience when he managed to stir up interest with a TV programme, as a result of which his theory seems to have permeated into wider public consciousness.
> >
> > Now, it's not my job to speak for others, but I think you will find that Edward IV's alleged illegitimacy is not widely believed among Ricardians. I, too, have a theory : that there's a possibility Edward might have been assassinated rather than died of natural causes. But I am careful to emphasise that, although interesting, it's a theory for which there is no proof. Mike Jones is not so circumspect about his theory, and presents it as fact - but there is very little actual supporting evidence. Let me try to summarize:
> >
> > 1. Myths and legends grew up around some famous people in mediaeval times (e.g. John of Gaunt was alleged to have been a changeling), and often there was xenophobia about whether you were truly 'English' if born overseas. Edward was vulnerable because he was born at Rouen.
> >
> > 2. Mike Jones relies a lot on what he believes to be the improbability of a 40-week pregnancy. However, I know a prominent Ricardian whose first son took 40 weeks gestation.
> >
> > 3. Set aside the unusually long pregnancy and Jones's only other supporting evidence (apart from allegations by Edward's enemies) is that the baby was given a modest christening compared with a more lavish one for his next brother, Edmund. This modest christening is all there is in the records of Rouen cathedral - there is no actual proof of anything else. There could be a myriad reasons for this, ranging from uncertainty around his birth (when would it be? ..... would he survive? .... would his mother survive?) - to the possibility of something like a plague scare in the town - even to the possibility that his father might have originally intended Cecily to take him back to England for christening, with plans going awry when the baby didn't arrive on time. Really, an extra-long pregnancy and a low-key christening don't amount to very much.
> >
> > 4. At the time of Warwick's rebellion and the readeption of Henry VI, it appears that Warwick spread the rumour far and wide that Edward IV was illegitimate. This was reinforced by an agreement drawn up at the time which made George of Clarence the Yorkist heir to the house of Lancaster, bypassing Edward (reported in diplomatic letters and also confirmed in the charges later brought by Edward against Clarence). But Warwick had an agenda - he was whipping up opposition to Edward.
> >
> > 5. I think we can agree that Clarence was essentially unstable, let's say a victim of his own ambition and envy, and probably pushed over the edge by the death of his wife and baby. If we are to believe the charges against him - and they survive on record - then Clarence was the one who kept the stories about Edward alive into the late 1470s. By the time of Edward's death they were deeply ingrained in the public consciousness.
> >
> > 6. Contrary to common belief, there is no entirely reliable record of what was publicly preached on 22 June about Richard III's right to the throne. The report by Mancini mentions that Edward's illegitimacy was brought up, but the rest of his report is inaccurate and there's no reason to believe that he got this bit right while getting the rest wrong. His evidence is also suspect due to his unfamiliarity with the English language. Polydore Vergil categorically denies that Edward was ever accused of being illegitimate. All chroniclers except the writer of Crowland are totally off-beam not only in their reports of what was supposedly preached, but also of what was written in the petition (see summary in "Richard III: The Maligned King" page 100 onwards). Fortunately the petition still exists in the Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius, so that's how we know all the others got it wrong. Neither Titulus Regius, nor Crowland in his summary of it, mention s anyth ing about Edward being illegitimate.
> >
> > So, to recap, I would reply to your question by saying that it never came up in "The Trial" of 1984 because to the best of my knowledge no historian before Mike Jones took the slur seriously, and there was no reason to do so since no actual proof exists that (a) it was true or (b) Richard used it to gain the throne. Nevertheless I am a great believer in unorthodox thinking, and I applaud Jones for exploring this possibility in a very good book which is full of important and interesting information. Now, let's see who agrees and disagrees!
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:34 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > This point may have been discussed many times by the group, but I ask you to indulge me.
> >
> > I recently watched the 1984 production of "The Trial of Richard III". There is great play made of Edward 1V`s contraction of marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler, which at the time would have invalidated his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and so make bastards of the Princes.
> > But nothing was said about Edward IV`s own suspected illegitimacy, by either side.
> > I thought perhaps this was because proof of Cecilia`s alleged affair with the so-called Archer of Rouen while her husband was away fighting hadn`t been found in 1984. Such proof of such an affair and has since been found in the records of Rouen Cathedral. However did Richard himself know of such illegitimacy of his sibling? It`s said that Edward looked nothing like Richard, Duke of York, and it`s certain he looked nothing like Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Furthermore Edward`s birth was a hushed-up event, whereas his younger brother Richard`s was celebrated with all regal pomp.
> > Was Richard told of Edward`s illegitimacy by Clarence or someone else in Court, or even by Cecilia? Or did he just guess as much when looking at his brother and then in the mirror? As Shakespeare puts it (said by Gloucester)...
> >
> > "Tell them, when that my mother went with child
> > Of that unsatiate Edward, noble York
> > My princely father then had wars in France
> > And, by just computation of the time,
> > Found that the issue was not his begot;
> > Which well appeared in his lineaments,
> > Being nothing like the noble duke my father:
> > But touch this sparingly, as 'twere far off,
> > Because you know, my lord, my mother lives."
> >
> > [Rich III Act 3 Scene 5]
> >
> > So all in all I found it strange that this point wasn`t raised at the "trial".
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> > g>
> > > How many TV programmes/plays/movies/books etc etc have been produced which portray the Tudors in all their "glory"? I`ve lost count. Although have you noticed that Henry VII seems to be missing from most of them, coincidence or what? Surely the powers that be in the movie and TV world can spare a few dollars for clearing Richard`s name? If I had the wherewithal Paul, you could have it. Unfortunately I don`t. I can offer you all the wishes in the world, but that wouldn`t help put Richard in the cinematic spotlight. Notwithstanding I wish you well and hope the finances materialise.
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Paul
> > > > I have been trying to raise finance for my screenplay for some time
> > > > now, but it is hard as I don't have a track record in the business
> > > > as a writer or director, only a mere editor me.
> > > > It is also going to be very expensive,though in this age of computers
> > > > a lot less than a few years ago, but even so I have 3 fill scale
> > > > battles and the coronation. And the there is the size of the cast
> > > > which is enormous. I am still chasing actors of "stature" to get them
> > > > on board, but is not easy. But I am never going to give up.
> > > > And I've been told by a few unbiased people that the script is very
> > > > good!
> > > > Only problem for me is I want to change the ending......
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 17 Aug 2010, at 14:21, pneville49 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help
> > > > > from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie
> > > > > was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play
> > > > > called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which
> > > > > eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and
> > > > > although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind
> > > > > behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to
> > > > > be a little unbelievable.
> > > > > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from
> > > > > his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society
> > > > > hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on
> > > > >> this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in
> > > > >> South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking
> > > > >> foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a
> > > > >> strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > > > >> Best wishes, Annette
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >> From: pneville49
> > > > >> To:
> > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > > > >> Subject: Richard on trial.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this
> > > > >> opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to
> > > > >> "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on
> > > > >> Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of
> > > > >> +richard+iii&aq=0
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and
> > > > >> doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and
> > > > >> the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most
> > > > >> Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put
> > > > >> down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant,
> > > > >> self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone
> > > > >> the production is well worth watching.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Paul Neville.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Just a note to all. I do know the Tower story fairly well, and have read into it up to a reasonably knowledgeable level, and have even formulated some ideas, but I haven`t done the wide and deep background that you guys have, so forgive me if I ask some rather mundane questions at times, and make comments that you`ve probably discussed many times.
> Paul


I think it's interesting to discuss the topics and questions, no matter how many times they have already been gone over. New material occasionally turns up, and someone may have a fresh point of view or make an interesting new connection between old bits of material. The topic of Edward IV's legitimacy or lack thereof is an example.

Katy

No forgiveness needed - I'm sure we all agree that's what forums like this are for. We are all constantly learning from each other, and the only way we can do that is expose ideas and theories to everyone else to pick over. A lot of people do short posts, but I often do long ones, because I find it crystallises my thoughts for me. Having no Ricardian friends where I presently live, my arguments don't often get taken out and polished - so I benefit from thinking them through as I write. That's why I for one am pleased to welcome a new member who stirs up the juices again!
Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on trial)



Just a note to all. I do know the Tower story fairly well, and have read into it up to a reasonably knowledgeable level, and have even formulated some ideas, but I haven`t done the wide and deep background that you guys have, so forgive me if I ask some rather mundane questions at times, and make comments that you`ve probably discussed many times.
Paul

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> My view is that Edward of Westminster died of his mystery illness whereas Richard of Shrewsbury escaped, with assistance. He may have become Warbeck or Baldwin's bricklayer but we don't know.
>
> Stephen.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on trial)
>
>
>
> That`s right Richard. For anyone who hasn`t seen it, it`s available at the moment on Youtubes too.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eVQ16UXoMo&feature=search
> Paul
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall Dr Argentine, as played by John Castle, had a central role in the Princes In The Tower TV play a few years ago.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@> wrote:
> > >
> > > ..wasn't Dr Argentine also in the service of/known well by Margaret
> > > Beaufort? If so, then Richard would definitely not want Dr Argentine to know
> > > the whereabouts of the princes..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:51 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
> > > trial)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I`d rather see them published and unedited Annette, unless they`re written
> > > in Swahili or some such language. Forgive me for probably stating the
> > > obvious, but why haven`t they been published? He`s been dead for over 500
> > > years. Have they only recently been found, or are they danger to national
> > > security or something?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul, I entirely agree with you about Dr Argentine. I am given to
> > > understand that his personal records and papers are in one of the big
> > > university libraries (Oxford or Cambridge, I forget for the moment), and if
> > > so there's a crying need for them to be edited and published.
> > > > Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: pneville49
> > > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:59 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard
> > > on trial)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the
> > > Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that the
> > > children sighted were actually the Princes?
> > > > I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known
> > > about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the
> > > king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for
> > > sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance,
> > > because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
> > > > If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or
> > > suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507,
> > > when in the service of Henry VII.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregonkaty"
> > > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin
> > > Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because
> > > Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to
> > > impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not,
> > > remains a fascinating question.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one
> > > claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the
> > > Richard of York claimants.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you Annette. Very informative and helpful, and plenty with which to start my research. I`ve a lot to catch up on. :-)

Paul

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> OK, regarding the first part of your comment: many would argue, and I would agree with them, that the ordinary conventions of patrimony were not the sole factor governing accession to the crown. The sovereign had a job description as well as a title, and general assent was also an important factor. Sometimes the succession did not follow from father to son, but rather went to the next person suitable for the job or claiming it, or by mutual arrangement to resolve a feud. Cf Henry I, Henry II, Henry IV, and Edward IV's father Richard of York.There were also constitutional arguments about whether a reigning monarch could stipulate an heir and/or entail the crown. Thus it is difficult to enumerate exactly what the mediaeval rules of succession were (if any).
>
> Regarding the second part, a two-generation illegitimacy might have been useful if Richard had been looking for an excuse to seize the throne. Although I'm not actually sure how anyone could ever prove Edward's illegitimacy! Nor is there any indication that Richard was looking for such an excuse. All the records show that up till around 8 June he was purely seeking to serve as protector, and putting up with a lot of grief and aggro while doing so. Russell's draft opening address for Edward V's planned coronation (still extant) sets out a timetable with Richard's term as protector due to be extended.
>
> Whether the boys presented a threat sufficient to warrant eliminating them is a topic for another day .....
>
> Regarding part three, an attainder could be reversed, yes, but it would have to be done by Parliament. And Parliament could not legally sit and enact anything until there was a king to open Parliament. So first you need a legitimate king who is not barred by attainder, preferably the next in line from the royal family, i.e. Richard III. And if he happens to be a competent adult that the majority of people are satisfied with, why throw a spanner into the works by nullifying an attainder that would immediately promote Clarence's son to a place in the royal succession senior to the chap sitting on the throne? Richard had enough to contend with trying to deal with the Woodville-Beaufort-Tudor threat. I seriously doubt whether he named Edward of Warwick as his heir - the story is unique to Rous, who is really not a reliable source as I think you'll agree.
>
> I personally think that Richard was quite content with the succession as it stood when Edward IV died, only he got sucked into the politics of a situation where the Westminster crowd were at each other's throats and jockeying for position, which meant that he had to exercise control and take charge of the boy whom everybody saw as their key to power. Then in the midst of this fussin' and feudin' he was suddenly told that his brother's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and the boy was a bastard. It was a bell that couldn't be un-rung, and from that moment onward Edward V's legitimacy to rule would always be in question - a recipe for civil strife if he were crowned. Richard was recognised as the best replacement, quickly overcame a rather desultory rebellion, sent the disinherited boys to be raised quietly by his sister, and should have reigned long and happily ever after. Only he was dogged by some of the worst luck that any king ever endured. That's my take on it, and I would actually like to see some proof (not just speculation and deduction) to back up suggestions that he (a) was looking for an excuse to seize the throne, (b) imprisoned Edward and Richard so that they needed rescuing, or (c) had one or other of them killed.
>
> Reverting to our discussion of the trial of 1984, although it was excellent television, I was sorry that the Ricardian witnesses seemed to accept that a double murder took place for which there was no reliable evidence. As a result the prosecution was able to divert them into trying to identify who did it and why, which I thought weakened their position by leading them up all sorts of blind alleys. Had I been organising the case for the defence, I would have concentrated my efforts on demolishing the prosecution's allegation that a murder was ever committed. However, it wouldn't have been such an entertaining show.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> Of course you`re right Annette. The one who is in the box seat, and has credible back-up can make or break the rules. But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the throne.
>
> btw --- This is a repeat. I sent the same answer hours ago, but it seems to have lost its way. :-)
>
> Paul
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm, this idea that Edward's illegitimacy would automatically debar his heirs is a debatable point. Look at it this way - illegitimacy was not in itself a bar to the throne, provided that the man in question was capable of gaining it and holding it by military force. Military victory always trumped inheritance - look at William the Conqueror, whose family retained the throne for generations. Once Edward IV had successfully claimed the throne, defended his right at Towton, been crowned and anointed, and had oaths of allegiance sworn to him, his dynasty was thoroughly well established. Others might challenge him, as Warwick did, but the mere accusation that he was illegitimate wouldn't secure anyone the succession - they would have to defeat him in battle. Moreover, when Edward was victorious over Warwick and the readepted Henry VI, he was able simply to resume the throne despite the recent accusations of bastardy. So if his sons Edward and Richard were legitimate, it was their automatic right to succeed him - and in accordance with this Richard of Gloucester proclaimed Edward V king, swore allegiance himself, and got his followers to do the same.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks Annette. The most important point being of course that if Richard knew and could prove that his brother Edward`s conception was from the "wrong side of the sheets", he would, after Clarence`s attainder for treason, be the next in line to the throne, and as such would have no reason to permanently dispose of the Princes. They wouldn`t even have a claim to the throne. I would have thought that would strengthen the Ricardians` cause.
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, heavens, Paul, now you've opened a can of worms! It's a topic that was indeed well chewed over when Michael K Jones published his book in 2002, and reached a wider audience when he managed to stir up interest with a TV programme, as a result of which his theory seems to have permeated into wider public consciousness.
> > >
> > > Now, it's not my job to speak for others, but I think you will find that Edward IV's alleged illegitimacy is not widely believed among Ricardians. I, too, have a theory : that there's a possibility Edward might have been assassinated rather than died of natural causes. But I am careful to emphasise that, although interesting, it's a theory for which there is no proof. Mike Jones is not so circumspect about his theory, and presents it as fact - but there is very little actual supporting evidence. Let me try to summarize:
> > >
> > > 1. Myths and legends grew up around some famous people in mediaeval times (e.g. John of Gaunt was alleged to have been a changeling), and often there was xenophobia about whether you were truly 'English' if born overseas. Edward was vulnerable because he was born at Rouen.
> > >
> > > 2. Mike Jones relies a lot on what he believes to be the improbability of a 40-week pregnancy. However, I know a prominent Ricardian whose first son took 40 weeks gestation.
> > >
> > > 3. Set aside the unusually long pregnancy and Jones's only other supporting evidence (apart from allegations by Edward's enemies) is that the baby was given a modest christening compared with a more lavish one for his next brother, Edmund. This modest christening is all there is in the records of Rouen cathedral - there is no actual proof of anything else. There could be a myriad reasons for this, ranging from uncertainty around his birth (when would it be? ..... would he survive? .... would his mother survive?) - to the possibility of something like a plague scare in the town - even to the possibility that his father might have originally intended Cecily to take him back to England for christening, with plans going awry when the baby didn't arrive on time. Really, an extra-long pregnancy and a low-key christening don't amount to very much.
> > >
> > > 4. At the time of Warwick's rebellion and the readeption of Henry VI, it appears that Warwick spread the rumour far and wide that Edward IV was illegitimate. This was reinforced by an agreement drawn up at the time which made George of Clarence the Yorkist heir to the house of Lancaster, bypassing Edward (reported in diplomatic letters and also confirmed in the charges later brought by Edward against Clarence). But Warwick had an agenda - he was whipping up opposition to Edward.
> > >
> > > 5. I think we can agree that Clarence was essentially unstable, let's say a victim of his own ambition and envy, and probably pushed over the edge by the death of his wife and baby. If we are to believe the charges against him - and they survive on record - then Clarence was the one who kept the stories about Edward alive into the late 1470s. By the time of Edward's death they were deeply ingrained in the public consciousness.
> > >
> > > 6. Contrary to common belief, there is no entirely reliable record of what was publicly preached on 22 June about Richard III's right to the throne. The report by Mancini mentions that Edward's illegitimacy was brought up, but the rest of his report is inaccurate and there's no reason to believe that he got this bit right while getting the rest wrong. His evidence is also suspect due to his unfamiliarity with the English language. Polydore Vergil categorically denies that Edward was ever accused of being illegitimate. All chroniclers except the writer of Crowland are totally off-beam not only in their reports of what was supposedly preached, but also of what was written in the petition (see summary in "Richard III: The Maligned King" page 100 onwards). Fortunately the petition still exists in the Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius, so that's how we know all the others got it wrong. Neither Titulus Regius, nor Crowland in his summary of it, mention s anyth ing about Edward being illegitimate.
> > >
> > > So, to recap, I would reply to your question by saying that it never came up in "The Trial" of 1984 because to the best of my knowledge no historian before Mike Jones took the slur seriously, and there was no reason to do so since no actual proof exists that (a) it was true or (b) Richard used it to gain the throne. Nevertheless I am a great believer in unorthodox thinking, and I applaud Jones for exploring this possibility in a very good book which is full of important and interesting information. Now, let's see who agrees and disagrees!
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: pneville49
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:34 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This point may have been discussed many times by the group, but I ask you to indulge me.
> > >
> > > I recently watched the 1984 production of "The Trial of Richard III". There is great play made of Edward 1V`s contraction of marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler, which at the time would have invalidated his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and so make bastards of the Princes.
> > > But nothing was said about Edward IV`s own suspected illegitimacy, by either side.
> > > I thought perhaps this was because proof of Cecilia`s alleged affair with the so-called Archer of Rouen while her husband was away fighting hadn`t been found in 1984. Such proof of such an affair and has since been found in the records of Rouen Cathedral. However did Richard himself know of such illegitimacy of his sibling? It`s said that Edward looked nothing like Richard, Duke of York, and it`s certain he looked nothing like Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Furthermore Edward`s birth was a hushed-up event, whereas his younger brother Richard`s was celebrated with all regal pomp.
> > > Was Richard told of Edward`s illegitimacy by Clarence or someone else in Court, or even by Cecilia? Or did he just guess as much when looking at his brother and then in the mirror? As Shakespeare puts it (said by Gloucester)...
> > >
> > > "Tell them, when that my mother went with child
> > > Of that unsatiate Edward, noble York
> > > My princely father then had wars in France
> > > And, by just computation of the time,
> > > Found that the issue was not his begot;
> > > Which well appeared in his lineaments,
> > > Being nothing like the noble duke my father:
> > > But touch this sparingly, as 'twere far off,
> > > Because you know, my lord, my mother lives."
> > >
> > > [Rich III Act 3 Scene 5]
> > >
> > > So all in all I found it strange that this point wasn`t raised at the "trial".
> > >
> > > Paul.
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > g>
> > > > How many TV programmes/plays/movies/books etc etc have been produced which portray the Tudors in all their "glory"? I`ve lost count. Although have you noticed that Henry VII seems to be missing from most of them, coincidence or what? Surely the powers that be in the movie and TV world can spare a few dollars for clearing Richard`s name? If I had the wherewithal Paul, you could have it. Unfortunately I don`t. I can offer you all the wishes in the world, but that wouldn`t help put Richard in the cinematic spotlight. Notwithstanding I wish you well and hope the finances materialise.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Paul
> > > > > I have been trying to raise finance for my screenplay for some time
> > > > > now, but it is hard as I don't have a track record in the business
> > > > > as a writer or director, only a mere editor me.
> > > > > It is also going to be very expensive,though in this age of computers
> > > > > a lot less than a few years ago, but even so I have 3 fill scale
> > > > > battles and the coronation. And the there is the size of the cast
> > > > > which is enormous. I am still chasing actors of "stature" to get them
> > > > > on board, but is not easy. But I am never going to give up.
> > > > > And I've been told by a few unbiased people that the script is very
> > > > > good!
> > > > > Only problem for me is I want to change the ending......
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 17 Aug 2010, at 14:21, pneville49 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Start a strand? I thought I just had. Mmm... OK. Here`s a question...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard III has been debauched by the Tudors with no little help
> > > > > > from Shakespeare`s play. Isn`t it about time that a play or movie
> > > > > > was produced which redresses the balance? There was a TV play
> > > > > > called "Princes in the Tower" (incorporating Perkin Warbeck) which
> > > > > > eventually put the blame squarely onto the Lady Margaret, and
> > > > > > although I would dealy love her to be proved as the evil mind
> > > > > > behind the events of 1483, I found the conclusion of the drama to
> > > > > > be a little unbelievable.
> > > > > > Are there any others of its ilk which exonerates Richard III from
> > > > > > his alleged crimes? I`m surprised that the Richard III Society
> > > > > > hasn`t advocated such a project...or have they?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Welcome from me too, Paul. Where are you based? We have members on
> > > > > >> this forum from all around the world, and I for one am based in
> > > > > >> South Africa. I agree that the sight of David Starkey looking
> > > > > >> foolish in the 1984 "Trial" is worth the price of admission alone!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The forum has been a little quiet lately, so we don't have a
> > > > > >> strand being debated at present. Why not start one?
> > > > > >> Best wishes, Annette
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >> From: pneville49
> > > > > >> To:
> > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:50 PM
> > > > > >> Subject: Richard on trial.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I`ve just joined this group and would like to take this
> > > > > >> opportunity to say hello to all group members.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As an introductory post may I refer those who haven`t seen it to
> > > > > >> "The Trial of Richard III", which is now available for download on
> > > > > >> Youtubes. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+trial+of
> > > > > >> +richard+iii&aq=0
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Made in 1984 it does of course leave a lot to be desired, and
> > > > > >> doesn`t reflect the whole picture surrounding events of 1483, and
> > > > > >> the falsities and facts produced therein will be old hat to most
> > > > > >> Ricardians. One amusing aspect of the trial however was the put
> > > > > >> down of the then very young, even then egotistically arrogant,
> > > > > >> self-appointed Tudor expert Dr. Starkey, and for that point alone
> > > > > >> the production is well worth watching.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Paul Neville.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks again. I`ll try my best to oblige the juices. :-)
Paul


--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> No forgiveness needed - I'm sure we all agree that's what forums like this are for. We are all constantly learning from each other, and the only way we can do that is expose ideas and theories to everyone else to pick over. A lot of people do short posts, but I often do long ones, because I find it crystallises my thoughts for me. Having no Ricardian friends where I presently live, my arguments don't often get taken out and polished - so I benefit from thinking them through as I write. That's why I for one am pleased to welcome a new member who stirs up the juices again!
> Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:42 PM
> Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on trial)
>
>
>
> Just a note to all. I do know the Tower story fairly well, and have read into it up to a reasonably knowledgeable level, and have even formulated some ideas, but I haven`t done the wide and deep background that you guys have, so forgive me if I ask some rather mundane questions at times, and make comments that you`ve probably discussed many times.
> Paul
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > My view is that Edward of Westminster died of his mystery illness whereas Richard of Shrewsbury escaped, with assistance. He may have become Warbeck or Baldwin's bricklayer but we don't know.
> >
> > Stephen.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on trial)
> >
> >
> >
> > That`s right Richard. For anyone who hasn`t seen it, it`s available at the moment on Youtubes too.
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eVQ16UXoMo&feature=search
> > Paul
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I recall Dr Argentine, as played by John Castle, had a central role in the Princes In The Tower TV play a few years ago.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ..wasn't Dr Argentine also in the service of/known well by Margaret
> > > > Beaufort? If so, then Richard would definitely not want Dr Argentine to know
> > > > the whereabouts of the princes..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From:
> > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:51 AM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
> > > > trial)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I`d rather see them published and unedited Annette, unless they`re written
> > > > in Swahili or some such language. Forgive me for probably stating the
> > > > obvious, but why haven`t they been published? He`s been dead for over 500
> > > > years. Have they only recently been found, or are they danger to national
> > > > security or something?
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, I entirely agree with you about Dr Argentine. I am given to
> > > > understand that his personal records and papers are in one of the big
> > > > university libraries (Oxford or Cambridge, I forget for the moment), and if
> > > > so there's a crying need for them to be edited and published.
> > > > > Annette
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: pneville49
> > > > > To:
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:59 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard
> > > > on trial)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the
> > > > Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that the
> > > > children sighted were actually the Princes?
> > > > > I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known
> > > > about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the
> > > > king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for
> > > > sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance,
> > > > because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
> > > > > If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or
> > > > suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507,
> > > > when in the service of Henry VII.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregonkaty"
> > > > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin
> > > > Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because
> > > > Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to
> > > > impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not,
> > > > remains a fascinating question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one
> > > > claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the
> > > > Richard of York claimants.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think we all feel like that, Annette, even if we have Ricardian friends
around. I meet quite often for a cuppa with two other members of our branch (in
addition to the regular branch meetings) and of course we discuss Ricardian
topics. However, I find it very refreshing to hear other people's arguments and
thoughts, especially when they are so well informed as many on this site are.
Thank you, everyone.
Dorothea






________________________________
From: Annette Carson <ajcarson@...>
To:
Sent: Fri, 20 August, 2010 6:46:19 AM
Subject: Re: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
trial)


No forgiveness needed - I'm sure we all agree that's what forums like this are
for. We are all constantly learning from each other, and the only way we can do
that is expose ideas and theories to everyone else to pick over. A lot of people
do short posts, but I often do long ones, because I find it crystallises my
thoughts for me. Having no Ricardian friends where I presently live, my
arguments don't often get taken out and polished - so I benefit from thinking
them through as I write. That's why I for one am pleased to welcome a new member
who stirs up the juices again!
Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
trial)

Just a note to all. I do know the Tower story fairly well, and have read into it
up to a reasonably knowledgeable level, and have even formulated some ideas, but
I haven`t done the wide and deep background that you guys have, so forgive me if
I ask some rather mundane questions at times, and make comments that you`ve
probably discussed many times.

Paul

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> My view is that Edward of Westminster died of his mystery illness whereas
>Richard of Shrewsbury escaped, with assistance. He may have become Warbeck or
>Baldwin's bricklayer but we don't know.
>
> Stephen.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
>trial)
>
>
>
> That`s right Richard. For anyone who hasn`t seen it, it`s available at the
>moment on Youtubes too.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eVQ16UXoMo&feature=search
> Paul
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall Dr Argentine, as played by John Castle, had a central role in the
>Princes In The Tower TV play a few years ago.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@> wrote:
> > >
> > > ..wasn't Dr Argentine also in the service of/known well by Margaret
> > > Beaufort? If so, then Richard would definitely not want Dr Argentine to
>know
> > > the whereabouts of the princes..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:51 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard
>on
> > > trial)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I`d rather see them published and unedited Annette, unless they`re written
> > > in Swahili or some such language. Forgive me for probably stating the
> > > obvious, but why haven`t they been published? He`s been dead for over 500
> > > years. Have they only recently been found, or are they danger to national
> > > security or something?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul, I entirely agree with you about Dr Argentine. I am given to
> > > understand that his personal records and papers are in one of the big
> > > university libraries (Oxford or Cambridge, I forget for the moment), and
if
> > > so there's a crying need for them to be edited and published.
> > > > Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: pneville49
> > > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:59 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes
(Richard
> > > on trial)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the
> > > Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that
>the
> > > children sighted were actually the Princes?
> > > > I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known
> > > about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the
> > > king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for
> > > sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance,
> > > because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
> > > > If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or
> > > suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507,
> > > when in the service of Henry VII.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregonkaty"
> > > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in
Perkin
> > > Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because
> > > Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to
> > > impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not,
> > > remains a fascinating question.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one
> > > claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the
> > > Richard of York claimants.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

At what point is Richard supposed to have named Clarence's son as his heir ? For most of his reign the heir was Richard & Anne's son Edward, and after his death I thought Richard named his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln ?

Richard G

--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the throne.
>

Whoops! Sorry, my mistake. Richard`s & Clarence`s sister`s son. Should`ve checked the family tree.
Paul.

--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> At what point is Richard supposed to have named Clarence's son as his heir ? For most of his reign the heir was Richard & Anne's son Edward, and after his death I thought Richard named his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the throne.
> >
>

.actually Paul, you were correct: after the death of his son, Richard named
his brother George Duke of Clarence's son as his heir (Edward, Earl of
Warwick), and then changed his mind and named John De la Pole, son of his
sister.



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:11 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.





Whoops! Sorry, my mistake. Richard`s & Clarence`s sister`s son. Should`ve
checked the family tree.
Paul.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> At what point is Richard supposed to have named Clarence's son as his heir
? For most of his reign the heir was Richard & Anne's son Edward, and after
his death I thought Richard named his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of
Lincoln ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "pneville49"
<pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if
it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were
illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to
resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered
that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the
throne.
> >
>

&it is great to participate in such lively e-conversations about a topic of such deep interest&&.



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Dorothea Preis
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 4:06 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on trial)





I think we all feel like that, Annette, even if we have Ricardian friends
around. I meet quite often for a cuppa with two other members of our branch (in
addition to the regular branch meetings) and of course we discuss Ricardian
topics. However, I find it very refreshing to hear other people's arguments and
thoughts, especially when they are so well informed as many on this site are.
Thank you, everyone.
Dorothea

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <ajcarson@... <mailto:ajcarson%40telkomsa.net> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 20 August, 2010 6:46:19 AM
Subject: Re: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
trial)

No forgiveness needed - I'm sure we all agree that's what forums like this are
for. We are all constantly learning from each other, and the only way we can do
that is expose ideas and theories to everyone else to pick over. A lot of people
do short posts, but I often do long ones, because I find it crystallises my
thoughts for me. Having no Ricardian friends where I presently live, my
arguments don't often get taken out and polished - so I benefit from thinking
them through as I write. That's why I for one am pleased to welcome a new member
who stirs up the juices again!
Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
trial)

Just a note to all. I do know the Tower story fairly well, and have read into it
up to a reasonably knowledgeable level, and have even formulated some ideas, but
I haven`t done the wide and deep background that you guys have, so forgive me if
I ask some rather mundane questions at times, and make comments that you`ve
probably discussed many times.

Paul

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> My view is that Edward of Westminster died of his mystery illness whereas
>Richard of Shrewsbury escaped, with assistance. He may have become Warbeck or
>Baldwin's bricklayer but we don't know.
>
> Stephen.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
>trial)
>
>
>
> That`s right Richard. For anyone who hasn`t seen it, it`s available at the
>moment on Youtubes too.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eVQ16UXoMo <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eVQ16UXoMo&feature=search> &feature=search
> Paul
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall Dr Argentine, as played by John Castle, had a central role in the
>Princes In The Tower TV play a few years ago.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Sally Keil" <skeil@> wrote:
> > >
> > > ..wasn't Dr Argentine also in the service of/known well by Margaret
> > > Beaufort? If so, then Richard would definitely not want Dr Argentine to
>know
> > > the whereabouts of the princes..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:51 AM
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard
>on
> > > trial)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I`d rather see them published and unedited Annette, unless they`re written
> > > in Swahili or some such language. Forgive me for probably stating the
> > > obvious, but why haven`t they been published? He`s been dead for over 500
> > > years. Have they only recently been found, or are they danger to national
> > > security or something?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul, I entirely agree with you about Dr Argentine. I am given to
> > > understand that his personal records and papers are in one of the big
> > > university libraries (Oxford or Cambridge, I forget for the moment), and
if
> > > so there's a crying need for them to be edited and published.
> > > > Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: pneville49
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:59 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes
(Richard
> > > on trial)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the
> > > Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that
>the
> > > children sighted were actually the Princes?
> > > > I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known
> > > about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the
> > > king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for
> > > sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance,
> > > because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
> > > > If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or
> > > suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507,
> > > when in the service of Henry VII.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregonkaty"
> > > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in
Perkin
> > > Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because
> > > Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to
> > > impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not,
> > > remains a fascinating question.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one
> > > claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the
> > > Richard of York claimants.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Sally. I think Clarence`s son as heir was mentioned in the 1984 "trial", but when I checked wiki earlier today and saw John de la Pole named as heir I thought that I`d been mistaken.
Paul.

--- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@...> wrote:
>
> .actually Paul, you were correct: after the death of his son, Richard named
> his brother George Duke of Clarence's son as his heir (Edward, Earl of
> Warwick), and then changed his mind and named John De la Pole, son of his
> sister.
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:11 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
>
>
> Whoops! Sorry, my mistake. Richard`s & Clarence`s sister`s son. Should`ve
> checked the family tree.
> Paul.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > At what point is Richard supposed to have named Clarence's son as his heir
> ? For most of his reign the heir was Richard & Anne's son Edward, and after
> his death I thought Richard named his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of
> Lincoln ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if
> it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were
> illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to
> resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered
> that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the
> throne.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, sorry, here we go again (!) - I'm afraid none of this is actually all that certain. Unless I'm mistaken it was uniquely John Rous who claimed that Richard nominated Clarence's son as his heir, and I don't think many of us place much faith in what Rous wrote. It would have been an incredibly unlikely choice, for reasons mentioned earlier in connection with reversing attainders, and for reasons of his extreme youth and lack of any appropriate training. Edward V's young age at succession, even though he had been trained for the job since the age of three, had rendered him acutely vulnerable because everyone knew what happened when you had a child on the throne. Little Warwick was even younger, and had been kept tucked away first as Dorset's ward, then as one of a group of children that Richard placed in a 'royal nursery' at Sheriff Hutton. Knowing that there were still vestiges of discontent in England, and that Henry Tudor was squaring up to mount a French-backed invasion, Richard would have been daft to imagine that the realm would be safe under Warwick in the event that he (Richard) lost his life for any reason.

John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, aged about 20 was in fact the next male in the York line of succession, and there seems no reason for Richard to have passed him over. We have only Rous's word that he switched from Warwick to Lincoln. In fact there's no actual record that Richard named anyone his heir, nor did he need to: Lincoln was already his heir presumptive from the moment Edward of Middleham died. Richard did, however, give John some significant appointments (see pp. 241-2 of "Maligned King") which made it clear that he was destined for high office.
Cheers
Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.



Thanks Sally. I think Clarence`s son as heir was mentioned in the 1984 "trial", but when I checked wiki earlier today and saw John de la Pole named as heir I thought that I`d been mistaken.
Paul.

--- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@...> wrote:
>
> .actually Paul, you were correct: after the death of his son, Richard named
> his brother George Duke of Clarence's son as his heir (Edward, Earl of
> Warwick), and then changed his mind and named John De la Pole, son of his
> sister.
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:11 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
>
>
> Whoops! Sorry, my mistake. Richard`s & Clarence`s sister`s son. Should`ve
> checked the family tree.
> Paul.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > At what point is Richard supposed to have named Clarence's son as his heir
> ? For most of his reign the heir was Richard & Anne's son Edward, and after
> his death I thought Richard named his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of
> Lincoln ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if
> it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were
> illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to
> resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered
> that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the
> throne.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

...'To believe, or not to believe.that is the question'! Reading works where
authors state 'facts' based on information from primary sources that may be
questionable, is the challenge to all readers of history..



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 9:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard on trial.





Well, sorry, here we go again (!) - I'm afraid none of this is actually all
that certain. Unless I'm mistaken it was uniquely John Rous who claimed that
Richard nominated Clarence's son as his heir, and I don't think many of us
place much faith in what Rous wrote. It would have been an incredibly
unlikely choice, for reasons mentioned earlier in connection with reversing
attainders, and for reasons of his extreme youth and lack of any appropriate
training. Edward V's young age at succession, even though he had been
trained for the job since the age of three, had rendered him acutely
vulnerable because everyone knew what happened when you had a child on the
throne. Little Warwick was even younger, and had been kept tucked away first
as Dorset's ward, then as one of a group of children that Richard placed in
a 'royal nursery' at Sheriff Hutton. Knowing that there were still vestiges
of discontent in England, and that Henry Tudor was squaring up to mount a
French-backed invasion, Richard would have been daft to imagine that the
realm would be safe under Warwick in the event that he (Richard) lost his
life for any reason.

John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, aged about 20 was in fact the next male in
the York line of succession, and there seems no reason for Richard to have
passed him over. We have only Rous's word that he switched from Warwick to
Lincoln. In fact there's no actual record that Richard named anyone his
heir, nor did he need to: Lincoln was already his heir presumptive from the
moment Edward of Middleham died. Richard did, however, give John some
significant appointments (see pp. 241-2 of "Maligned King") which made it
clear that he was destined for high office.
Cheers
Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.

Thanks Sally. I think Clarence`s son as heir was mentioned in the 1984
"trial", but when I checked wiki earlier today and saw John de la Pole named
as heir I thought that I`d been mistaken.
Paul.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Sally Keil" <skeil@...>
wrote:
>
> .actually Paul, you were correct: after the death of his son, Richard
named
> his brother George Duke of Clarence's son as his heir (Edward, Earl of
> Warwick), and then changed his mind and named John De la Pole, son of his
> sister.
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of pneville49
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:11 AM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
>
>
> Whoops! Sorry, my mistake. Richard`s & Clarence`s sister`s son. Should`ve
> checked the family tree.
> Paul.
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > At what point is Richard supposed to have named Clarence's son as his
heir
> ? For most of his reign the heir was Richard & Anne's son Edward, and
after
> his death I thought Richard named his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of
> Lincoln ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and
if
> it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were
> illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to
> resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered
> that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the
> throne.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have the 1984 trial downloaded and rechecked it. It was actually Jeremy Potter under examination who stated that Richard first named Clarence's son Edward, Earl of Warwick as his (Richard`s) heir.

Jeremy Potter was Chairman of the Richard III Society in 1984.

See the end of...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQaOgIBLMbk&feature=search

...and the beginning of...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz2RJh1sRFc&feature=related

Paul.

--- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@...> wrote:
>
> ...'To believe, or not to believe.that is the question'! Reading works where
> authors state 'facts' based on information from primary sources that may be
> questionable, is the challenge to all readers of history..
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 9:48 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, sorry, here we go again (!) - I'm afraid none of this is actually all
> that certain. Unless I'm mistaken it was uniquely John Rous who claimed that
> Richard nominated Clarence's son as his heir, and I don't think many of us
> place much faith in what Rous wrote. It would have been an incredibly
> unlikely choice, for reasons mentioned earlier in connection with reversing
> attainders, and for reasons of his extreme youth and lack of any appropriate
> training. Edward V's young age at succession, even though he had been
> trained for the job since the age of three, had rendered him acutely
> vulnerable because everyone knew what happened when you had a child on the
> throne. Little Warwick was even younger, and had been kept tucked away first
> as Dorset's ward, then as one of a group of children that Richard placed in
> a 'royal nursery' at Sheriff Hutton. Knowing that there were still vestiges
> of discontent in England, and that Henry Tudor was squaring up to mount a
> French-backed invasion, Richard would have been daft to imagine that the
> realm would be safe under Warwick in the event that he (Richard) lost his
> life for any reason.
>
> John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, aged about 20 was in fact the next male in
> the York line of succession, and there seems no reason for Richard to have
> passed him over. We have only Rous's word that he switched from Warwick to
> Lincoln. In fact there's no actual record that Richard named anyone his
> heir, nor did he need to: Lincoln was already his heir presumptive from the
> moment Edward of Middleham died. Richard did, however, give John some
> significant appointments (see pp. 241-2 of "Maligned King") which made it
> clear that he was destined for high office.
> Cheers
> Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
> Thanks Sally. I think Clarence`s son as heir was mentioned in the 1984
> "trial", but when I checked wiki earlier today and saw John de la Pole named
> as heir I thought that I`d been mistaken.
> Paul.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Sally Keil" <skeil@>
> wrote:
> >
> > .actually Paul, you were correct: after the death of his son, Richard
> named
> > his brother George Duke of Clarence's son as his heir (Edward, Earl of
> > Warwick), and then changed his mind and named John De la Pole, son of his
> > sister.
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:11 AM
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Whoops! Sorry, my mistake. Richard`s & Clarence`s sister`s son. Should`ve
> > checked the family tree.
> > Paul.
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> > <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > At what point is Richard supposed to have named Clarence's son as his
> heir
> > ? For most of his reign the heir was Richard & Anne's son Edward, and
> after
> > his death I thought Richard named his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of
> > Lincoln ?
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and
> if
> > it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were
> > illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to
> > resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered
> > that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the
> > throne.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:

>
> John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, aged about 20 was in fact the next male in the York line of succession, and there seems no reason for Richard to have passed him over. We have only Rous's word that he switched from Warwick to Lincoln. In fact there's no actual record that Richard named anyone his heir, nor did he need to: Lincoln was already his heir presumptive from the moment Edward of Middleham died.


Which makes it all the more interesting that Lincoln headed up the army that backed the boy who was said to be the Yorkist heir, whom Henry Tudor later identified as Lambert Simnel. Why would Lincoln, the clear Plantagenet heir, risk and lose his life trying to put an impostor on the throne?

Katy

It`s said that John Argentine fled some time after R3`s coronation (July 6), but how soon after? Apparently Argentine, as the attendant of the Princes, was the main source of Mancini`s info on Tower news, but Mancini also left England, around July 13.

Argentine's evidence was also the basis for French declarations that the Princes had been murdered on the orders of R3. But if there were indeed such dastardly deeds committed they would seem to have been committed late Aug, early Sept, nearly two months after R3`s coronation.

If Argentine had already left England by then, his "evidence" wouldn`t have been from first-hand knowledge, so from where or whom did he get his info? Now if he had been involved with, for example, the Lady Margaret, in a heinous plot to kill the Princes, then he certainly would have had first-hand info of their deaths, and then fancifully put the blame elsewhere.

So, when exactly did John Argentine leave England?

Paul.




--- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@...> wrote:
>
> ..wasn't Dr Argentine also in the service of/known well by Margaret
> Beaufort? If so, then Richard would definitely not want Dr Argentine to know
> the whereabouts of the princes..
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard on
> trial)
>
>
>
>
>
> I`d rather see them published and unedited Annette, unless they`re written
> in Swahili or some such language. Forgive me for probably stating the
> obvious, but why haven`t they been published? He`s been dead for over 500
> years. Have they only recently been found, or are they danger to national
> security or something?
> Paul
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Paul, I entirely agree with you about Dr Argentine. I am given to
> understand that his personal records and papers are in one of the big
> university libraries (Oxford or Cambridge, I forget for the moment), and if
> so there's a crying need for them to be edited and published.
> > Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: The fate of the Princes (Richard
> on trial)
> >
> >
> >
> > It was reported that the Princes were publicly last seen playing in the
> Tower gardens (exactly where I`m not sure), but can it be confirmed that the
> children sighted were actually the Princes?
> > I`m curious about Dr John Argentine. It seems that very little is known
> about him other than being the "last of his attendants whose services the
> king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for
> sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance,
> because he believed that death was facing him."[Mancini].
> > If the Princes were removed, then wouldn`t Argentine have known or
> suspected something about what really went on? He didn`t die until 1507,
> when in the service of Henry VII.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregonkaty"
> <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The other curious thing is that the Pretenders, culminating in Perkin
> Warbeck, always claimed to be the younger boy - whether that was because
> Edward V was more physically recognisable and therefore harder to
> impersonate, or whether Edward's fate was known whereas Richard's was not,
> remains a fascinating question.
> > >
> > >
> > > That has always interested me, too. There must be a reason that no one
> claimed to have, or to be, Edward V, since that would have trumped the
> Richard of York claimants.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Annette - I purposely used "supposed" as I suspected the source might be questionable - I hadn't realised that there was also no evidence that Richard formally acknowledged Lincoln either.

Richard G

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Well, sorry, here we go again (!) - I'm afraid none of this is actually all that certain. Unless I'm mistaken it was uniquely John Rous who claimed that Richard nominated Clarence's son as his heir, and I don't think many of us place much faith in what Rous wrote. It would have been an incredibly unlikely choice, for reasons mentioned earlier in connection with reversing attainders, and for reasons of his extreme youth and lack of any appropriate training. Edward V's young age at succession, even though he had been trained for the job since the age of three, had rendered him acutely vulnerable because everyone knew what happened when you had a child on the throne. Little Warwick was even younger, and had been kept tucked away first as Dorset's ward, then as one of a group of children that Richard placed in a 'royal nursery' at Sheriff Hutton. Knowing that there were still vestiges of discontent in England, and that Henry Tudor was squaring up to mount a French-backed invasion, Richard would have been daft to imagine that the realm would be safe under Warwick in the event that he (Richard) lost his life for any reason.
>
> John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, aged about 20 was in fact the next male in the York line of succession, and there seems no reason for Richard to have passed him over. We have only Rous's word that he switched from Warwick to Lincoln. In fact there's no actual record that Richard named anyone his heir, nor did he need to: Lincoln was already his heir presumptive from the moment Edward of Middleham died. Richard did, however, give John some significant appointments (see pp. 241-2 of "Maligned King") which made it clear that he was destined for high office.
> Cheers
> Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> Thanks Sally. I think Clarence`s son as heir was mentioned in the 1984 "trial", but when I checked wiki earlier today and saw John de la Pole named as heir I thought that I`d been mistaken.
> Paul.
>
> --- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@> wrote:
> >
> > .actually Paul, you were correct: after the death of his son, Richard named
> > his brother George Duke of Clarence's son as his heir (Edward, Earl of
> > Warwick), and then changed his mind and named John De la Pole, son of his
> > sister.
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:11 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Whoops! Sorry, my mistake. Richard`s & Clarence`s sister`s son. Should`ve
> > checked the family tree.
> > Paul.
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> > <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > At what point is Richard supposed to have named Clarence's son as his heir
> > ? For most of his reign the heir was Richard & Anne's son Edward, and after
> > his death I thought Richard named his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of
> > Lincoln ?
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if
> > it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were
> > illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to
> > resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered
> > that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the
> > throne.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, there is an amazing absence of evidence for all sorts of things that historians blithely inform us are true. Jeremy Potter can be forgiven because he was extemporizing in a TV programme - if he'd been writing a book he would have consulted the sources before saying some of the things he said. Writers who mislead because they haven't bothered to check don't have that excuse. Of course we all make mistakes, and I'm as guilty of that as anyone, but at least I go back and correct mine in later editions - I've done that with all my books, and with Richard III more than all the others put together! Also my correction lists are available to anyone who asks me, and the last I heard they were being posted on the Richard III Society's website, which is rather shaming, but you can't let pride get in the way of the truth, can you?

Returning to the matter of the succession, for Richard it was an academic point anyway, because he was still young and had every expectation of fathering more children with his second wife. [Then if he died while they were still young, doubtless Lincoln would have become Protector ;-) .....] This opens up a whole can of worms on its own, which traditional historians never mention. One wonders whether his choice of Joanna of Portugal, although clearly the best match politically, would have been fruitful in terms of heirs since she was already in her thirties. Knowing Richard's bad luck, he might well have encountered a parallel situation to the Catherine of Aragon scenario. But at least his throne would have been secure. We need a novelist (Joan, are you reading this?) to depict for us an account of England under Richard and Joanna.
Cheers, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.



Thanks, Annette - I purposely used "supposed" as I suspected the source might be questionable - I hadn't realised that there was also no evidence that Richard formally acknowledged Lincoln either.

Richard G

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Well, sorry, here we go again (!) - I'm afraid none of this is actually all that certain. Unless I'm mistaken it was uniquely John Rous who claimed that Richard nominated Clarence's son as his heir, and I don't think many of us place much faith in what Rous wrote. It would have been an incredibly unlikely choice, for reasons mentioned earlier in connection with reversing attainders, and for reasons of his extreme youth and lack of any appropriate training. Edward V's young age at succession, even though he had been trained for the job since the age of three, had rendered him acutely vulnerable because everyone knew what happened when you had a child on the throne. Little Warwick was even younger, and had been kept tucked away first as Dorset's ward, then as one of a group of children that Richard placed in a 'royal nursery' at Sheriff Hutton. Knowing that there were still vestiges of discontent in England, and that Henry Tudor was squaring up to mount a French-backed inv asion, Richard would have been daft to imagine that the realm would be safe under Warwick in the event that he (Richard) lost his life for any reason.
>
> John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, aged about 20 was in fact the next male in the York line of succession, and there seems no reason for Richard to have passed him over. We have only Rous's word that he switched from Warwick to Lincoln. In fact there's no actual record that Richard named anyone his heir, nor did he need to: Lincoln was already his heir presumptive from the moment Edward of Middleham died. Richard did, however, give John some significant appointments (see pp. 241-2 of "Maligned King") which made it clear that he was destined for high office.
> Cheers
> Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> Thanks Sally. I think Clarence`s son as heir was mentioned in the 1984 "trial", but when I checked wiki earlier today and saw John de la Pole named as heir I thought that I`d been mistaken.
> Paul.
>
> --- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@> wrote:
> >
> > .actually Paul, you were correct: after the death of his son, Richard named
> > his brother George Duke of Clarence's son as his heir (Edward, Earl of
> > Warwick), and then changed his mind and named John De la Pole, son of his
> > sister.
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:11 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Whoops! Sorry, my mistake. Richard`s & Clarence`s sister`s son. Should`ve
> > checked the family tree.
> > Paul.
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> > <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > At what point is Richard supposed to have named Clarence's son as his heir
> > ? For most of his reign the heir was Richard & Anne's son Edward, and after
> > his death I thought Richard named his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of
> > Lincoln ?
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if
> > it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were
> > illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to
> > resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered
> > that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the
> > throne.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

So is there anything about the life and times of Richard that can be positively believed? Even the primary sources seem to be suspect. Either biased when written or changed to fit the purpose, and/or even destroyed entirely. It would appear to be a matter of "you pays your money and you takes your choice".

Paul.




--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, there is an amazing absence of evidence for all sorts of things that historians blithely inform us are true. Jeremy Potter can be forgiven because he was extemporizing in a TV programme - if he'd been writing a book he would have consulted the sources before saying some of the things he said. Writers who mislead because they haven't bothered to check don't have that excuse. Of course we all make mistakes, and I'm as guilty of that as anyone, but at least I go back and correct mine in later editions - I've done that with all my books, and with Richard III more than all the others put together! Also my correction lists are available to anyone who asks me, and the last I heard they were being posted on the Richard III Society's website, which is rather shaming, but you can't let pride get in the way of the truth, can you?
>
> Returning to the matter of the succession, for Richard it was an academic point anyway, because he was still young and had every expectation of fathering more children with his second wife. [Then if he died while they were still young, doubtless Lincoln would have become Protector ;-) .....] This opens up a whole can of worms on its own, which traditional historians never mention. One wonders whether his choice of Joanna of Portugal, although clearly the best match politically, would have been fruitful in terms of heirs since she was already in her thirties. Knowing Richard's bad luck, he might well have encountered a parallel situation to the Catherine of Aragon scenario. But at least his throne would have been secure. We need a novelist (Joan, are you reading this?) to depict for us an account of England under Richard and Joanna.
> Cheers, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Annette - I purposely used "supposed" as I suspected the source might be questionable - I hadn't realised that there was also no evidence that Richard formally acknowledged Lincoln either.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, sorry, here we go again (!) - I'm afraid none of this is actually all that certain. Unless I'm mistaken it was uniquely John Rous who claimed that Richard nominated Clarence's son as his heir, and I don't think many of us place much faith in what Rous wrote. It would have been an incredibly unlikely choice, for reasons mentioned earlier in connection with reversing attainders, and for reasons of his extreme youth and lack of any appropriate training. Edward V's young age at succession, even though he had been trained for the job since the age of three, had rendered him acutely vulnerable because everyone knew what happened when you had a child on the throne. Little Warwick was even younger, and had been kept tucked away first as Dorset's ward, then as one of a group of children that Richard placed in a 'royal nursery' at Sheriff Hutton. Knowing that there were still vestiges of discontent in England, and that Henry Tudor was squaring up to mount a French-backed inv asion, Richard would have been daft to imagine that the realm would be safe under Warwick in the event that he (Richard) lost his life for any reason.
> >
> > John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, aged about 20 was in fact the next male in the York line of succession, and there seems no reason for Richard to have passed him over. We have only Rous's word that he switched from Warwick to Lincoln. In fact there's no actual record that Richard named anyone his heir, nor did he need to: Lincoln was already his heir presumptive from the moment Edward of Middleham died. Richard did, however, give John some significant appointments (see pp. 241-2 of "Maligned King") which made it clear that he was destined for high office.
> > Cheers
> > Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks Sally. I think Clarence`s son as heir was mentioned in the 1984 "trial", but when I checked wiki earlier today and saw John de la Pole named as heir I thought that I`d been mistaken.
> > Paul.
> >
> > --- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@> wrote:
> > >
> > > .actually Paul, you were correct: after the death of his son, Richard named
> > > his brother George Duke of Clarence's son as his heir (Edward, Earl of
> > > Warwick), and then changed his mind and named John De la Pole, son of his
> > > sister.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:11 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Whoops! Sorry, my mistake. Richard`s & Clarence`s sister`s son. Should`ve
> > > checked the family tree.
> > > Paul.
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> > > <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At what point is Richard supposed to have named Clarence's son as his heir
> > > ? For most of his reign the heir was Richard & Anne's son Edward, and after
> > > his death I thought Richard named his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of
> > > Lincoln ?
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "pneville49"
> > > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if
> > > it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were
> > > illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to
> > > resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered
> > > that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the
> > > throne.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote: "...One wonders whether his
choice of Joanna of Portugal, although clearly the best match
politically, would have been fruitful in terms of heirs since she was
already in her thirties. Knowing Richard's bad luck, he might well have
encountered a parallel situation to the Catherine of Aragon scenario.
But at least his throne would have been secure. We need a novelist
(Joan, are you reading this?) to depict for us an account of England
under Richard and Joanna."

*Haha* I have never been able to wrap my mind around that match from the
little I've read about Joanna of Portugal.

Hi all - Joana (as she would have spelled it in Portugal) was never
interested in marrying anyone: her goal, eventually realized, was to become
a nun, much against the wishes of her father Afonso and brother Joao.
However, if she had been persuaded to marry, she would have been an asset as
a partner: she was regent of Portugal while her father and brother were on
campaign in Africa. She was very effective (as was Catherine when Henry
VIII was in France.)



Maria

Elena@...



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Joan
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 12:03 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.





"Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote: "...One wonders whether his
choice of Joanna of Portugal, although clearly the best match
politically, would have been fruitful in terms of heirs since she was
already in her thirties. Knowing Richard's bad luck, he might well have
encountered a parallel situation to the Catherine of Aragon scenario.
But at least his throne would have been secure. We need a novelist
(Joan, are you reading this?) to depict for us an account of England
under Richard and Joanna."

*Haha* I have never been able to wrap my mind around that match from the
little I've read about Joanna of Portugal.

There's a book called "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by Peter Hammond and Anne Sutton, which is a compendium of a lot of the contemporaneous documents of his reign. Assuming you haven't got hold of that yet, I'd suggest you read it after Potter. The reason that I think Potter should be read first is because he presents analyses of the bias / agenda / standpoint /knowledgeability (or otherwise) of all the writers whose words you will be reading in the Hammond/Sutton.

Are there written accounts you can believe? Certainly there are - rolls of parliament, records of convocations, episcopal registers, the file copies of royal grants, letters patent, all sorts of mundane record-keeping, e.g. household accounts, wardrobe accounts, etc, etc. Thanks to historians like the Victorian James Gairdner all these have been transcribed, edited, and some of them published or at least catalogued, so fortunately we don't have the labour of thumbing through parchment sheets filled with mediaeval writing. By the way, when we speak of editing, we don't mean redacting.

The trouble is, taking Gairdner as an example, however useful (indeed vital) his scholarly work was, when it came to 'writing history' he made his own personal deductions - not just in the light of the letters and papers, but also in the light of the commentaries by the chroniclers. The chroniclers are the ones who have muddied the waters, and those are the ones whose words need to be carefully weighed. Jeremy Potter makes an excellent job of doing so, and is an entertaining writer as well.
Regards, Annette



----- Original Message -----
From: pneville49
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.



So is there anything about the life and times of Richard that can be positively believed? Even the primary sources seem to be suspect. Either biased when written or changed to fit the purpose, and/or even destroyed entirely. It would appear to be a matter of "you pays your money and you takes your choice".

Paul.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, there is an amazing absence of evidence for all sorts of things that historians blithely inform us are true. Jeremy Potter can be forgiven because he was extemporizing in a TV programme - if he'd been writing a book he would have consulted the sources before saying some of the things he said. Writers who mislead because they haven't bothered to check don't have that excuse. Of course we all make mistakes, and I'm as guilty of that as anyone, but at least I go back and correct mine in later editions - I've done that with all my books, and with Richard III more than all the others put together! Also my correction lists are available to anyone who asks me, and the last I heard they were being posted on the Richard III Society's website, which is rather shaming, but you can't let pride get in the way of the truth, can you?
>
> Returning to the matter of the succession, for Richard it was an academic point anyway, because he was still young and had every expectation of fathering more children with his second wife. [Then if he died while they were still young, doubtless Lincoln would have become Protector ;-) .....] This opens up a whole can of worms on its own, which traditional historians never mention. One wonders whether his choice of Joanna of Portugal, although clearly the best match politically, would have been fruitful in terms of heirs since she was already in her thirties. Knowing Richard's bad luck, he might well have encountered a parallel situation to the Catherine of Aragon scenario. But at least his throne would have been secure. We need a novelist (Joan, are you reading this?) to depict for us an account of England under Richard and Joanna.
> Cheers, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Annette - I purposely used "supposed" as I suspected the source might be questionable - I hadn't realised that there was also no evidence that Richard formally acknowledged Lincoln either.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, sorry, here we go again (!) - I'm afraid none of this is actually all that certain. Unless I'm mistaken it was uniquely John Rous who claimed that Richard nominated Clarence's son as his heir, and I don't think many of us place much faith in what Rous wrote. It would have been an incredibly unlikely choice, for reasons mentioned earlier in connection with reversing attainders, and for reasons of his extreme youth and lack of any appropriate training. Edward V's young age at succession, even though he had been trained for the job since the age of three, had rendered him acutely vulnerable because everyone knew what happened when you had a child on the throne. Little Warwick was even younger, and had been kept tucked away first as Dorset's ward, then as one of a group of children that Richard placed in a 'royal nursery' at Sheriff Hutton. Knowing that there were still vestiges of discontent in England, and that Henry Tudor was squaring up to mount a French-bac ked inv asion, Richard would have been daft to imagine that the realm would be safe under Warwick in the event that he (Richard) lost his life for any reason.
> >
> > John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, aged about 20 was in fact the next male in the York line of succession, and there seems no reason for Richard to have passed him over. We have only Rous's word that he switched from Warwick to Lincoln. In fact there's no actual record that Richard named anyone his heir, nor did he need to: Lincoln was already his heir presumptive from the moment Edward of Middleham died. Richard did, however, give John some significant appointments (see pp. 241-2 of "Maligned King") which made it clear that he was destined for high office.
> > Cheers
> > Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: pneville49
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks Sally. I think Clarence`s son as heir was mentioned in the 1984 "trial", but when I checked wiki earlier today and saw John de la Pole named as heir I thought that I`d been mistaken.
> > Paul.
> >
> > --- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@> wrote:
> > >
> > > .actually Paul, you were correct: after the death of his son, Richard named
> > > his brother George Duke of Clarence's son as his heir (Edward, Earl of
> > > Warwick), and then changed his mind and named John De la Pole, son of his
> > > sister.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:11 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Whoops! Sorry, my mistake. Richard`s & Clarence`s sister`s son. Should`ve
> > > checked the family tree.
> > > Paul.
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> > > <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At what point is Richard supposed to have named Clarence's son as his heir
> > > ? For most of his reign the heir was Richard & Anne's son Edward, and after
> > > his death I thought Richard named his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of
> > > Lincoln ?
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "pneville49"
> > > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if
> > > it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were
> > > illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to
> > > resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered
> > > that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the
> > > throne.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

She made an exception for Richard III - it's in the Portuguese records.


----- Original Message -----
From: elena
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 6:34 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Richard on trial.



Hi all - Joana (as she would have spelled it in Portugal) was never
interested in marrying anyone: her goal, eventually realized, was to become
a nun, much against the wishes of her father Afonso and brother Joao.
However, if she had been persuaded to marry, she would have been an asset as
a partner: she was regent of Portugal while her father and brother were on
campaign in Africa. She was very effective (as was Catherine when Henry
VIII was in France.)

Maria

Elena@...

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Joan
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 12:03 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.

"Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote: "...One wonders whether his
choice of Joanna of Portugal, although clearly the best match
politically, would have been fruitful in terms of heirs since she was
already in her thirties. Knowing Richard's bad luck, he might well have
encountered a parallel situation to the Catherine of Aragon scenario.
But at least his throne would have been secure. We need a novelist
(Joan, are you reading this?) to depict for us an account of England
under Richard and Joanna."

*Haha* I have never been able to wrap my mind around that match from the
little I've read about Joanna of Portugal.

Legend has it that she told her father she had a dream that Richard was
dead. She said that if the dream were false, she'd marry him; if true, then
her father should allow her to join the convent in Aveiro. It was 1485 and
her dream had, of course, been true. That may be a romanticism of what's
in the records.



Maria

Elena@...



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 12:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard on trial.





She made an exception for Richard III - it's in the Portuguese records.

----- Original Message -----
From: elena
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 6:34 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Richard on trial.

Hi all - Joana (as she would have spelled it in Portugal) was never
interested in marrying anyone: her goal, eventually realized, was to become
a nun, much against the wishes of her father Afonso and brother Joao.
However, if she had been persuaded to marry, she would have been an asset as
a partner: she was regent of Portugal while her father and brother were on
campaign in Africa. She was very effective (as was Catherine when Henry
VIII was in France.)

Maria

Elena@... <mailto:Elena%40pipeline.com>

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Joan
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 12:03 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Richard on trial.

"Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote: "...One wonders whether his
choice of Joanna of Portugal, although clearly the best match
politically, would have been fruitful in terms of heirs since she was
already in her thirties. Knowing Richard's bad luck, he might well have
encountered a parallel situation to the Catherine of Aragon scenario.
But at least his throne would have been secure. We need a novelist
(Joan, are you reading this?) to depict for us an account of England
under Richard and Joanna."

*Haha* I have never been able to wrap my mind around that match from the
little I've read about Joanna of Portugal.

Thanks Annette. I`ll put those you`ve suggested at the top of my list.
Should keep me going for an hour or two. :-)

Paul.



--- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> There's a book called "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by Peter Hammond and Anne Sutton, which is a compendium of a lot of the contemporaneous documents of his reign. Assuming you haven't got hold of that yet, I'd suggest you read it after Potter. The reason that I think Potter should be read first is because he presents analyses of the bias / agenda / standpoint /knowledgeability (or otherwise) of all the writers whose words you will be reading in the Hammond/Sutton.
>
> Are there written accounts you can believe? Certainly there are - rolls of parliament, records of convocations, episcopal registers, the file copies of royal grants, letters patent, all sorts of mundane record-keeping, e.g. household accounts, wardrobe accounts, etc, etc. Thanks to historians like the Victorian James Gairdner all these have been transcribed, edited, and some of them published or at least catalogued, so fortunately we don't have the labour of thumbing through parchment sheets filled with mediaeval writing. By the way, when we speak of editing, we don't mean redacting.
>
> The trouble is, taking Gairdner as an example, however useful (indeed vital) his scholarly work was, when it came to 'writing history' he made his own personal deductions - not just in the light of the letters and papers, but also in the light of the commentaries by the chroniclers. The chroniclers are the ones who have muddied the waters, and those are the ones whose words need to be carefully weighed. Jeremy Potter makes an excellent job of doing so, and is an entertaining writer as well.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneville49
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 2:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
>
>
>
> So is there anything about the life and times of Richard that can be positively believed? Even the primary sources seem to be suspect. Either biased when written or changed to fit the purpose, and/or even destroyed entirely. It would appear to be a matter of "you pays your money and you takes your choice".
>
> Paul.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, there is an amazing absence of evidence for all sorts of things that historians blithely inform us are true. Jeremy Potter can be forgiven because he was extemporizing in a TV programme - if he'd been writing a book he would have consulted the sources before saying some of the things he said. Writers who mislead because they haven't bothered to check don't have that excuse. Of course we all make mistakes, and I'm as guilty of that as anyone, but at least I go back and correct mine in later editions - I've done that with all my books, and with Richard III more than all the others put together! Also my correction lists are available to anyone who asks me, and the last I heard they were being posted on the Richard III Society's website, which is rather shaming, but you can't let pride get in the way of the truth, can you?
> >
> > Returning to the matter of the succession, for Richard it was an academic point anyway, because he was still young and had every expectation of fathering more children with his second wife. [Then if he died while they were still young, doubtless Lincoln would have become Protector ;-) .....] This opens up a whole can of worms on its own, which traditional historians never mention. One wonders whether his choice of Joanna of Portugal, although clearly the best match politically, would have been fruitful in terms of heirs since she was already in her thirties. Knowing Richard's bad luck, he might well have encountered a parallel situation to the Catherine of Aragon scenario. But at least his throne would have been secure. We need a novelist (Joan, are you reading this?) to depict for us an account of England under Richard and Joanna.
> > Cheers, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Richard
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 11:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Annette - I purposely used "supposed" as I suspected the source might be questionable - I hadn't realised that there was also no evidence that Richard formally acknowledged Lincoln either.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, sorry, here we go again (!) - I'm afraid none of this is actually all that certain. Unless I'm mistaken it was uniquely John Rous who claimed that Richard nominated Clarence's son as his heir, and I don't think many of us place much faith in what Rous wrote. It would have been an incredibly unlikely choice, for reasons mentioned earlier in connection with reversing attainders, and for reasons of his extreme youth and lack of any appropriate training. Edward V's young age at succession, even though he had been trained for the job since the age of three, had rendered him acutely vulnerable because everyone knew what happened when you had a child on the throne. Little Warwick was even younger, and had been kept tucked away first as Dorset's ward, then as one of a group of children that Richard placed in a 'royal nursery' at Sheriff Hutton. Knowing that there were still vestiges of discontent in England, and that Henry Tudor was squaring up to mount a French-bac ked inv asion, Richard would have been daft to imagine that the realm would be safe under Warwick in the event that he (Richard) lost his life for any reason.
> > >
> > > John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, aged about 20 was in fact the next male in the York line of succession, and there seems no reason for Richard to have passed him over. We have only Rous's word that he switched from Warwick to Lincoln. In fact there's no actual record that Richard named anyone his heir, nor did he need to: Lincoln was already his heir presumptive from the moment Edward of Middleham died. Richard did, however, give John some significant appointments (see pp. 241-2 of "Maligned King") which made it clear that he was destined for high office.
> > > Cheers
> > > Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: pneville49
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:24 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Sally. I think Clarence`s son as heir was mentioned in the 1984 "trial", but when I checked wiki earlier today and saw John de la Pole named as heir I thought that I`d been mistaken.
> > > Paul.
> > >
> > > --- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > .actually Paul, you were correct: after the death of his son, Richard named
> > > > his brother George Duke of Clarence's son as his heir (Edward, Earl of
> > > > Warwick), and then changed his mind and named John De la Pole, son of his
> > > > sister.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From:
> > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
> > > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:11 AM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard on trial.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Whoops! Sorry, my mistake. Richard`s & Clarence`s sister`s son. Should`ve
> > > > checked the family tree.
> > > > Paul.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> > > > <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > At what point is Richard supposed to have named Clarence's son as his heir
> > > > ? For most of his reign the heir was Richard & Anne's son Edward, and after
> > > > his death I thought Richard named his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of
> > > > Lincoln ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "pneville49"
> > > > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > But the rules of the time had already barred the line of Clarence, and if
> > > > it could be proven that both Edward IV and the issue of Edward IV were
> > > > illegitimate then Richard would be the legal claimant and have no need to
> > > > resort to murder. Attainders could be reversed, but it must be remembered
> > > > that Richard had already named Clarence`s son as his heir, and heir to the
> > > > throne.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>