My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-29 18:28:32
The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never seems to lose
interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I posted some
of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random Thoughts
of an Accidental Author here
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
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
interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I posted some
of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random Thoughts
of an Accidental Author here
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
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
Re: My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-30 12:42:44
Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re extract below)...
"I think that Edward V was still alive while
Stoke was being planned but that he died too
close to the battle for it to have been called
off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in arms and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After all it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the battle the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and the troops would have simply dispersed.
If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he have been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the fighting they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed. There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle, except perhaps for their own survival.
Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily branded the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin Warbeck.
Thanks,
Paul
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never seems to lose
> interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I posted some
> of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random Thoughts
> of an Accidental Author here
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
> l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
"I think that Edward V was still alive while
Stoke was being planned but that he died too
close to the battle for it to have been called
off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in arms and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After all it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the battle the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and the troops would have simply dispersed.
If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he have been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the fighting they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed. There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle, except perhaps for their own survival.
Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily branded the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin Warbeck.
Thanks,
Paul
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never seems to lose
> interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I posted some
> of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random Thoughts
> of an Accidental Author here
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
> l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
Re: My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-30 13:38:20
Sorry Joan, another query I should have included was regarding E5`s brother Richard. Where was he at the time of the Battle of Stoke?
"Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded
the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487,
which I doubt that she would have done for
an impostor at its inception. Later, Margaret
supported the man who claimed to be Richard
of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin
Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the
nobles who believed he was Richard of York
Would she have supported someone who she knew
to be an impostor?"
Had the Princes been separated after their stay at Sheriff Hutton, perhaps after Bosworth? Seems strange that both could suddenly have appeared but at different intervals, and that Margaret of Burgundy had been on hand both times.
Paul
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re extract below)...
>
> "I think that Edward V was still alive while
> Stoke was being planned but that he died too
> close to the battle for it to have been called
> off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
> killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
> Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
>
> Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in arms and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After all it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the battle the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and the troops would have simply dispersed.
> If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he have been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the fighting they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed. There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle, except perhaps for their own survival.
> Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily branded the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin Warbeck.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
>
>
> --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never seems to lose
> > interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I posted some
> > of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random Thoughts
> > of an Accidental Author here
> > <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
> > l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
"Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded
the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487,
which I doubt that she would have done for
an impostor at its inception. Later, Margaret
supported the man who claimed to be Richard
of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin
Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the
nobles who believed he was Richard of York
Would she have supported someone who she knew
to be an impostor?"
Had the Princes been separated after their stay at Sheriff Hutton, perhaps after Bosworth? Seems strange that both could suddenly have appeared but at different intervals, and that Margaret of Burgundy had been on hand both times.
Paul
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re extract below)...
>
> "I think that Edward V was still alive while
> Stoke was being planned but that he died too
> close to the battle for it to have been called
> off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
> killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
> Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
>
> Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in arms and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After all it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the battle the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and the troops would have simply dispersed.
> If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he have been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the fighting they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed. There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle, except perhaps for their own survival.
> Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily branded the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin Warbeck.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
>
>
> --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never seems to lose
> > interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I posted some
> > of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random Thoughts
> > of an Accidental Author here
> > <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
> > l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-30 16:00:35
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a battle, but not in the C15th.
He would have been not quite 17 at the time of the battle in June 1487, having been born in November 1470, but that's splitting hairs. At that age he would have been plenty old enough to ride at the forefront of an army -- his father did so when he was 12 years old, and at the age of 12, his uncle Richard had been Commissioner of Array, traveling around the country heading a contingent of men at arms, recruiting for the king. The other son, Richard of Shrewsbury would have been nearly 14 in June of 1487.
But, interestingly enough, the boy supposedly captured at Stoke and called Lambert Simnel was described in the records as being about ten years old. There is a world of visible difference between a 16-year-old, or even a 13-year-old, and a 10-year-old boy.
That has always intrigued me.
Katy
Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a battle, but not in the C15th.
He would have been not quite 17 at the time of the battle in June 1487, having been born in November 1470, but that's splitting hairs. At that age he would have been plenty old enough to ride at the forefront of an army -- his father did so when he was 12 years old, and at the age of 12, his uncle Richard had been Commissioner of Array, traveling around the country heading a contingent of men at arms, recruiting for the king. The other son, Richard of Shrewsbury would have been nearly 14 in June of 1487.
But, interestingly enough, the boy supposedly captured at Stoke and called Lambert Simnel was described in the records as being about ten years old. There is a world of visible difference between a 16-year-old, or even a 13-year-old, and a 10-year-old boy.
That has always intrigued me.
Katy
Re: My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-30 17:19:06
That`s what I meant Katy, that boys in the C15th nobility were born to arms and were trained in warfare from a very early age. If Prince Edward were alive at the onset of the Stoke fight, it`s inconceivable to me that he wouldn`t be there and at the head of his troops, or at least directing operations. It was an attempt at re-establishing Yorkist control which leads me to the other query. Would Prince Richard have also been at the same battle or would he have been kept safe as the heir to the throne after Edward. And were they together or separated after Richard III`s demise...assuming that they survived him?
Paul.
--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
>
> Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a battle, but not in the C15th.
>
>
> He would have been not quite 17 at the time of the battle in June 1487, having been born in November 1470, but that's splitting hairs. At that age he would have been plenty old enough to ride at the forefront of an army -- his father did so when he was 12 years old, and at the age of 12, his uncle Richard had been Commissioner of Array, traveling around the country heading a contingent of men at arms, recruiting for the king. The other son, Richard of Shrewsbury would have been nearly 14 in June of 1487.
>
> But, interestingly enough, the boy supposedly captured at Stoke and called Lambert Simnel was described in the records as being about ten years old. There is a world of visible difference between a 16-year-old, or even a 13-year-old, and a 10-year-old boy.
>
> That has always intrigued me.
>
> Katy
>
Paul.
--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
>
> Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a battle, but not in the C15th.
>
>
> He would have been not quite 17 at the time of the battle in June 1487, having been born in November 1470, but that's splitting hairs. At that age he would have been plenty old enough to ride at the forefront of an army -- his father did so when he was 12 years old, and at the age of 12, his uncle Richard had been Commissioner of Array, traveling around the country heading a contingent of men at arms, recruiting for the king. The other son, Richard of Shrewsbury would have been nearly 14 in June of 1487.
>
> But, interestingly enough, the boy supposedly captured at Stoke and called Lambert Simnel was described in the records as being about ten years old. There is a world of visible difference between a 16-year-old, or even a 13-year-old, and a 10-year-old boy.
>
> That has always intrigued me.
>
> Katy
>
Re: My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-30 17:41:48
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> That`s what I meant Katy, that boys in the C15th nobility were born to arms and were trained in warfare from a very early age. If Prince Edward were alive at the onset of the Stoke fight, it`s inconceivable to me that he wouldn`t be there and at the head of his troops, or at least directing operations. It was an attempt at re-establishing Yorkist control which leads me to the other query. Would Prince Richard have also been at the same battle or would he have been kept safe as the heir to the throne after Edward. And were they together or separated after Richard III`s demise...assuming that they survived him?
I have never read anything that indicated that there was more than one Yorkist boy with the army before Stoke. Supposedly this was the same boy who was crowned King Edward VI in Dublin in May 1487.
The last time the two boys definitely identified as Edward and Richard were seen was when they were in the Tower of London complex in July or August, 1483. After that, all is mystery and conjecture.
Katy
>
> That`s what I meant Katy, that boys in the C15th nobility were born to arms and were trained in warfare from a very early age. If Prince Edward were alive at the onset of the Stoke fight, it`s inconceivable to me that he wouldn`t be there and at the head of his troops, or at least directing operations. It was an attempt at re-establishing Yorkist control which leads me to the other query. Would Prince Richard have also been at the same battle or would he have been kept safe as the heir to the throne after Edward. And were they together or separated after Richard III`s demise...assuming that they survived him?
I have never read anything that indicated that there was more than one Yorkist boy with the army before Stoke. Supposedly this was the same boy who was crowned King Edward VI in Dublin in May 1487.
The last time the two boys definitely identified as Edward and Richard were seen was when they were in the Tower of London complex in July or August, 1483. After that, all is mystery and conjecture.
Katy
Re: My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-30 17:42:34
I don't believe either Edward V or Richard were at Sheriff Hutton. I
think that only Edward of Warwick was. I'm not sure if Richard was still
in Portugal at the time of Stoke, but I'm quite sure he wasn't at Stoke.
I think that Margaret of Burgundy was pretty single minded about
reclaiming the English crown for York and that those involved made sure
the two boys were kept separated. It was like having a prince in a safe
deposit box.
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 , "pneville49"
<pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry Joan, another query I should have included was regarding E5`s
brother Richard. Where was he at the time of the Battle of Stoke?
>
> "Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded
> the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487,
> which I doubt that she would have done for
> an impostor at its inception. Later, Margaret
> supported the man who claimed to be Richard
> of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin
> Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the
> nobles who believed he was Richard of York
> Would she have supported someone who she knew
> to be an impostor?"
>
> Had the Princes been separated after their stay at Sheriff Hutton,
perhaps after Bosworth? Seems strange that both could suddenly have
appeared but at different intervals, and that Margaret of Burgundy had
been on hand both times.
>
> Paul
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49"
pneville49@ wrote:
> >
> > Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re
extract below)...
> >
> > "I think that Edward V was still alive while
> > Stoke was being planned but that he died too
> > close to the battle for it to have been called
> > off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
> > killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
> > Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
> >
> > Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the
Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a
battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in arms
and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After all
it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the battle
the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and the
troops would have simply dispersed.
> > If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he have
been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the fighting
they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed.
There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle, except
perhaps for their own survival.
> > Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily branded
the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin Warbeck.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never seems
to lose
> > > interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I
posted some
> > > of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random
Thoughts
> > > of an Accidental Author here
> > >
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
\
> > > l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
think that only Edward of Warwick was. I'm not sure if Richard was still
in Portugal at the time of Stoke, but I'm quite sure he wasn't at Stoke.
I think that Margaret of Burgundy was pretty single minded about
reclaiming the English crown for York and that those involved made sure
the two boys were kept separated. It was like having a prince in a safe
deposit box.
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 , "pneville49"
<pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry Joan, another query I should have included was regarding E5`s
brother Richard. Where was he at the time of the Battle of Stoke?
>
> "Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded
> the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487,
> which I doubt that she would have done for
> an impostor at its inception. Later, Margaret
> supported the man who claimed to be Richard
> of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin
> Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the
> nobles who believed he was Richard of York
> Would she have supported someone who she knew
> to be an impostor?"
>
> Had the Princes been separated after their stay at Sheriff Hutton,
perhaps after Bosworth? Seems strange that both could suddenly have
appeared but at different intervals, and that Margaret of Burgundy had
been on hand both times.
>
> Paul
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49"
pneville49@ wrote:
> >
> > Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re
extract below)...
> >
> > "I think that Edward V was still alive while
> > Stoke was being planned but that he died too
> > close to the battle for it to have been called
> > off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
> > killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
> > Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
> >
> > Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the
Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a
battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in arms
and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After all
it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the battle
the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and the
troops would have simply dispersed.
> > If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he have
been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the fighting
they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed.
There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle, except
perhaps for their own survival.
> > Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily branded
the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin Warbeck.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never seems
to lose
> > > interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I
posted some
> > > of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random
Thoughts
> > > of an Accidental Author here
> > >
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
\
> > > l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-30 18:20:17
I can`t get back on to the link you supplied Joan to check my words, it seems to be suddenly unavailable, but I thought you wrote (in effect) that Richard removed the two Princes to safety to Sheriff Hutton and to where Edward of Warwick was already residing? Sorry if I`ve picked it up wrongly.
Paul.
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I don't believe either Edward V or Richard were at Sheriff Hutton. I
> think that only Edward of Warwick was. I'm not sure if Richard was still
> in Portugal at the time of Stoke, but I'm quite sure he wasn't at Stoke.
>
> I think that Margaret of Burgundy was pretty single minded about
> reclaiming the English crown for York and that those involved made sure
> the two boys were kept separated. It was like having a prince in a safe
> deposit box.
>
> 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 , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry Joan, another query I should have included was regarding E5`s
> brother Richard. Where was he at the time of the Battle of Stoke?
> >
> > "Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded
> > the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487,
> > which I doubt that she would have done for
> > an impostor at its inception. Later, Margaret
> > supported the man who claimed to be Richard
> > of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin
> > Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the
> > nobles who believed he was Richard of York
> > Would she have supported someone who she knew
> > to be an impostor?"
> >
> > Had the Princes been separated after their stay at Sheriff Hutton,
> perhaps after Bosworth? Seems strange that both could suddenly have
> appeared but at different intervals, and that Margaret of Burgundy had
> been on hand both times.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49"
> pneville49@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re
> extract below)...
> > >
> > > "I think that Edward V was still alive while
> > > Stoke was being planned but that he died too
> > > close to the battle for it to have been called
> > > off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
> > > killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
> > > Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
> > >
> > > Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the
> Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a
> battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in arms
> and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After all
> it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the battle
> the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and the
> troops would have simply dispersed.
> > > If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he have
> been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the fighting
> they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed.
> There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle, except
> perhaps for their own survival.
> > > Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily branded
> the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin Warbeck.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never seems
> to lose
> > > > interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I
> posted some
> > > > of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random
> Thoughts
> > > > of an Accidental Author here
> > > >
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
> \
> > > > l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Paul.
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I don't believe either Edward V or Richard were at Sheriff Hutton. I
> think that only Edward of Warwick was. I'm not sure if Richard was still
> in Portugal at the time of Stoke, but I'm quite sure he wasn't at Stoke.
>
> I think that Margaret of Burgundy was pretty single minded about
> reclaiming the English crown for York and that those involved made sure
> the two boys were kept separated. It was like having a prince in a safe
> deposit box.
>
> 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 , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry Joan, another query I should have included was regarding E5`s
> brother Richard. Where was he at the time of the Battle of Stoke?
> >
> > "Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded
> > the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487,
> > which I doubt that she would have done for
> > an impostor at its inception. Later, Margaret
> > supported the man who claimed to be Richard
> > of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin
> > Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the
> > nobles who believed he was Richard of York
> > Would she have supported someone who she knew
> > to be an impostor?"
> >
> > Had the Princes been separated after their stay at Sheriff Hutton,
> perhaps after Bosworth? Seems strange that both could suddenly have
> appeared but at different intervals, and that Margaret of Burgundy had
> been on hand both times.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > --- In , "pneville49"
> pneville49@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re
> extract below)...
> > >
> > > "I think that Edward V was still alive while
> > > Stoke was being planned but that he died too
> > > close to the battle for it to have been called
> > > off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
> > > killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
> > > Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
> > >
> > > Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the
> Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a
> battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in arms
> and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After all
> it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the battle
> the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and the
> troops would have simply dispersed.
> > > If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he have
> been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the fighting
> they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed.
> There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle, except
> perhaps for their own survival.
> > > Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily branded
> the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin Warbeck.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never seems
> to lose
> > > > interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I
> posted some
> > > > of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random
> Thoughts
> > > > of an Accidental Author here
> > > >
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
> \
> > > > l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-30 18:22:39
"After that, all is mystery and conjecture."
Quite. :-) That`s what I`m doing. Conjecturing. :-)
Paul.
--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > That`s what I meant Katy, that boys in the C15th nobility were born to arms and were trained in warfare from a very early age. If Prince Edward were alive at the onset of the Stoke fight, it`s inconceivable to me that he wouldn`t be there and at the head of his troops, or at least directing operations. It was an attempt at re-establishing Yorkist control which leads me to the other query. Would Prince Richard have also been at the same battle or would he have been kept safe as the heir to the throne after Edward. And were they together or separated after Richard III`s demise...assuming that they survived him?
>
>
>
> I have never read anything that indicated that there was more than one Yorkist boy with the army before Stoke. Supposedly this was the same boy who was crowned King Edward VI in Dublin in May 1487.
>
> The last time the two boys definitely identified as Edward and Richard were seen was when they were in the Tower of London complex in July or August, 1483. After that, all is mystery and conjecture.
>
> Katy
>
Quite. :-) That`s what I`m doing. Conjecturing. :-)
Paul.
--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > That`s what I meant Katy, that boys in the C15th nobility were born to arms and were trained in warfare from a very early age. If Prince Edward were alive at the onset of the Stoke fight, it`s inconceivable to me that he wouldn`t be there and at the head of his troops, or at least directing operations. It was an attempt at re-establishing Yorkist control which leads me to the other query. Would Prince Richard have also been at the same battle or would he have been kept safe as the heir to the throne after Edward. And were they together or separated after Richard III`s demise...assuming that they survived him?
>
>
>
> I have never read anything that indicated that there was more than one Yorkist boy with the army before Stoke. Supposedly this was the same boy who was crowned King Edward VI in Dublin in May 1487.
>
> The last time the two boys definitely identified as Edward and Richard were seen was when they were in the Tower of London complex in July or August, 1483. After that, all is mystery and conjecture.
>
> Katy
>
Re: My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-30 18:41:21
Got back to your link Joan. Here`s what you wrote...
"After Edward IV died, Richard took his brother's
children into his household and placed them at
Sheriff Hutton where Edward of Warwick and his
sister, Margaret lived with the other children."
But have I misunderstood your words?
Paul.
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> I can`t get back on to the link you supplied Joan to check my words, it seems to be suddenly unavailable, but I thought you wrote (in effect) that Richard removed the two Princes to safety to Sheriff Hutton and to where Edward of Warwick was already residing? Sorry if I`ve picked it up wrongly.
>
> Paul.
>
>
> --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe either Edward V or Richard were at Sheriff Hutton. I
> > think that only Edward of Warwick was. I'm not sure if Richard was still
> > in Portugal at the time of Stoke, but I'm quite sure he wasn't at Stoke.
> >
> > I think that Margaret of Burgundy was pretty single minded about
> > reclaiming the English crown for York and that those involved made sure
> > the two boys were kept separated. It was like having a prince in a safe
> > deposit box.
> >
> > 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 , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry Joan, another query I should have included was regarding E5`s
> > brother Richard. Where was he at the time of the Battle of Stoke?
> > >
> > > "Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded
> > > the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487,
> > > which I doubt that she would have done for
> > > an impostor at its inception. Later, Margaret
> > > supported the man who claimed to be Richard
> > > of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin
> > > Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the
> > > nobles who believed he was Richard of York
> > > Would she have supported someone who she knew
> > > to be an impostor?"
> > >
> > > Had the Princes been separated after their stay at Sheriff Hutton,
> > perhaps after Bosworth? Seems strange that both could suddenly have
> > appeared but at different intervals, and that Margaret of Burgundy had
> > been on hand both times.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > pneville49@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re
> > extract below)...
> > > >
> > > > "I think that Edward V was still alive while
> > > > Stoke was being planned but that he died too
> > > > close to the battle for it to have been called
> > > > off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
> > > > killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
> > > > Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
> > > >
> > > > Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the
> > Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a
> > battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in arms
> > and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After all
> > it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the battle
> > the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and the
> > troops would have simply dispersed.
> > > > If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he have
> > been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the fighting
> > they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed.
> > There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle, except
> > perhaps for their own survival.
> > > > Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily branded
> > the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin Warbeck.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never seems
> > to lose
> > > > > interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I
> > posted some
> > > > > of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random
> > Thoughts
> > > > > of an Accidental Author here
> > > > >
> > <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
> > \
> > > > > l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
"After Edward IV died, Richard took his brother's
children into his household and placed them at
Sheriff Hutton where Edward of Warwick and his
sister, Margaret lived with the other children."
But have I misunderstood your words?
Paul.
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> I can`t get back on to the link you supplied Joan to check my words, it seems to be suddenly unavailable, but I thought you wrote (in effect) that Richard removed the two Princes to safety to Sheriff Hutton and to where Edward of Warwick was already residing? Sorry if I`ve picked it up wrongly.
>
> Paul.
>
>
> --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe either Edward V or Richard were at Sheriff Hutton. I
> > think that only Edward of Warwick was. I'm not sure if Richard was still
> > in Portugal at the time of Stoke, but I'm quite sure he wasn't at Stoke.
> >
> > I think that Margaret of Burgundy was pretty single minded about
> > reclaiming the English crown for York and that those involved made sure
> > the two boys were kept separated. It was like having a prince in a safe
> > deposit box.
> >
> > 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 , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry Joan, another query I should have included was regarding E5`s
> > brother Richard. Where was he at the time of the Battle of Stoke?
> > >
> > > "Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded
> > > the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487,
> > > which I doubt that she would have done for
> > > an impostor at its inception. Later, Margaret
> > > supported the man who claimed to be Richard
> > > of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin
> > > Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the
> > > nobles who believed he was Richard of York
> > > Would she have supported someone who she knew
> > > to be an impostor?"
> > >
> > > Had the Princes been separated after their stay at Sheriff Hutton,
> > perhaps after Bosworth? Seems strange that both could suddenly have
> > appeared but at different intervals, and that Margaret of Burgundy had
> > been on hand both times.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > pneville49@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re
> > extract below)...
> > > >
> > > > "I think that Edward V was still alive while
> > > > Stoke was being planned but that he died too
> > > > close to the battle for it to have been called
> > > > off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
> > > > killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
> > > > Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
> > > >
> > > > Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the
> > Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a
> > battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in arms
> > and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After all
> > it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the battle
> > the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and the
> > troops would have simply dispersed.
> > > > If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he have
> > been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the fighting
> > they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed.
> > There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle, except
> > perhaps for their own survival.
> > > > Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily branded
> > the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin Warbeck.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never seems
> > to lose
> > > > > interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I
> > posted some
> > > > > of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random
> > Thoughts
> > > > > of an Accidental Author here
> > > > >
> > <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
> > \
> > > > > l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-30 18:58:39
Paul, I reread the blog post and see that I didn't explicitly say where
I thought that Richard had moved the princes in the tower, and I can see
where you got, by implication, that they were place in Sheriff Hutton
when I was discussing Edward of Warwick:
"...After Edward IV died, Richard took his brother's children into
his household and placed them at Sheriff Hutton where Edward of Warwick
and his sister, Margaret lived with the other children...."
where I should have said George's children instead of his brother's. I
will fix that and add where I think the princes in the tower were taken.
This will make the paragraph on Brampton more relevant, too.
Thanks for pointing this out to me.
BTW, you should be able to link to my blog from my signature. This post
is currently at the top of the blog.
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 , "pneville49"
<pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> I can`t get back on to the link you supplied Joan to check my words,
it seems to be suddenly unavailable, but I thought you wrote (in effect)
that Richard removed the two Princes to safety to Sheriff Hutton and to
where Edward of Warwick was already residing? Sorry if I`ve picked it up
wrongly.
>
> Paul.
>
>
> --- In , "Joan" u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe either Edward V or Richard were at Sheriff Hutton. I
> > think that only Edward of Warwick was. I'm not sure if Richard was
still
> > in Portugal at the time of Stoke, but I'm quite sure he wasn't at
Stoke.
> >
> > I think that Margaret of Burgundy was pretty single minded about
> > reclaiming the English crown for York and that those involved made
sure
> > the two boys were kept separated. It was like having a prince in a
safe
> > deposit box.
> >
> > 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 , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry Joan, another query I should have included was regarding
E5`s
> > brother Richard. Where was he at the time of the Battle of Stoke?
> > >
> > > "Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded
> > > the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487,
> > > which I doubt that she would have done for
> > > an impostor at its inception. Later, Margaret
> > > supported the man who claimed to be Richard
> > > of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin
> > > Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the
> > > nobles who believed he was Richard of York
> > > Would she have supported someone who she knew
> > > to be an impostor?"
> > >
> > > Had the Princes been separated after their stay at Sheriff Hutton,
> > perhaps after Bosworth? Seems strange that both could suddenly have
> > appeared but at different intervals, and that Margaret of Burgundy
had
> > been on hand both times.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > pneville49@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re
> > extract below)...
> > > >
> > > > "I think that Edward V was still alive while
> > > > Stoke was being planned but that he died too
> > > > close to the battle for it to have been called
> > > > off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
> > > > killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
> > > > Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
> > > >
> > > > Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of
the
> > Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a
> > battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in
arms
> > and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After
all
> > it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the
battle
> > the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and
the
> > troops would have simply dispersed.
> > > > If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he
have
> > been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the
fighting
> > they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed.
> > There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle,
except
> > perhaps for their own survival.
> > > > Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily
branded
> > the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin
Warbeck.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never
seems
> > to lose
> > > > > interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I
> > posted some
> > > > > of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random
> > Thoughts
> > > > > of an Accidental Author here
> > > > >
> >
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
\
> > \
> > > > > l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
I thought that Richard had moved the princes in the tower, and I can see
where you got, by implication, that they were place in Sheriff Hutton
when I was discussing Edward of Warwick:
"...After Edward IV died, Richard took his brother's children into
his household and placed them at Sheriff Hutton where Edward of Warwick
and his sister, Margaret lived with the other children...."
where I should have said George's children instead of his brother's. I
will fix that and add where I think the princes in the tower were taken.
This will make the paragraph on Brampton more relevant, too.
Thanks for pointing this out to me.
BTW, you should be able to link to my blog from my signature. This post
is currently at the top of the blog.
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 , "pneville49"
<pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> I can`t get back on to the link you supplied Joan to check my words,
it seems to be suddenly unavailable, but I thought you wrote (in effect)
that Richard removed the two Princes to safety to Sheriff Hutton and to
where Edward of Warwick was already residing? Sorry if I`ve picked it up
wrongly.
>
> Paul.
>
>
> --- In , "Joan" u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe either Edward V or Richard were at Sheriff Hutton. I
> > think that only Edward of Warwick was. I'm not sure if Richard was
still
> > in Portugal at the time of Stoke, but I'm quite sure he wasn't at
Stoke.
> >
> > I think that Margaret of Burgundy was pretty single minded about
> > reclaiming the English crown for York and that those involved made
sure
> > the two boys were kept separated. It was like having a prince in a
safe
> > deposit box.
> >
> > 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 , "pneville49"
> > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry Joan, another query I should have included was regarding
E5`s
> > brother Richard. Where was he at the time of the Battle of Stoke?
> > >
> > > "Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded
> > > the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487,
> > > which I doubt that she would have done for
> > > an impostor at its inception. Later, Margaret
> > > supported the man who claimed to be Richard
> > > of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin
> > > Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the
> > > nobles who believed he was Richard of York
> > > Would she have supported someone who she knew
> > > to be an impostor?"
> > >
> > > Had the Princes been separated after their stay at Sheriff Hutton,
> > perhaps after Bosworth? Seems strange that both could suddenly have
> > appeared but at different intervals, and that Margaret of Burgundy
had
> > been on hand both times.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > pneville49@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re
> > extract below)...
> > > >
> > > > "I think that Edward V was still alive while
> > > > Stoke was being planned but that he died too
> > > > close to the battle for it to have been called
> > > > off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
> > > > killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
> > > > Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
> > > >
> > > > Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of
the
> > Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a
> > battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in
arms
> > and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After
all
> > it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the
battle
> > the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and
the
> > troops would have simply dispersed.
> > > > If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he
have
> > been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the
fighting
> > they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed.
> > There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle,
except
> > perhaps for their own survival.
> > > > Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily
branded
> > the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin
Warbeck.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never
seems
> > to lose
> > > > > interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I
> > posted some
> > > > > of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random
> > Thoughts
> > > > > of an Accidental Author here
> > > > >
> >
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
\
> > \
> > > > > l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-30 19:50:21
Got it now Joan, both the blogpost and the meaning. Thanks for the correction.
Paul.
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Paul, I reread the blog post and see that I didn't explicitly say where
> I thought that Richard had moved the princes in the tower, and I can see
> where you got, by implication, that they were place in Sheriff Hutton
> when I was discussing Edward of Warwick:
>
> "...After Edward IV died, Richard took his brother's children into
> his household and placed them at Sheriff Hutton where Edward of Warwick
> and his sister, Margaret lived with the other children...."
>
> where I should have said George's children instead of his brother's. I
> will fix that and add where I think the princes in the tower were taken.
> This will make the paragraph on Brampton more relevant, too.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out to me.
>
> BTW, you should be able to link to my blog from my signature. This post
> is currently at the top of the blog.
>
> 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 , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > I can`t get back on to the link you supplied Joan to check my words,
> it seems to be suddenly unavailable, but I thought you wrote (in effect)
> that Richard removed the two Princes to safety to Sheriff Hutton and to
> where Edward of Warwick was already residing? Sorry if I`ve picked it up
> wrongly.
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Joan" u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't believe either Edward V or Richard were at Sheriff Hutton. I
> > > think that only Edward of Warwick was. I'm not sure if Richard was
> still
> > > in Portugal at the time of Stoke, but I'm quite sure he wasn't at
> Stoke.
> > >
> > > I think that Margaret of Burgundy was pretty single minded about
> > > reclaiming the English crown for York and that those involved made
> sure
> > > the two boys were kept separated. It was like having a prince in a
> safe
> > > deposit box.
> > >
> > > 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 , "pneville49"
> > > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Joan, another query I should have included was regarding
> E5`s
> > > brother Richard. Where was he at the time of the Battle of Stoke?
> > > >
> > > > "Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded
> > > > the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487,
> > > > which I doubt that she would have done for
> > > > an impostor at its inception. Later, Margaret
> > > > supported the man who claimed to be Richard
> > > > of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin
> > > > Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the
> > > > nobles who believed he was Richard of York
> > > > Would she have supported someone who she knew
> > > > to be an impostor?"
> > > >
> > > > Had the Princes been separated after their stay at Sheriff Hutton,
> > > perhaps after Bosworth? Seems strange that both could suddenly have
> > > appeared but at different intervals, and that Margaret of Burgundy
> had
> > > been on hand both times.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > > pneville49@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re
> > > extract below)...
> > > > >
> > > > > "I think that Edward V was still alive while
> > > > > Stoke was being planned but that he died too
> > > > > close to the battle for it to have been called
> > > > > off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
> > > > > killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
> > > > > Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
> > > > >
> > > > > Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of
> the
> > > Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a
> > > battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in
> arms
> > > and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After
> all
> > > it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the
> battle
> > > the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and
> the
> > > troops would have simply dispersed.
> > > > > If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he
> have
> > > been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the
> fighting
> > > they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed.
> > > There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle,
> except
> > > perhaps for their own survival.
> > > > > Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily
> branded
> > > the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin
> Warbeck.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never
> seems
> > > to lose
> > > > > > interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I
> > > posted some
> > > > > > of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random
> > > Thoughts
> > > > > > of an Accidental Author here
> > > > > >
> > >
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
> \
> > > \
> > > > > > l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Paul.
--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Paul, I reread the blog post and see that I didn't explicitly say where
> I thought that Richard had moved the princes in the tower, and I can see
> where you got, by implication, that they were place in Sheriff Hutton
> when I was discussing Edward of Warwick:
>
> "...After Edward IV died, Richard took his brother's children into
> his household and placed them at Sheriff Hutton where Edward of Warwick
> and his sister, Margaret lived with the other children...."
>
> where I should have said George's children instead of his brother's. I
> will fix that and add where I think the princes in the tower were taken.
> This will make the paragraph on Brampton more relevant, too.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out to me.
>
> BTW, you should be able to link to my blog from my signature. This post
> is currently at the top of the blog.
>
> 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 , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > I can`t get back on to the link you supplied Joan to check my words,
> it seems to be suddenly unavailable, but I thought you wrote (in effect)
> that Richard removed the two Princes to safety to Sheriff Hutton and to
> where Edward of Warwick was already residing? Sorry if I`ve picked it up
> wrongly.
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Joan" u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't believe either Edward V or Richard were at Sheriff Hutton. I
> > > think that only Edward of Warwick was. I'm not sure if Richard was
> still
> > > in Portugal at the time of Stoke, but I'm quite sure he wasn't at
> Stoke.
> > >
> > > I think that Margaret of Burgundy was pretty single minded about
> > > reclaiming the English crown for York and that those involved made
> sure
> > > the two boys were kept separated. It was like having a prince in a
> safe
> > > deposit box.
> > >
> > > 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 , "pneville49"
> > > <pneville49@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Joan, another query I should have included was regarding
> E5`s
> > > brother Richard. Where was he at the time of the Battle of Stoke?
> > > >
> > > > "Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded
> > > > the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487,
> > > > which I doubt that she would have done for
> > > > an impostor at its inception. Later, Margaret
> > > > supported the man who claimed to be Richard
> > > > of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin
> > > > Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the
> > > > nobles who believed he was Richard of York
> > > > Would she have supported someone who she knew
> > > > to be an impostor?"
> > > >
> > > > Had the Princes been separated after their stay at Sheriff Hutton,
> > > perhaps after Bosworth? Seems strange that both could suddenly have
> > > appeared but at different intervals, and that Margaret of Burgundy
> had
> > > been on hand both times.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "pneville49"
> > > pneville49@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Excellent suppositions Joan, but I have a couple of queries (re
> > > extract below)...
> > > > >
> > > > > "I think that Edward V was still alive while
> > > > > Stoke was being planned but that he died too
> > > > > close to the battle for it to have been called
> > > > > off. Another possibility is that Edward V was
> > > > > killed in that battle and that Henry VII put
> > > > > Lambert Simnel in as an impostor".
> > > > >
> > > > > Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of
> the
> > > Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a
> > > battle, but not in the C15th. He would have been well trained in
> arms
> > > and would almost certainly have been at the battle in person. After
> all
> > > it was his throne for the taking. But had he died prior to the
> battle
> > > the cause would be equally dead, it would be known to be dead, and
> the
> > > troops would have simply dispersed.
> > > > > If Edward had actually fought in the battle then wouldn`t he
> have
> > > been the rallying point of the troops? If he had died in the
> fighting
> > > they would again have quickly known about it and likewise dispersed.
> > > There would be no reason for the troops to continue the battle,
> except
> > > perhaps for their own survival.
> > > > > Why would H7 put in a substitute? He could have quite easily
> branded
> > > the dead Edward as an imposter as he did with the later Perkin
> Warbeck.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The mystery of the princes is a perennial issue that never
> seems
> > > to lose
> > > > > > interest, as recent discussions here and elsewhere attest. I
> > > posted some
> > > > > > of my thoughts and research based on these exchanges on Random
> > > Thoughts
> > > > > > of an Accidental Author here
> > > > > >
> > >
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-princes-surviving-richard-iii.htm\
> \
> > > \
> > > > > > l> . Feel free to leave comments on my blog.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard
2010-08-30 20:59:10
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> "After that, all is mystery and conjecture."
>
> Quite. :-) That`s what I`m doing. Conjecturing. :-)
> Paul.
And I'm glad you are. That's the fun and fascination of it and what has kept the subject alive these 500 + years
Katy
>
> "After that, all is mystery and conjecture."
>
> Quite. :-) That`s what I`m doing. Conjecturing. :-)
> Paul.
And I'm glad you are. That's the fun and fascination of it and what has kept the subject alive these 500 + years
Katy
Re: Lambert Simnel (My blog post: On the princes surviving Richard)
2010-08-31 16:04:51
I thought Lambert Simnel was set up as Clarence's son, Edward of Warwick, who was born in 1475, and would have been twelve at the time of Stoke ?
If he was crowned in Dublin as Edward VI, doesn't that suggest that his supporters thought Edward V was dead ?
Richard G
--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
>
> Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a battle, but not in the C15th.
>
>
> He would have been not quite 17 at the time of the battle in June 1487, having been born in November 1470, but that's splitting hairs. At that age he would have been plenty old enough to ride at the forefront of an army -- his father did so when he was 12 years old, and at the age of 12, his uncle Richard had been Commissioner of Array, traveling around the country heading a contingent of men at arms, recruiting for the king. The other son, Richard of Shrewsbury would have been nearly 14 in June of 1487.
>
> But, interestingly enough, the boy supposedly captured at Stoke and called Lambert Simnel was described in the records as being about ten years old. There is a world of visible difference between a 16-year-old, or even a 13-year-old, and a 10-year-old boy.
>
> That has always intrigued me.
>
> Katy
>
If he was crowned in Dublin as Edward VI, doesn't that suggest that his supporters thought Edward V was dead ?
Richard G
--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@> wrote:
>
> Edward would have been a young man of 17 years at the time of the Battle of Stoke, perhaps too young in today`s terms to be fighting a battle, but not in the C15th.
>
>
> He would have been not quite 17 at the time of the battle in June 1487, having been born in November 1470, but that's splitting hairs. At that age he would have been plenty old enough to ride at the forefront of an army -- his father did so when he was 12 years old, and at the age of 12, his uncle Richard had been Commissioner of Array, traveling around the country heading a contingent of men at arms, recruiting for the king. The other son, Richard of Shrewsbury would have been nearly 14 in June of 1487.
>
> But, interestingly enough, the boy supposedly captured at Stoke and called Lambert Simnel was described in the records as being about ten years old. There is a world of visible difference between a 16-year-old, or even a 13-year-old, and a 10-year-old boy.
>
> That has always intrigued me.
>
> Katy
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.