Dean of Westminster on those bones

Marion writes, 'I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative...'.

The Queen is no more closely related to 'those bones'--no matter whose they were--than any reader of this forum. The royal family has passed through three distinct breaks since ElizabethÊI.

Some years ago I read a very fine piece in The New Yorker magazine about interest by the Mormon Church in genealogy. Being something of an expert on such things, the Mormon Church calculated that a high percentage of persons stemming from British ancestry can claim relationship to medieval monarchy. The author quoted presumed percentages from several monarchs, figures which were striking but which I long ago forgot. Certainly Henry II, with a woman at every stop, sired more bastards than the most egregious womanizer. And I can state that a significant number of people who write to me about Eleanor of Aquitaine claim direct descent from the woman who was queen of both France and England. (I put some of them in touch with each other.)

Our present Queen won 1/ the luck of birth stakes, and 2/ the chance, stakes; but she cannot claim to have won the 'proximity of birth to these bones' stakes, whoever those bones belonged to (if I make myself clear).

Robert Fripp
Author, 'Power of a Woman' (Eleanor of Aquitaine), and 'Dark Sovereign'

Actually I am not aware that Her Majesty has ever given a specific reason for not granting permission for the urn to be re-opened; her name is invoked because Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar. I imagine the person who would make such decisions is probably the Dean, and if it did reach her desk, her reply would have been whatever the Dean advised. There are very few decisions she is free to make independently, and I can`t imagine opening tombs at the Abbey would be among them. All I can remember of this is that Geoff Richardson started (I believe) a media campaign to seek support to make an official request and the RIII Society squashed it. Is anyone else`s recollection clearer than mine?
Regards, Annette
Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad

rspfripp <r_fripp@...> wrote:

>Marion writes, 'I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative...'.
>
>The Queen is no more closely related to 'those bones'--no matter whose they were--than any reader of this forum. The royal family has passed through three distinct breaks since ElizabethÊI.
>
>Some years ago I read a very fine piece in The New Yorker magazine about interest by the Mormon Church in genealogy. Being something of an expert on such things, the Mormon Church calculated that a high percentage of persons stemming from British ancestry can claim relationship to medieval monarchy. The author quoted presumed percentages from several monarchs, figures which were striking but which I long ago forgot. Certainly Henry II, with a woman at every stop, sired more bastards than the most egregious womanizer. And I can state that a significant number of people who write to me about Eleanor of Aquitaine claim direct descent from the woman who was queen of both France and England. (I put some of them in touch with each other.)
>
>Our present Queen won 1/ the luck of birth stakes, and 2/ the chance, stakes; but she cannot claim to have won the 'proximity of birth to these bones' stakes, whoever those bones belonged to (if I make myself clear).
>
>Robert Fripp
>Author, 'Power of a Woman' (Eleanor of Aquitaine), and 'Dark Sovereign'
>

I agree Robert, but this is the message coming out of Westminster when the matter has previously been discussed.  If memory serves me the Richard III Society are waiting for a more opportune moment to ask about the bones again.  Probably when we have a change at the top, but I agree that the view that they are part of her family does not cut it. 


The Duke of Edinburgh helped with the Romanovs when they needed kin to assist with the identification of the bones, I do not really care if they are the bones or not as we still cannot find out who was responsible it would just be nice to know either way.  If they were found not to be those of the princes at least other ideas could be explored  with more justification.

As the discussions that Edward of Middleham being poisoned I think this is improbable, however, it is often sited that the Warwick girls were fraile, yet Margaret of Sailsbury and Edward of Warwick seemed healthy enough.  It always seemed strange to me that Richard had a few bastards yet his marriage only bore on child.  Does anyone else have any credible information on this, do we know if Anne had miscarriages etc.

I would appreciate any comments.

M 



From: rspfripp <r_fripp@...>

To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 June 2012, 17:14
Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones


 
Marion writes, 'I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative...'.

The Queen is no more closely related to 'those bones'--no matter whose they were--than any reader of this forum. The royal family has passed through three distinct breaks since ElizabethÊI.

Some years ago I read a very fine piece in The New Yorker magazine about interest by the Mormon Church in genealogy. Being something of an expert on such things, the Mormon Church calculated that a high percentage of persons stemming from British ancestry can claim relationship to medieval monarchy. The author quoted presumed percentages from several monarchs, figures which were striking but which I long ago forgot. Certainly Henry II, with a woman at every stop, sired more bastards than the most egregious womanizer. And I can state that a significant number of people who write to me about Eleanor of Aquitaine claim direct descent from the woman who was queen of both France and England. (I put some of them in touch with each other.)

Our present Queen won 1/ the luck of birth stakes, and 2/ the chance, stakes; but she cannot claim to have won the 'proximity of birth to these bones' stakes, whoever those bones belonged to (if I make myself clear).

Robert Fripp
Author, 'Power of a Woman' (Eleanor of Aquitaine), and 'Dark Sovereign'

It seems sterile to discuss whether Edward of Middleham was murdered; his body is lost. A contact in York stated that the Sheriff Hutton monument does not appear to be his.

Margaret Beaufort was ambitious for her son, but isn't this typical of mothers? The fact that she reared Henry VII: an odious monarch if ever there was one, doesn't mean that she should be slated. Incidentally, there doesn't appear to be many people who weren't odious!

Collingbourne paid the price for attacking Richard with the `Cat, the Rat and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the Hog,' rhyme, and presumably he suggested Richard had killed his nephews, but the silence of Richard on this subject is worrying:

• Mancini, Croyland and the Great Chronicle of London all indicate a suspicion that Richard had decided, like Hastings, Rivers and Grey (friends and relatives of Edward V) that they were too dangerous to be allowed to live.
• In getting Elizabeth Woodville and her daughters to leave sanctuary, Richard ostentatiously stated they had nothing to fear, including being put in the Tower. Why was that something to be frightened of? He doesn't mention her equally bastard brothers. It maybe that Richard didn't think girls were a threat in a time when warrior monarchs were seen as important.
• Richard made another public statement denying his desire to marry his niece, but, if as he claimed, she was illegitimate why was she even worth mentioning?
• Henry Tudor pledged to marry Elizabeth of York in December, 1483, so why didn't Richard display the live princes to destroy such aspirations?
• Why didn't Richard state clearly that Buckingham killed the princes, Richard attacked him for other reasons?

Kendall stated that traditionalists and revisionist should be treated with equal scepticism regarding Richard and it seems to me that he acted like the soldier he was: experienced at Barnet, Tewksbury, in Scotland, he saw the Woodville's desire to remove his power as protector, as a threat and he possibly got rid of his enemies, including Edward Plantagenet-Woodville V.

It's possible, as a son of Cicely Neville and married to Anne Neville, that Richard had inherited a deep antipathy to anything Woodville, like his father-in-law: Warwick the Kingmaker.





--- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>
> I agree Robert, but this is the message coming out of Westminster when the matter has previously been discussed.  If memory serves me the Richard III Society are waiting for a more opportune moment to ask about the bones again.  Probably when we have a change at the top, but I agree that the view that they are part of her family does not cut it. 
>
>
> The Duke of Edinburgh helped with the Romanovs when they needed kin to assist with the identification of the bones, I do not really care if they are the bones or not as we still cannot find out who was responsible it would just be nice to know either way.  If they were found not to be those of the princes at least other ideas could be explored  with more justification.
>
> As the discussions that Edward of Middleham being poisoned I think this is improbable, however, it is often sited that the Warwick girls were fraile, yet Margaret of Sailsbury and Edward of Warwick seemed healthy enough.  It always seemed strange to me that Richard had a few bastards yet his marriage only bore on child.  Does anyone else have any credible information on this, do we know if Anne had miscarriages etc.
>
> I would appreciate any comments.
>
> M 
>
>
>
> From: rspfripp <r_fripp@...>
>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 24 June 2012, 17:14
> Subject: Dean of Westminster on those bones
>
>
>  
> Marion writes, 'I have been incensed for years that the Queen has not given permission for the DNA to be taken, as they are her long since dead relative...'.
>
> The Queen is no more closely related to 'those bones'--no matter whose they were--than any reader of this forum. The royal family has passed through three distinct breaks since ElizabethÊI.
>
> Some years ago I read a very fine piece in The New Yorker magazine about interest by the Mormon Church in genealogy. Being something of an expert on such things, the Mormon Church calculated that a high percentage of persons stemming from British ancestry can claim relationship to medieval monarchy. The author quoted presumed percentages from several monarchs, figures which were striking but which I long ago forgot. Certainly Henry II, with a woman at every stop, sired more bastards than the most egregious womanizer. And I can state that a significant number of people who write to me about Eleanor of Aquitaine claim direct descent from the woman who was queen of both France and England. (I put some of them in touch with each other.)
>
> Our present Queen won 1/ the luck of birth stakes, and 2/ the chance, stakes; but she cannot claim to have won the 'proximity of birth to these bones' stakes, whoever those bones belonged to (if I make myself clear).
>
> Robert Fripp
> Author, 'Power of a Woman' (Eleanor of Aquitaine), and 'Dark Sovereign'
>
>
>
>
>
>

HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
high treason.
IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
have worked, too.
The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
possible.
As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
and with plenty of references for further study.
Doug
(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)


----- Original Message -----
From: "HI" <hi.dung@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones

Great post, Doug. There is no evidence that ANYONE murdered them.

----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones



HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
high treason.
IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
have worked, too.
The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
possible.
As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
and with plenty of references for further study.
Doug
(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)

----- Original Message -----
From: "HI" <hi.dung@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones

I agree excellent post Doug!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 25, 2012, at 5:27 PM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

> HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> "rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> high treason.
> IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> have worked, too.
> The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> "led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> possible.
> As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> and with plenty of references for further study.
> Doug
> (who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "HI" <hi.dung@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.

I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
Regards, Annette
Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad

Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:

> HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
>in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
>available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
>That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
>her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
>As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
>accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
>leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
>she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
>"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
>thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
>your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
>returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
>fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
>was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
>of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
>high treason.
> IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
>remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
>being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
>via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
>the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
>the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
>the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
>have worked, too.
> The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
>understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
>noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
>but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
>Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
>have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
>married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
>seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
>alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
>"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
>his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
>Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
>Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
>battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
>Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
>doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
>to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
>Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
>or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
>interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
>Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
>Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
>treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
>Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
>side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
>whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
>From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
>possible.
> As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
>Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
>Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
>alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
>killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
>Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
>Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
>and with plenty of references for further study.
>Doug
>(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "HI" <hi.dung@...>
>To: <>
>Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
>
>

...... and let's toast King Richard on today's 529th anniversary of his accession!
Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad

Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:

> HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
>in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
>available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
>That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
>her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
>As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
>accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
>leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
>she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
>"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
>thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
>your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
>returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
>fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
>was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
>of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
>high treason.
> IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
>remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
>being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
>via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
>the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
>the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
>the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
>have worked, too.
> The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
>understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
>noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
>but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
>Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
>have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
>married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
>seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
>alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
>"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
>his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
>Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
>Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
>battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
>Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
>doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
>to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
>Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
>or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
>interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
>Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
>Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
>treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
>Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
>side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
>whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
>From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
>possible.
> As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
>Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
>Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
>alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
>killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
>Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
>Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
>and with plenty of references for further study.
>Doug
>(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "HI" <hi.dung@...>
>To: <>
>Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
>
>

To Richard!!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 26, 2012, at 1:52 AM, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:

> ...... and let's toast King Richard on today's 529th anniversary of his accession!
> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>
> Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
>
> > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> >high treason.
> > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> >have worked, too.
> > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> >possible.
> > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> >and with plenty of references for further study.
> >Doug
> >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "HI" <hi.dung@...>
> >To: <>
> >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

On 26 Jun 2012, at 07:52, Annette Carson wrote:

> ...... and let's toast King Richard on today's 529th anniversary of his accession!
> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad


Tooooo druuuunnk celerbriting to wriiitte loongger..... Hurrraayyy for King Richard!! [hiccup]

Paul



Richard Liveth Yet!

I have wondered Annette about Michael Jones' theory about the Battle of Bosworth. Looking at the various maps his battle site isn't a million miles away from the site described by Peter Foss and where Glen Foard found his silver boar. In Michael Jones' scenario Northumberland appears to be guarding the road to London. Is it possible that Richard ordered him to do so and not to move in case Tudor made a run for London. I am certainly not an expert in medieval warfare but I also wonder why Tudor turned East to do battle with Richard when he was so close to the London road. We know that he was at Atherstone because he met the Stanleys there.

As for MB being responsible for Edward of Middleham's death it is a theory of Jenny Powys Lybbe, as is R. E Collins' theory about Edward IV being poisoned. However,in my opinion, they are as valid as those of traditionalist historians that state categorically that Richard definitely killed the Princes. "Maligned King" has done a huge amount to show that there is evidence out there to prove that Richard acted in line with the law at the time and that some of the things that traditionalists accuse him of just were not true. As we will never really be able to prove whether the Princes even died in 1483 - 1484, we will never prove that Edward of Middleham was murdered as we don't know where he is buried and even if we could we probably couldn't prove who did it. However, it is good to speculate on and possibly research what could have happened and shine a light on the actions of Lady Margaret Beaufort during those years.

--- In , Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.
>
> I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
> Regards, Annette
> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>
> Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
>
> > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> >high treason.
> > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> >have worked, too.
> > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> >possible.
> > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> >and with plenty of references for further study.
> >Doug
> >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "HI" <hi.dung@...>
> >To: <>
> >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From me as well... To King Richard!

Linda
--- In , Vickie <lolettecook@...>
wrote:
>
> To Richard!!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 1:52 AM, Annette Carson email@... wrote:
>
> > ...... and let's toast King Richard on today's 529th anniversary of
his accession!
> > Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad

Cheers!  As my daughter's birthday is also on 26 June, we certainly celebrated in style.  At least this is one date I'm not likely to forget.

Dorothea



________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2012 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones


 
...... and let's toast King Richard on today's 529th anniversary of his accession!
Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad

Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:

> HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
>in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
>available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
>That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
>her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
>As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
>accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
>leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
>she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
>"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
>thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
>your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
>returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
>fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
>was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
>of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
>high treason.
> IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
>remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
>being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
>via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
>the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
>the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
>the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
>have worked, too.
> The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
>understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
>noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
>but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
>Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
>have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
>married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
>seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
>alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
>"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
>his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
>Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
>Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
>battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
>Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
>doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
>to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
>Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
>or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
>interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
>Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
>Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
>treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
>Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
>side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
>whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
>From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
>possible.
> As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
>Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
>Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
>alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
>killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
>Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
>Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
>and with plenty of references for further study.
>Doug
>(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "HI" <hi.dung@...>
>To: <>
>Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
>Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
>
>

And from me: To Richard!

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: asphodellynwormwood <asphodellynwormwood@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones


 
From me as well... To King Richard!

Linda
--- In , Vickie <lolettecook@...>
wrote:
>
> To Richard!!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 1:52 AM, Annette Carson email@... wrote:
>
> > ...... and let's toast King Richard on today's 529th anniversary of
his accession!
> > Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad

Paul, I'm a day late, but raise another one to Richard on my behalf...

Judy

(Computer repaired...)
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones


 

On 26 Jun 2012, at 07:52, Annette Carson wrote:

> ...... and let's toast King Richard on today's 529th anniversary of his accession!
> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad

Tooooo druuuunnk celerbriting to wriiitte loongger..... Hurrraayyy for King Richard!! [hiccup]

Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Richard certainly was jumpy about Tudor, hence the execution by `hanging, drawing and quartering' of Collingbourne: a servant of Richard's mother, so with Tudor declaring his intention to marry Elizabeth of York (didn't this suggest that Tudor was suggesting the princes were no more?) and given the rumours circulating: Croyland, the Great Chronicle of London and Mancini who may've prompted the Chancellor of France to directly accuse Richard III of the deaths of his nephews, to have produced the `bastards in the Tower' would've dispelled such damaging publicity for Richard or at least he could've blamed the ratbag Buckingham?

This `bad publicity', however, misses the point. The Woodvilles started the problem by, greedily, trying to reduce Richard's power from the start and Richard, an able, military man, reacted by cutting them down to size: Elizabeth Woodville was forced into sanctuary, Dorset fled, Hastings, who was probably a turncoat against Richard, and Rivers and Grey, who, as uncle and half brother to Edward V, the 12 year old naturally supported. Richard swept away some or all of them to protect himself and his affinity and who can blame him?


--- In , Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.
>
> I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
> Regards, Annette
> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>
> Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
>
> > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> >high treason.
> > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> >have worked, too.
> > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> >possible.
> > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> >and with plenty of references for further study.
> >Doug
> >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "HI" <hi.dung@...>
> >To: <>
> >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Please have a read of my new book on Bosworth, out now.There were a lot of smaller rebellions against Richard that seem to have not got off the ground. And, Margaret Beaufort was connected to nearly all of them in one way or another, usually those being involved were her servants or supporters, even her half brother was behind one.

As for Northumberland, the army appears to have been one battle/division behind the other. Northumberland's battle was probably at the back and was made up of commission of array troops,we hear of prickers being behind them. So when the French and Scots crashed into the flank and started to roll up Norfolk's vanguard, they turned and ran.

As too the battle itself, Tudor's army caught Richard in a trap and forced him to fight on ground unsuitable for his strengths, artillery and cavalry. This allowed the French to fight their normal practice and strength of a flank attack whilst Richard's vanguard was fixed in place and fighting to the front.

Mike Ingram

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> "rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> high treason.
> IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> have worked, too.
> The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> "led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> possible.
> As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> and with plenty of references for further study.
> Doug
> (who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "HI" <hi.dung@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
>

From me also a belated cheers! loyaulte me lie.
My only excuse is football.

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Paul, I'm a day late, but raise another one to Richard on my behalf...
>
> Judy
>
> (Computer repaired...)
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
>
>
>  
>
> On 26 Jun 2012, at 07:52, Annette Carson wrote:
>
> > ...... and let's toast King Richard on today's 529th anniversary of his accession!
> > Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>
> Tooooo druuuunnk celerbriting to wriiitte loongger..... Hurrraayyy for King Richard!! [hiccup]
>
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reharding the cutting down: A logical reaction after what I have read of the enthusiasm and ambition of the Woodvilles. I don´t think that another king in a similiar situation would have acted much different. The Woodvilles were a dangerous force which one must not underestimate.

I smiled when I read that you called Buckingham a "ratbag", surely a fitting term. With allies like that who needs enemies?

Still I am puzzled regarding the princes.

Marion Z

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Richard certainly was jumpy about Tudor, hence the execution by `hanging, drawing and quartering' of Collingbourne: a servant of Richard's mother, so with Tudor declaring his intention to marry Elizabeth of York (didn't this suggest that Tudor was suggesting the princes were no more?) and given the rumours circulating: Croyland, the Great Chronicle of London and Mancini who may've prompted the Chancellor of France to directly accuse Richard III of the deaths of his nephews, to have produced the `bastards in the Tower' would've dispelled such damaging publicity for Richard or at least he could've blamed the ratbag Buckingham?
>
> This `bad publicity', however, misses the point. The Woodvilles started the problem by, greedily, trying to reduce Richard's power from the start and Richard, an able, military man, reacted by cutting them down to size: Elizabeth Woodville was forced into sanctuary, Dorset fled, Hastings, who was probably a turncoat against Richard, and Rivers and Grey, who, as uncle and half brother to Edward V, the 12 year old naturally supported. Richard swept away some or all of them to protect himself and his affinity and who can blame him?
>
>
> --- In , Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> > A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.
> >
> > I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
> > Regards, Annette
> > Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
> >
> > Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@> wrote:
> >
> > > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> > >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> > >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> > >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> > >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> > >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> > >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> > >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> > >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> > >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> > >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> > >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> > >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> > >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> > >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> > >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> > >high treason.
> > > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> > >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> > >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> > >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> > >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> > >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> > >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> > >have worked, too.
> > > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> > >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> > >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> > >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> > >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> > >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> > >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> > >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> > >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> > >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> > >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> > >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> > >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> > >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> > >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> > >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> > >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> > >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> > >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> > >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> > >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> > >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> > >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> > >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> > >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> > >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> > >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> > >possible.
> > > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> > >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> > >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> > >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> > >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> > >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> > >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> > >and with plenty of references for further study.
> > >Doug
> > >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "HI" <hi.dung@>
> > >To: <>
> > >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Headed by Elizabeth Woodville, the large Woodville family was indeed dangerous to Richard and they didn't waste any time in that they tried to reduce the powers of the protectorship almost immediately after the death of Edward IV.

Richard's reaction against them was entirely legal and morally justifiable, but, inevitably, in the process he upset Edward V: it's on record that the 12 year old was in tears about the removal of his maternal uncle Rivers, who had acted as tutor and surrogate father to him in Ludlow and Edward's half-brother Grey. Richard Gloucester he barely knew. Edward V, as partly Woodville, naturally supported his mother Elizabeth Woodville, who probably wanted to act as Queen Regent. This placed Richard Gloucester in extreme danger, life threateningly so. Hadn't the Woodvilles hastened the end of Richard's brother Clarence? Richard III had no choice other than to seize the throne for the sake of his own survival and for that of his family and friends.

People have been puzzled about the princes for a long time. And in a court of law there really is no evidence to prove who killed them or if anyone did. They were a potential rival and danger to Richard III, Buckingham or Tudor or anyone who wanted the crown. So motive for their demise could rest with any of these. Had they not been 12 and 9 - all say Ahhhhh! – their disappearance wouldn't have been surprising or likely to arouse sympathy, but that they were an extreme danger, remained. The deaths of Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI didn't seem to elicit the same amount of concern.

I suppose given the fact that Richard III toppled them from power, he saw the danger of them – he was a fool if he didn't – and had the opportunity to eliminate them and he never formally denied it in the teeth of open rumours about their deaths, i.e. from the Chancellor of France in April, 1484, it was inevitable that suspicion would be applied to him.. Hasn't it just! He probably believed they were bastards and would've been bastards, as individuals bent on violent revenge to him, if they'd ever escaped from the Tower. You know, Woodville can mean `Would evil' and that probably triggered Richard's reaction, natural from someone, steeped in military action, whose father and two brothers; Rutland and Clarence had died violent deaths. But Elizabeth Woodville, in a frequent vanity of vanities attitude from beautiful and powerful women, had triggered the reaction. I've read about her funeral at Windsor. How miserably poorly attended it was. A natural reaction to someone who had caused the disaster of Edward V and Richard III. Dorset, Elizabeth's tool in trying to deny Richard his rightful powerful position as protector, was the main mourner!


--- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@...> wrote:
>
> Reharding the cutting down: A logical reaction after what I have read of the enthusiasm and ambition of the Woodvilles. I don´t think that another king in a similiar situation would have acted much different. The Woodvilles were a dangerous force which one must not underestimate.
>
> I smiled when I read that you called Buckingham a "ratbag", surely a fitting term. With allies like that who needs enemies?
>
> Still I am puzzled regarding the princes.
>
> Marion Z
>
> --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard certainly was jumpy about Tudor, hence the execution by `hanging, drawing and quartering' of Collingbourne: a servant of Richard's mother, so with Tudor declaring his intention to marry Elizabeth of York (didn't this suggest that Tudor was suggesting the princes were no more?) and given the rumours circulating: Croyland, the Great Chronicle of London and Mancini who may've prompted the Chancellor of France to directly accuse Richard III of the deaths of his nephews, to have produced the `bastards in the Tower' would've dispelled such damaging publicity for Richard or at least he could've blamed the ratbag Buckingham?
> >
> > This `bad publicity', however, misses the point. The Woodvilles started the problem by, greedily, trying to reduce Richard's power from the start and Richard, an able, military man, reacted by cutting them down to size: Elizabeth Woodville was forced into sanctuary, Dorset fled, Hastings, who was probably a turncoat against Richard, and Rivers and Grey, who, as uncle and half brother to Edward V, the 12 year old naturally supported. Richard swept away some or all of them to protect himself and his affinity and who can blame him?
> >
> >
> > --- In , Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.
> > >
> > > I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
> > > Regards, Annette
> > > Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
> > >
> > > Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > > > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> > > >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> > > >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> > > >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> > > >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> > > >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> > > >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> > > >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> > > >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > > > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> > > >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> > > >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> > > >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> > > >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> > > >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> > > >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> > > >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> > > >high treason.
> > > > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> > > >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> > > >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> > > >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> > > >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> > > >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> > > >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> > > >have worked, too.
> > > > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> > > >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> > > >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> > > >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> > > >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> > > >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> > > >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> > > >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> > > >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > > > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> > > >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> > > >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> > > >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> > > >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> > > >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> > > >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> > > >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > > > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> > > >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> > > >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> > > >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> > > >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> > > >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> > > >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> > > >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> > > >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> > > >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> > > >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> > > >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> > > >possible.
> > > > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> > > >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> > > >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> > > >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> > > >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > > > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> > > >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> > > >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> > > >and with plenty of references for further study.
> > > >Doug
> > > >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "HI" <hi.dung@>
> > > >To: <>
> > > >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi said: "You know, Woodville can mean `Would evil'"

I have never heard such an analysis of a surname before. Woodville, or
Wydeville, is clearly of place name origin, nothing to do with 'evil'. And
even it if was, by some bizarre circumstance, that hardly makes everyone
with that name by nature some kind of 'evil' - people are not their names.

Elizabeth Wydeville did what she thought was right by her family. The
execution of her son and her brother, the disappearance (and possible
murder) of her two youngest sons, being kept in sancuary and the loss of her
status and title must have been extremely difficult for her. I have no doubt
that there was likely to be Gloucester/Wydeville conflict had Edward V been
crowned, but Gloucester struck the first blows (to protect himself and his
family, it's been suggested) and no-one here suggests that he was in any way
'evil'. I really wish we could defend him (so far as we are capable) without
defaming others along the way.

Karen

I second you on the etymology, and on the random flinging about of "evil".  Even Richard didn't say Buckingham was evil--what was it?  Something like "the most untrue person living."
Sheffe




>________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 9:34 AM
>Subject: Re: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
>
>
> 
>Hi said: "You know, Woodville can mean `Would evil'"
>
>I have never heard such an analysis of a surname before. Woodville, or
>Wydeville, is clearly of place name origin, nothing to do with 'evil'. And
>even it if was, by some bizarre circumstance, that hardly makes everyone
>with that name by nature some kind of 'evil' - people are not their names.
>
>Elizabeth Wydeville did what she thought was right by her family. The
>execution of her son and her brother, the disappearance (and possible
>murder) of her two youngest sons, being kept in sancuary and the loss of her
>status and title must have been extremely difficult for her. I have no doubt
>that there was likely to be Gloucester/Wydeville conflict had Edward V been
>crowned, but Gloucester struck the first blows (to protect himself and his
>family, it's been suggested) and no-one here suggests that he was in any way
>'evil'. I really wish we could defend him (so far as we are capable) without
>defaming others along the way.
>
>Karen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Karen, for your communication. I do agree that we need to be as
careful about defaming others as we are strong in defending Richard from
the same.

I would argue, however, that though Richard may have struck strongly, he
didn't strike first: I would argue that his exclusion from negotiations
immediately following Edward's death (as well as the apparent late
notification to the North about Edward's illness and death), compared to
the speed with which Edward V's coronation was being planned, do count as
blows, and therefore the conflict was initiated by the Woodvilles and those
advising them. Hastings' communication to Richard, urging him to come
a-running, would have done nothing to calm any of Richard's suspicions.
The communication may, in fact, have gone some way toward sparking these
suspicions to begin with.

Rushed at work, but interested in this thread,

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi said: "You know, Woodville can mean `Would evil'"
>
> I have never heard such an analysis of a surname before. Woodville, or
> Wydeville, is clearly of place name origin, nothing to do with 'evil'. And
> even it if was, by some bizarre circumstance, that hardly makes everyone
> with that name by nature some kind of 'evil' - people are not their
> names....
>
>
>
>

Hi,

I found your message a very interesting read and it made many things clearer to me. It´s interesting, the more I know about RIchard III the more I find him a thoroughly agreable person.

Marion Z

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Headed by Elizabeth Woodville, the large Woodville family was indeed dangerous to Richard and they didn't waste any time in that they tried to reduce the powers of the protectorship almost immediately after the death of Edward IV.
>
> Richard's reaction against them was entirely legal and morally justifiable, but, inevitably, in the process he upset Edward V: it's on record that the 12 year old was in tears about the removal of his maternal uncle Rivers, who had acted as tutor and surrogate father to him in Ludlow and Edward's half-brother Grey. Richard Gloucester he barely knew. Edward V, as partly Woodville, naturally supported his mother Elizabeth Woodville, who probably wanted to act as Queen Regent. This placed Richard Gloucester in extreme danger, life threateningly so. Hadn't the Woodvilles hastened the end of Richard's brother Clarence? Richard III had no choice other than to seize the throne for the sake of his own survival and for that of his family and friends.
>
> People have been puzzled about the princes for a long time. And in a court of law there really is no evidence to prove who killed them or if anyone did. They were a potential rival and danger to Richard III, Buckingham or Tudor or anyone who wanted the crown. So motive for their demise could rest with any of these. Had they not been 12 and 9 - all say Ahhhhh! – their disappearance wouldn't have been surprising or likely to arouse sympathy, but that they were an extreme danger, remained. The deaths of Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI didn't seem to elicit the same amount of concern.
>
> I suppose given the fact that Richard III toppled them from power, he saw the danger of them – he was a fool if he didn't – and had the opportunity to eliminate them and he never formally denied it in the teeth of open rumours about their deaths, i.e. from the Chancellor of France in April, 1484, it was inevitable that suspicion would be applied to him.. Hasn't it just! He probably believed they were bastards and would've been bastards, as individuals bent on violent revenge to him, if they'd ever escaped from the Tower. You know, Woodville can mean `Would evil' and that probably triggered Richard's reaction, natural from someone, steeped in military action, whose father and two brothers; Rutland and Clarence had died violent deaths. But Elizabeth Woodville, in a frequent vanity of vanities attitude from beautiful and powerful women, had triggered the reaction. I've read about her funeral at Windsor. How miserably poorly attended it was. A natural reaction to someone who had caused the disaster of Edward V and Richard III. Dorset, Elizabeth's tool in trying to deny Richard his rightful powerful position as protector, was the main mourner!
>
>
> --- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@> wrote:
> >
> > Reharding the cutting down: A logical reaction after what I have read of the enthusiasm and ambition of the Woodvilles. I don´t think that another king in a similiar situation would have acted much different. The Woodvilles were a dangerous force which one must not underestimate.
> >
> > I smiled when I read that you called Buckingham a "ratbag", surely a fitting term. With allies like that who needs enemies?
> >
> > Still I am puzzled regarding the princes.
> >
> > Marion Z
> >
> > --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard certainly was jumpy about Tudor, hence the execution by `hanging, drawing and quartering' of Collingbourne: a servant of Richard's mother, so with Tudor declaring his intention to marry Elizabeth of York (didn't this suggest that Tudor was suggesting the princes were no more?) and given the rumours circulating: Croyland, the Great Chronicle of London and Mancini who may've prompted the Chancellor of France to directly accuse Richard III of the deaths of his nephews, to have produced the `bastards in the Tower' would've dispelled such damaging publicity for Richard or at least he could've blamed the ratbag Buckingham?
> > >
> > > This `bad publicity', however, misses the point. The Woodvilles started the problem by, greedily, trying to reduce Richard's power from the start and Richard, an able, military man, reacted by cutting them down to size: Elizabeth Woodville was forced into sanctuary, Dorset fled, Hastings, who was probably a turncoat against Richard, and Rivers and Grey, who, as uncle and half brother to Edward V, the 12 year old naturally supported. Richard swept away some or all of them to protect himself and his affinity and who can blame him?
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.
> > > >
> > > > I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > > > > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> > > > >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> > > > >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> > > > >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> > > > >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> > > > >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> > > > >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> > > > >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> > > > >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > > > > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> > > > >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> > > > >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> > > > >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> > > > >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> > > > >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> > > > >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> > > > >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> > > > >high treason.
> > > > > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> > > > >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> > > > >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> > > > >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> > > > >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> > > > >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> > > > >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> > > > >have worked, too.
> > > > > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> > > > >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> > > > >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> > > > >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> > > > >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> > > > >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> > > > >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> > > > >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> > > > >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > > > > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> > > > >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> > > > >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> > > > >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> > > > >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> > > > >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> > > > >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> > > > >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > > > > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> > > > >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> > > > >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> > > > >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> > > > >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> > > > >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> > > > >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> > > > >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> > > > >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> > > > >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> > > > >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> > > > >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> > > > >possible.
> > > > > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> > > > >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> > > > >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> > > > >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> > > > >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > > > > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> > > > >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> > > > >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> > > > >and with plenty of references for further study.
> > > > >Doug
> > > > >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "HI" <hi.dung@>
> > > > >To: <>
> > > > >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> > > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

However, I have been wondering if the princes couldn´t have died of natural causes. In medieval times was the rate of mortality of adolescents very high. It would almost been marvellous if they had survived their imprisonment in good health.

Marion Z

--- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I found your message a very interesting read and it made many things clearer to me. It´s interesting, the more I know about RIchard III the more I find him a thoroughly agreable person.
>
> Marion Z
>
> --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > Headed by Elizabeth Woodville, the large Woodville family was indeed dangerous to Richard and they didn't waste any time in that they tried to reduce the powers of the protectorship almost immediately after the death of Edward IV.
> >
> > Richard's reaction against them was entirely legal and morally justifiable, but, inevitably, in the process he upset Edward V: it's on record that the 12 year old was in tears about the removal of his maternal uncle Rivers, who had acted as tutor and surrogate father to him in Ludlow and Edward's half-brother Grey. Richard Gloucester he barely knew. Edward V, as partly Woodville, naturally supported his mother Elizabeth Woodville, who probably wanted to act as Queen Regent. This placed Richard Gloucester in extreme danger, life threateningly so. Hadn't the Woodvilles hastened the end of Richard's brother Clarence? Richard III had no choice other than to seize the throne for the sake of his own survival and for that of his family and friends.
> >
> > People have been puzzled about the princes for a long time. And in a court of law there really is no evidence to prove who killed them or if anyone did. They were a potential rival and danger to Richard III, Buckingham or Tudor or anyone who wanted the crown. So motive for their demise could rest with any of these. Had they not been 12 and 9 - all say Ahhhhh! – their disappearance wouldn't have been surprising or likely to arouse sympathy, but that they were an extreme danger, remained. The deaths of Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI didn't seem to elicit the same amount of concern.
> >
> > I suppose given the fact that Richard III toppled them from power, he saw the danger of them – he was a fool if he didn't – and had the opportunity to eliminate them and he never formally denied it in the teeth of open rumours about their deaths, i.e. from the Chancellor of France in April, 1484, it was inevitable that suspicion would be applied to him.. Hasn't it just! He probably believed they were bastards and would've been bastards, as individuals bent on violent revenge to him, if they'd ever escaped from the Tower. You know, Woodville can mean `Would evil' and that probably triggered Richard's reaction, natural from someone, steeped in military action, whose father and two brothers; Rutland and Clarence had died violent deaths. But Elizabeth Woodville, in a frequent vanity of vanities attitude from beautiful and powerful women, had triggered the reaction. I've read about her funeral at Windsor. How miserably poorly attended it was. A natural reaction to someone who had caused the disaster of Edward V and Richard III. Dorset, Elizabeth's tool in trying to deny Richard his rightful powerful position as protector, was the main mourner!
> >
> >
> > --- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Reharding the cutting down: A logical reaction after what I have read of the enthusiasm and ambition of the Woodvilles. I don´t think that another king in a similiar situation would have acted much different. The Woodvilles were a dangerous force which one must not underestimate.
> > >
> > > I smiled when I read that you called Buckingham a "ratbag", surely a fitting term. With allies like that who needs enemies?
> > >
> > > Still I am puzzled regarding the princes.
> > >
> > > Marion Z
> > >
> > > --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard certainly was jumpy about Tudor, hence the execution by `hanging, drawing and quartering' of Collingbourne: a servant of Richard's mother, so with Tudor declaring his intention to marry Elizabeth of York (didn't this suggest that Tudor was suggesting the princes were no more?) and given the rumours circulating: Croyland, the Great Chronicle of London and Mancini who may've prompted the Chancellor of France to directly accuse Richard III of the deaths of his nephews, to have produced the `bastards in the Tower' would've dispelled such damaging publicity for Richard or at least he could've blamed the ratbag Buckingham?
> > > >
> > > > This `bad publicity', however, misses the point. The Woodvilles started the problem by, greedily, trying to reduce Richard's power from the start and Richard, an able, military man, reacted by cutting them down to size: Elizabeth Woodville was forced into sanctuary, Dorset fled, Hastings, who was probably a turncoat against Richard, and Rivers and Grey, who, as uncle and half brother to Edward V, the 12 year old naturally supported. Richard swept away some or all of them to protect himself and his affinity and who can blame him?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
> > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > > Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
> > > > >
> > > > > Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > > > > > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> > > > > >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> > > > > >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> > > > > >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> > > > > >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> > > > > >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> > > > > >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> > > > > >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> > > > > >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > > > > > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> > > > > >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> > > > > >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> > > > > >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> > > > > >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> > > > > >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> > > > > >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> > > > > >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> > > > > >high treason.
> > > > > > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> > > > > >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> > > > > >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> > > > > >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> > > > > >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> > > > > >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> > > > > >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> > > > > >have worked, too.
> > > > > > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> > > > > >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> > > > > >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> > > > > >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> > > > > >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> > > > > >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> > > > > >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> > > > > >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> > > > > >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > > > > > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> > > > > >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> > > > > >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> > > > > >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> > > > > >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> > > > > >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> > > > > >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> > > > > >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > > > > > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> > > > > >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> > > > > >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> > > > > >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> > > > > >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> > > > > >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> > > > > >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> > > > > >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> > > > > >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> > > > > >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> > > > > >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> > > > > >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> > > > > >possible.
> > > > > > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> > > > > >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> > > > > >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> > > > > >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> > > > > >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > > > > > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> > > > > >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> > > > > >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> > > > > >and with plenty of references for further study.
> > > > > >Doug
> > > > > >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >From: "HI" <hi.dung@>
> > > > > >To: <>
> > > > > >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> > > > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

You are probably right that Edward V died of natural causes, but neither of them were imprisoned. They lived in the royal apartments.

--- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@...> wrote:
>
> However, I have been wondering if the princes couldn´t have died of natural causes. In medieval times was the rate of mortality of adolescents very high. It would almost been marvellous if they had survived their imprisonment in good health.
>
> Marion Z
>
> --- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I found your message a very interesting read and it made many things clearer to me. It´s interesting, the more I know about RIchard III the more I find him a thoroughly agreable person.
> >
> > Marion Z
> >
> > --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Headed by Elizabeth Woodville, the large Woodville family was indeed dangerous to Richard and they didn't waste any time in that they tried to reduce the powers of the protectorship almost immediately after the death of Edward IV.
> > >
> > > Richard's reaction against them was entirely legal and morally justifiable, but, inevitably, in the process he upset Edward V: it's on record that the 12 year old was in tears about the removal of his maternal uncle Rivers, who had acted as tutor and surrogate father to him in Ludlow and Edward's half-brother Grey. Richard Gloucester he barely knew. Edward V, as partly Woodville, naturally supported his mother Elizabeth Woodville, who probably wanted to act as Queen Regent. This placed Richard Gloucester in extreme danger, life threateningly so. Hadn't the Woodvilles hastened the end of Richard's brother Clarence? Richard III had no choice other than to seize the throne for the sake of his own survival and for that of his family and friends.
> > >
> > > People have been puzzled about the princes for a long time. And in a court of law there really is no evidence to prove who killed them or if anyone did. They were a potential rival and danger to Richard III, Buckingham or Tudor or anyone who wanted the crown. So motive for their demise could rest with any of these. Had they not been 12 and 9 - all say Ahhhhh! – their disappearance wouldn't have been surprising or likely to arouse sympathy, but that they were an extreme danger, remained. The deaths of Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI didn't seem to elicit the same amount of concern.
> > >
> > > I suppose given the fact that Richard III toppled them from power, he saw the danger of them – he was a fool if he didn't – and had the opportunity to eliminate them and he never formally denied it in the teeth of open rumours about their deaths, i.e. from the Chancellor of France in April, 1484, it was inevitable that suspicion would be applied to him.. Hasn't it just! He probably believed they were bastards and would've been bastards, as individuals bent on violent revenge to him, if they'd ever escaped from the Tower. You know, Woodville can mean `Would evil' and that probably triggered Richard's reaction, natural from someone, steeped in military action, whose father and two brothers; Rutland and Clarence had died violent deaths. But Elizabeth Woodville, in a frequent vanity of vanities attitude from beautiful and powerful women, had triggered the reaction. I've read about her funeral at Windsor. How miserably poorly attended it was. A natural reaction to someone who had caused the disaster of Edward V and Richard III. Dorset, Elizabeth's tool in trying to deny Richard his rightful powerful position as protector, was the main mourner!
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Reharding the cutting down: A logical reaction after what I have read of the enthusiasm and ambition of the Woodvilles. I don´t think that another king in a similiar situation would have acted much different. The Woodvilles were a dangerous force which one must not underestimate.
> > > >
> > > > I smiled when I read that you called Buckingham a "ratbag", surely a fitting term. With allies like that who needs enemies?
> > > >
> > > > Still I am puzzled regarding the princes.
> > > >
> > > > Marion Z
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard certainly was jumpy about Tudor, hence the execution by `hanging, drawing and quartering' of Collingbourne: a servant of Richard's mother, so with Tudor declaring his intention to marry Elizabeth of York (didn't this suggest that Tudor was suggesting the princes were no more?) and given the rumours circulating: Croyland, the Great Chronicle of London and Mancini who may've prompted the Chancellor of France to directly accuse Richard III of the deaths of his nephews, to have produced the `bastards in the Tower' would've dispelled such damaging publicity for Richard or at least he could've blamed the ratbag Buckingham?
> > > > >
> > > > > This `bad publicity', however, misses the point. The Woodvilles started the problem by, greedily, trying to reduce Richard's power from the start and Richard, an able, military man, reacted by cutting them down to size: Elizabeth Woodville was forced into sanctuary, Dorset fled, Hastings, who was probably a turncoat against Richard, and Rivers and Grey, who, as uncle and half brother to Edward V, the 12 year old naturally supported. Richard swept away some or all of them to protect himself and his affinity and who can blame him?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
> > > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > > > Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > > > > > > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> > > > > > >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> > > > > > >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> > > > > > >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> > > > > > >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> > > > > > >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> > > > > > >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> > > > > > >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> > > > > > >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > > > > > > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> > > > > > >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> > > > > > >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> > > > > > >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> > > > > > >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> > > > > > >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> > > > > > >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> > > > > > >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> > > > > > >high treason.
> > > > > > > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> > > > > > >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> > > > > > >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> > > > > > >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> > > > > > >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> > > > > > >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> > > > > > >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> > > > > > >have worked, too.
> > > > > > > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> > > > > > >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> > > > > > >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> > > > > > >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> > > > > > >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> > > > > > >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> > > > > > >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> > > > > > >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> > > > > > >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > > > > > > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> > > > > > >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> > > > > > >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> > > > > > >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> > > > > > >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> > > > > > >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> > > > > > >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> > > > > > >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > > > > > > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> > > > > > >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> > > > > > >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> > > > > > >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> > > > > > >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> > > > > > >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> > > > > > >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> > > > > > >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> > > > > > >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> > > > > > >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> > > > > > >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> > > > > > >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> > > > > > >possible.
> > > > > > > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> > > > > > >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> > > > > > >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> > > > > > >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> > > > > > >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > > > > > > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> > > > > > >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> > > > > > >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> > > > > > >and with plenty of references for further study.
> > > > > > >Doug
> > > > > > >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > >From: "HI" <hi.dung@>
> > > > > > >To: <>
> > > > > > >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> > > > > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

We don't really know how they died, except that they are bound to be dead by now. I once jokingly suggested that a plague of ravenous voles from the Thames could've consumed them in their sleep. Who knows? I find that there's too much sentimentality about the princes. Their rapacious and vain mother, by immediately trying to reduce Richard's rightful power as protector, caused their problem and, no doubt, if they had escaped from the Tower, Richard III and his family and friends would've faced the block or something worse. The romantic view of Edward V as a golden-haired, blue-eyed angel should be morphed into what he was likely to become: maybe like his uncle Clarence or father Edward IV or nephew Henry VIII, who could be extremely nasty if upset. Edward V was dangerous and probably anyone who wanted the crown wasn't too worried if he died early.

My `would evil' comment referred to the fact that Elizabeth Woodville and her large family had facilitated the execution of Clarence: Richard III's brother. Their quick greedy grasping for regency powers over Edward V didn't bode well fro Richard and, not being a fool, he probably saw they the Woodvilles `would cause evil' for him if allowed. Wasn't it Hastings who warned Richard about them and advised him to take strong action, which he did? Unfortunately, in attacking the schemes of Elizabeth Woodville, he accidentally alienated her son: Edward V. Hastings probably didn't foresee the consequences of his advice to Richard to move against the Woodvilles and tried, too late, to change sides. He lost his head in the advice and later on the block. So, Richard struck them down, something he'd been doing against enemies since the battle of Barnet in 1471.


--- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> You are probably right that Edward V died of natural causes, but neither of them were imprisoned. They lived in the royal apartments.
>
> --- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@> wrote:
> >
> > However, I have been wondering if the princes couldn´t have died of natural causes. In medieval times was the rate of mortality of adolescents very high. It would almost been marvellous if they had survived their imprisonment in good health.
> >
> > Marion Z
> >
> > --- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I found your message a very interesting read and it made many things clearer to me. It´s interesting, the more I know about RIchard III the more I find him a thoroughly agreable person.
> > >
> > > Marion Z
> > >
> > > --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Headed by Elizabeth Woodville, the large Woodville family was indeed dangerous to Richard and they didn't waste any time in that they tried to reduce the powers of the protectorship almost immediately after the death of Edward IV.
> > > >
> > > > Richard's reaction against them was entirely legal and morally justifiable, but, inevitably, in the process he upset Edward V: it's on record that the 12 year old was in tears about the removal of his maternal uncle Rivers, who had acted as tutor and surrogate father to him in Ludlow and Edward's half-brother Grey. Richard Gloucester he barely knew. Edward V, as partly Woodville, naturally supported his mother Elizabeth Woodville, who probably wanted to act as Queen Regent. This placed Richard Gloucester in extreme danger, life threateningly so. Hadn't the Woodvilles hastened the end of Richard's brother Clarence? Richard III had no choice other than to seize the throne for the sake of his own survival and for that of his family and friends.
> > > >
> > > > People have been puzzled about the princes for a long time. And in a court of law there really is no evidence to prove who killed them or if anyone did. They were a potential rival and danger to Richard III, Buckingham or Tudor or anyone who wanted the crown. So motive for their demise could rest with any of these. Had they not been 12 and 9 - all say Ahhhhh! – their disappearance wouldn't have been surprising or likely to arouse sympathy, but that they were an extreme danger, remained. The deaths of Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI didn't seem to elicit the same amount of concern.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose given the fact that Richard III toppled them from power, he saw the danger of them – he was a fool if he didn't – and had the opportunity to eliminate them and he never formally denied it in the teeth of open rumours about their deaths, i.e. from the Chancellor of France in April, 1484, it was inevitable that suspicion would be applied to him.. Hasn't it just! He probably believed they were bastards and would've been bastards, as individuals bent on violent revenge to him, if they'd ever escaped from the Tower. You know, Woodville can mean `Would evil' and that probably triggered Richard's reaction, natural from someone, steeped in military action, whose father and two brothers; Rutland and Clarence had died violent deaths. But Elizabeth Woodville, in a frequent vanity of vanities attitude from beautiful and powerful women, had triggered the reaction. I've read about her funeral at Windsor. How miserably poorly attended it was. A natural reaction to someone who had caused the disaster of Edward V and Richard III. Dorset, Elizabeth's tool in trying to deny Richard his rightful powerful position as protector, was the main mourner!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Reharding the cutting down: A logical reaction after what I have read of the enthusiasm and ambition of the Woodvilles. I don´t think that another king in a similiar situation would have acted much different. The Woodvilles were a dangerous force which one must not underestimate.
> > > > >
> > > > > I smiled when I read that you called Buckingham a "ratbag", surely a fitting term. With allies like that who needs enemies?
> > > > >
> > > > > Still I am puzzled regarding the princes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marion Z
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard certainly was jumpy about Tudor, hence the execution by `hanging, drawing and quartering' of Collingbourne: a servant of Richard's mother, so with Tudor declaring his intention to marry Elizabeth of York (didn't this suggest that Tudor was suggesting the princes were no more?) and given the rumours circulating: Croyland, the Great Chronicle of London and Mancini who may've prompted the Chancellor of France to directly accuse Richard III of the deaths of his nephews, to have produced the `bastards in the Tower' would've dispelled such damaging publicity for Richard or at least he could've blamed the ratbag Buckingham?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This `bad publicity', however, misses the point. The Woodvilles started the problem by, greedily, trying to reduce Richard's power from the start and Richard, an able, military man, reacted by cutting them down to size: Elizabeth Woodville was forced into sanctuary, Dorset fled, Hastings, who was probably a turncoat against Richard, and Rivers and Grey, who, as uncle and half brother to Edward V, the 12 year old naturally supported. Richard swept away some or all of them to protect himself and his affinity and who can blame him?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
> > > > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > > > > Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > > > > > > > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> > > > > > > >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> > > > > > > >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> > > > > > > >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> > > > > > > >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> > > > > > > >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> > > > > > > >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> > > > > > > >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> > > > > > > >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > > > > > > > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> > > > > > > >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> > > > > > > >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> > > > > > > >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> > > > > > > >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> > > > > > > >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> > > > > > > >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> > > > > > > >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> > > > > > > >high treason.
> > > > > > > > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> > > > > > > >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> > > > > > > >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> > > > > > > >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> > > > > > > >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> > > > > > > >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> > > > > > > >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> > > > > > > >have worked, too.
> > > > > > > > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> > > > > > > >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> > > > > > > >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> > > > > > > >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> > > > > > > >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> > > > > > > >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> > > > > > > >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> > > > > > > >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> > > > > > > >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > > > > > > > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> > > > > > > >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> > > > > > > >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> > > > > > > >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> > > > > > > >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> > > > > > > >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> > > > > > > >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> > > > > > > >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > > > > > > > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> > > > > > > >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> > > > > > > >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> > > > > > > >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> > > > > > > >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> > > > > > > >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> > > > > > > >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> > > > > > > >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> > > > > > > >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> > > > > > > >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> > > > > > > >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> > > > > > > >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> > > > > > > >possible.
> > > > > > > > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> > > > > > > >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> > > > > > > >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> > > > > > > >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> > > > > > > >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > > > > > > > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> > > > > > > >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> > > > > > > >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> > > > > > > >and with plenty of references for further study.
> > > > > > > >Doug
> > > > > > > >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > >From: "HI" <hi.dung@>
> > > > > > > >To: <>
> > > > > > > >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> > > > > > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi, Hi,

I had no problem with "Would Evil." For all we know, Richard and his friends sat about making similar puns and jests, based on names. As I suggested to a dear friend, one of the convenient features of the English language is this flexibility. Of course, the downside is how difficult it is to learn, once you're an adult. [A bravo to all our non-native writers of English on this Forum; I could never do even 1/100th as well in your languages!]

We can manage "word play" in English without violating the rules of meaning; for hundreds of years, there was no Standard spelling, and even the meanings themselves were loose and hazy. I just thought you to be indulging in what Shakespeare did constantly....

We're not even sure of the true derivation of "wyd." Using it as "wood" is no less of a stretch. 

I suppose if you'd said something disagreeable about someone I liked, I might have felt more emotionally invested. 

But personally, I suspect Edward V would have been a role model for the Joffrey character in Game of Thrones. Ain't speculating fun?

Judy,
sitting on the Bed of Marvels of de Troyes, in anticipation of a slough/slew (?) of arrows and bolts
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: HI <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones


 
We don't really know how they died, except that they are bound to be dead by now. I once jokingly suggested that a plague of ravenous voles from the Thames could've consumed them in their sleep. Who knows? I find that there's too much sentimentality about the princes. Their rapacious and vain mother, by immediately trying to reduce Richard's rightful power as protector, caused their problem and, no doubt, if they had escaped from the Tower, Richard III and his family and friends would've faced the block or something worse. The romantic view of Edward V as a golden-haired, blue-eyed angel should be morphed into what he was likely to become: maybe like his uncle Clarence or father Edward IV or nephew Henry VIII, who could be extremely nasty if upset. Edward V was dangerous and probably anyone who wanted the crown wasn't too worried if he died early.

My `would evil' comment referred to the fact that Elizabeth Woodville and her large family had facilitated the execution of Clarence: Richard III's brother. Their quick greedy grasping for regency powers over Edward V didn't bode well fro Richard and, not being a fool, he probably saw they the Woodvilles `would cause evil' for him if allowed. Wasn't it Hastings who warned Richard about them and advised him to take strong action, which he did? Unfortunately, in attacking the schemes of Elizabeth Woodville, he accidentally alienated her son: Edward V. Hastings probably didn't foresee the consequences of his advice to Richard to move against the Woodvilles and tried, too late, to change sides. He lost his head in the advice and later on the block. So, Richard struck them down, something he'd been doing against enemies since the battle of Barnet in 1471.

--- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> You are probably right that Edward V died of natural causes, but neither of them were imprisoned. They lived in the royal apartments.
>
> --- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@> wrote:
> >
> > However, I have been wondering if the princes couldn´t have died of natural causes. In medieval times was the rate of mortality of adolescents very high. It would almost been marvellous if they had survived their imprisonment in good health.
> >
> > Marion Z
> >
> > --- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I found your message a very interesting read and it made many things clearer to me. It´s interesting, the more I know about RIchard III the more I find him a thoroughly agreable person.
> > >
> > > Marion Z
> > >
> > > --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Headed by Elizabeth Woodville, the large Woodville family was indeed dangerous to Richard and they didn't waste any time in that they tried to reduce the powers of the protectorship almost immediately after the death of Edward IV.
> > > >
> > > > Richard's reaction against them was entirely legal and morally justifiable, but, inevitably, in the process he upset Edward V: it's on record that the 12 year old was in tears about the removal of his maternal uncle Rivers, who had acted as tutor and surrogate father to him in Ludlow and Edward's half-brother Grey. Richard Gloucester he barely knew. Edward V, as partly Woodville, naturally supported his mother Elizabeth Woodville, who probably wanted to act as Queen Regent. This placed Richard Gloucester in extreme danger, life threateningly so. Hadn't the Woodvilles hastened the end of Richard's brother Clarence? Richard III had no choice other than to seize the throne for the sake of his own survival and for that of his family and friends.
> > > >
> > > > People have been puzzled about the princes for a long time. And in a court of law there really is no evidence to prove who killed them or if anyone did. They were a potential rival and danger to Richard III, Buckingham or Tudor or anyone who wanted the crown. So motive for their demise could rest with any of these. Had they not been 12 and 9 - all say Ahhhhh!  their disappearance wouldn't have been surprising or likely to arouse sympathy, but that they were an extreme danger, remained. The deaths of Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI didn't seem to elicit the same amount of concern.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose given the fact that Richard III toppled them from power, he saw the danger of them  he was a fool if he didn't  and had the opportunity to eliminate them and he never formally denied it in the teeth of open rumours about their deaths, i.e. from the Chancellor of France in April, 1484, it was inevitable that suspicion would be applied to him.. Hasn't it just! He probably believed they were bastards and would've been bastards, as individuals bent on violent revenge to him, if they'd ever escaped from the Tower. You know, Woodville can mean `Would evil' and that probably triggered Richard's reaction, natural from someone, steeped in military action, whose father and two brothers; Rutland and Clarence had died violent deaths. But Elizabeth Woodville, in a frequent vanity of vanities attitude from beautiful and powerful women, had triggered the reaction. I've read about her funeral at Windsor. How miserably poorly attended it was.
A natural reaction to someone who had caused the disaster of Edward V and Richard III. Dorset, Elizabeth's tool in trying to deny Richard his rightful powerful position as protector, was the main mourner!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Reharding the cutting down: A logical reaction after what I have read of the enthusiasm and ambition of the Woodvilles. I don´t think that another king in a similiar situation would have acted much different. The Woodvilles were a dangerous force which one must not underestimate.
> > > > >
> > > > > I smiled when I read that you called Buckingham a "ratbag", surely a fitting term. With allies like that who needs enemies?
> > > > >
> > > > > Still I am puzzled regarding the princes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marion Z
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard certainly was jumpy about Tudor, hence the execution by `hanging, drawing and quartering' of Collingbourne: a servant of Richard's mother, so with Tudor declaring his intention to marry Elizabeth of York (didn't this suggest that Tudor was suggesting the princes were no more?) and given the rumours circulating: Croyland, the Great Chronicle of London and Mancini who may've prompted the Chancellor of France to directly accuse Richard III of the deaths of his nephews, to have produced the `bastards in the Tower' would've dispelled such damaging publicity for Richard or at least he could've blamed the ratbag Buckingham?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This `bad publicity', however, misses the point. The Woodvilles started the problem by, greedily, trying to reduce Richard's power from the start and Richard, an able, military man, reacted by cutting them down to size: Elizabeth Woodville was forced into sanctuary, Dorset fled, Hastings, who was probably a turncoat against Richard, and Rivers and Grey, who, as uncle and half brother to Edward V, the 12 year old naturally supported. Richard swept away some or all of them to protect himself and his affinity and who can blame him?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
> > > > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > > > > Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > > > > > > > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> > > > > > > >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> > > > > > > >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> > > > > > > >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> > > > > > > >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> > > > > > > >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> > > > > > > >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> > > > > > > >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> > > > > > > >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > > > > > > > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> > > > > > > >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> > > > > > > >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> > > > > > > >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> > > > > > > >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> > > > > > > >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> > > > > > > >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> > > > > > > >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> > > > > > > >high treason.
> > > > > > > > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> > > > > > > >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> > > > > > > >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> > > > > > > >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> > > > > > > >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> > > > > > > >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> > > > > > > >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> > > > > > > >have worked, too.
> > > > > > > > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> > > > > > > >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> > > > > > > >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> > > > > > > >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> > > > > > > >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> > > > > > > >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> > > > > > > >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> > > > > > > >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> > > > > > > >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > > > > > > > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> > > > > > > >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> > > > > > > >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> > > > > > > >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> > > > > > > >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> > > > > > > >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> > > > > > > >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> > > > > > > >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > > > > > > > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> > > > > > > >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> > > > > > > >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> > > > > > > >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> > > > > > > >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> > > > > > > >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> > > > > > > >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> > > > > > > >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> > > > > > > >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> > > > > > > >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> > > > > > > >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> > > > > > > >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> > > > > > > >possible.
> > > > > > > > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> > > > > > > >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> > > > > > > >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> > > > > > > >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> > > > > > > >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > > > > > > > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> > > > > > > >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> > > > > > > >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> > > > > > > >and with plenty of references for further study.
> > > > > > > >Doug
> > > > > > > >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > >From: "HI" <hi.dung@>
> > > > > > > >To: <>
> > > > > > > >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> > > > > > > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I see that my reasonable suggestion that we don't casually defame people has
fallen on deaf ears. I can't say that I understand how anyone who feels
strongly enough about the words written about one person (Richard III) to
join a society in his name can continually say and write far worse things
about other people, and on no evidence whatsoever. Elizabeth Wydeville was a
mother and a queen, what was she supposed to do when her son was deposed?
Say 'It's a fair cop' and bow out of the picture? I know I wouldn't in
similar circumstances. And why wouldn't a queen mother put herself forward
as a possible regent? (Though I haven't come across anything to suggest that
she wanted to be regent.) Margaret of Anjou made a similar bid during Henry
VI's first long bout of illness. But, I guess there's another woman defamed
and vilified at every turnŠ

I'm quite sure that if Queen Anne Nevill and her son had lived beyond
Bosworth, she'd be praised to the heavens for any attempt she made to get
young Edward onto the throne in place of Henry VII. So why not praise, or at
the very least respect, Elizabeth Wydeville for the same? That doesn't mean
I think she was innocent and pure ­ nobody was at that time. I agree that
the Wydevilles were foursquare behind the charges against Clarence being
upped to treason, but Richard himself was responsible for the not strictly
lawful executions of four men before he took the throne. None of them, as I
said, was squeaky clean. I was first a member of this society some thirty
years ago and let my membership lapse because I couldn't quite reconcile the
calls to rehabilitate Richard with the defamation of all those other people
who were, like him, just trying to survive, just trying to get, or hold
onto, what they thought was theirs. I've recently rejoined the Society and
find the members of my branch much more balanced in their views than was my
previous experience. I rather like that!

Karen

From: HI <hi.dung@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:48:51 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones






We don't really know how they died, except that they are bound to be dead by
now. I once jokingly suggested that a plague of ravenous voles from the
Thames could've consumed them in their sleep. Who knows? I find that
there's too much sentimentality about the princes. Their rapacious and vain
mother, by immediately trying to reduce Richard's rightful power as
protector, caused their problem and, no doubt, if they had escaped from the
Tower, Richard III and his family and friends would've faced the block or
something worse. The romantic view of Edward V as a golden-haired,
blue-eyed angel should be morphed into what he was likely to become: maybe
like his uncle Clarence or father Edward IV or nephew Henry VIII, who could
be extremely nasty if upset. Edward V was dangerous and probably anyone
who wanted the crown wasn't too worried if he died early.

My `would evil' comment referred to the fact that Elizabeth Woodville and
her large family had facilitated the execution of Clarence: Richard III's
brother. Their quick greedy grasping for regency powers over Edward V
didn't bode well fro Richard and, not being a fool, he probably saw they the
Woodvilles `would cause evil' for him if allowed. Wasn't it Hastings who
warned Richard about them and advised him to take strong action, which he
did? Unfortunately, in attacking the schemes of Elizabeth Woodville, he
accidentally alienated her son: Edward V. Hastings probably didn't foresee
the consequences of his advice to Richard to move against the Woodvilles and
tried, too late, to change sides. He lost his head in the advice and later
on the block. So, Richard struck them down, something he'd been doing
against enemies since the battle of Barnet in 1471.
,_._,___

Judy

I don't have a problem with wordplay. I did have a problem with 'Woodville
can also mean 'would evil'" when it simply doesn't. As a linguist with many
years of studying, researching and teaching behind me, I find folk etymology
to be quite frustrating. Suggesting that 'wyd' might have derived from
'wood' is far more likely than 'woodville' coming from 'would evil'.
Whatever the 'wyd' might have meant, the 'ville' bit does point to a place
name origin.

Personally, I think Edward V would have turned out just exactly as he would
have turned out ­ and no-one knows what that might have been.

Karen

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones






Hi, Hi,

I had no problem with "Would Evil." For all we know, Richard and his friends
sat about making similar puns and jests, based on names. As I suggested to a
dear friend, one of the convenient features of the English language is this
flexibility. Of course, the downside is how difficult it is to learn, once
you're an adult. [A bravo to all our non-native writers of English on this
Forum; I could never do even 1/100th as well in your languages!]

We can manage "word play" in English without violating the rules of meaning;
for hundreds of years, there was no Standard spelling, and even the meanings
themselves were loose and hazy. I just thought you to be indulging in what
Shakespeare did constantly....

We're not even sure of the true derivation of "wyd." Using it as "wood" is
no less of a stretch.

I suppose if you'd said something disagreeable about someone I liked, I
might have felt more emotionally invested.

But personally, I suspect Edward V would have been a role model for the
Joffrey character in Game of Thrones. Ain't speculating fun?

Judy,
sitting on the Bed of Marvels of de Troyes, in anticipation of a slough/slew
(?) of arrows and bolts

Loyaulte me lie

Karen, you get the last word. Enjoy! ;-)
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones


 
Judy

I don't have a problem with wordplay. I did have a problem with 'Woodville
can also mean 'would evil'" when it simply doesn't. As a linguist with many
years of studying, researching and teaching behind me, I find folk etymology
to be quite frustrating. Suggesting that 'wyd' might have derived from
'wood' is far more likely than 'woodville' coming from 'would evil'.
Whatever the 'wyd' might have meant, the 'ville' bit does point to a place
name origin.

Personally, I think Edward V would have turned out just exactly as he would
have turned out ­ and no-one knows what that might have been.

Karen

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones

Hi, Hi,

I had no problem with "Would Evil." For all we know, Richard and his friends
sat about making similar puns and jests, based on names. As I suggested to a
dear friend, one of the convenient features of the English language is this
flexibility. Of course, the downside is how difficult it is to learn, once
you're an adult. [A bravo to all our non-native writers of English on this
Forum; I could never do even 1/100th as well in your languages!]

We can manage "word play" in English without violating the rules of meaning;
for hundreds of years, there was no Standard spelling, and even the meanings
themselves were loose and hazy. I just thought you to be indulging in what
Shakespeare did constantly....

We're not even sure of the true derivation of "wyd." Using it as "wood" is
no less of a stretch.

I suppose if you'd said something disagreeable about someone I liked, I
might have felt more emotionally invested.

But personally, I suspect Edward V would have been a role model for the
Joffrey character in Game of Thrones. Ain't speculating fun?

Judy,
sitting on the Bed of Marvels of de Troyes, in anticipation of a slough/slew
(?) of arrows and bolts

Loyaulte me lie

Judy,
;)
Vickie

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones


 
Karen, you get the last word. Enjoy! ;-)
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones


 
Judy

I don't have a problem with wordplay. I did have a problem with 'Woodville
can also mean 'would evil'" when it simply doesn't. As a linguist with many
years of studying, researching and teaching behind me, I find folk etymology
to be quite frustrating. Suggesting that 'wyd' might have derived from
'wood' is far more likely than 'woodville' coming from 'would evil'.
Whatever the 'wyd' might have meant, the 'ville' bit does point to a place
name origin.

Personally, I think Edward V would have turned out just exactly as he would
have turned out ­ and no-one knows what that might have been.

Karen

From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Dean of Westminster on those
bones

Hi, Hi,

I had no problem with "Would Evil." For all we know, Richard and his friends
sat about making similar puns and jests, based on names. As I suggested to a
dear friend, one of the convenient features of the English language is this
flexibility. Of course, the downside is how difficult it is to learn, once
you're an adult. [A bravo to all our non-native writers of English on this
Forum; I could never do even 1/100th as well in your languages!]

We can manage "word play" in English without violating the rules of meaning;
for hundreds of years, there was no Standard spelling, and even the meanings
themselves were loose and hazy. I just thought you to be indulging in what
Shakespeare did constantly....

We're not even sure of the true derivation of "wyd." Using it as "wood" is
no less of a stretch.

I suppose if you'd said something disagreeable about someone I liked, I
might have felt more emotionally invested.

But personally, I suspect Edward V would have been a role model for the
Joffrey character in Game of Thrones. Ain't speculating fun?

Judy,
sitting on the Bed of Marvels of de Troyes, in anticipation of a slough/slew
(?) of arrows and bolts

Loyaulte me lie

Back in action after a long absence from home, and I'm still interested in assembling clues about Northumberland's position at Bosworth. As I've pointed out many times before, Northumberland's loyalties seem equivocal since he was found to be in correspondence with Henry Tudor in early 1485 (i.e. after Richard proclaimed him a traitor) when Tudor was looking for an alternative bride.

I have no difficulty imagining that any number of inconvenient lives were terminated, whether by poison or otherwise, during the turmoil of the later 15th century. The perpetrator did not need to be present in person, of course. I was interested in theories about Edward IV's death, which aroused mystery and suspicion from the moment it happened. How many more deaths, or murders, took place without giving rise to comment in the few surviving records we have?

Historians write (and speak on TV) as if they know all the answers, but a moment's reflection makes it clear that we know very little. Mike Jones wrote a whole book about one theory, and Peter Hancock wrote a whole book about another one. Yet mainstream historians still keep repeating the same stuff they learned from previous mainstream historians. I personally think we'll never make progress unless we are free to air conflicting, even unpopular ideas and speculations, and discuss them rationally, which I've always enjoyed doing on this forum.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones



I have wondered Annette about Michael Jones' theory about the Battle of Bosworth. Looking at the various maps his battle site isn't a million miles away from the site described by Peter Foss and where Glen Foard found his silver boar. In Michael Jones' scenario Northumberland appears to be guarding the road to London. Is it possible that Richard ordered him to do so and not to move in case Tudor made a run for London. I am certainly not an expert in medieval warfare but I also wonder why Tudor turned East to do battle with Richard when he was so close to the London road. We know that he was at Atherstone because he met the Stanleys there.

As for MB being responsible for Edward of Middleham's death it is a theory of Jenny Powys Lybbe, as is R. E Collins' theory about Edward IV being poisoned. However,in my opinion, they are as valid as those of traditionalist historians that state categorically that Richard definitely killed the Princes. "Maligned King" has done a huge amount to show that there is evidence out there to prove that Richard acted in line with the law at the time and that some of the things that traditionalists accuse him of just were not true. As we will never really be able to prove whether the Princes even died in 1483 - 1484, we will never prove that Edward of Middleham was murdered as we don't know where he is buried and even if we could we probably couldn't prove who did it. However, it is good to speculate on and possibly research what could have happened and shine a light on the actions of Lady Margaret Beaufort during those years.

--- In , Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.
>
> I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
> Regards, Annette
> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>
> Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
>
> > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> >high treason.
> > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> >have worked, too.
> > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> >possible.
> > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> >and with plenty of references for further study.
> >Doug
> >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "HI" <hi.dung@...>
> >To: <>
> >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hi Annette

Have a look at my new book. I have gone back to basics and ignored all the previous historians work. I have instead started from where the site of the battle has now been proved to be, and matched the chronicles to this and drawn some different conclusions!

Best

Mike Ingram

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Back in action after a long absence from home, and I'm still interested in assembling clues about Northumberland's position at Bosworth. As I've pointed out many times before, Northumberland's loyalties seem equivocal since he was found to be in correspondence with Henry Tudor in early 1485 (i.e. after Richard proclaimed him a traitor) when Tudor was looking for an alternative bride.
>
> I have no difficulty imagining that any number of inconvenient lives were terminated, whether by poison or otherwise, during the turmoil of the later 15th century. The perpetrator did not need to be present in person, of course. I was interested in theories about Edward IV's death, which aroused mystery and suspicion from the moment it happened. How many more deaths, or murders, took place without giving rise to comment in the few surviving records we have?
>
> Historians write (and speak on TV) as if they know all the answers, but a moment's reflection makes it clear that we know very little. Mike Jones wrote a whole book about one theory, and Peter Hancock wrote a whole book about another one. Yet mainstream historians still keep repeating the same stuff they learned from previous mainstream historians. I personally think we'll never make progress unless we are free to air conflicting, even unpopular ideas and speculations, and discuss them rationally, which I've always enjoyed doing on this forum.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
>
>
>
> I have wondered Annette about Michael Jones' theory about the Battle of Bosworth. Looking at the various maps his battle site isn't a million miles away from the site described by Peter Foss and where Glen Foard found his silver boar. In Michael Jones' scenario Northumberland appears to be guarding the road to London. Is it possible that Richard ordered him to do so and not to move in case Tudor made a run for London. I am certainly not an expert in medieval warfare but I also wonder why Tudor turned East to do battle with Richard when he was so close to the London road. We know that he was at Atherstone because he met the Stanleys there.
>
> As for MB being responsible for Edward of Middleham's death it is a theory of Jenny Powys Lybbe, as is R. E Collins' theory about Edward IV being poisoned. However,in my opinion, they are as valid as those of traditionalist historians that state categorically that Richard definitely killed the Princes. "Maligned King" has done a huge amount to show that there is evidence out there to prove that Richard acted in line with the law at the time and that some of the things that traditionalists accuse him of just were not true. As we will never really be able to prove whether the Princes even died in 1483 - 1484, we will never prove that Edward of Middleham was murdered as we don't know where he is buried and even if we could we probably couldn't prove who did it. However, it is good to speculate on and possibly research what could have happened and shine a light on the actions of Lady Margaret Beaufort during those years.
>
> --- In , Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> > A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.
> >
> > I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
> > Regards, Annette
> > Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
> >
> > Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@> wrote:
> >
> > > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> > >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> > >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> > >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> > >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> > >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> > >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> > >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> > >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> > >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> > >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> > >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> > >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> > >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> > >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> > >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> > >high treason.
> > > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> > >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> > >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> > >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> > >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> > >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> > >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> > >have worked, too.
> > > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> > >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> > >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> > >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> > >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> > >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> > >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> > >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> > >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> > >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> > >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> > >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> > >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> > >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> > >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> > >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> > >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> > >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> > >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> > >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> > >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> > >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> > >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> > >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> > >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> > >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> > >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> > >possible.
> > > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> > >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> > >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> > >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> > >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> > >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> > >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> > >and with plenty of references for further study.
> > >Doug
> > >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "HI" <hi.dung@>
> > >To: <>
> > >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Mike - Yes, I have bought your book, although I'm afraid it's been added to a long queue of reading matter - the penalty of being such an avid bibliophile!
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: mikeingram2000
To:
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones



Hi Annette

Have a look at my new book. I have gone back to basics and ignored all the previous historians work. I have instead started from where the site of the battle has now been proved to be, and matched the chronicles to this and drawn some different conclusions!

Best

Mike Ingram

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Back in action after a long absence from home, and I'm still interested in assembling clues about Northumberland's position at Bosworth. As I've pointed out many times before, Northumberland's loyalties seem equivocal since he was found to be in correspondence with Henry Tudor in early 1485 (i.e. after Richard proclaimed him a traitor) when Tudor was looking for an alternative bride.
>
> I have no difficulty imagining that any number of inconvenient lives were terminated, whether by poison or otherwise, during the turmoil of the later 15th century. The perpetrator did not need to be present in person, of course. I was interested in theories about Edward IV's death, which aroused mystery and suspicion from the moment it happened. How many more deaths, or murders, took place without giving rise to comment in the few surviving records we have?
>
> Historians write (and speak on TV) as if they know all the answers, but a moment's reflection makes it clear that we know very little. Mike Jones wrote a whole book about one theory, and Peter Hancock wrote a whole book about another one. Yet mainstream historians still keep repeating the same stuff they learned from previous mainstream historians. I personally think we'll never make progress unless we are free to air conflicting, even unpopular ideas and speculations, and discuss them rationally, which I've always enjoyed doing on this forum.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
>
>
>
> I have wondered Annette about Michael Jones' theory about the Battle of Bosworth. Looking at the various maps his battle site isn't a million miles away from the site described by Peter Foss and where Glen Foard found his silver boar. In Michael Jones' scenario Northumberland appears to be guarding the road to London. Is it possible that Richard ordered him to do so and not to move in case Tudor made a run for London. I am certainly not an expert in medieval warfare but I also wonder why Tudor turned East to do battle with Richard when he was so close to the London road. We know that he was at Atherstone because he met the Stanleys there.
>
> As for MB being responsible for Edward of Middleham's death it is a theory of Jenny Powys Lybbe, as is R. E Collins' theory about Edward IV being poisoned. However,in my opinion, they are as valid as those of traditionalist historians that state categorically that Richard definitely killed the Princes. "Maligned King" has done a huge amount to show that there is evidence out there to prove that Richard acted in line with the law at the time and that some of the things that traditionalists accuse him of just were not true. As we will never really be able to prove whether the Princes even died in 1483 - 1484, we will never prove that Edward of Middleham was murdered as we don't know where he is buried and even if we could we probably couldn't prove who did it. However, it is good to speculate on and possibly research what could have happened and shine a light on the actions of Lady Margaret Beaufort during those years.
>
> --- In , Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> > A masterly summary, and thanks for your kind words. To HI, may I also add the reassurance that Collyngbourne was not executed for his rhyme, but for sending messages to the Tudors which gave support and assistance to their plans to invade England. It is interesting that there were so few such arrests/executions after the October 1483 rebellion was put down (I know of no other), which in itself suggests that people considered Richard was doing OK.
> >
> > I was talking only yesterday to some of the Bosworth battlefield guides who advanced the same theory about Northumberland, which is a good one, and I plan to investigate it further. The big problem is nobody knows where his array was located, and the marsh seems to interfere with direct access to the Stanley array. Any ideas?
> > Regards, Annette
> > Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
> >
> > Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@> wrote:
> >
> > > HI, just a few thoughts on your post:
> > > Any ambitions of Margaret Beaufort for her son are not in dispute; what IS
> > >in dispute is what she DID to realize those ambitions. From the few records
> > >available it seems clear she helped organize two rebellions against Richard.
> > >That alone would have gotten any male executed, apparently what protected
> > >her from what seems to me to have been a well-deserved fate was her gender.
> > >As to her poisoning anyone, I know of nothing either in support of such an
> > >accusation or against EXCEPT the actions of Margaret Beaufort herself, which
> > >leads me to believe she was certainly capable of such an action, but whether
> > >she ever DID poison anyone is unknown.
> > > As to the "murder" of Richard's nephews, too many historians seem to take
> > >"rumor" for "fact"; ie, any mention of such a thing MUST mean that said
> > >thing, in this case the murder of his nephews, occurred. I'd like to call to
> > >your attention the fact that the ONLY "rebellion" supposedly aimed at
> > >returning Edward V to the throne, failed miserably. Then there's also the
> > >fact that any plot that aimed at the death of Richard while he was Protector
> > >was ALSO high treason and punishable by death. After he assumed the throne,
> > >of course, any attempt against either Richard's life OR rule, would also be
> > >high treason.
> > > IF, as claimed by Tudor (and later) historians, Edward V and his brother
> > >remaining alive was such a dire threat to Richard, what threat would their
> > >being alive be to Henry VII? Was he going to give up the throne he'd managed
> > >via treachery to seat himself on? If Edward and Richard WERE still alive,
> > >the only way for Henry to remain on the throne he'd usurped, was exactly by
> > >the methods adopted: first claim the two had been killed BEFORE Henry took
> > >the crown and then deny the legitimatecy of any "pretenders". It seems to
> > >have worked, too.
> > > The "denial" of any intentions to wed his niece was made by Richard, as I
> > >understand it, to silence those who were spreading such rumors. As you
> > >noted, her illegitimatecy ruled her out as a suitable candidate for Richard,
> > >but NOT for someone who claimed she wasn't illegitimate - someone such as
> > >Henry Tudor. It appears as if you may be making the same mistake many others
> > >have - WE know what happened, we know that Tudor overthrew Richard and
> > >married Elizabeth of York - Richard didn't. From what actually occurred it
> > >seems safe to say that Richard didn't make a show of his nephews still being
> > >alive because the threat in December 1483 from Tudor was non-existent.
> > > Tudor won at Bosworth through treachery, plain and simple. The force Tudor
> > >"led" consisted of mercenaries, French troops and some Welsh gathered after
> > >his landing. The ONLY English forces that fought for him were those led by
> > >Stanley. It was the betrayal of Northumberland, in my opinion, that allowed
> > >Stanley to ensure Richard's death. Once Richard was personally involved in
> > >battle, I could see him losing sight of the "big picture", but NOT before.
> > >Any idea of Richard galloping into battle in a "do or die" attempt, simply
> > >doesn't square with what is actually known about the man.
> > > What does fit is that Richard entered into the battle leading enough troops
> > >to defeat the forces his troops were engaged with AT THAT POINT.
> > >Northumberland, again in my opinion, was left behind, whether on Ambion Hill
> > >or at some other position, to act as a check on any attempt by Stanley to
> > >interfere in the battle. If Stanley attempted to move towards the battle,
> > >Northumberland was to lead HIS troops against Stanley's. However, unknown to
> > >Richard, Northumberland, while not willing to be seen ACTIVELY committing
> > >treason, he was more than willing to hold his own troops back and watch as
> > >Richard was killed when Stanley led HIS troops into the battle on Tudor's
> > >side. The only question remaining, as far as I'm concerned presently, is
> > >whether or not Northumberland encouraged Richard himself enter the battle.
> > >From what little I currently know about the Earl, it certainly seems
> > >possible.
> > > As to Richard's not stating clearly that Buckingham killed Edward and
> > >Richard (they were ALSO Buckingham's nephews), perhaps it was because
> > >Richard KNEW that Buckingham HADN'T killed them because they were still
> > >alive? This is not to say that Buckingham may not have tried to have them
> > >killed and failed; Buckingham was, remember, in line for the throne...
> > > Sorry for the length, but I don't want to end before recommending Annette
> > >Carson's "The Maligned King" and Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the
> > >Princes". Both are excellent summations of what is known, well-documented
> > >and with plenty of references for further study.
> > >Doug
> > >(who finally found out WHY he couldn't send any emails)
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "HI" <hi.dung@>
> > >To: <>
> > >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> > >Subject: Re: Dean of Westminster on those bones
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>