Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?

To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?

I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.  


Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.







________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?


 
To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?

Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.

Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.

--- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>
> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.  
>
>
> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
Paul



On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:

> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
>
> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
>
> --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>>
>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
>>
>>
>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>>
>>
>> Â
>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Buckingham was the one who had the all-important task of determining whether Lord Hastings had enlisted in the conspiracy that resulted in the latter's execution, wasn't he? Same guy? Am I remembering this correctly? I recall being surprised about Richard's decision to put Buckingham in charge of the investigation because Hastings was an old family friend and he hadn't known Buckingham for long, which made his loyalty, his brains, and his abilities unknown quantities.

If so, this is right in line with what Mackintosh ("Josephine Tey") called Richard's magnanimity, remarking shortly, "It didn't work." Buckingham's defection resulted in Richard's stinging assessment of Buckingham as "him that had best cause to be true... the most untrue creature living." It sounds to me as though the worst part of dealing with the rebellion for Richard was seeing how his friendship had been answered.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
>
> > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> >
> > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> >
> > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Actually there's no historical record of anyone being put in charge of any investigation into Hastings. Dominic Mancini, who was in London at the time, writes that Richard sounded out the loyalty of Hastings, Rotherham and Morton "through the duke of Buckingham" and learned that "sometimes they forgathered in each other's houses". (We don't know how Mancini came by such interesting information.)

Of the events of 13 June Mancini says that Richard "cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him" whereupon soldiers rushed in with Buckingham, cut down Hastings and arrested the others. Again we don't know how Mancini came by this information, and he is wrong on at least two counts: he describes the presence of the group as coming to "pay a customary call" on Richard, rather than actually being there to attend a council meeting; and he is also wrong in saying that Hastings was "cut down" - in fact he was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded.

What Mancini WAS in a position to know was that in order to calm the people of London the protector immediately issued a public proclamation - "that a plot had been detected in the citadel and Hastings, as the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty; wherefore he bade them all be reassured." Mancini then editorializes to the effect that although the crowd believed this "initially", "the real truth was on the lips of many" that it was simply an excuse (again he doesn't confide in us how this "real truth" was known, or who sowed the seeds of disbelief in Richard's proclamation).

The Crowland Chronicle simply reports "when he came to the council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded". This is followed by the remark "these two dukes thereafter did whatever they wanted".

There is also a MS known as 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen', assessed as being copies made in about 1512-13 of 15th-century originals of which the only clue to their date is that there is a reference to Henry Tudor's marriage to "King Edward's eldest daughter whose name is Elizabeth", so she was still alive when the writing was originally committed to paper, i.e. pre-1503. These notes state: "... ther was dyuers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyed [discovered] and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith" (with no editorializing as to this being merely a cover story).

To the best of my knowledge there is no other reasonably contemporaneous report of Hastings's demise. All other written material we have about these events, and Buckingham's role in them, dates to the Tudor regime, at least 30 years later (which may also be considered the appropriate date to assign to the 'Historical Notes'). Even so, I can't call to mind a Tudor-era story about Buckingham being given the charge of investigating Hastings's role in the conspiracy. Does this perhaps come from Josephine Tey's 'Inspector Grant' mystery?
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?



Buckingham was the one who had the all-important task of determining whether Lord Hastings had enlisted in the conspiracy that resulted in the latter's execution, wasn't he? Same guy? Am I remembering this correctly? I recall being surprised about Richard's decision to put Buckingham in charge of the investigation because Hastings was an old family friend and he hadn't known Buckingham for long, which made his loyalty, his brains, and his abilities unknown quantities.

If so, this is right in line with what Mackintosh ("Josephine Tey") called Richard's magnanimity, remarking shortly, "It didn't work." Buckingham's defection resulted in Richard's stinging assessment of Buckingham as "him that had best cause to be true... the most untrue creature living." It sounds to me as though the worst part of dealing with the rebellion for Richard was seeing how his friendship had been answered.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
>
> > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> >
> > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> >
> > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?

Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
>
> > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> >
> > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> >
> > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

And all of this begs the question of Richard's lack of widespread support; since he removed Edward V fromt he throne, Richard couldn't even call upon the support of all of the Yorkists, much less the Lancastrians.

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> Buckingham was the one who had the all-important task of determining whether Lord Hastings had enlisted in the conspiracy that resulted in the latter's execution, wasn't he? Same guy? Am I remembering this correctly? I recall being surprised about Richard's decision to put Buckingham in charge of the investigation because Hastings was an old family friend and he hadn't known Buckingham for long, which made his loyalty, his brains, and his abilities unknown quantities.
>
> If so, this is right in line with what Mackintosh ("Josephine Tey") called Richard's magnanimity, remarking shortly, "It didn't work." Buckingham's defection resulted in Richard's stinging assessment of Buckingham as "him that had best cause to be true... the most untrue creature living." It sounds to me as though the worst part of dealing with the rebellion for Richard was seeing how his friendship had been answered.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> >
> > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > >
> > > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Â
> > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Richard's reputation has suffered in the eyes of his opponents from the very actions which his supporters consider to be the necessary actions of a resolute leader: the seizure of King Edward V and arrest of Rivers, Grey, Vaughn and Haute, and the summary execution of Hastings without an investigation. For Richard's opponents, these can be interpreted as evidence that Richard planned to seize the throne from as early as when he left the North, and certainly by the time of Hasting's execution. It can certainly be postulated that Richard's hand was "forced by events," but to what extent did Richard CREATE the events by which his hand was "forced"?


--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Actually there's no historical record of anyone being put in charge of any investigation into Hastings. Dominic Mancini, who was in London at the time, writes that Richard sounded out the loyalty of Hastings, Rotherham and Morton "through the duke of Buckingham" and learned that "sometimes they forgathered in each other's houses". (We don't know how Mancini came by such interesting information.)
>
> Of the events of 13 June Mancini says that Richard "cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him" whereupon soldiers rushed in with Buckingham, cut down Hastings and arrested the others. Again we don't know how Mancini came by this information, and he is wrong on at least two counts: he describes the presence of the group as coming to "pay a customary call" on Richard, rather than actually being there to attend a council meeting; and he is also wrong in saying that Hastings was "cut down" - in fact he was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded.
>
> What Mancini WAS in a position to know was that in order to calm the people of London the protector immediately issued a public proclamation - "that a plot had been detected in the citadel and Hastings, as the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty; wherefore he bade them all be reassured." Mancini then editorializes to the effect that although the crowd believed this "initially", "the real truth was on the lips of many" that it was simply an excuse (again he doesn't confide in us how this "real truth" was known, or who sowed the seeds of disbelief in Richard's proclamation).
>
> The Crowland Chronicle simply reports "when he came to the council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded". This is followed by the remark "these two dukes thereafter did whatever they wanted".
>
> There is also a MS known as 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen', assessed as being copies made in about 1512-13 of 15th-century originals of which the only clue to their date is that there is a reference to Henry Tudor's marriage to "King Edward's eldest daughter whose name is Elizabeth", so she was still alive when the writing was originally committed to paper, i.e. pre-1503. These notes state: "... ther was dyuers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyed [discovered] and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith" (with no editorializing as to this being merely a cover story).
>
> To the best of my knowledge there is no other reasonably contemporaneous report of Hastings's demise. All other written material we have about these events, and Buckingham's role in them, dates to the Tudor regime, at least 30 years later (which may also be considered the appropriate date to assign to the 'Historical Notes'). Even so, I can't call to mind a Tudor-era story about Buckingham being given the charge of investigating Hastings's role in the conspiracy. Does this perhaps come from Josephine Tey's 'Inspector Grant' mystery?
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 1:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>
> Buckingham was the one who had the all-important task of determining whether Lord Hastings had enlisted in the conspiracy that resulted in the latter's execution, wasn't he? Same guy? Am I remembering this correctly? I recall being surprised about Richard's decision to put Buckingham in charge of the investigation because Hastings was an old family friend and he hadn't known Buckingham for long, which made his loyalty, his brains, and his abilities unknown quantities.
>
> If so, this is right in line with what Mackintosh ("Josephine Tey") called Richard's magnanimity, remarking shortly, "It didn't work." Buckingham's defection resulted in Richard's stinging assessment of Buckingham as "him that had best cause to be true... the most untrue creature living." It sounds to me as though the worst part of dealing with the rebellion for Richard was seeing how his friendship had been answered.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> >
> > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > >
> > > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Â
> > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

     You keep calling it Richard's "seizure" of his nephew.  I think (and I'm sure plenty on here can correct me if I'm wrong--please do) that the "seizure" was made by his other uncles in the first place, who had no business doing anything with the boy before Richard got there.  It was Richard's job, as per Edward IV's wishes, to take care of Edward.  For them to assemble the force they did and start moving toward London was a transparently obvious attempt to lock Richard out of the position that was his by right as the adult head of the family and by right of the king's arrangements.  Nobody freaking seized the throne.  If Richard's nephews were declared illegitimate, Richard was next in line.  That is why they offered it to him.  If he had not accepted, there were others in line.  

Sheffe




>________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:20 PM
>Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
> 
>Richard's reputation has suffered in the eyes of his opponents from the very actions which his supporters consider to be the necessary actions of a resolute leader: the seizure of King Edward V and arrest of Rivers, Grey, Vaughn and Haute, and the summary execution of Hastings without an investigation. For Richard's opponents, these can be interpreted as evidence that Richard planned to seize the throne from as early as when he left the North, and certainly by the time of Hasting's execution. It can certainly be postulated that Richard's hand was "forced by events," but to what extent did Richard CREATE the events by which his hand was "forced"?
>
>--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>>
>> Actually there's no historical record of anyone being put in charge of any investigation into Hastings. Dominic Mancini, who was in London at the time, writes that Richard sounded out the loyalty of Hastings, Rotherham and Morton "through the duke of Buckingham" and learned that "sometimes they forgathered in each other's houses". (We don't know how Mancini came by such interesting information.)
>>
>> Of the events of 13 June Mancini says that Richard "cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him" whereupon soldiers rushed in with Buckingham, cut down Hastings and arrested the others. Again we don't know how Mancini came by this information, and he is wrong on at least two counts: he describes the presence of the group as coming to "pay a customary call" on Richard, rather than actually being there to attend a council meeting; and he is also wrong in saying that Hastings was "cut down" - in fact he was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded.
>>
>> What Mancini WAS in a position to know was that in order to calm the people of London the protector immediately issued a public proclamation - "that a plot had been detected in the citadel and Hastings, as the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty; wherefore he bade them all be reassured." Mancini then editorializes to the effect that although the crowd believed this "initially", "the real truth was on the lips of many" that it was simply an excuse (again he doesn't confide in us how this "real truth" was known, or who sowed the seeds of disbelief in Richard's proclamation).
>>
>> The Crowland Chronicle simply reports "when he came to the council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded". This is followed by the remark "these two dukes thereafter did whatever they wanted".
>>
>> There is also a MS known as 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen', assessed as being copies made in about 1512-13 of 15th-century originals of which the only clue to their date is that there is a reference to Henry Tudor's marriage to "King Edward's eldest daughter whose name is Elizabeth", so she was still alive when the writing was originally committed to paper, i.e. pre-1503. These notes state: "... ther was dyuers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyed [discovered] and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith" (with no editorializing as to this being merely a cover story).
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge there is no other reasonably contemporaneous report of Hastings's demise. All other written material we have about these events, and Buckingham's role in them, dates to the Tudor regime, at least 30 years later (which may also be considered the appropriate date to assign to the 'Historical Notes'). Even so, I can't call to mind a Tudor-era story about Buckingham being given the charge of investigating Hastings's role in the conspiracy. Does this perhaps come from Josephine Tey's 'Inspector Grant' mystery?
>> Regards, Annette
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: mcjohn_wt_net
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 1:16 PM
>> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>>
>>
>>
>> Buckingham was the one who had the all-important task of determining whether Lord Hastings had enlisted in the conspiracy that resulted in the latter's execution, wasn't he? Same guy? Am I remembering this correctly? I recall being surprised about Richard's decision to put Buckingham in charge of the investigation because Hastings was an old family friend and he hadn't known Buckingham for long, which made his loyalty, his brains, and his abilities unknown quantities.
>>
>> If so, this is right in line with what Mackintosh ("Josephine Tey") called Richard's magnanimity, remarking shortly, "It didn't work." Buckingham's defection resulted in Richard's stinging assessment of Buckingham as "him that had best cause to be true... the most untrue creature living." It sounds to me as though the worst part of dealing with the rebellion for Richard was seeing how his friendship had been answered.
>>
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
>> > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
>> > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
>> > Paul
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
>> >
>> > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
>> > >
>> > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
>> > >
>> > > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> ________________________________
>> > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
>> > >> To:
>> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
>> > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Â
>> > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > Richard Liveth Yet!
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

On 27 Jul 2012, at 13:16, mcjohn_wt_net wrote:

> he hadn't known Buckingham for long,

Again I reiterate Richard and Buckingham had known each other from childhood. It is part of the mythology that he appeared out of nowhere at Richard's side! Nowhere? One of the richest nobles in the country, a cousin, married to the queen's sister, at court for most of Edward IV's reign, with Richard during the French Expedition, at Tonbridge when children together etc.
Paul



Richard Liveth Yet!

Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
paul

On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:

> Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
>
> Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
>> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
>> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
>>
>>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
>>>
>>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
>>>
>>> --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
>>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi Warren and All - just a quick and very rushed response in the middle of
a crazy work day.

There's an interesting pattern around and about this time period regarding
monarchs: many of them had to prove their ability to stay put, often very
soon after crowning, and for varied reasons. There's Charles VII, of
course; moving further south, and as usual, in my most familiar home base,
Juan II of Aragon fought for his own authority and son Fernando's --
against his own elder son Carlos of Viana, who was championed by the
Catalans. Over Castile-way, Enrique IV was deposed in a fanatastic
ceremony, to be replaced by his very young half-brother Alfonso; when
Alfonso died some months after, the nobiity were all to happy to champion
Isabel against Enrique, only to split into factions after her extremely
quick coronation. Isabel and Fernando then had to wage a war against
Enrique's putative daughter, the unfortunate Juana "La Beltraneja", who was
championed by her husband Afonso V of Portugal. Claims to thrones at this
period were more Darwinian, I think, than we assume, and where there were
disputes, things could boil over very quickly and nastily.

From my own view, I think that Edward V would have been in this kind of
situation very quickly: Morton was a dedicated Lancastrian: he gave
service to Edward IV because, I think, he knew a dead horse when he was
finished beating one; but I'm willing to bet he never considered Edward IV
anything but a victorious usurper and did not, I think, feel he owed
anything to Edward's son. Therefore, I hazard that very soon after Edward
V's (very quickly scheduled) coronation, there would still have been a
substantial rumble from the Tudor corner, and that it would have had a
receptive hand from Morton. (The quick routing of the Woodville faction by
Richard indicates to me that young Edward's supporters would not have been
well-equipped to handle such a thing.)

In other words, I feel there would have been some kind of rising/rebellion
in 1483 no matter who was the first to complete a coronation; it was part
of the temper of the times. Whether it was Edward V, Richard III or Henry
VII, I think there would have been a substantial enough number of people
with what they considered a legitimate cause to rise against him.

Apologies for the rush,

Maria
ejbronte@...


On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:07 PM, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass
> through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
>
> Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If
> Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can
> understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his
> revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because
> they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on
> further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after
> his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those
> who consider him a usurper.
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and
> Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All
> these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a
> northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another
> Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus
> creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would
> keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest
> itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into
> the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think
> Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been
> a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret
> after Ludlow.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> >
> > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have
> significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given
> the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to
> imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID
> have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it
> is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after
> his coronation.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this
> problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > >
> > > --- In , William Barber
> <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted
> to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry
> Tudor's plans went too far.ý ý
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick,
> but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions
> and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topý
> councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to
> make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby,
> Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. ý
> Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would
> be questioned by many.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from
> Richard?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ý
> > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect
> from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop
> Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other
> Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to
> seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for
> than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he
> would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the
> Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What
> made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see
> how events developed?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>

Hurrah for a well-informed voice putting events in their historical context!
;-) Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?


Hi Warren and All - just a quick and very rushed response in the middle of
a crazy work day.

There's an interesting pattern around and about this time period regarding
monarchs: many of them had to prove their ability to stay put, often very
soon after crowning, and for varied reasons. There's Charles VII, of
course; moving further south, and as usual, in my most familiar home base,
Juan II of Aragon fought for his own authority and son Fernando's --
against his own elder son Carlos of Viana, who was championed by the
Catalans. Over Castile-way, Enrique IV was deposed in a fanatastic
ceremony, to be replaced by his very young half-brother Alfonso; when
Alfonso died some months after, the nobiity were all to happy to champion
Isabel against Enrique, only to split into factions after her extremely
quick coronation. Isabel and Fernando then had to wage a war against
Enrique's putative daughter, the unfortunate Juana "La Beltraneja", who was
championed by her husband Afonso V of Portugal. Claims to thrones at this
period were more Darwinian, I think, than we assume, and where there were
disputes, things could boil over very quickly and nastily.

From my own view, I think that Edward V would have been in this kind of
situation very quickly: Morton was a dedicated Lancastrian: he gave
service to Edward IV because, I think, he knew a dead horse when he was
finished beating one; but I'm willing to bet he never considered Edward IV
anything but a victorious usurper and did not, I think, feel he owed
anything to Edward's son. Therefore, I hazard that very soon after Edward
V's (very quickly scheduled) coronation, there would still have been a
substantial rumble from the Tudor corner, and that it would have had a
receptive hand from Morton. (The quick routing of the Woodville faction by
Richard indicates to me that young Edward's supporters would not have been
well-equipped to handle such a thing.)

In other words, I feel there would have been some kind of rising/rebellion
in 1483 no matter who was the first to complete a coronation; it was part
of the temper of the times. Whether it was Edward V, Richard III or Henry
VII, I think there would have been a substantial enough number of people
with what they considered a legitimate cause to rise against him.

Apologies for the rush,

Maria
ejbronte@...


On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:07 PM, warrenmalach
<warrenmalach@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass
> through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the
> North?
>
> Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If
> Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can
> understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of
> his
> revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies
> because
> they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on
> further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after
> his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those
> who consider him a usurper.
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and
> Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All
> these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a
> northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another
> Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus
> creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would
> keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest
> itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into
> the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think
> Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had
> been
> a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister
> Margaret
> after Ludlow.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> >
> > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have
> significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given
> the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to
> imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID
> have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that
> it
> is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after
> his coronation.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this
> problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > >
> > > --- In , William Barber
> <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted
> to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry
> Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick,
> but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands,
> positions
> and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topÂ
> councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to
> make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby,
> Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. Â
> Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard
> would
> be questioned by many.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from
> Richard?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Â
> > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect
> from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop
> Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other
> Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to
> seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for
> than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he
> would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the
> Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What
> made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see
> how events developed?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Are you asserting that those who escorted Edward V from Wales did not have the authority to do so, that they "kidnapped" Edward and that Richard "released" him? I do not remember ever reading that Richard ordered those in Wales to stay there until he arrived or to "turn the king over to his custody" when they met on the way to London; my understanding is that Richard was going to meet the king's party on its way to London and join it.

I don't know about what you call "transparently obvious" with regards to those who escorted the king from Wales. Could it not have ALSO been "transparently obvious" that Richard wanted to seize the king's person and use that possession for his OWN purposes?

"Richard's job" as regent had not yet been officially "spelled out" by the time of the meeting of Richard's party with that of the king, had it?

If you object to the word "seize," what about "occupation," as per Mancini?

WHO in "offering" the crown to Richard had any OTHER choice in the matter, by that point in time? What ELSE could they have done BUT "offer" him the crown? Kinship to Edward IV is fine, but "might makes right."

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
>      You keep calling it Richard's "seizure" of his nephew.  I think (and I'm sure plenty on here can correct me if I'm wrong--please do) that the "seizure" was made by his other uncles in the first place, who had no business doing anything with the boy before Richard got there.  It was Richard's job, as per Edward IV's wishes, to take care of Edward.  For them to assemble the force they did and start moving toward London was a transparently obvious attempt to lock Richard out of the position that was his by right as the adult head of the family and by right of the king's arrangements.  Nobody freaking seized the throne.  If Richard's nephews were declared illegitimate, Richard was next in line.  That is why they offered it to him.  If he had not accepted, there were others in line.  
>
> Sheffe
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:20 PM
> >Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> > 
> >Richard's reputation has suffered in the eyes of his opponents from the very actions which his supporters consider to be the necessary actions of a resolute leader: the seizure of King Edward V and arrest of Rivers, Grey, Vaughn and Haute, and the summary execution of Hastings without an investigation. For Richard's opponents, these can be interpreted as evidence that Richard planned to seize the throne from as early as when he left the North, and certainly by the time of Hasting's execution. It can certainly be postulated that Richard's hand was "forced by events," but to what extent did Richard CREATE the events by which his hand was "forced"?
> >
> >--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually there's no historical record of anyone being put in charge of any investigation into Hastings. Dominic Mancini, who was in London at the time, writes that Richard sounded out the loyalty of Hastings, Rotherham and Morton "through the duke of Buckingham" and learned that "sometimes they forgathered in each other's houses". (We don't know how Mancini came by such interesting information.)
> >>
> >> Of the events of 13 June Mancini says that Richard "cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him" whereupon soldiers rushed in with Buckingham, cut down Hastings and arrested the others. Again we don't know how Mancini came by this information, and he is wrong on at least two counts: he describes the presence of the group as coming to "pay a customary call" on Richard, rather than actually being there to attend a council meeting; and he is also wrong in saying that Hastings was "cut down" - in fact he was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded.
> >>
> >> What Mancini WAS in a position to know was that in order to calm the people of London the protector immediately issued a public proclamation - "that a plot had been detected in the citadel and Hastings, as the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty; wherefore he bade them all be reassured." Mancini then editorializes to the effect that although the crowd believed this "initially", "the real truth was on the lips of many" that it was simply an excuse (again he doesn't confide in us how this "real truth" was known, or who sowed the seeds of disbelief in Richard's proclamation).
> >>
> >> The Crowland Chronicle simply reports "when he came to the council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded". This is followed by the remark "these two dukes thereafter did whatever they wanted".
> >>
> >> There is also a MS known as 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen', assessed as being copies made in about 1512-13 of 15th-century originals of which the only clue to their date is that there is a reference to Henry Tudor's marriage to "King Edward's eldest daughter whose name is Elizabeth", so she was still alive when the writing was originally committed to paper, i.e. pre-1503. These notes state: "... ther was dyuers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyed [discovered] and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith" (with no editorializing as to this being merely a cover story).
> >>
> >> To the best of my knowledge there is no other reasonably contemporaneous report of Hastings's demise. All other written material we have about these events, and Buckingham's role in them, dates to the Tudor regime, at least 30 years later (which may also be considered the appropriate date to assign to the 'Historical Notes'). Even so, I can't call to mind a Tudor-era story about Buckingham being given the charge of investigating Hastings's role in the conspiracy. Does this perhaps come from Josephine Tey's 'Inspector Grant' mystery?
> >> Regards, Annette
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 1:16 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Buckingham was the one who had the all-important task of determining whether Lord Hastings had enlisted in the conspiracy that resulted in the latter's execution, wasn't he? Same guy? Am I remembering this correctly? I recall being surprised about Richard's decision to put Buckingham in charge of the investigation because Hastings was an old family friend and he hadn't known Buckingham for long, which made his loyalty, his brains, and his abilities unknown quantities.
> >>
> >> If so, this is right in line with what Mackintosh ("Josephine Tey") called Richard's magnanimity, remarking shortly, "It didn't work." Buckingham's defection resulted in Richard's stinging assessment of Buckingham as "him that had best cause to be true... the most untrue creature living." It sounds to me as though the worst part of dealing with the rebellion for Richard was seeing how his friendship had been answered.
> >>
> >> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> >> > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> >> > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> >> > Paul
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> >> > >
> >> > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> >> > >
> >> > > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ________________________________
> >> > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> >> > >> To:
> >> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> >> > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Â
> >> > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > ------------------------------------
> >> > >
> >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> paul
>
> On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
>
> > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> >
> > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> >>>
> >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> >>>
> >>> --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> >>>> To:
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Â
> >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Marie, what you say sounds very reasonable to me. The sudden death of Edward IV "opened Pandora's box" for a host of possible alternatives to the peaceful accession of Edward V, even if Richard had not been "in the picture" or had elected to stay in the North where his own power base was.

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Warren and All - just a quick and very rushed response in the middle of
> a crazy work day.
>
> There's an interesting pattern around and about this time period regarding
> monarchs: many of them had to prove their ability to stay put, often very
> soon after crowning, and for varied reasons. There's Charles VII, of
> course; moving further south, and as usual, in my most familiar home base,
> Juan II of Aragon fought for his own authority and son Fernando's --
> against his own elder son Carlos of Viana, who was championed by the
> Catalans. Over Castile-way, Enrique IV was deposed in a fanatastic
> ceremony, to be replaced by his very young half-brother Alfonso; when
> Alfonso died some months after, the nobiity were all to happy to champion
> Isabel against Enrique, only to split into factions after her extremely
> quick coronation. Isabel and Fernando then had to wage a war against
> Enrique's putative daughter, the unfortunate Juana "La Beltraneja", who was
> championed by her husband Afonso V of Portugal. Claims to thrones at this
> period were more Darwinian, I think, than we assume, and where there were
> disputes, things could boil over very quickly and nastily.
>
> From my own view, I think that Edward V would have been in this kind of
> situation very quickly: Morton was a dedicated Lancastrian: he gave
> service to Edward IV because, I think, he knew a dead horse when he was
> finished beating one; but I'm willing to bet he never considered Edward IV
> anything but a victorious usurper and did not, I think, feel he owed
> anything to Edward's son. Therefore, I hazard that very soon after Edward
> V's (very quickly scheduled) coronation, there would still have been a
> substantial rumble from the Tudor corner, and that it would have had a
> receptive hand from Morton. (The quick routing of the Woodville faction by
> Richard indicates to me that young Edward's supporters would not have been
> well-equipped to handle such a thing.)
>
> In other words, I feel there would have been some kind of rising/rebellion
> in 1483 no matter who was the first to complete a coronation; it was part
> of the temper of the times. Whether it was Edward V, Richard III or Henry
> VII, I think there would have been a substantial enough number of people
> with what they considered a legitimate cause to rise against him.
>
> Apologies for the rush,
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:07 PM, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass
> > through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> >
> > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If
> > Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can
> > understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his
> > revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because
> > they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on
> > further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after
> > his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those
> > who consider him a usurper.
> >
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and
> > Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All
> > these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a
> > northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another
> > Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus
> > creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would
> > keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest
> > itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into
> > the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think
> > Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been
> > a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret
> > after Ludlow.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have
> > significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given
> > the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to
> > imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID
> > have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it
> > is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after
> > his coronation.
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this
> > problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , William Barber
> > <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted
> > to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry
> > Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick,
> > but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions
> > and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topÂ
> > councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to
> > make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby,
> > Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. Â
> > Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would
> > be questioned by many.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ________________________________
> > > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > >> To:
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from
> > Richard?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Â
> > > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect
> > from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop
> > Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other
> > Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to
> > seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for
> > than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he
> > would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the
> > Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What
> > made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see
> > how events developed?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.


----- Original Message -----
From: warrenmalach
To:
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?



My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> paul
>
> On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
>
> > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> >
> > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> >>>
> >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> >>>
> >>> --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> >>>> To:
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Â
> >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warrenmalach
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>
> My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > paul
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> >
> > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > >
> > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ________________________________
> > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > >>>> To:
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Â
> > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

We all know what you meant, Warren.

----- Original Message -----
From: warrenmalach
To:
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?



Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warrenmalach
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>
> My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > paul
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> >
> > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > >
> > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ________________________________
> > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > >>>> To:
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Â
> > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Okay, so what should this poor, benighted Yank learn from looking at a map of England relative to Richard's progress in 1483? Is there something here that I didn't understand?

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> We all know what you meant, Warren.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warrenmalach
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>
> Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: warrenmalach
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > paul
> > >
> > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > >
> > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > >> Paul
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > >>>> To:
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Â
> > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well Warren I'm not sure where you are from, but as a Brit, I'd say most of those towns were not "northern".  Pontefract and  York are of course but the rest to me are either southern, western, or in the Midlands.  Maybe a Londoner would call Nottingham Grantham or Lincoln "the north" but as someone who grew up in Staffordshire I certainly wouldn't.
 
So personally I would certainly not call it a northern progress although Richard visited a couple of places in the north.


________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 21:43
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?


 
Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warrenmalach
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>
> My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > paul
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> >
> > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > >
> > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ________________________________
> > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Â
> > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Now I know where you're from!
 
Incidentally I'm surprised that Richard didn't visit more towns in the north.


________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:28
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?


 
Okay, so what should this poor, benighted Yank learn from looking at a map of England relative to Richard's progress in 1483? Is there something here that I didn't understand?

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> We all know what you meant, Warren.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warrenmalach
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>
> Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: warrenmalach
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > paul
> > >
> > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > >
> > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > >> Paul
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Â
> > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Okay, I will refrain from referring to it as a "northern" progress.
I always understood that the "goal" of the progress was to "return to the North" after spending the last few months in the South.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well Warren I'm not sure where you are from, but as a Brit, I'd say most of those towns were not "northern".  Pontefract and  York are of course but the rest to me are either southern, western, or in the Midlands.  Maybe a Londoner would call Nottingham Grantham or Lincoln "the north" but as someone who grew up in Staffordshire I certainly wouldn't.
>  
> So personally I would certainly not call it a northern progress although Richard visited a couple of places in the north.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 21:43
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: warrenmalach
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > paul
> > >
> > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > >
> > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > >> Paul
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Â
> > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Er... yes... where DID I get that most tantalizing take on the story? Something about it being Richard's first serious test of Buckingham as an ally... that Richard had gotten some glimmer of sedition about Hastings and sent Buckingham out to find out what was up... that Buckingham came back in an hour and gave Richard the bad news about the old family friend and staunch ally... and Richard went utterly thermonuclear and ordered Hastings' immediate execution. (This was the June 13 meeting to plan Edward's coronation--the one where Sir Thomas More, or possibly John Morton, goes on at such length about the strawberries.) Hardly an unimpeachable source, then.

I might have been clearer, too, about the distinction between Buckingham as a newcomer and Hastings as an old family friend. In my reading I see Hastings involved in the family's political life for eons before Buckingham's first recorded overtly politically-minded move, but I should have remembered that Buckingham and Richard had known each other all their lives, and that there's a difference between "Hey, old cuz, how's it goin'?" and "Hey, old cuz, snoop around and see what you can find out about Hastings' loyalties, willya?"

Thorough amateur shutting up now... please excuse the interruption...

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Actually there's no historical record of anyone being put in charge of any investigation into Hastings. Dominic Mancini, who was in London at the time, writes that Richard sounded out the loyalty of Hastings, Rotherham and Morton "through the duke of Buckingham" and learned that "sometimes they forgathered in each other's houses". (We don't know how Mancini came by such interesting information.)
>
> Of the events of 13 June Mancini says that Richard "cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him" whereupon soldiers rushed in with Buckingham, cut down Hastings and arrested the others. Again we don't know how Mancini came by this information, and he is wrong on at least two counts: he describes the presence of the group as coming to "pay a customary call" on Richard, rather than actually being there to attend a council meeting; and he is also wrong in saying that Hastings was "cut down" - in fact he was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded.
>
> What Mancini WAS in a position to know was that in order to calm the people of London the protector immediately issued a public proclamation - "that a plot had been detected in the citadel and Hastings, as the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty; wherefore he bade them all be reassured." Mancini then editorializes to the effect that although the crowd believed this "initially", "the real truth was on the lips of many" that it was simply an excuse (again he doesn't confide in us how this "real truth" was known, or who sowed the seeds of disbelief in Richard's proclamation).
>
> The Crowland Chronicle simply reports "when he came to the council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded". This is followed by the remark "these two dukes thereafter did whatever they wanted".
>
> There is also a MS known as 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen', assessed as being copies made in about 1512-13 of 15th-century originals of which the only clue to their date is that there is a reference to Henry Tudor's marriage to "King Edward's eldest daughter whose name is Elizabeth", so she was still alive when the writing was originally committed to paper, i.e. pre-1503. These notes state: "... ther was dyuers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyed [discovered] and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith" (with no editorializing as to this being merely a cover story).
>
> To the best of my knowledge there is no other reasonably contemporaneous report of Hastings's demise. All other written material we have about these events, and Buckingham's role in them, dates to the Tudor regime, at least 30 years later (which may also be considered the appropriate date to assign to the 'Historical Notes'). Even so, I can't call to mind a Tudor-era story about Buckingham being given the charge of investigating Hastings's role in the conspiracy. Does this perhaps come from Josephine Tey's 'Inspector Grant' mystery?
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 1:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>
> Buckingham was the one who had the all-important task of determining whether Lord Hastings had enlisted in the conspiracy that resulted in the latter's execution, wasn't he? Same guy? Am I remembering this correctly? I recall being surprised about Richard's decision to put Buckingham in charge of the investigation because Hastings was an old family friend and he hadn't known Buckingham for long, which made his loyalty, his brains, and his abilities unknown quantities.
>
> If so, this is right in line with what Mackintosh ("Josephine Tey") called Richard's magnanimity, remarking shortly, "It didn't work." Buckingham's defection resulted in Richard's stinging assessment of Buckingham as "him that had best cause to be true... the most untrue creature living." It sounds to me as though the worst part of dealing with the rebellion for Richard was seeing how his friendship had been answered.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> >
> > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > >
> > > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Â
> > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Would Richard have said "Once you've seen York, you've seen the North!"? I've known people who feel that if they've seen the major city or tourist attaction, they've seen the "whole place." I don't think when I visited England for the second time in 1973 that I ever got any farther "north" in England (as opposed to Scotland) than York, which I thought was a beautiful city, especially Yorkminister, where we attended a "Sound and Light" program. An important point for me would be that Richard did NOT "return to the North" simply to "shore up" support among his Northern followers after his coronation.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Now I know where you're from!
>  
> Incidentally I'm surprised that Richard didn't visit more towns in the north.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:28
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> Okay, so what should this poor, benighted Yank learn from looking at a map of England relative to Richard's progress in 1483? Is there something here that I didn't understand?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > We all know what you meant, Warren.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: warrenmalach
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: warrenmalach
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > paul
> > > >
> > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > > >
> > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > >> Paul
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Â
> > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

McJohn, you've got ME beat--I thought it was all about who was sleeping with Jane Shore!

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> Er... yes... where DID I get that most tantalizing take on the story? Something about it being Richard's first serious test of Buckingham as an ally... that Richard had gotten some glimmer of sedition about Hastings and sent Buckingham out to find out what was up... that Buckingham came back in an hour and gave Richard the bad news about the old family friend and staunch ally... and Richard went utterly thermonuclear and ordered Hastings' immediate execution. (This was the June 13 meeting to plan Edward's coronation--the one where Sir Thomas More, or possibly John Morton, goes on at such length about the strawberries.) Hardly an unimpeachable source, then.
>
> I might have been clearer, too, about the distinction between Buckingham as a newcomer and Hastings as an old family friend. In my reading I see Hastings involved in the family's political life for eons before Buckingham's first recorded overtly politically-minded move, but I should have remembered that Buckingham and Richard had known each other all their lives, and that there's a difference between "Hey, old cuz, how's it goin'?" and "Hey, old cuz, snoop around and see what you can find out about Hastings' loyalties, willya?"
>
> Thorough amateur shutting up now... please excuse the interruption...
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Actually there's no historical record of anyone being put in charge of any investigation into Hastings. Dominic Mancini, who was in London at the time, writes that Richard sounded out the loyalty of Hastings, Rotherham and Morton "through the duke of Buckingham" and learned that "sometimes they forgathered in each other's houses". (We don't know how Mancini came by such interesting information.)
> >
> > Of the events of 13 June Mancini says that Richard "cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him" whereupon soldiers rushed in with Buckingham, cut down Hastings and arrested the others. Again we don't know how Mancini came by this information, and he is wrong on at least two counts: he describes the presence of the group as coming to "pay a customary call" on Richard, rather than actually being there to attend a council meeting; and he is also wrong in saying that Hastings was "cut down" - in fact he was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded.
> >
> > What Mancini WAS in a position to know was that in order to calm the people of London the protector immediately issued a public proclamation - "that a plot had been detected in the citadel and Hastings, as the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty; wherefore he bade them all be reassured." Mancini then editorializes to the effect that although the crowd believed this "initially", "the real truth was on the lips of many" that it was simply an excuse (again he doesn't confide in us how this "real truth" was known, or who sowed the seeds of disbelief in Richard's proclamation).
> >
> > The Crowland Chronicle simply reports "when he came to the council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded". This is followed by the remark "these two dukes thereafter did whatever they wanted".
> >
> > There is also a MS known as 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen', assessed as being copies made in about 1512-13 of 15th-century originals of which the only clue to their date is that there is a reference to Henry Tudor's marriage to "King Edward's eldest daughter whose name is Elizabeth", so she was still alive when the writing was originally committed to paper, i.e. pre-1503. These notes state: "... ther was dyuers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyed [discovered] and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith" (with no editorializing as to this being merely a cover story).
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge there is no other reasonably contemporaneous report of Hastings's demise. All other written material we have about these events, and Buckingham's role in them, dates to the Tudor regime, at least 30 years later (which may also be considered the appropriate date to assign to the 'Historical Notes'). Even so, I can't call to mind a Tudor-era story about Buckingham being given the charge of investigating Hastings's role in the conspiracy. Does this perhaps come from Josephine Tey's 'Inspector Grant' mystery?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 1:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > Buckingham was the one who had the all-important task of determining whether Lord Hastings had enlisted in the conspiracy that resulted in the latter's execution, wasn't he? Same guy? Am I remembering this correctly? I recall being surprised about Richard's decision to put Buckingham in charge of the investigation because Hastings was an old family friend and he hadn't known Buckingham for long, which made his loyalty, his brains, and his abilities unknown quantities.
> >
> > If so, this is right in line with what Mackintosh ("Josephine Tey") called Richard's magnanimity, remarking shortly, "It didn't work." Buckingham's defection resulted in Richard's stinging assessment of Buckingham as "him that had best cause to be true... the most untrue creature living." It sounds to me as though the worst part of dealing with the rebellion for Richard was seeing how his friendship had been answered.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ________________________________
> > > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > >> To:
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Â
> > > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Well I'm sure he wanted to return to the area that he loved - and loved him - but to me the term northern progress suggests he spent most of the time touring the north of England.  I just find  it misleading.  If you look at Google Earth to see exactly where these places are you may  understand why I feel that.



________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:37
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?


 
Okay, I will refrain from referring to it as a "northern" progress.
I always understood that the "goal" of the progress was to "return to the North" after spending the last few months in the South.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well Warren I'm not sure where you are from, but as a Brit, I'd say most of those towns were not "northern".  Pontefract and  York are of course but the rest to me are either southern, western, or in the Midlands.  Maybe a Londoner would call Nottingham Grantham or Lincoln "the north" but as someone who grew up in Staffordshire I certainly wouldn't.
>  
> So personally I would certainly not call it a northern progress although Richard visited a couple of places in the north.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 21:43
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: warrenmalach
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > paul
> > >
> > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > >
> > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > >> Paul
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.Ã Ã
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topà councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. à Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Ã
> > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Not sure if Richard would have but York is well over 100 miles south of the border  (To you 100 plus miles may not sound much  but it is quite a distance on our map.)   However he may not have wanted to travel any further north than York - he had spent a lot of time around Carlisle and Berwick and the borders but that was fairly wild country and there were always problems with the Scots.
 
I'm sure that like most tourists you had a limited time to see Great Britain and therefore would have missed big chunks of it. For example did you see Wales, East Anglia, Cornwall?    Richard obviously didn't have such time constraints but may have felt he needed to be back in London -  Annette will know about that far better than I.  I'm not sure how long the royal progress took.


________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:44
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?


 
Would Richard have said "Once you've seen York, you've seen the North!"? I've known people who feel that if they've seen the major city or tourist attaction, they've seen the "whole place." I don't think when I visited England for the second time in 1973 that I ever got any farther "north" in England (as opposed to Scotland) than York, which I thought was a beautiful city, especially Yorkminister, where we attended a "Sound and Light" program. An important point for me would be that Richard did NOT "return to the North" simply to "shore up" support among his Northern followers after his coronation.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Now I know where you're from!
>  
> Incidentally I'm surprised that Richard didn't visit more towns in the north.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:28
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> Okay, so what should this poor, benighted Yank learn from looking at a map of England relative to Richard's progress in 1483? Is there something here that I didn't understand?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > We all know what you meant, Warren.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: warrenmalach
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: warrenmalach
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > paul
> > > >
> > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > > >
> > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > >> Paul
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.Ã Ã
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topà councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. à Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Ã
> > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sources for my opinion include this material at the Richard III Society's site:

http://www.richardiii.net/
The Controversy
The Crimes' of
Richard III
 
Edward
IV certainly specified in his will that Richard was to be Protector of the
realm in the event of a minority. The initial period following Edward's death
suggests that Queen Elizabeth and her supporters were aiming to crown Edward V
before Richard could assume the role of Protector. The fact that no official
word came to Richard from the Queen or the Council (then effectively in her
control) informing him of Edward's death and his legal right to be Protector,
must have raised some suspicion in Richard's mind about the Queen's motives. However Richard's behaviour once he had secured the person of Edward V and had
arrived in London was exemplary .A date was set for the coronation of Edward V
and writs and warrants were issued in the King's name. Summonses were sent for
a parliament to meet after the coronation. Richard had the support of the
Council and there is no reason to suspect at this stage that anything other than
the coronation and reign of Edward V would take place.


The
atmosphere changed around 10 June when Richard wrote to the City of York
urgently requesting reinforcements to assist him against the Queen's ' ...
blode adherentts and affinitie. This is a crucial point in the series of events
leading to Richard taking the crown. If a plot had been discovered, who was
behind it apart from the Queen's blood adherents? The most vexed question
centres on the possible involvement of Lord Hastings - does this explain his
sudden execution on 13 June? All answers to such questions must be speculative
in the absence of definite evidence. The Crowland Chronicler certainly saw the
plot as being invented by Richard as a pretext for executing Hastings, who had
by then concluded that Richard was aiming for the throne. However there is no
hint in Richard's behaviour that he was planning to be crowned in place of
Edward V. Government was still being carried out in the name of Edward V - 'By
the advice of our dearest uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, Protector of our realm
during our young age ...' As late as 5 June letters of summons were being
issued to forty squires who were to receive knighthoods at Edward's coronation,
and even the King's coronation robes were in preparation.
The
climax came at the famous Council meeting on 13 June after which Hastings was
executed. Hastings who had been Richard's erstwhile supporter against the Queen
suddenly turned against him. It could be argued that he did indeed suspect
Richard of aiming for the throne and that loyalty to Edward V made him ally
with the Queen's party in order to thwart Richard. Whatever the reason
Hastings' summary execution remains a blot on Richard's reputation, and was
certainly out of character.
It
was probably around this time that the pre-contract became a major factor in
the course of events. Bishop Stillington's revelation that he had witnessed the
pre-contract of Edward IV to Lady Eleanor Butler is one of the most contentious
issues in Ricardian studies, dismissed by many as a hollow story. However, the
matter of the pre-contract is fully set out in the Titulus Regius, which
justified Richard's claim to the throne. This act of settlement was passed by
Richard's only parliament, which met during January 1484. The act has led one
modern historian to comment that Richard III '... has a claim to having been
the only possessor of a genuinely parliamentary title during the entire Middle
Ages.'  Regarding the pre-contract as a
basis for the legitimacy of Richard's title, another modern historian has
written that the relevant law to judge the pre-contract by is '... canon law.
Under that law the Parliamentary claim stated a legitimate cause of action.'
Richard's
coronation on 6 July 1483 was very well attended. This fact alone might lead us
to conjecture that Richard had considerable support amongst the nobility and
City of London for the course of action that he had pursued. His motives
throughout the April to July period will always be a matter of controversy and
debate, failing the discovery of further contemporary evidence.
The
dispute over Richard's motives continues today. Most modern historians would
agree with the remark made by Professor Myers that '... the responsibilities
and perils of an unexpected royal minority aroused in his nature the elements
of fear, ambition, and impulsive ruthlessness which led him further and further
along the path of immediate expediency ...' However, to this should be added
the view of many others that Richard took '... the crown with widespread
support and little bloodshed. ... Its constitutional validity apart, his
assumption of the crown may be judged as sensible and perhaps even inevitable.'


Sheffe

 



>________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 2:49 PM
>Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
> 
>Are you asserting that those who escorted Edward V from Wales did not have the authority to do so, that they "kidnapped" Edward and that Richard "released" him? I do not remember ever reading that Richard ordered those in Wales to stay there until he arrived or to "turn the king over to his custody" when they met on the way to London; my understanding is that Richard was going to meet the king's party on its way to London and join it.
>
>I don't know about what you call "transparently obvious" with regards to those who escorted the king from Wales. Could it not have ALSO been "transparently obvious" that Richard wanted to seize the king's person and use that possession for his OWN purposes?
>
>"Richard's job" as regent had not yet been officially "spelled out" by the time of the meeting of Richard's party with that of the king, had it?
>
>If you object to the word "seize," what about "occupation," as per Mancini?
>
>WHO in "offering" the crown to Richard had any OTHER choice in the matter, by that point in time? What ELSE could they have done BUT "offer" him the crown? Kinship to Edward IV is fine, but "might makes right."
>
>--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>>
>>      You keep calling it Richard's "seizure" of his nephew.  I think (and I'm sure plenty on here can correct me if I'm wrong--please do) that the "seizure" was made by his other uncles in the first place, who had no business doing anything with the boy before Richard got there.  It was Richard's job, as per Edward IV's wishes, to take care of Edward.  For them to assemble the force they did and start moving toward London was a transparently obvious attempt to lock Richard out of the position that was his by right as the adult head of the family and by right of the king's arrangements.  Nobody freaking seized the throne.  If Richard's nephews were declared illegitimate, Richard was next in line.  That is why they offered it to him.  If he had not accepted, there were others in line.  
>>
>> Sheffe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:20 PM
>> >Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >Richard's reputation has suffered in the eyes of his opponents from the very actions which his supporters consider to be the necessary actions of a resolute leader: the seizure of King Edward V and arrest of Rivers, Grey, Vaughn and Haute, and the summary execution of Hastings without an investigation. For Richard's opponents, these can be interpreted as evidence that Richard planned to seize the throne from as early as when he left the North, and certainly by the time of Hasting's execution. It can certainly be postulated that Richard's hand was "forced by events," but to what extent did Richard CREATE the events by which his hand was "forced"?
>> >
>> >--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Actually there's no historical record of anyone being put in charge of any investigation into Hastings. Dominic Mancini, who was in London at the time, writes that Richard sounded out the loyalty of Hastings, Rotherham and Morton "through the duke of Buckingham" and learned that "sometimes they forgathered in each other's houses". (We don't know how Mancini came by such interesting information.)
>> >>
>> >> Of the events of 13 June Mancini says that Richard "cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him" whereupon soldiers rushed in with Buckingham, cut down Hastings and arrested the others. Again we don't know how Mancini came by this information, and he is wrong on at least two counts: he describes the presence of the group as coming to "pay a customary call" on Richard, rather than actually being there to attend a council meeting; and he is also wrong in saying that Hastings was "cut down" - in fact he was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded.
>> >>
>> >> What Mancini WAS in a position to know was that in order to calm the people of London the protector immediately issued a public proclamation - "that a plot had been detected in the citadel and Hastings, as the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty; wherefore he bade them all be reassured." Mancini then editorializes to the effect that although the crowd believed this "initially", "the real truth was on the lips of many" that it was simply an excuse (again he doesn't confide in us how this "real truth" was known, or who sowed the seeds of disbelief in Richard's proclamation).
>> >>
>> >> The Crowland Chronicle simply reports "when he came to the council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded". This is followed by the remark "these two dukes thereafter did whatever they wanted".
>> >>
>> >> There is also a MS known as 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen', assessed as being copies made in about 1512-13 of 15th-century originals of which the only clue to their date is that there is a reference to Henry Tudor's marriage to "King Edward's eldest daughter whose name is Elizabeth", so she was still alive when the writing was originally committed to paper, i.e. pre-1503. These notes state: "... ther was dyuers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyed [discovered] and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith" (with no editorializing as to this being merely a cover story).
>> >>
>> >> To the best of my knowledge there is no other reasonably contemporaneous report of Hastings's demise. All other written material we have about these events, and Buckingham's role in them, dates to the Tudor regime, at least 30 years later (which may also be considered the appropriate date to assign to the 'Historical Notes'). Even so, I can't call to mind a Tudor-era story about Buckingham being given the charge of investigating Hastings's role in the conspiracy. Does this perhaps come from Josephine Tey's 'Inspector Grant' mystery?
>> >> Regards, Annette
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: mcjohn_wt_net
>> >> To:
>> >> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 1:16 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Buckingham was the one who had the all-important task of determining whether Lord Hastings had enlisted in the conspiracy that resulted in the latter's execution, wasn't he? Same guy? Am I remembering this correctly? I recall being surprised about Richard's decision to put Buckingham in charge of the investigation because Hastings was an old family friend and he hadn't known Buckingham for long, which made his loyalty, his brains, and his abilities unknown quantities.
>> >>
>> >> If so, this is right in line with what Mackintosh ("Josephine Tey") called Richard's magnanimity, remarking shortly, "It didn't work." Buckingham's defection resulted in Richard's stinging assessment of Buckingham as "him that had best cause to be true... the most untrue creature living." It sounds to me as though the worst part of dealing with the rebellion for Richard was seeing how his friendship had been answered.
>> >>
>> >> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
>> >> > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
>> >> > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
>> >> > Paul
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.Ã Ã
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topà councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. à Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> ________________________________
>> >> > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
>> >> > >> To:
>> >> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
>> >> > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Ã
>> >> > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > ------------------------------------
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Richard Liveth Yet!
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

I won't use the term "Northern." I won't even call it a "progress."
I'll call it a "campaign swing through England."

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well I'm sure he wanted to return to the area that he loved - and loved him - but to me the term northern progress suggests he spent most of the time touring the north of England.  I just find  it misleading.  If you look at Google Earth to see exactly where these places are you may  understand why I feel that.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:37
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> Okay, I will refrain from referring to it as a "northern" progress.
> I always understood that the "goal" of the progress was to "return to the North" after spending the last few months in the South.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Well Warren I'm not sure where you are from, but as a Brit, I'd say most of those towns were not "northern".  Pontefract and  York are of course but the rest to me are either southern, western, or in the Midlands.  Maybe a Londoner would call Nottingham Grantham or Lincoln "the north" but as someone who grew up in Staffordshire I certainly wouldn't.
> >  
> > So personally I would certainly not call it a northern progress although Richard visited a couple of places in the north.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 21:43
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >  
> > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: warrenmalach
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > paul
> > > >
> > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > > >
> > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > >> Paul
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Â
> > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

We went through Wales on our way to and from Ireland on the (boat-)train, but our travels in the Southwest were limited to excursions to see Plymouth (the Mayflower, you know) and Tintagel (King Arthur, according to some.) Perhaps Richard saw everyone he wanted to see at York.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Not sure if Richard would have but York is well over 100 miles south of the border  (To you 100 plus miles may not sound much  but it is quite a distance on our map.)   However he may not have wanted to travel any further north than York - he had spent a lot of time around Carlisle and Berwick and the borders but that was fairly wild country and there were always problems with the Scots.
>  
> I'm sure that like most tourists you had a limited time to see Great Britain and therefore would have missed big chunks of it. For example did you see Wales, East Anglia, Cornwall?    Richard obviously didn't have such time constraints but may have felt he needed to be back in London -  Annette will know about that far better than I.  I'm not sure how long the royal progress took.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:44
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> Would Richard have said "Once you've seen York, you've seen the North!"? I've known people who feel that if they've seen the major city or tourist attaction, they've seen the "whole place." I don't think when I visited England for the second time in 1973 that I ever got any farther "north" in England (as opposed to Scotland) than York, which I thought was a beautiful city, especially Yorkminister, where we attended a "Sound and Light" program. An important point for me would be that Richard did NOT "return to the North" simply to "shore up" support among his Northern followers after his coronation.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I know where you're from!
> >  
> > Incidentally I'm surprised that Richard didn't visit more towns in the north.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:28
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >  
> > Okay, so what should this poor, benighted Yank learn from looking at a map of England relative to Richard's progress in 1483? Is there something here that I didn't understand?
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > We all know what you meant, Warren.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: warrenmalach
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: warrenmalach
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > > paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > > >> Paul
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Â
> > > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Warren call it that if you want.  We can just agree to disagree.



________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012, 0:48
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?


 
I won't use the term "Northern." I won't even call it a "progress."
I'll call it a "campaign swing through England."

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well I'm sure he wanted to return to the area that he loved - and loved him - but to me the term northern progress suggests he spent most of the time touring the north of England.  I just find  it misleading.  If you look at Google Earth to see exactly where these places are you may  understand why I feel that.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:37
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> Okay, I will refrain from referring to it as a "northern" progress.
> I always understood that the "goal" of the progress was to "return to the North" after spending the last few months in the South.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Well Warren I'm not sure where you are from, but as a Brit, I'd say most of those towns were not "northern".à Pontefract and àYork are of course but the rest to me are either southern, western, or in the Midlands.à Maybe a Londoner would call Nottingham Grantham or Lincoln "the north" but as someone who grew up in Staffordshire I certainly wouldn't.
> > à
> > So personally I would certainly not call it a northern progress although Richard visited a couple of places in the north.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 21:43
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> > à
> > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: warrenmalach
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > paul
> > > >
> > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > > >
> > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > >> Paul
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.Ã’â¬a Ã’â¬a
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topÃ’â¬a councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. Ã’â¬a Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Ã’â¬a
> > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

You'll have to come back .....



________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012, 0:53
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?


 
We went through Wales on our way to and from Ireland on the (boat-)train, but our travels in the Southwest were limited to excursions to see Plymouth (the Mayflower, you know) and Tintagel (King Arthur, according to some.) Perhaps Richard saw everyone he wanted to see at York.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Not sure if Richard would have but York is well over 100 miles south of the border  (To you 100 plus miles may not sound much  but it is quite a distance on our map.)   However he may not have wanted to travel any further north than York - he had spent a lot of time around Carlisle and Berwick and the borders but that was fairly wild country and there were always problems with the Scots.
>  
> I'm sure that like most tourists you had a limited time to see Great Britain and therefore would have missed big chunks of it. For example did you see Wales, East Anglia, Cornwall?    Richard obviously didn't have such time constraints but may have felt he needed to be back in London -  Annette will know about that far better than I.  I'm not sure how long the royal progress took.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:44
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> Would Richard have said "Once you've seen York, you've seen the North!"? I've known people who feel that if they've seen the major city or tourist attaction, they've seen the "whole place." I don't think when I visited England for the second time in 1973 that I ever got any farther "north" in England (as opposed to Scotland) than York, which I thought was a beautiful city, especially Yorkminister, where we attended a "Sound and Light" program. An important point for me would be that Richard did NOT "return to the North" simply to "shore up" support among his Northern followers after his coronation.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I know where you're from!
> > à
> > Incidentally I'm surprised that Richard didn't visit more towns in the north.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:28
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> > à
> > Okay, so what should this poor, benighted Yank learn from looking at a map of England relative to Richard's progress in 1483? Is there something here that I didn't understand?
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > We all know what you meant, Warren.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: warrenmalach
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: warrenmalach
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > > paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > > >> Paul
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.Ã’â¬a Ã’â¬a
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topÃ’â¬a councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. Ã’â¬a Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Ã’â¬a
> > > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, but it still comes down one's own subjective interpretation of the events, doesn't it? Richard appeared to have been more concerned about threats to his OWN security than that of the king he had sworn to protect as regent. After Richard got to London, it all became about HIM rather than his king or the nation, which is why some would interpret the events in the light of the belief that he had ALREADY planned to take the throne. He had possession of the king's person, he had eliminated the Woodville threat, so WHAT was he worried about? WHY did he have to get the Duke of York out of sanctuary right away? WHY did Hastings turn against him? Did Hastings suspect or know that Richard was going to seize the throne? Is that why Richard had to not only arrest Hastings, but execute him immediately? If the regency COULD have ended when the king was crowned, didn't Richard protect himself by NOT having the king crowned, but rather taking the crown HIMSELF?

With reference to the pre-contract, wasn't it "convenient" to Richard that it was "discovered" when it was? Are we supposed to believe that Richard knew NOTHING of it, or rumors about it, previously? What about the rumors about Edward IV's parentage, and what might Clarence have known or talked about which could have influenced Edward IV to execute him rather than forgive him as he had in the past?

Upon what basis could it be said that Richard took the throne with "widespread support"? What Myers has to say certainly fits the known facts.

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Sources for my opinion include this material at the Richard III Society's site:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/
> The Controversy
> The ‘Crimes’ of
> Richard III
>  
> Edward
> IV certainly specified in his will that Richard was to be Protector of the
> realm in the event of a minority. The initial period following Edward's death
> suggests that Queen Elizabeth and her supporters were aiming to crown Edward V
> before Richard could assume the role of Protector. The fact that no official
> word came to Richard from the Queen or the Council (then effectively in her
> control) informing him of Edward's death and his legal right to be Protector,
> must have raised some suspicion in Richard's mind about the Queen's motives. However Richard's behaviour once he had secured the person of Edward V and had
> arrived in London was exemplary .A date was set for the coronation of Edward V
> and writs and warrants were issued in the King's name. Summonses were sent for
> a parliament to meet after the coronation. Richard had the support of the
> Council and there is no reason to suspect at this stage that anything other than
> the coronation and reign of Edward V would take place.
>
>
> The
> atmosphere changed around 10 June when Richard wrote to the City of York
> urgently requesting reinforcements to assist him against the Queen's ' ...
> blode adherentts and affinitie. This is a crucial point in the series of events
> leading to Richard taking the crown. If a plot had been discovered, who was
> behind it apart from the Queen's blood adherents? The most vexed question
> centres on the possible involvement of Lord Hastings - does this explain his
> sudden execution on 13 June? All answers to such questions must be speculative
> in the absence of definite evidence. The Crowland Chronicler certainly saw the
> plot as being invented by Richard as a pretext for executing Hastings, who had
> by then concluded that Richard was aiming for the throne. However there is no
> hint in Richard's behaviour that he was planning to be crowned in place of
> Edward V. Government was still being carried out in the name of Edward V - 'By
> the advice of our dearest uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, Protector of our realm
> during our young age ...' As late as 5 June letters of summons were being
> issued to forty squires who were to receive knighthoods at Edward's coronation,
> and even the King's coronation robes were in preparation.
> The
> climax came at the famous Council meeting on 13 June after which Hastings was
> executed. Hastings who had been Richard's erstwhile supporter against the Queen
> suddenly turned against him. It could be argued that he did indeed suspect
> Richard of aiming for the throne and that loyalty to Edward V made him ally
> with the Queen's party in order to thwart Richard. Whatever the reason
> Hastings' summary execution remains a blot on Richard's reputation, and was
> certainly out of character.”
> It
> was probably around this time that the pre-contract became a major factor in
> the course of events. Bishop Stillington's revelation that he had witnessed the
> pre-contract of Edward IV to Lady Eleanor Butler is one of the most contentious
> issues in Ricardian studies, dismissed by many as a hollow story. However, the
> matter of the pre-contract is fully set out in the Titulus Regius, which
> justified Richard's claim to the throne. This act of settlement was passed by
> Richard's only parliament, which met during January 1484. The act has led one
> modern historian to comment that Richard III '... has a claim to having been
> the only possessor of a genuinely parliamentary title during the entire Middle
> Ages.’  Regarding the pre-contract as a
> basis for the legitimacy of Richard's title, another modern historian has
> written that the relevant law to judge the pre-contract by is '... canon law.
> Under that law the Parliamentary claim stated a legitimate cause of action.'
> Richard’s
> coronation on 6 July 1483 was very well attended. This fact alone might lead us
> to conjecture that Richard had considerable support amongst the nobility and
> City of London for the course of action that he had pursued. His motives
> throughout the April to July period will always be a matter of controversy and
> debate, failing the discovery of further contemporary evidence.
> The
> dispute over Richard's motives continues today. Most modern historians would
> agree with the remark made by Professor Myers that '... the responsibilities
> and perils of an unexpected royal minority aroused in his nature the elements
> of fear, ambition, and impulsive ruthlessness which led him further and further
> along the path of immediate expediency ...' However, to this should be added
> the view of many others that Richard took '... the crown with widespread
> support and little bloodshed. ... Its constitutional validity apart, his
> assumption of the crown may be judged as sensible and perhaps even inevitable.'
>
>
> Sheffe
>
>  
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 2:49 PM
> >Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> > 
> >Are you asserting that those who escorted Edward V from Wales did not have the authority to do so, that they "kidnapped" Edward and that Richard "released" him? I do not remember ever reading that Richard ordered those in Wales to stay there until he arrived or to "turn the king over to his custody" when they met on the way to London; my understanding is that Richard was going to meet the king's party on its way to London and join it.
> >
> >I don't know about what you call "transparently obvious" with regards to those who escorted the king from Wales. Could it not have ALSO been "transparently obvious" that Richard wanted to seize the king's person and use that possession for his OWN purposes?
> >
> >"Richard's job" as regent had not yet been officially "spelled out" by the time of the meeting of Richard's party with that of the king, had it?
> >
> >If you object to the word "seize," what about "occupation," as per Mancini?
> >
> >WHO in "offering" the crown to Richard had any OTHER choice in the matter, by that point in time? What ELSE could they have done BUT "offer" him the crown? Kinship to Edward IV is fine, but "might makes right."
> >
> >--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >>
> >>      You keep calling it Richard's "seizure" of his nephew.  I think (and I'm sure plenty on here can correct me if I'm wrong--please do) that the "seizure" was made by his other uncles in the first place, who had no business doing anything with the boy before Richard got there.  It was Richard's job, as per Edward IV's wishes, to take care of Edward.  For them to assemble the force they did and start moving toward London was a transparently obvious attempt to lock Richard out of the position that was his by right as the adult head of the family and by right of the king's arrangements.  Nobody freaking seized the throne.  If Richard's nephews were declared illegitimate, Richard was next in line.  That is why they offered it to him.  If he had not accepted, there were others in line.  
> >>
> >> Sheffe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >________________________________
> >> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> >> >To:
> >> >Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:20 PM
> >> >Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >Richard's reputation has suffered in the eyes of his opponents from the very actions which his supporters consider to be the necessary actions of a resolute leader: the seizure of King Edward V and arrest of Rivers, Grey, Vaughn and Haute, and the summary execution of Hastings without an investigation. For Richard's opponents, these can be interpreted as evidence that Richard planned to seize the throne from as early as when he left the North, and certainly by the time of Hasting's execution. It can certainly be postulated that Richard's hand was "forced by events," but to what extent did Richard CREATE the events by which his hand was "forced"?
> >> >
> >> >--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually there's no historical record of anyone being put in charge of any investigation into Hastings. Dominic Mancini, who was in London at the time, writes that Richard sounded out the loyalty of Hastings, Rotherham and Morton "through the duke of Buckingham" and learned that "sometimes they forgathered in each other's houses". (We don't know how Mancini came by such interesting information.)
> >> >>
> >> >> Of the events of 13 June Mancini says that Richard "cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him" whereupon soldiers rushed in with Buckingham, cut down Hastings and arrested the others. Again we don't know how Mancini came by this information, and he is wrong on at least two counts: he describes the presence of the group as coming to "pay a customary call" on Richard, rather than actually being there to attend a council meeting; and he is also wrong in saying that Hastings was "cut down" - in fact he was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded.
> >> >>
> >> >> What Mancini WAS in a position to know was that in order to calm the people of London the protector immediately issued a public proclamation - "that a plot had been detected in the citadel and Hastings, as the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty; wherefore he bade them all be reassured." Mancini then editorializes to the effect that although the crowd believed this "initially", "the real truth was on the lips of many" that it was simply an excuse (again he doesn't confide in us how this "real truth" was known, or who sowed the seeds of disbelief in Richard's proclamation).
> >> >>
> >> >> The Crowland Chronicle simply reports "when he came to the council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded". This is followed by the remark "these two dukes thereafter did whatever they wanted".
> >> >>
> >> >> There is also a MS known as 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen', assessed as being copies made in about 1512-13 of 15th-century originals of which the only clue to their date is that there is a reference to Henry Tudor's marriage to "King Edward's eldest daughter whose name is Elizabeth", so she was still alive when the writing was originally committed to paper, i.e. pre-1503. These notes state: "... ther was dyuers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyed [discovered] and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith" (with no editorializing as to this being merely a cover story).
> >> >>
> >> >> To the best of my knowledge there is no other reasonably contemporaneous report of Hastings's demise. All other written material we have about these events, and Buckingham's role in them, dates to the Tudor regime, at least 30 years later (which may also be considered the appropriate date to assign to the 'Historical Notes'). Even so, I can't call to mind a Tudor-era story about Buckingham being given the charge of investigating Hastings's role in the conspiracy. Does this perhaps come from Josephine Tey's 'Inspector Grant' mystery?
> >> >> Regards, Annette
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> >> >> To:
> >> >> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 1:16 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Buckingham was the one who had the all-important task of determining whether Lord Hastings had enlisted in the conspiracy that resulted in the latter's execution, wasn't he? Same guy? Am I remembering this correctly? I recall being surprised about Richard's decision to put Buckingham in charge of the investigation because Hastings was an old family friend and he hadn't known Buckingham for long, which made his loyalty, his brains, and his abilities unknown quantities.
> >> >>
> >> >> If so, this is right in line with what Mackintosh ("Josephine Tey") called Richard's magnanimity, remarking shortly, "It didn't work." Buckingham's defection resulted in Richard's stinging assessment of Buckingham as "him that had best cause to be true... the most untrue creature living." It sounds to me as though the worst part of dealing with the rebellion for Richard was seeing how his friendship had been answered.
> >> >>
> >> >> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> >> >> > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> >> >> > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> >> >> > Paul
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> ________________________________
> >> >> > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> >> >> > >> To:
> >> >> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> >> >> > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Â
> >> >> > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > ------------------------------------
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

As far away from the "scene of action" as I am in Sacramento, California, I STILL want to be as ACCURATE as possible! I never bothered to check a map of England to trace Richard's...journey.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Warren call it that if you want.  We can just agree to disagree.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012, 0:48
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> I won't use the term "Northern." I won't even call it a "progress."
> I'll call it a "campaign swing through England."
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Well I'm sure he wanted to return to the area that he loved - and loved him - but to me the term northern progress suggests he spent most of the time touring the north of England.  I just find  it misleading.  If you look at Google Earth to see exactly where these places are you may  understand why I feel that.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:37
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >  
> > Okay, I will refrain from referring to it as a "northern" progress.
> > I always understood that the "goal" of the progress was to "return to the North" after spending the last few months in the South.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well Warren I'm not sure where you are from, but as a Brit, I'd say most of those towns were not "northern".  Pontefract and  York are of course but the rest to me are either southern, western, or in the Midlands.  Maybe a Londoner would call Nottingham Grantham or Lincoln "the north" but as someone who grew up in Staffordshire I certainly wouldn't.
> > >  
> > > So personally I would certainly not call it a northern progress although Richard visited a couple of places in the north.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 21:43
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: warrenmalach
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > > paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > > >> Paul
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topÃÆ'‚ councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. ÃÆ'‚ Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm afraid my traveling days are over. I'm all for the concept of "travel" in the science fiction film TOTAL RECALL. If I could obtain "implanted memories" of visiting the UK, I would do so. Otherwise, photographs and films are just fine.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> You'll have to come back .....
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012, 0:53
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> We went through Wales on our way to and from Ireland on the (boat-)train, but our travels in the Southwest were limited to excursions to see Plymouth (the Mayflower, you know) and Tintagel (King Arthur, according to some.) Perhaps Richard saw everyone he wanted to see at York.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure if Richard would have but York is well over 100 miles south of the border  (To you 100 plus miles may not sound much  but it is quite a distance on our map.)   However he may not have wanted to travel any further north than York - he had spent a lot of time around Carlisle and Berwick and the borders but that was fairly wild country and there were always problems with the Scots.
> >  
> > I'm sure that like most tourists you had a limited time to see Great Britain and therefore would have missed big chunks of it. For example did you see Wales, East Anglia, Cornwall?    Richard obviously didn't have such time constraints but may have felt he needed to be back in London -  Annette will know about that far better than I.  I'm not sure how long the royal progress took.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:44
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >  
> > Would Richard have said "Once you've seen York, you've seen the North!"? I've known people who feel that if they've seen the major city or tourist attaction, they've seen the "whole place." I don't think when I visited England for the second time in 1973 that I ever got any farther "north" in England (as opposed to Scotland) than York, which I thought was a beautiful city, especially Yorkminister, where we attended a "Sound and Light" program. An important point for me would be that Richard did NOT "return to the North" simply to "shore up" support among his Northern followers after his coronation.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Now I know where you're from!
> > >  
> > > Incidentally I'm surprised that Richard didn't visit more towns in the north.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:28
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Okay, so what should this poor, benighted Yank learn from looking at a map of England relative to Richard's progress in 1483? Is there something here that I didn't understand?
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We all know what you meant, Warren.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: warrenmalach
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: warrenmalach
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > > > paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > > > >> Paul
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topÃÆ'‚ councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. ÃÆ'‚ Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'd like to clarify what I meant by johnny-come-lately. Although it is true that Buckingham and Richard had known each other for a long time, I've never seen any documentation that suggests the two were personally close. I may be wrong, but I can't remember any time in which Richard and Buckingham closeted together to discuss policy and strategy, other than when Buckingham joined Richard on the journey to London. It is still my belief that Buckingham was angling, and that Richard knew it. Richard played along to see where Buckingham was coming from. He kept testing Buckingham to determine whether Buckingham was a worthy addition to his inner coterie. Somewhere along the line, Buckingham failed the test, and Buckingham panicked.



________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:09:50 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?


 
I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.  

Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.

________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?


 
To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?

It seems to me that, after the death of Edward IV, Richard "needed all of the friends that he could get," and that for this reason the offer of support from Buckingham was too good to turn down. By the time of Richard's coronation and subsequent "campaign swing through England," the situation had changed, and Richard may well have become very suspicious of, and concerned about, Buckingham. Still, Bishop Morton HAD been given into Buckingham's custody, which does not appear to have been a very good idea in retrospect. All that being said, Richard apparently was still caught by surprise by Buckingham's rebellion. For me, the apparent fact that Richard faced a coalition of enemies--Yorkists AND Lancastrians--in the fall of 1483 leaves me wondering about the allegations of "widespread support" when Richard took the throne.

--- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>
> I'd like to clarify what I meant by johnny-come-lately. Although it is true that Buckingham and Richard had known each other for a long time, I've never seen any documentation that suggests the two were personally close. I may be wrong, but I can't remember any time in which Richard and Buckingham closeted together to discuss policy and strategy, other than when Buckingham joined Richard on the journey to London. It is still my belief that Buckingham was angling, and that Richard knew it. Richard played along to see where Buckingham was coming from. He kept testing Buckingham to determine whether Buckingham was a worthy addition to his inner coterie. Somewhere along the line, Buckingham failed the test, and Buckingham panicked.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:09:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.  
>
> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you Annette. As anyone who knows the geography of England would know, only Nottingham, Pontefract, and York and considered northern.
Paul

On 27 Jul 2012, at 20:44, Annette Carson wrote:

> Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warrenmalach
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>
> My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
>> paul
>>
>> On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
>>
>>> Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
>>>
>>> Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
>>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
>>>> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
>>>> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
>>>>>> To:
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Â
>>>>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hello McJohn, no need to shut up, it's very interesting to see how years and years of literature around a subject can imprint writers' creative scenarios on the memory of their readers. One of the most difficult things for me when I was writing my book was to clear my brain of what I thought I knew, and start deriving my own conclusions from going back to original sources. At the same time, on another level, it was a case of asking how those original sources knew what they thought they knew. It's been said many times that just because someone is in the same town when an event happens, that doesn't mean they are a reliable witness to that event.

Another problem derives from the skill of the creative writer. None of us would choose to read a dry book given the alternative of an interesting book. Some of the things that make a book interesting, in addition to the writer's insights, are drama, colour and detail. Gifted writers make what they're telling you seem real and memorable. A writer usually targets a particular audience, crafting the message accordingly. If the audience is parti-pris, they will love material that is gossipy, revelatory, judgmental - Mancini knew all about this, and was a very good writer, there's not a dull sentence in his 'De Occupatione'. I know John Armstrong would forgive me for saying that his introductory analysis, by contrast, makes for dry reading. But comparing the two, I know which I'd rather rely on for factual information.

By the way, there is one sentence in Mancini that stands out, for me, above all others. Several of Armstrong's translations have been challenged in recent years (e.g. see my pp.152-3), so I am using Lesley Boatwright's translation which she tells me is more accurate. Mancini has just given his French readers his dramatic description of men bursting into tears at the mention of Edward V and suspecting that he has been 'taken by death', at the end of chapter five. Mancini then adds - writing in December 1483, and despite his access to informants such as John Argentine - 'Whether, however, he has been taken by death, and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered.' It's the one time in his entire report that we know he is telling the reader the unvarnished truth based on his own investigations. (It is interesting, by the way, that historians like Giles St Aubyn and Jonathan Hughes deliberately omit the words "Whether, however, he has been taken by death" when quoting that sentence, leaving us to suppose that Mancini knew the boy had died, and was merely unaware how. Always check sources for yourself!)

So, back to Richard of Gloucester wondering whether Hastings is still supporting him. This influential magnate, with many more reinforcements to call upon than Richard, including the well-trained Calais garrison, could be pivotal in determining whether matters go ahead peacefully. In Richard's shoes, wouldn't one want to treat the situation with kid gloves? Until now there has been no breach between them. Would he really want to intrude a proxy into the mix? - Especially one by the name of Buckingham, if there was any truth in the supposition that Hastings was feeling supplanted by Buckingham! Naturally the execution of Hastings was a nine-days-wonder when it happened: this could have been just one story that went the rounds among people who liked to think they knew stuff. Thomas More painted an even more dramatic scenario and gave the proxy role to Catesby. Much more colourful, of course, than just saying that Richard had anonymous agents spying for him who reported on suspicious activities.

There's no doubt that both Mancini and the Crowland chronicle are full of gossip about Buckingham rather than, for example, Francis Lovell, Robert Brackenbury et al, but that, I think, reflects the impact he made on observers as a royal duke suddenly gaining unaccustomed prominence. Naturally they would find him fascinating, and would build suitable roles for him into their after-dinner discussions.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?



Er... yes... where DID I get that most tantalizing take on the story? Something about it being Richard's first serious test of Buckingham as an ally... that Richard had gotten some glimmer of sedition about Hastings and sent Buckingham out to find out what was up... that Buckingham came back in an hour and gave Richard the bad news about the old family friend and staunch ally... and Richard went utterly thermonuclear and ordered Hastings' immediate execution. (This was the June 13 meeting to plan Edward's coronation--the one where Sir Thomas More, or possibly John Morton, goes on at such length about the strawberries.) Hardly an unimpeachable source, then.

I might have been clearer, too, about the distinction between Buckingham as a newcomer and Hastings as an old family friend. In my reading I see Hastings involved in the family's political life for eons before Buckingham's first recorded overtly politically-minded move, but I should have remembered that Buckingham and Richard had known each other all their lives, and that there's a difference between "Hey, old cuz, how's it goin'?" and "Hey, old cuz, snoop around and see what you can find out about Hastings' loyalties, willya?"

Thorough amateur shutting up now... please excuse the interruption...

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Actually there's no historical record of anyone being put in charge of any investigation into Hastings. Dominic Mancini, who was in London at the time, writes that Richard sounded out the loyalty of Hastings, Rotherham and Morton "through the duke of Buckingham" and learned that "sometimes they forgathered in each other's houses". (We don't know how Mancini came by such interesting information.)
>
> Of the events of 13 June Mancini says that Richard "cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him" whereupon soldiers rushed in with Buckingham, cut down Hastings and arrested the others. Again we don't know how Mancini came by this information, and he is wrong on at least two counts: he describes the presence of the group as coming to "pay a customary call" on Richard, rather than actually being there to attend a council meeting; and he is also wrong in saying that Hastings was "cut down" - in fact he was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded.
>
> What Mancini WAS in a position to know was that in order to calm the people of London the protector immediately issued a public proclamation - "that a plot had been detected in the citadel and Hastings, as the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty; wherefore he bade them all be reassured." Mancini then editorializes to the effect that although the crowd believed this "initially", "the real truth was on the lips of many" that it was simply an excuse (again he doesn't confide in us how this "real truth" was known, or who sowed the seeds of disbelief in Richard's proclamation).
>
> The Crowland Chronicle simply reports "when he came to the council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded". This is followed by the remark "these two dukes thereafter did whatever they wanted".
>
> There is also a MS known as 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen', assessed as being copies made in about 1512-13 of 15th-century originals of which the only clue to their date is that there is a reference to Henry Tudor's marriage to "King Edward's eldest daughter whose name is Elizabeth", so she was still alive when the writing was originally committed to paper, i.e. pre-1503. These notes state: "... ther was dyuers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyed [discovered] and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith" (with no editorializing as to this being merely a cover story).
>
> To the best of my knowledge there is no other reasonably contemporaneous report of Hastings's demise. All other written material we have about these events, and Buckingham's role in them, dates to the Tudor regime, at least 30 years later (which may also be considered the appropriate date to assign to the 'Historical Notes'). Even so, I can't call to mind a Tudor-era story about Buckingham being given the charge of investigating Hastings's role in the conspiracy. Does this perhaps come from Josephine Tey's 'Inspector Grant' mystery?
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 1:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>
> Buckingham was the one who had the all-important task of determining whether Lord Hastings had enlisted in the conspiracy that resulted in the latter's execution, wasn't he? Same guy? Am I remembering this correctly? I recall being surprised about Richard's decision to put Buckingham in charge of the investigation because Hastings was an old family friend and he hadn't known Buckingham for long, which made his loyalty, his brains, and his abilities unknown quantities.
>
> If so, this is right in line with what Mackintosh ("Josephine Tey") called Richard's magnanimity, remarking shortly, "It didn't work." Buckingham's defection resulted in Richard's stinging assessment of Buckingham as "him that had best cause to be true... the most untrue creature living." It sounds to me as though the worst part of dealing with the rebellion for Richard was seeing how his friendship had been answered.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> >
> > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > >
> > > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Â
> > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think the first sentence of your post (heading below) is what all these
posts are really about, especially the word "interpretation".
If one believes, or wishes others to believe, that Richard ALWAYS intended
to be king, then one COULD write that Richard "seized" the person of Edward
V at Stony Stratford. That is the position taken by Tudor chroniclers and
'way too many "historians" that followed them.
Or, if one wishes to be accurate AND unbiased, one could write that
Richard, while en route to London, stopped for the night at Northampton,
where he was joined by the Duke of Buckingham. Edward V and two of his
uncles were at that time at Stony Stratford, a short distance from
Northampton.
While Edward V remained at Stony Stratford for the night, Rivers, Grey and
others met with Richard and Buckingham in Northhampton. The following
morning Richard placed Rivers, Grey and Sir Thomas Vaughan under arrest,
with Rivers being sent to Sherriff Hutton and Grey to Middleham. Exactly why
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were arrested isn't known.
Richard then escorted Edward V to London, saw to his being established in
the Bishop of London's palace and himself moved into Baynard's Castle where
his mother, the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, was residing.
Of the above seven sentences, the first is someone's interpretation of what
occurred at Stony Stratford and the last six are historical fact as best I
can tell. This is what occurs time and again in regard to Richard III (and
others); a motive, or motives for something Richard, or someone else, did is
presumed by a writer and then the first writer's "presumption" (in more than
one sense!) is treated as a "fact" by other writers. An awful lot of the
very same thing occurs nowadays in politics here in the US; only it's called
"spin".
Added to this weakness, if you will, on the part of many writers of history
is the fact that after Richard's death, retaining any written record of what
actually occurred, as opposed to the official Tudor version, could be used
against the holder in a charge of treason.
Enough, fortunately, HAS survived to cast strong doubts on the Tudor
version of Ricard and more can be inferred from such as things wills,
letters, Parliamentary rolls and non-English sources not subject to Tudor,
ah, control.
As to the "pre-contract", it only affected Edward IV's children. Edward IV
could have used the same claim to the throne as Henry Tudor; ie, conquest,
but instead based his claim on his father's claim which, I believe, was
based on direct descent from Edward III through Edward's father, Richard,
Duke of York; as well as an act of Parliament enacted under Henry VI. The
closest Henry Tudor could get was that he was a descendant of a liaison
between Henry V's widow (a Frenchwoman) and Jasper Tudor. Nothing royal
there. The Beauforts, Henry's mother's family, WERE of royal descent, but
from the wrong side of the blanket and had been disbarred from any claims to
the throne when the offspring of John of Gaunt and his mistress had been
legitimized.
Any "convenience" concerning the "discovery" or, better, announcement of
Edward's pre-contract is solely in the eye of the beholder. As Edward IV's
claim to the throne was undoubted (see above) there was no need for anyone
who had any knowledge of the pre-contract to raise the question while Edward
IV lived. It was only with Edward IV's death, and the accession of Edward V,
that the pre-contract became vitally important. If Stillington knew about
it, the question then became: Who else knows? Dame Eleanor Butler was dead,
but did she tell anyone? There was at least one other cleric involved, did
HE tell anyone? If Clarence DID know, did HE tell anyone? To that one could
add the dislike of the Woodvilles, by members of the nobility AND commoners,
and the possibility of the pre-contract being exploited by Lancastrian/Tudor
supporters if it became known. Don't forget, Henry Tudor first based his
claim to the English throne on conquest, NOT descent. In my opinion, there
were thus plenty of reasons for Stillington to remain silent during the
lifetime of Edward IV and spill the beans upon his death. Had the Woodville
clan NOT been the people they were, and had they attempted to work with
Richard during his Protectorship, it may have been that Stillington would
have remained silent and trusted to the strength that, united, the
Woodvilles and Richard could have presented to any opposition.
As you suggest, it is entirely POSSIBLE that Clarence died because of what
he had learned about the validity of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville. Which would ALSO explain Stillington's silence while Edward IV
was alive. However, there simply is no PROOF that was the final straw.
Edward, with or without any Clarence having any knowledge of the
pre-contract, certainly had enough against his brother to warrant his
execution.
Rumors of Edward IV's illegitimacy, or of many monarchs in the Middle Ages,
was a standard charge leveled by opponents.


a shout out to Annette Carson: Congratulations on ever managing to write an
entire book! The above took me over an hour!

----- Original Message -----
From: "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?


Yes, but it still comes down one's own subjective interpretation of the
events, doesn't it?...some would interpret the events in the light of the
belief that he had ALREADY planned to take the throne. He had possession of
the king's person, he had eliminated the Woodville threat, so WHAT was he
worried about? WHY did he have to get the Duke of York out of sanctuary
right away? WHY did Hastings turn against him? Did Hastings suspect or
know that Richard was going to seize the throne? Is that why Richard had to
not only arrest Hastings, but execute him immediately? If the regency COULD
have ended when the king was crowned, didn't Richard protect himself by NOT
having the king crowned, but rather taking the crown HIMSELF?

With reference to the pre-contract, wasn't it "convenient" to Richard that
it was "discovered" when it was? Are we supposed to believe that Richard
knew NOTHING of it, or rumors about it, previously? What about the rumors
about Edward IV's parentage, and what might Clarence have known or talked
about which could have influenced Edward IV to execute him rather than
forgive him as he had in the past?

Upon what basis could it be said that Richard took the throne with
"widespread support"? What Myers has to say certainly fits the known facts.

According to Hicks (and I know he's not hugely popular round these parts,
but I rate him highly), the charges against Clarence were originally civil,
not treason. That changed during the course of the trial. Hicks believes
that the charge was changed to treason because Clarence kept in his
possession a document naming him in the Lancastrian succession (from the
Readeption). Had Clarence known about any pre-contract, I'm sure the first
person he would have told was his father-in-law. Or are you suggesting that
he found out about it (who from and how?) post 1471? As to the rumours of
Edward IV's illegitimacy, that was something dreamt up by my man Warwick,
who used the same tactic re Margaret of Anjou. It's astounding how many
people are prepared to believe infidelity and passing off a lover's child as
a husband's in the case of the latter but will (quite rightly) defend
Cecily. (Who was duchess of York, by the way, not duchess of Gloucester.)
warrenmalach is dead right about the 'convenience' of the discovery of the
pre-contract. The argument that it had no importance while Edward was alive
is very slippery in my view. A challenge to the legitimacy of Elizabeth
Wydeville's marriage to the king would have suited a whole bunch of people.
Unless Eleanor Butler spoke to no-one (and I can't imagine anyone in her
position staying silent, I'd have been outraged if it was me!), someone in
her family knew something. And one of the people in her family was the
countess of Warwick. Her husband was utterly silent on the matter, clearly
neither of them knew of it. The older I get and the more I read and
research, the more like a desperate pretext this precontract story becomes.
Not because it couldn't have been true, but because, even if it was, it
really shouldn't have mattered one jot, to Richard or to anyone else. The
boys were born after Eleanor Butler's death when their parents' marriage
would no longer have been bigamous. (And the whole 'speak now or forever
hold your peace' covers this kind of thing). Whether it was seeing just how
much Edward V wanted to keep uncle Anthony with him, and therefore
sidelining uncle Richard, or something else, I can't see any other reading
of the events than a premeditated bid for the throne. Of course, this
doesn't make him a hunchbacked serial killer, but it does put him in the
context of his times. Not a Too Good to be True Saint, but a 15th century
prince who saw his chance and took it.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 11:46:08 -0500
To: <>
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?






I think the first sentence of your post (heading below) is what all these
posts are really about, especially the word "interpretation".
If one believes, or wishes others to believe, that Richard ALWAYS intended
to be king, then one COULD write that Richard "seized" the person of Edward
V at Stony Stratford. That is the position taken by Tudor chroniclers and
'way too many "historians" that followed them.
Or, if one wishes to be accurate AND unbiased, one could write that
Richard, while en route to London, stopped for the night at Northampton,
where he was joined by the Duke of Buckingham. Edward V and two of his
uncles were at that time at Stony Stratford, a short distance from
Northampton.
While Edward V remained at Stony Stratford for the night, Rivers, Grey and
others met with Richard and Buckingham in Northhampton. The following
morning Richard placed Rivers, Grey and Sir Thomas Vaughan under arrest,
with Rivers being sent to Sherriff Hutton and Grey to Middleham. Exactly why
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were arrested isn't known.
Richard then escorted Edward V to London, saw to his being established in
the Bishop of London's palace and himself moved into Baynard's Castle where
his mother, the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, was residing.
Of the above seven sentences, the first is someone's interpretation of what
occurred at Stony Stratford and the last six are historical fact as best I
can tell. This is what occurs time and again in regard to Richard III (and
others); a motive, or motives for something Richard, or someone else, did is
presumed by a writer and then the first writer's "presumption" (in more than
one sense!) is treated as a "fact" by other writers. An awful lot of the
very same thing occurs nowadays in politics here in the US; only it's called
"spin".
Added to this weakness, if you will, on the part of many writers of history
is the fact that after Richard's death, retaining any written record of what
actually occurred, as opposed to the official Tudor version, could be used
against the holder in a charge of treason.
Enough, fortunately, HAS survived to cast strong doubts on the Tudor
version of Ricard and more can be inferred from such as things wills,
letters, Parliamentary rolls and non-English sources not subject to Tudor,
ah, control.
As to the "pre-contract", it only affected Edward IV's children. Edward IV
could have used the same claim to the throne as Henry Tudor; ie, conquest,
but instead based his claim on his father's claim which, I believe, was
based on direct descent from Edward III through Edward's father, Richard,
Duke of York; as well as an act of Parliament enacted under Henry VI. The
closest Henry Tudor could get was that he was a descendant of a liaison
between Henry V's widow (a Frenchwoman) and Jasper Tudor. Nothing royal
there. The Beauforts, Henry's mother's family, WERE of royal descent, but
from the wrong side of the blanket and had been disbarred from any claims to
the throne when the offspring of John of Gaunt and his mistress had been
legitimized.
Any "convenience" concerning the "discovery" or, better, announcement of
Edward's pre-contract is solely in the eye of the beholder. As Edward IV's
claim to the throne was undoubted (see above) there was no need for anyone
who had any knowledge of the pre-contract to raise the question while Edward
IV lived. It was only with Edward IV's death, and the accession of Edward V,
that the pre-contract became vitally important. If Stillington knew about
it, the question then became: Who else knows? Dame Eleanor Butler was dead,
but did she tell anyone? There was at least one other cleric involved, did
HE tell anyone? If Clarence DID know, did HE tell anyone? To that one could
add the dislike of the Woodvilles, by members of the nobility AND commoners,
and the possibility of the pre-contract being exploited by Lancastrian/Tudor
supporters if it became known. Don't forget, Henry Tudor first based his
claim to the English throne on conquest, NOT descent. In my opinion, there
were thus plenty of reasons for Stillington to remain silent during the
lifetime of Edward IV and spill the beans upon his death. Had the Woodville
clan NOT been the people they were, and had they attempted to work with
Richard during his Protectorship, it may have been that Stillington would
have remained silent and trusted to the strength that, united, the
Woodvilles and Richard could have presented to any opposition.
As you suggest, it is entirely POSSIBLE that Clarence died because of what
he had learned about the validity of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville. Which would ALSO explain Stillington's silence while Edward IV
was alive. However, there simply is no PROOF that was the final straw.
Edward, with or without any Clarence having any knowledge of the
pre-contract, certainly had enough against his brother to warrant his
execution.
Rumors of Edward IV's illegitimacy, or of many monarchs in the Middle Ages,
was a standard charge leveled by opponents.

a shout out to Annette Carson: Congratulations on ever managing to write an
entire book! The above took me over an hour!

----- Original Message -----
From: "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?

Yes, but it still comes down one's own subjective interpretation of the
events, doesn't it?...some would interpret the events in the light of the
belief that he had ALREADY planned to take the throne. He had possession of
the king's person, he had eliminated the Woodville threat, so WHAT was he
worried about? WHY did he have to get the Duke of York out of sanctuary
right away? WHY did Hastings turn against him? Did Hastings suspect or
know that Richard was going to seize the throne? Is that why Richard had to
not only arrest Hastings, but execute him immediately? If the regency COULD
have ended when the king was crowned, didn't Richard protect himself by NOT
having the king crowned, but rather taking the crown HIMSELF?

With reference to the pre-contract, wasn't it "convenient" to Richard that
it was "discovered" when it was? Are we supposed to believe that Richard
knew NOTHING of it, or rumors about it, previously? What about the rumors
about Edward IV's parentage, and what might Clarence have known or talked
about which could have influenced Edward IV to execute him rather than
forgive him as he had in the past?

Upon what basis could it be said that Richard took the throne with
"widespread support"? What Myers has to say certainly fits the known facts.

Medieval English marriage law is very complex and it would need a book to unravel and that book would need a knowledge of both canon *and* common law to be complete. However, the fact that the boys were born after the death of Eleanor Talbot-Butler is neither here nor there.

Let's assume Edward *did* marry Eleanor in a private ceremony followed by consummation. (Because obviously if he didn't there's nothing to argue about.)

The ceremony would be binding in canon law, but would not give the children of it the right to inherit land under English common law.Strictly a dispensation (as obtained by Richard of Conisbrough and Anne Mortimer) was needed to make it fully kosher, and an Act of Parliament would be belt and braces.

Now *if* Edward had stood up *in church* in a public ceremony when he married Elizabeth,and Eleanor had not objected *then*, assuming she was free to do so, then it's 99% certain that Edward's marriage would have been valid in common law, for land inheritance, and about 80% certain it would have been held valid under canon law. (Popes could be awkward.)

However, Edward *did not* do that. He married in secret and hugger-mugger, and neither Eleanor or anyone else had a chance to object. Since he never bothered to get a dispensation or to pass an Act of Parliament it is open to debate whether his marriage to Elizabeth was valid for the purpose of their children inheriting land (English common law, see Statute of Merton for details) even if Eleanor talbot had never been born. Why Edward did not take these elementary steps to secure his marriage (either marry openly or get a dispensation) is an eternal mystery to me. I think he just assumed he was above little legal details.

Nor did Edward 'remarry' Elizabeth after Eleanor's death. Nor could he, without a dispensation, because it was forbidden to repeat the sacrament without permission.

Now (this a common moan from me) it's all too easy to forget these people were not living in a modern liberal democracy where there was a fully functioning rule of law. Edward was - to put it bluntly - a tyrant, certainly post 1471, and people who got in his way got their heads stamped on. Eleanor Talbot was for all practical purposes powerless - given that she had no child and was evidently a religious sort of woman, she may have decided to opt for the quiet life. I do believe her sister, Elizabeth Talbot Duchess of Norfolk was in on the secret though, and it is telling that immediately after Eleanor's death two of Elizabeth's servants were executed for treason, while Elizabeth and her brother Sir Humphrey were required to take out pardons. Yes, there are all sorts of reasons to have to take out a pardon, including prudence, but I believe it's quite rare for a woman living under coverture to have to have one.

Later Elizabeth's daughter was married to Edward and Elizabeth's son, Richard, and she, Elizabeth, was 'asked' to take a reduced dower. 'Asked' in the same way that the Deputy Head used to 'ask' me to come into school at 8-25 am when I broke the rules. OK, co-incidence maybe, but it has a hint of coercion to me.

Later, Elizabeth (who had quite strong connections to one M. Beaufort and the Duke of Buckingham) was granted Chelsea by Richard III 'for the service of a red rose.' Strange that Richard should give such a juicy reward to a fairly wealthy widow to whom he owed nothing (obvious). Co-incidence?

I fully understand that none of this is 'proof'. But anyone who expects 'proof' (as we understand it) of a secret marriage in the 1460s is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. The only reason we 'know' Edward married Elizabeth is that he said so. There's no marriage certificate, and despite what Thomas More states in his amusing novel, there was no solemn public ceremony. While I accept that no one has to believe Edward married Eleanor, I don't see why it's absurd to think he did - the man married Elizabeth in *precisely* the manner it is alleged her married Eleanor. Because in personal matters he was an irresponsible fool. No wonder his mother was cross with him!

Brian W
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>
> According to Hicks (and I know he's not hugely popular round these parts,
> but I rate him highly), the charges against Clarence were originally civil,
> not treason. That changed during the course of the trial. Hicks believes
> that the charge was changed to treason because Clarence kept in his
> possession a document naming him in the Lancastrian succession (from the
> Readeption). Had Clarence known about any pre-contract, I'm sure the first
> person he would have told was his father-in-law. Or are you suggesting that
> he found out about it (who from and how?) post 1471? As to the rumours of
> Edward IV's illegitimacy, that was something dreamt up by my man Warwick,
> who used the same tactic re Margaret of Anjou. It's astounding how many
> people are prepared to believe infidelity and passing off a lover's child as
> a husband's in the case of the latter but will (quite rightly) defend
> Cecily. (Who was duchess of York, by the way, not duchess of Gloucester.)
> warrenmalach is dead right about the 'convenience' of the discovery of the
> pre-contract. The argument that it had no importance while Edward was alive
> is very slippery in my view. A challenge to the legitimacy of Elizabeth
> Wydeville's marriage to the king would have suited a whole bunch of people.
> Unless Eleanor Butler spoke to no-one (and I can't imagine anyone in her
> position staying silent, I'd have been outraged if it was me!), someone in
> her family knew something. And one of the people in her family was the
> countess of Warwick. Her husband was utterly silent on the matter, clearly
> neither of them knew of it. The older I get and the more I read and
> research, the more like a desperate pretext this precontract story becomes.
> Not because it couldn't have been true, but because, even if it was, it
> really shouldn't have mattered one jot, to Richard or to anyone else. The
> boys were born after Eleanor Butler's death when their parents' marriage
> would no longer have been bigamous. (And the whole 'speak now or forever
> hold your peace' covers this kind of thing). Whether it was seeing just how
> much Edward V wanted to keep uncle Anthony with him, and therefore
> sidelining uncle Richard, or something else, I can't see any other reading
> of the events than a premeditated bid for the throne. Of course, this
> doesn't make him a hunchbacked serial killer, but it does put him in the
> context of his times. Not a Too Good to be True Saint, but a 15th century
> prince who saw his chance and took it.
>
> Karen
>
>

Hi Liz - Basically the progress was interrupted when news reached Richard in Lincoln (about 11 October) of the rebellion that had broken out in some southern and western areas. His muster of troops was set for Leicester, which he reached on 22 October. However, he would probably have received news of the rebels' defeat a couple of days later, so it seems he was able to continue his progress in no great hurry, pausing to pay his respects again at Magdalen College, then heading for parts of the south-west which he hadn't previously visited. After Buckingham's execution at Salisbury he made his way along the coast towards Exeter, likely because of the possible threat of Henry Tudor's Breton ships, then when that threat melted away he carried on up to Bridgwater and back east to Salisbury, then towards the home counties. Doubtless his interest in many of the following destinations was also informed by what happened in the rebellion and what he needed to do in its aftermath. In January he went on to Kent. All this is in a handy little booklet (with maps) which Warren can get from the Society for a few pounds.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?



Not sure if Richard would have but York is well over 100 miles south of the border (To you 100 plus miles may not sound much but it is quite a distance on our map.) However he may not have wanted to travel any further north than York - he had spent a lot of time around Carlisle and Berwick and the borders but that was fairly wild country and there were always problems with the Scots.

I'm sure that like most tourists you had a limited time to see Great Britain and therefore would have missed big chunks of it. For example did you see Wales, East Anglia, Cornwall? Richard obviously didn't have such time constraints but may have felt he needed to be back in London - Annette will know about that far better than I. I'm not sure how long the royal progress took.

________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:44
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?


Would Richard have said "Once you've seen York, you've seen the North!"? I've known people who feel that if they've seen the major city or tourist attaction, they've seen the "whole place." I don't think when I visited England for the second time in 1973 that I ever got any farther "north" in England (as opposed to Scotland) than York, which I thought was a beautiful city, especially Yorkminister, where we attended a "Sound and Light" program. An important point for me would be that Richard did NOT "return to the North" simply to "shore up" support among his Northern followers after his coronation.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Now I know where you're from!
> Â
> Incidentally I'm surprised that Richard didn't visit more towns in the north.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:28
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
> Â
> Okay, so what should this poor, benighted Yank learn from looking at a map of England relative to Richard's progress in 1483? Is there something here that I didn't understand?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > We all know what you meant, Warren.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: warrenmalach
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: warrenmalach
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > paul
> > > >
> > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > > >
> > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > >> Paul
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.Ã Ã
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topà councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. à Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Ã
> > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Brian, I don't think the idea that Edward married Eleanor absurd at all, for
the very reasons you mention. I do think, whatever the truth of it, it need
not have been a problem for Edward V. Richard could have made such a problem
go away. He didn't. He chose to exploit it for all it was worth. I'm very
much on Richard's side in all this, acknowledging that not everything he did
was for altruistic reasons is part of that. I don't feel that I'm doing him,
his memory or what could roughly be called 'the truth' any favours
otherwise.

Karen

From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:55:15 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?






Medieval English marriage law is very complex and it would need a book to
unravel and that book would need a knowledge of both canon *and* common law
to be complete. However, the fact that the boys were born after the death of
Eleanor Talbot-Butler is neither here nor there.

Let's assume Edward *did* marry Eleanor in a private ceremony followed by
consummation. (Because obviously if he didn't there's nothing to argue
about.)

The ceremony would be binding in canon law, but would not give the children
of it the right to inherit land under English common law.Strictly a
dispensation (as obtained by Richard of Conisbrough and Anne Mortimer) was
needed to make it fully kosher, and an Act of Parliament would be belt and
braces.

Now *if* Edward had stood up *in church* in a public ceremony when he
married Elizabeth,and Eleanor had not objected *then*, assuming she was free
to do so, then it's 99% certain that Edward's marriage would have been valid
in common law, for land inheritance, and about 80% certain it would have
been held valid under canon law. (Popes could be awkward.)

However, Edward *did not* do that. He married in secret and hugger-mugger,
and neither Eleanor or anyone else had a chance to object. Since he never
bothered to get a dispensation or to pass an Act of Parliament it is open to
debate whether his marriage to Elizabeth was valid for the purpose of their
children inheriting land (English common law, see Statute of Merton for
details) even if Eleanor talbot had never been born. Why Edward did not take
these elementary steps to secure his marriage (either marry openly or get a
dispensation) is an eternal mystery to me. I think he just assumed he was
above little legal details.

Nor did Edward 'remarry' Elizabeth after Eleanor's death. Nor could he,
without a dispensation, because it was forbidden to repeat the sacrament
without permission.

Now (this a common moan from me) it's all too easy to forget these people
were not living in a modern liberal democracy where there was a fully
functioning rule of law. Edward was - to put it bluntly - a tyrant,
certainly post 1471, and people who got in his way got their heads stamped
on. Eleanor Talbot was for all practical purposes powerless - given that she
had no child and was evidently a religious sort of woman, she may have
decided to opt for the quiet life. I do believe her sister, Elizabeth Talbot
Duchess of Norfolk was in on the secret though, and it is telling that
immediately after Eleanor's death two of Elizabeth's servants were executed
for treason, while Elizabeth and her brother Sir Humphrey were required to
take out pardons. Yes, there are all sorts of reasons to have to take out a
pardon, including prudence, but I believe it's quite rare for a woman living
under coverture to have to have one.

Later Elizabeth's daughter was married to Edward and Elizabeth's son,
Richard, and she, Elizabeth, was 'asked' to take a reduced dower. 'Asked' in
the same way that the Deputy Head used to 'ask' me to come into school at
8-25 am when I broke the rules. OK, co-incidence maybe, but it has a hint of
coercion to me.

Later, Elizabeth (who had quite strong connections to one M. Beaufort and
the Duke of Buckingham) was granted Chelsea by Richard III 'for the service
of a red rose.' Strange that Richard should give such a juicy reward to a
fairly wealthy widow to whom he owed nothing (obvious). Co-incidence?

I fully understand that none of this is 'proof'. But anyone who expects
'proof' (as we understand it) of a secret marriage in the 1460s is living in
Cloud Cuckoo Land. The only reason we 'know' Edward married Elizabeth is
that he said so. There's no marriage certificate, and despite what Thomas
More states in his amusing novel, there was no solemn public ceremony. While
I accept that no one has to believe Edward married Eleanor, I don't see why
it's absurd to think he did - the man married Elizabeth in *precisely* the
manner it is alleged her married Eleanor. Because in personal matters he was
an irresponsible fool. No wonder his mother was cross with him!

Brian W
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>
> According to Hicks (and I know he's not hugely popular round these parts,
> but I rate him highly), the charges against Clarence were originally civil,
> not treason. That changed during the course of the trial. Hicks believes
> that the charge was changed to treason because Clarence kept in his
> possession a document naming him in the Lancastrian succession (from the
> Readeption). Had Clarence known about any pre-contract, I'm sure the first
> person he would have told was his father-in-law. Or are you suggesting that
> he found out about it (who from and how?) post 1471? As to the rumours of
> Edward IV's illegitimacy, that was something dreamt up by my man Warwick,
> who used the same tactic re Margaret of Anjou. It's astounding how many
> people are prepared to believe infidelity and passing off a lover's child as
> a husband's in the case of the latter but will (quite rightly) defend
> Cecily. (Who was duchess of York, by the way, not duchess of Gloucester.)
> warrenmalach is dead right about the 'convenience' of the discovery of the
> pre-contract. The argument that it had no importance while Edward was alive
> is very slippery in my view. A challenge to the legitimacy of Elizabeth
> Wydeville's marriage to the king would have suited a whole bunch of people.
> Unless Eleanor Butler spoke to no-one (and I can't imagine anyone in her
> position staying silent, I'd have been outraged if it was me!), someone in
> her family knew something. And one of the people in her family was the
> countess of Warwick. Her husband was utterly silent on the matter, clearly
> neither of them knew of it. The older I get and the more I read and
> research, the more like a desperate pretext this precontract story becomes.
> Not because it couldn't have been true, but because, even if it was, it
> really shouldn't have mattered one jot, to Richard or to anyone else. The
> boys were born after Eleanor Butler's death when their parents' marriage
> would no longer have been bigamous. (And the whole 'speak now or forever
> hold your peace' covers this kind of thing). Whether it was seeing just how
> much Edward V wanted to keep uncle Anthony with him, and therefore
> sidelining uncle Richard, or something else, I can't see any other reading
> of the events than a premeditated bid for the throne. Of course, this
> doesn't make him a hunchbacked serial killer, but it does put him in the
> context of his times. Not a Too Good to be True Saint, but a 15th century
> prince who saw his chance and took it.
>
> Karen
>
>

According to the Itinerary I've got (Rhoda Edwards), he spent all of
September and a good chunk of October in York and Pontefract, being back in
London by the end of November. More time was spent in the north than
anywhere else. I know the journey was interrupted, but he travelled fairly
swiftly from London to Yorkshire and there he stayed for quite a while.

Karen

From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 21:29:07 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?






Hi Liz - Basically the progress was interrupted when news reached Richard in
Lincoln (about 11 October) of the rebellion that had broken out in some
southern and western areas. His muster of troops was set for Leicester,
which he reached on 22 October. However, he would probably have received
news of the rebels' defeat a couple of days later, so it seems he was able
to continue his progress in no great hurry, pausing to pay his respects
again at Magdalen College, then heading for parts of the south-west which he
hadn't previously visited. After Buckingham's execution at Salisbury he made
his way along the coast towards Exeter, likely because of the possible
threat of Henry Tudor's Breton ships, then when that threat melted away he
carried on up to Bridgwater and back east to Salisbury, then towards the
home counties. Doubtless his interest in many of the following destinations
was also informed by what happened in the rebellion and what he needed to do
in its aftermath. In January he went on to Kent. All this is in a handy
little booklet (with maps) which Warren can get from the Society for a few
pounds.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?

Not sure if Richard would have but York is well over 100 miles south of the
border (To you 100 plus miles may not sound much but it is quite a
distance on our map.) However he may not have wanted to travel any further
north than York - he had spent a lot of time around Carlisle and Berwick and
the borders but that was fairly wild country and there were always problems
with the Scots.

I'm sure that like most tourists you had a limited time to see Great
Britain and therefore would have missed big chunks of it. For example did
you see Wales, East Anglia, Cornwall? Richard obviously didn't have such
time constraints but may have felt he needed to be back in London - Annette
will know about that far better than I. I'm not sure how long the royal
progress took.

________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:44
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?

Would Richard have said "Once you've seen York, you've seen the North!"?
I've known people who feel that if they've seen the major city or tourist
attaction, they've seen the "whole place." I don't think when I visited
England for the second time in 1973 that I ever got any farther "north" in
England (as opposed to Scotland) than York, which I thought was a beautiful
city, especially Yorkminister, where we attended a "Sound and Light"
program. An important point for me would be that Richard did NOT "return to
the North" simply to "shore up" support among his Northern followers after
his coronation.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Now I know where you're from!
> Â
> Incidentally I'm surprised that Richard didn't visit more towns in the
north.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:28
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?
>
>
> Â
> Okay, so what should this poor, benighted Yank learn from looking at a
map of England relative to Richard's progress in 1483? Is there something
here that I didn't understand?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson"
<email@> wrote:
> >
> > We all know what you meant, Warren.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: warrenmalach
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other
towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing
to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what
Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to
the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he
was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette
Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians,
there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the
internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor,
Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell,
Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester
Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham,
Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln,
Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford,
Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester,
Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: warrenmalach
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect
from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North"
during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference
books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's
itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor
Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > paul
> > > >
> > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to
pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the
North?
> > > > >
> > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced
marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I
can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of
his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies
because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT
"wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard
after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by
those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul
Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and
Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All
these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a
northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be
another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early
on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this
would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't
manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to
jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't
think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had
been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister
Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > >> Paul
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have
significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given
the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to
imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have
a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is
significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his
coronation.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that
this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William
Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly
wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry
Tudor's plans went too far.Ã Ã
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next
Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands,
positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topÃ
councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to
make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby,
Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. Ã
Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would
be questioned by many.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect
from Richard?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Ã
> > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham
defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had
Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each
other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to
seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than
the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have
still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians
he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing
of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events
developed?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

... and your point is ....?


----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?



According to the Itinerary I've got (Rhoda Edwards), he spent all of
September and a good chunk of October in York and Pontefract, being back in
London by the end of November. More time was spent in the north than
anywhere else. I know the journey was interrupted, but he travelled fairly
swiftly from London to Yorkshire and there he stayed for quite a while.

Karen

From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 21:29:07 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?

Hi Liz - Basically the progress was interrupted when news reached Richard in
Lincoln (about 11 October) of the rebellion that had broken out in some
southern and western areas. His muster of troops was set for Leicester,
which he reached on 22 October. However, he would probably have received
news of the rebels' defeat a couple of days later, so it seems he was able
to continue his progress in no great hurry, pausing to pay his respects
again at Magdalen College, then heading for parts of the south-west which he
hadn't previously visited. After Buckingham's execution at Salisbury he made
his way along the coast towards Exeter, likely because of the possible
threat of Henry Tudor's Breton ships, then when that threat melted away he
carried on up to Bridgwater and back east to Salisbury, then towards the
home counties. Doubtless his interest in many of the following destinations
was also informed by what happened in the rebellion and what he needed to do
in its aftermath. In January he went on to Kent. All this is in a handy
little booklet (with maps) which Warren can get from the Society for a few
pounds.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?

Not sure if Richard would have but York is well over 100 miles south of the
border (To you 100 plus miles may not sound much but it is quite a
distance on our map.) However he may not have wanted to travel any further
north than York - he had spent a lot of time around Carlisle and Berwick and
the borders but that was fairly wild country and there were always problems
with the Scots.

I'm sure that like most tourists you had a limited time to see Great
Britain and therefore would have missed big chunks of it. For example did
you see Wales, East Anglia, Cornwall? Richard obviously didn't have such
time constraints but may have felt he needed to be back in London - Annette
will know about that far better than I. I'm not sure how long the royal
progress took.

________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:44
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?

Would Richard have said "Once you've seen York, you've seen the North!"?
I've known people who feel that if they've seen the major city or tourist
attaction, they've seen the "whole place." I don't think when I visited
England for the second time in 1973 that I ever got any farther "north" in
England (as opposed to Scotland) than York, which I thought was a beautiful
city, especially Yorkminister, where we attended a "Sound and Light"
program. An important point for me would be that Richard did NOT "return to
the North" simply to "shore up" support among his Northern followers after
his coronation.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Now I know where you're from!
> Â
> Incidentally I'm surprised that Richard didn't visit more towns in the
north.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:28
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?
>
>
> Â
> Okay, so what should this poor, benighted Yank learn from looking at a
map of England relative to Richard's progress in 1483? Is there something
here that I didn't understand?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson"
<email@> wrote:
> >
> > We all know what you meant, Warren.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: warrenmalach
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other
towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing
to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what
Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to
the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he
was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette
Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians,
there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the
internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor,
Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell,
Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester
Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham,
Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln,
Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford,
Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester,
Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: warrenmalach
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect
from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North"
during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference
books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's
itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor
Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > paul
> > > >
> > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to
pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the
North?
> > > > >
> > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced
marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I
can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of
his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies
because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT
"wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard
after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by
those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul
Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and
Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All
these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a
northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be
another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early
on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this
would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't
manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to
jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't
think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had
been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister
Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > >> Paul
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have
significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given
the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to
imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have
a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is
significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his
coronation.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that
this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William
Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly
wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry
Tudor's plans went too far.Ã Ã
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next
Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands,
positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topÃ
councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to
make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby,
Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. Ã
Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would
be questioned by many.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect
from Richard?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Ã
> > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham
defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had
Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each
other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to
seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than
the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have
still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians
he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing
of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events
developed?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

My apologies, Paul. Now, tell me if the State of Missouri is "northern" or "southern"?

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Annette. As anyone who knows the geography of England would know, only Nottingham, Pontefract, and York and considered northern.
> Paul
>
> On 27 Jul 2012, at 20:44, Annette Carson wrote:
>
> > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: warrenmalach
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> >> paul
> >>
> >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> >>
> >>> Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> >>>
> >>> Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> >>>
> >>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> >>>> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> >>>> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> >>>>>> To:
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> >>>>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Â
> >>>>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Warren,

You seem to believe that both the ex-Princes were murdered and that one or more of about four people were responsible. Have you considered the likelihood of the elder boy dying of natural causes and his brother being spirited away?

Stephen.
----- Original Message -----
From: warrenmalach
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?



It seems to me that, after the death of Edward IV, Richard "needed all of the friends that he could get," and that for this reason the offer of support from Buckingham was too good to turn down. By the time of Richard's coronation and subsequent "campaign swing through England," the situation had changed, and Richard may well have become very suspicious of, and concerned about, Buckingham. Still, Bishop Morton HAD been given into Buckingham's custody, which does not appear to have been a very good idea in retrospect. All that being said, Richard apparently was still caught by surprise by Buckingham's rebellion. For me, the apparent fact that Richard faced a coalition of enemies--Yorkists AND Lancastrians--in the fall of 1483 leaves me wondering about the allegations of "widespread support" when Richard took the throne.

--- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>
> I'd like to clarify what I meant by johnny-come-lately. Although it is true that Buckingham and Richard had known each other for a long time, I've never seen any documentation that suggests the two were personally close. I may be wrong, but I can't remember any time in which Richard and Buckingham closeted together to discuss policy and strategy, other than when Buckingham joined Richard on the journey to London. It is still my belief that Buckingham was angling, and that Richard knew it. Richard played along to see where Buckingham was coming from. He kept testing Buckingham to determine whether Buckingham was a worthy addition to his inner coterie. Somewhere along the line, Buckingham failed the test, and Buckingham panicked.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:09:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
> Â
> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
>
> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
> Â
> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Annette, I appreciate what you say, but isn't it rather "subjective" to assert that those whose testimony you don't agree with are "full of gossip," whereas those whose testimony you do agree with are to be considered more "factual"?

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hello McJohn, no need to shut up, it's very interesting to see how years and years of literature around a subject can imprint writers' creative scenarios on the memory of their readers. One of the most difficult things for me when I was writing my book was to clear my brain of what I thought I knew, and start deriving my own conclusions from going back to original sources. At the same time, on another level, it was a case of asking how those original sources knew what they thought they knew. It's been said many times that just because someone is in the same town when an event happens, that doesn't mean they are a reliable witness to that event.
>
> Another problem derives from the skill of the creative writer. None of us would choose to read a dry book given the alternative of an interesting book. Some of the things that make a book interesting, in addition to the writer's insights, are drama, colour and detail. Gifted writers make what they're telling you seem real and memorable. A writer usually targets a particular audience, crafting the message accordingly. If the audience is parti-pris, they will love material that is gossipy, revelatory, judgmental - Mancini knew all about this, and was a very good writer, there's not a dull sentence in his 'De Occupatione'. I know John Armstrong would forgive me for saying that his introductory analysis, by contrast, makes for dry reading. But comparing the two, I know which I'd rather rely on for factual information.
>
> By the way, there is one sentence in Mancini that stands out, for me, above all others. Several of Armstrong's translations have been challenged in recent years (e.g. see my pp.152-3), so I am using Lesley Boatwright's translation which she tells me is more accurate. Mancini has just given his French readers his dramatic description of men bursting into tears at the mention of Edward V and suspecting that he has been 'taken by death', at the end of chapter five. Mancini then adds - writing in December 1483, and despite his access to informants such as John Argentine - 'Whether, however, he has been taken by death, and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered.' It's the one time in his entire report that we know he is telling the reader the unvarnished truth based on his own investigations. (It is interesting, by the way, that historians like Giles St Aubyn and Jonathan Hughes deliberately omit the words "Whether, however, he has been taken by death" when quoting that sentence, leaving us to suppose that Mancini knew the boy had died, and was merely unaware how. Always check sources for yourself!)
>
> So, back to Richard of Gloucester wondering whether Hastings is still supporting him. This influential magnate, with many more reinforcements to call upon than Richard, including the well-trained Calais garrison, could be pivotal in determining whether matters go ahead peacefully. In Richard's shoes, wouldn't one want to treat the situation with kid gloves? Until now there has been no breach between them. Would he really want to intrude a proxy into the mix? - Especially one by the name of Buckingham, if there was any truth in the supposition that Hastings was feeling supplanted by Buckingham! Naturally the execution of Hastings was a nine-days-wonder when it happened: this could have been just one story that went the rounds among people who liked to think they knew stuff. Thomas More painted an even more dramatic scenario and gave the proxy role to Catesby. Much more colourful, of course, than just saying that Richard had anonymous agents spying for him who reported on suspicious activities.
>
> There's no doubt that both Mancini and the Crowland chronicle are full of gossip about Buckingham rather than, for example, Francis Lovell, Robert Brackenbury et al, but that, I think, reflects the impact he made on observers as a royal duke suddenly gaining unaccustomed prominence. Naturally they would find him fascinating, and would build suitable roles for him into their after-dinner discussions.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 10:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>
> Er... yes... where DID I get that most tantalizing take on the story? Something about it being Richard's first serious test of Buckingham as an ally... that Richard had gotten some glimmer of sedition about Hastings and sent Buckingham out to find out what was up... that Buckingham came back in an hour and gave Richard the bad news about the old family friend and staunch ally... and Richard went utterly thermonuclear and ordered Hastings' immediate execution. (This was the June 13 meeting to plan Edward's coronation--the one where Sir Thomas More, or possibly John Morton, goes on at such length about the strawberries.) Hardly an unimpeachable source, then.
>
> I might have been clearer, too, about the distinction between Buckingham as a newcomer and Hastings as an old family friend. In my reading I see Hastings involved in the family's political life for eons before Buckingham's first recorded overtly politically-minded move, but I should have remembered that Buckingham and Richard had known each other all their lives, and that there's a difference between "Hey, old cuz, how's it goin'?" and "Hey, old cuz, snoop around and see what you can find out about Hastings' loyalties, willya?"
>
> Thorough amateur shutting up now... please excuse the interruption...
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Actually there's no historical record of anyone being put in charge of any investigation into Hastings. Dominic Mancini, who was in London at the time, writes that Richard sounded out the loyalty of Hastings, Rotherham and Morton "through the duke of Buckingham" and learned that "sometimes they forgathered in each other's houses". (We don't know how Mancini came by such interesting information.)
> >
> > Of the events of 13 June Mancini says that Richard "cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him" whereupon soldiers rushed in with Buckingham, cut down Hastings and arrested the others. Again we don't know how Mancini came by this information, and he is wrong on at least two counts: he describes the presence of the group as coming to "pay a customary call" on Richard, rather than actually being there to attend a council meeting; and he is also wrong in saying that Hastings was "cut down" - in fact he was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded.
> >
> > What Mancini WAS in a position to know was that in order to calm the people of London the protector immediately issued a public proclamation - "that a plot had been detected in the citadel and Hastings, as the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty; wherefore he bade them all be reassured." Mancini then editorializes to the effect that although the crowd believed this "initially", "the real truth was on the lips of many" that it was simply an excuse (again he doesn't confide in us how this "real truth" was known, or who sowed the seeds of disbelief in Richard's proclamation).
> >
> > The Crowland Chronicle simply reports "when he came to the council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded". This is followed by the remark "these two dukes thereafter did whatever they wanted".
> >
> > There is also a MS known as 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen', assessed as being copies made in about 1512-13 of 15th-century originals of which the only clue to their date is that there is a reference to Henry Tudor's marriage to "King Edward's eldest daughter whose name is Elizabeth", so she was still alive when the writing was originally committed to paper, i.e. pre-1503. These notes state: "... ther was dyuers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyed [discovered] and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith" (with no editorializing as to this being merely a cover story).
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge there is no other reasonably contemporaneous report of Hastings's demise. All other written material we have about these events, and Buckingham's role in them, dates to the Tudor regime, at least 30 years later (which may also be considered the appropriate date to assign to the 'Historical Notes'). Even so, I can't call to mind a Tudor-era story about Buckingham being given the charge of investigating Hastings's role in the conspiracy. Does this perhaps come from Josephine Tey's 'Inspector Grant' mystery?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 1:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > Buckingham was the one who had the all-important task of determining whether Lord Hastings had enlisted in the conspiracy that resulted in the latter's execution, wasn't he? Same guy? Am I remembering this correctly? I recall being surprised about Richard's decision to put Buckingham in charge of the investigation because Hastings was an old family friend and he hadn't known Buckingham for long, which made his loyalty, his brains, and his abilities unknown quantities.
> >
> > If so, this is right in line with what Mackintosh ("Josephine Tey") called Richard's magnanimity, remarking shortly, "It didn't work." Buckingham's defection resulted in Richard's stinging assessment of Buckingham as "him that had best cause to be true... the most untrue creature living." It sounds to me as though the worst part of dealing with the rebellion for Richard was seeing how his friendship had been answered.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ________________________________
> > > >> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > >> To:
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > >> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Â
> > > >> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Douglas, you're right, it so often comes down to which "spin" one subjectively decides to believe. As long as one does not try to assert that their own position is the ONLY one supported by the FACTS, there is plenty of room for discussion and debate. Some may want to deny me the term "Ricardian" because I believe that he must take responsibility for the disappearance and presumed deaths of his nephews, but I do NOT "swallow the Tudor Myth whole." Frankly, I would not have wanted to be in Richard's "shoes" when Edward IV died!

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> I think the first sentence of your post (heading below) is what all these
> posts are really about, especially the word "interpretation".
> If one believes, or wishes others to believe, that Richard ALWAYS intended
> to be king, then one COULD write that Richard "seized" the person of Edward
> V at Stony Stratford. That is the position taken by Tudor chroniclers and
> 'way too many "historians" that followed them.
> Or, if one wishes to be accurate AND unbiased, one could write that
> Richard, while en route to London, stopped for the night at Northampton,
> where he was joined by the Duke of Buckingham. Edward V and two of his
> uncles were at that time at Stony Stratford, a short distance from
> Northampton.
> While Edward V remained at Stony Stratford for the night, Rivers, Grey and
> others met with Richard and Buckingham in Northhampton. The following
> morning Richard placed Rivers, Grey and Sir Thomas Vaughan under arrest,
> with Rivers being sent to Sherriff Hutton and Grey to Middleham. Exactly why
> Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were arrested isn't known.
> Richard then escorted Edward V to London, saw to his being established in
> the Bishop of London's palace and himself moved into Baynard's Castle where
> his mother, the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, was residing.
> Of the above seven sentences, the first is someone's interpretation of what
> occurred at Stony Stratford and the last six are historical fact as best I
> can tell. This is what occurs time and again in regard to Richard III (and
> others); a motive, or motives for something Richard, or someone else, did is
> presumed by a writer and then the first writer's "presumption" (in more than
> one sense!) is treated as a "fact" by other writers. An awful lot of the
> very same thing occurs nowadays in politics here in the US; only it's called
> "spin".
> Added to this weakness, if you will, on the part of many writers of history
> is the fact that after Richard's death, retaining any written record of what
> actually occurred, as opposed to the official Tudor version, could be used
> against the holder in a charge of treason.
> Enough, fortunately, HAS survived to cast strong doubts on the Tudor
> version of Ricard and more can be inferred from such as things wills,
> letters, Parliamentary rolls and non-English sources not subject to Tudor,
> ah, control.
> As to the "pre-contract", it only affected Edward IV's children. Edward IV
> could have used the same claim to the throne as Henry Tudor; ie, conquest,
> but instead based his claim on his father's claim which, I believe, was
> based on direct descent from Edward III through Edward's father, Richard,
> Duke of York; as well as an act of Parliament enacted under Henry VI. The
> closest Henry Tudor could get was that he was a descendant of a liaison
> between Henry V's widow (a Frenchwoman) and Jasper Tudor. Nothing royal
> there. The Beauforts, Henry's mother's family, WERE of royal descent, but
> from the wrong side of the blanket and had been disbarred from any claims to
> the throne when the offspring of John of Gaunt and his mistress had been
> legitimized.
> Any "convenience" concerning the "discovery" or, better, announcement of
> Edward's pre-contract is solely in the eye of the beholder. As Edward IV's
> claim to the throne was undoubted (see above) there was no need for anyone
> who had any knowledge of the pre-contract to raise the question while Edward
> IV lived. It was only with Edward IV's death, and the accession of Edward V,
> that the pre-contract became vitally important. If Stillington knew about
> it, the question then became: Who else knows? Dame Eleanor Butler was dead,
> but did she tell anyone? There was at least one other cleric involved, did
> HE tell anyone? If Clarence DID know, did HE tell anyone? To that one could
> add the dislike of the Woodvilles, by members of the nobility AND commoners,
> and the possibility of the pre-contract being exploited by Lancastrian/Tudor
> supporters if it became known. Don't forget, Henry Tudor first based his
> claim to the English throne on conquest, NOT descent. In my opinion, there
> were thus plenty of reasons for Stillington to remain silent during the
> lifetime of Edward IV and spill the beans upon his death. Had the Woodville
> clan NOT been the people they were, and had they attempted to work with
> Richard during his Protectorship, it may have been that Stillington would
> have remained silent and trusted to the strength that, united, the
> Woodvilles and Richard could have presented to any opposition.
> As you suggest, it is entirely POSSIBLE that Clarence died because of what
> he had learned about the validity of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth
> Woodville. Which would ALSO explain Stillington's silence while Edward IV
> was alive. However, there simply is no PROOF that was the final straw.
> Edward, with or without any Clarence having any knowledge of the
> pre-contract, certainly had enough against his brother to warrant his
> execution.
> Rumors of Edward IV's illegitimacy, or of many monarchs in the Middle Ages,
> was a standard charge leveled by opponents.
>
>
> a shout out to Annette Carson: Congratulations on ever managing to write an
> entire book! The above took me over an hour!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
> Richard?
>
>
> Yes, but it still comes down one's own subjective interpretation of the
> events, doesn't it?...some would interpret the events in the light of the
> belief that he had ALREADY planned to take the throne. He had possession of
> the king's person, he had eliminated the Woodville threat, so WHAT was he
> worried about? WHY did he have to get the Duke of York out of sanctuary
> right away? WHY did Hastings turn against him? Did Hastings suspect or
> know that Richard was going to seize the throne? Is that why Richard had to
> not only arrest Hastings, but execute him immediately? If the regency COULD
> have ended when the king was crowned, didn't Richard protect himself by NOT
> having the king crowned, but rather taking the crown HIMSELF?
>
> With reference to the pre-contract, wasn't it "convenient" to Richard that
> it was "discovered" when it was? Are we supposed to believe that Richard
> knew NOTHING of it, or rumors about it, previously? What about the rumors
> about Edward IV's parentage, and what might Clarence have known or talked
> about which could have influenced Edward IV to execute him rather than
> forgive him as he had in the past?
>
> Upon what basis could it be said that Richard took the throne with
> "widespread support"? What Myers has to say certainly fits the known facts.
>

Then there's the whole question of why, if Edward V was illegitimate, the son of Clarence wasn't crowned, mentally challenged or not? (After all, mental problems haven't always kept people from being monarchs!) That would have kept Richard on as regent for an unlimited period of time, wouldn't it?

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>
> According to Hicks (and I know he's not hugely popular round these parts,
> but I rate him highly), the charges against Clarence were originally civil,
> not treason. That changed during the course of the trial. Hicks believes
> that the charge was changed to treason because Clarence kept in his
> possession a document naming him in the Lancastrian succession (from the
> Readeption). Had Clarence known about any pre-contract, I'm sure the first
> person he would have told was his father-in-law. Or are you suggesting that
> he found out about it (who from and how?) post 1471? As to the rumours of
> Edward IV's illegitimacy, that was something dreamt up by my man Warwick,
> who used the same tactic re Margaret of Anjou. It's astounding how many
> people are prepared to believe infidelity and passing off a lover's child as
> a husband's in the case of the latter but will (quite rightly) defend
> Cecily. (Who was duchess of York, by the way, not duchess of Gloucester.)
> warrenmalach is dead right about the 'convenience' of the discovery of the
> pre-contract. The argument that it had no importance while Edward was alive
> is very slippery in my view. A challenge to the legitimacy of Elizabeth
> Wydeville's marriage to the king would have suited a whole bunch of people.
> Unless Eleanor Butler spoke to no-one (and I can't imagine anyone in her
> position staying silent, I'd have been outraged if it was me!), someone in
> her family knew something. And one of the people in her family was the
> countess of Warwick. Her husband was utterly silent on the matter, clearly
> neither of them knew of it. The older I get and the more I read and
> research, the more like a desperate pretext this precontract story becomes.
> Not because it couldn't have been true, but because, even if it was, it
> really shouldn't have mattered one jot, to Richard or to anyone else. The
> boys were born after Eleanor Butler's death when their parents' marriage
> would no longer have been bigamous. (And the whole 'speak now or forever
> hold your peace' covers this kind of thing). Whether it was seeing just how
> much Edward V wanted to keep uncle Anthony with him, and therefore
> sidelining uncle Richard, or something else, I can't see any other reading
> of the events than a premeditated bid for the throne. Of course, this
> doesn't make him a hunchbacked serial killer, but it does put him in the
> context of his times. Not a Too Good to be True Saint, but a 15th century
> prince who saw his chance and took it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 11:46:08 -0500
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
> Richard?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think the first sentence of your post (heading below) is what all these
> posts are really about, especially the word "interpretation".
> If one believes, or wishes others to believe, that Richard ALWAYS intended
> to be king, then one COULD write that Richard "seized" the person of Edward
> V at Stony Stratford. That is the position taken by Tudor chroniclers and
> 'way too many "historians" that followed them.
> Or, if one wishes to be accurate AND unbiased, one could write that
> Richard, while en route to London, stopped for the night at Northampton,
> where he was joined by the Duke of Buckingham. Edward V and two of his
> uncles were at that time at Stony Stratford, a short distance from
> Northampton.
> While Edward V remained at Stony Stratford for the night, Rivers, Grey and
> others met with Richard and Buckingham in Northhampton. The following
> morning Richard placed Rivers, Grey and Sir Thomas Vaughan under arrest,
> with Rivers being sent to Sherriff Hutton and Grey to Middleham. Exactly why
> Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were arrested isn't known.
> Richard then escorted Edward V to London, saw to his being established in
> the Bishop of London's palace and himself moved into Baynard's Castle where
> his mother, the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, was residing.
> Of the above seven sentences, the first is someone's interpretation of what
> occurred at Stony Stratford and the last six are historical fact as best I
> can tell. This is what occurs time and again in regard to Richard III (and
> others); a motive, or motives for something Richard, or someone else, did is
> presumed by a writer and then the first writer's "presumption" (in more than
> one sense!) is treated as a "fact" by other writers. An awful lot of the
> very same thing occurs nowadays in politics here in the US; only it's called
> "spin".
> Added to this weakness, if you will, on the part of many writers of history
> is the fact that after Richard's death, retaining any written record of what
> actually occurred, as opposed to the official Tudor version, could be used
> against the holder in a charge of treason.
> Enough, fortunately, HAS survived to cast strong doubts on the Tudor
> version of Ricard and more can be inferred from such as things wills,
> letters, Parliamentary rolls and non-English sources not subject to Tudor,
> ah, control.
> As to the "pre-contract", it only affected Edward IV's children. Edward IV
> could have used the same claim to the throne as Henry Tudor; ie, conquest,
> but instead based his claim on his father's claim which, I believe, was
> based on direct descent from Edward III through Edward's father, Richard,
> Duke of York; as well as an act of Parliament enacted under Henry VI. The
> closest Henry Tudor could get was that he was a descendant of a liaison
> between Henry V's widow (a Frenchwoman) and Jasper Tudor. Nothing royal
> there. The Beauforts, Henry's mother's family, WERE of royal descent, but
> from the wrong side of the blanket and had been disbarred from any claims to
> the throne when the offspring of John of Gaunt and his mistress had been
> legitimized.
> Any "convenience" concerning the "discovery" or, better, announcement of
> Edward's pre-contract is solely in the eye of the beholder. As Edward IV's
> claim to the throne was undoubted (see above) there was no need for anyone
> who had any knowledge of the pre-contract to raise the question while Edward
> IV lived. It was only with Edward IV's death, and the accession of Edward V,
> that the pre-contract became vitally important. If Stillington knew about
> it, the question then became: Who else knows? Dame Eleanor Butler was dead,
> but did she tell anyone? There was at least one other cleric involved, did
> HE tell anyone? If Clarence DID know, did HE tell anyone? To that one could
> add the dislike of the Woodvilles, by members of the nobility AND commoners,
> and the possibility of the pre-contract being exploited by Lancastrian/Tudor
> supporters if it became known. Don't forget, Henry Tudor first based his
> claim to the English throne on conquest, NOT descent. In my opinion, there
> were thus plenty of reasons for Stillington to remain silent during the
> lifetime of Edward IV and spill the beans upon his death. Had the Woodville
> clan NOT been the people they were, and had they attempted to work with
> Richard during his Protectorship, it may have been that Stillington would
> have remained silent and trusted to the strength that, united, the
> Woodvilles and Richard could have presented to any opposition.
> As you suggest, it is entirely POSSIBLE that Clarence died because of what
> he had learned about the validity of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth
> Woodville. Which would ALSO explain Stillington's silence while Edward IV
> was alive. However, there simply is no PROOF that was the final straw.
> Edward, with or without any Clarence having any knowledge of the
> pre-contract, certainly had enough against his brother to warrant his
> execution.
> Rumors of Edward IV's illegitimacy, or of many monarchs in the Middle Ages,
> was a standard charge leveled by opponents.
>
> a shout out to Annette Carson: Congratulations on ever managing to write an
> entire book! The above took me over an hour!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...
> <mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
> To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
> Richard?
>
> Yes, but it still comes down one's own subjective interpretation of the
> events, doesn't it?...some would interpret the events in the light of the
> belief that he had ALREADY planned to take the throne. He had possession of
> the king's person, he had eliminated the Woodville threat, so WHAT was he
> worried about? WHY did he have to get the Duke of York out of sanctuary
> right away? WHY did Hastings turn against him? Did Hastings suspect or
> know that Richard was going to seize the throne? Is that why Richard had to
> not only arrest Hastings, but execute him immediately? If the regency COULD
> have ended when the king was crowned, didn't Richard protect himself by NOT
> having the king crowned, but rather taking the crown HIMSELF?
>
> With reference to the pre-contract, wasn't it "convenient" to Richard that
> it was "discovered" when it was? Are we supposed to believe that Richard
> knew NOTHING of it, or rumors about it, previously? What about the rumors
> about Edward IV's parentage, and what might Clarence have known or talked
> about which could have influenced Edward IV to execute him rather than
> forgive him as he had in the past?
>
> Upon what basis could it be said that Richard took the throne with
> "widespread support"? What Myers has to say certainly fits the known facts.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Brian, I haven't heard the term "hugger-mugger" in years! Yes, Edward IV cast doubts upon the legitimacy of his own children by his "behavior." Of course, he HOPED that he would live long enough for his son Edward to be old enought to defend his legimacy and right to the throne IF they were challenged. Edward IV's hopes were not realized, and he is the one who is DIRECTLY responsible for the predicament in which Richard found himself upon Edward's death.

--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> Medieval English marriage law is very complex and it would need a book to unravel and that book would need a knowledge of both canon *and* common law to be complete. However, the fact that the boys were born after the death of Eleanor Talbot-Butler is neither here nor there.
>
> Let's assume Edward *did* marry Eleanor in a private ceremony followed by consummation. (Because obviously if he didn't there's nothing to argue about.)
>
> The ceremony would be binding in canon law, but would not give the children of it the right to inherit land under English common law.Strictly a dispensation (as obtained by Richard of Conisbrough and Anne Mortimer) was needed to make it fully kosher, and an Act of Parliament would be belt and braces.
>
> Now *if* Edward had stood up *in church* in a public ceremony when he married Elizabeth,and Eleanor had not objected *then*, assuming she was free to do so, then it's 99% certain that Edward's marriage would have been valid in common law, for land inheritance, and about 80% certain it would have been held valid under canon law. (Popes could be awkward.)
>
> However, Edward *did not* do that. He married in secret and hugger-mugger, and neither Eleanor or anyone else had a chance to object. Since he never bothered to get a dispensation or to pass an Act of Parliament it is open to debate whether his marriage to Elizabeth was valid for the purpose of their children inheriting land (English common law, see Statute of Merton for details) even if Eleanor talbot had never been born. Why Edward did not take these elementary steps to secure his marriage (either marry openly or get a dispensation) is an eternal mystery to me. I think he just assumed he was above little legal details.
>
> Nor did Edward 'remarry' Elizabeth after Eleanor's death. Nor could he, without a dispensation, because it was forbidden to repeat the sacrament without permission.
>
> Now (this a common moan from me) it's all too easy to forget these people were not living in a modern liberal democracy where there was a fully functioning rule of law. Edward was - to put it bluntly - a tyrant, certainly post 1471, and people who got in his way got their heads stamped on. Eleanor Talbot was for all practical purposes powerless - given that she had no child and was evidently a religious sort of woman, she may have decided to opt for the quiet life. I do believe her sister, Elizabeth Talbot Duchess of Norfolk was in on the secret though, and it is telling that immediately after Eleanor's death two of Elizabeth's servants were executed for treason, while Elizabeth and her brother Sir Humphrey were required to take out pardons. Yes, there are all sorts of reasons to have to take out a pardon, including prudence, but I believe it's quite rare for a woman living under coverture to have to have one.
>
> Later Elizabeth's daughter was married to Edward and Elizabeth's son, Richard, and she, Elizabeth, was 'asked' to take a reduced dower. 'Asked' in the same way that the Deputy Head used to 'ask' me to come into school at 8-25 am when I broke the rules. OK, co-incidence maybe, but it has a hint of coercion to me.
>
> Later, Elizabeth (who had quite strong connections to one M. Beaufort and the Duke of Buckingham) was granted Chelsea by Richard III 'for the service of a red rose.' Strange that Richard should give such a juicy reward to a fairly wealthy widow to whom he owed nothing (obvious). Co-incidence?
>
> I fully understand that none of this is 'proof'. But anyone who expects 'proof' (as we understand it) of a secret marriage in the 1460s is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. The only reason we 'know' Edward married Elizabeth is that he said so. There's no marriage certificate, and despite what Thomas More states in his amusing novel, there was no solemn public ceremony. While I accept that no one has to believe Edward married Eleanor, I don't see why it's absurd to think he did - the man married Elizabeth in *precisely* the manner it is alleged her married Eleanor. Because in personal matters he was an irresponsible fool. No wonder his mother was cross with him!
>
> Brian W
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > According to Hicks (and I know he's not hugely popular round these parts,
> > but I rate him highly), the charges against Clarence were originally civil,
> > not treason. That changed during the course of the trial. Hicks believes
> > that the charge was changed to treason because Clarence kept in his
> > possession a document naming him in the Lancastrian succession (from the
> > Readeption). Had Clarence known about any pre-contract, I'm sure the first
> > person he would have told was his father-in-law. Or are you suggesting that
> > he found out about it (who from and how?) post 1471? As to the rumours of
> > Edward IV's illegitimacy, that was something dreamt up by my man Warwick,
> > who used the same tactic re Margaret of Anjou. It's astounding how many
> > people are prepared to believe infidelity and passing off a lover's child as
> > a husband's in the case of the latter but will (quite rightly) defend
> > Cecily. (Who was duchess of York, by the way, not duchess of Gloucester.)
> > warrenmalach is dead right about the 'convenience' of the discovery of the
> > pre-contract. The argument that it had no importance while Edward was alive
> > is very slippery in my view. A challenge to the legitimacy of Elizabeth
> > Wydeville's marriage to the king would have suited a whole bunch of people.
> > Unless Eleanor Butler spoke to no-one (and I can't imagine anyone in her
> > position staying silent, I'd have been outraged if it was me!), someone in
> > her family knew something. And one of the people in her family was the
> > countess of Warwick. Her husband was utterly silent on the matter, clearly
> > neither of them knew of it. The older I get and the more I read and
> > research, the more like a desperate pretext this precontract story becomes.
> > Not because it couldn't have been true, but because, even if it was, it
> > really shouldn't have mattered one jot, to Richard or to anyone else. The
> > boys were born after Eleanor Butler's death when their parents' marriage
> > would no longer have been bigamous. (And the whole 'speak now or forever
> > hold your peace' covers this kind of thing). Whether it was seeing just how
> > much Edward V wanted to keep uncle Anthony with him, and therefore
> > sidelining uncle Richard, or something else, I can't see any other reading
> > of the events than a premeditated bid for the throne. Of course, this
> > doesn't make him a hunchbacked serial killer, but it does put him in the
> > context of his times. Not a Too Good to be True Saint, but a 15th century
> > prince who saw his chance and took it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
>

Aw, gee, Annette, I can't just look it up online, as with the intenery of Richard's "progress"?

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Liz - Basically the progress was interrupted when news reached Richard in Lincoln (about 11 October) of the rebellion that had broken out in some southern and western areas. His muster of troops was set for Leicester, which he reached on 22 October. However, he would probably have received news of the rebels' defeat a couple of days later, so it seems he was able to continue his progress in no great hurry, pausing to pay his respects again at Magdalen College, then heading for parts of the south-west which he hadn't previously visited. After Buckingham's execution at Salisbury he made his way along the coast towards Exeter, likely because of the possible threat of Henry Tudor's Breton ships, then when that threat melted away he carried on up to Bridgwater and back east to Salisbury, then towards the home counties. Doubtless his interest in many of the following destinations was also informed by what happened in the rebellion and what he needed to do in its aftermath. In January he went on to Kent. All this is in a handy little booklet (with maps) which Warren can get from the Society for a few pounds.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>
> Not sure if Richard would have but York is well over 100 miles south of the border (To you 100 plus miles may not sound much but it is quite a distance on our map.) However he may not have wanted to travel any further north than York - he had spent a lot of time around Carlisle and Berwick and the borders but that was fairly wild country and there were always problems with the Scots.
>
> I'm sure that like most tourists you had a limited time to see Great Britain and therefore would have missed big chunks of it. For example did you see Wales, East Anglia, Cornwall? Richard obviously didn't have such time constraints but may have felt he needed to be back in London - Annette will know about that far better than I. I'm not sure how long the royal progress took.
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:44
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
> Would Richard have said "Once you've seen York, you've seen the North!"? I've known people who feel that if they've seen the major city or tourist attaction, they've seen the "whole place." I don't think when I visited England for the second time in 1973 that I ever got any farther "north" in England (as opposed to Scotland) than York, which I thought was a beautiful city, especially Yorkminister, where we attended a "Sound and Light" program. An important point for me would be that Richard did NOT "return to the North" simply to "shore up" support among his Northern followers after his coronation.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I know where you're from!
> > Â
> > Incidentally I'm surprised that Richard didn't visit more towns in the north.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:28
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Okay, so what should this poor, benighted Yank learn from looking at a map of England relative to Richard's progress in 1483? Is there something here that I didn't understand?
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > We all know what you meant, Warren.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: warrenmalach
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: warrenmalach
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > > paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > > >> Paul
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Â
> > > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I guess I'm being naive, but I still can't understand why the "bastards" Edward and Richard could not have remained openly at Richard III's court, just as the king was willing to do with their sisters. The king could have seen to their security and his own, and thereby avoided the rumors which began to circulate about them. Richard was a man of proven honor and loyalty, and keeping his nephews at court where they could be seen, at least as long as they were still children/youths, would have preserved Richard's honor and loyalty better than their disappearance.

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Brian, I don't think the idea that Edward married Eleanor absurd at all, for
> the very reasons you mention. I do think, whatever the truth of it, it need
> not have been a problem for Edward V. Richard could have made such a problem
> go away. He didn't. He chose to exploit it for all it was worth. I'm very
> much on Richard's side in all this, acknowledging that not everything he did
> was for altruistic reasons is part of that. I don't feel that I'm doing him,
> his memory or what could roughly be called 'the truth' any favours
> otherwise.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:55:15 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
> Richard?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Medieval English marriage law is very complex and it would need a book to
> unravel and that book would need a knowledge of both canon *and* common law
> to be complete. However, the fact that the boys were born after the death of
> Eleanor Talbot-Butler is neither here nor there.
>
> Let's assume Edward *did* marry Eleanor in a private ceremony followed by
> consummation. (Because obviously if he didn't there's nothing to argue
> about.)
>
> The ceremony would be binding in canon law, but would not give the children
> of it the right to inherit land under English common law.Strictly a
> dispensation (as obtained by Richard of Conisbrough and Anne Mortimer) was
> needed to make it fully kosher, and an Act of Parliament would be belt and
> braces.
>
> Now *if* Edward had stood up *in church* in a public ceremony when he
> married Elizabeth,and Eleanor had not objected *then*, assuming she was free
> to do so, then it's 99% certain that Edward's marriage would have been valid
> in common law, for land inheritance, and about 80% certain it would have
> been held valid under canon law. (Popes could be awkward.)
>
> However, Edward *did not* do that. He married in secret and hugger-mugger,
> and neither Eleanor or anyone else had a chance to object. Since he never
> bothered to get a dispensation or to pass an Act of Parliament it is open to
> debate whether his marriage to Elizabeth was valid for the purpose of their
> children inheriting land (English common law, see Statute of Merton for
> details) even if Eleanor talbot had never been born. Why Edward did not take
> these elementary steps to secure his marriage (either marry openly or get a
> dispensation) is an eternal mystery to me. I think he just assumed he was
> above little legal details.
>
> Nor did Edward 'remarry' Elizabeth after Eleanor's death. Nor could he,
> without a dispensation, because it was forbidden to repeat the sacrament
> without permission.
>
> Now (this a common moan from me) it's all too easy to forget these people
> were not living in a modern liberal democracy where there was a fully
> functioning rule of law. Edward was - to put it bluntly - a tyrant,
> certainly post 1471, and people who got in his way got their heads stamped
> on. Eleanor Talbot was for all practical purposes powerless - given that she
> had no child and was evidently a religious sort of woman, she may have
> decided to opt for the quiet life. I do believe her sister, Elizabeth Talbot
> Duchess of Norfolk was in on the secret though, and it is telling that
> immediately after Eleanor's death two of Elizabeth's servants were executed
> for treason, while Elizabeth and her brother Sir Humphrey were required to
> take out pardons. Yes, there are all sorts of reasons to have to take out a
> pardon, including prudence, but I believe it's quite rare for a woman living
> under coverture to have to have one.
>
> Later Elizabeth's daughter was married to Edward and Elizabeth's son,
> Richard, and she, Elizabeth, was 'asked' to take a reduced dower. 'Asked' in
> the same way that the Deputy Head used to 'ask' me to come into school at
> 8-25 am when I broke the rules. OK, co-incidence maybe, but it has a hint of
> coercion to me.
>
> Later, Elizabeth (who had quite strong connections to one M. Beaufort and
> the Duke of Buckingham) was granted Chelsea by Richard III 'for the service
> of a red rose.' Strange that Richard should give such a juicy reward to a
> fairly wealthy widow to whom he owed nothing (obvious). Co-incidence?
>
> I fully understand that none of this is 'proof'. But anyone who expects
> 'proof' (as we understand it) of a secret marriage in the 1460s is living in
> Cloud Cuckoo Land. The only reason we 'know' Edward married Elizabeth is
> that he said so. There's no marriage certificate, and despite what Thomas
> More states in his amusing novel, there was no solemn public ceremony. While
> I accept that no one has to believe Edward married Eleanor, I don't see why
> it's absurd to think he did - the man married Elizabeth in *precisely* the
> manner it is alleged her married Eleanor. Because in personal matters he was
> an irresponsible fool. No wonder his mother was cross with him!
>
> Brian W
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > According to Hicks (and I know he's not hugely popular round these parts,
> > but I rate him highly), the charges against Clarence were originally civil,
> > not treason. That changed during the course of the trial. Hicks believes
> > that the charge was changed to treason because Clarence kept in his
> > possession a document naming him in the Lancastrian succession (from the
> > Readeption). Had Clarence known about any pre-contract, I'm sure the first
> > person he would have told was his father-in-law. Or are you suggesting that
> > he found out about it (who from and how?) post 1471? As to the rumours of
> > Edward IV's illegitimacy, that was something dreamt up by my man Warwick,
> > who used the same tactic re Margaret of Anjou. It's astounding how many
> > people are prepared to believe infidelity and passing off a lover's child as
> > a husband's in the case of the latter but will (quite rightly) defend
> > Cecily. (Who was duchess of York, by the way, not duchess of Gloucester.)
> > warrenmalach is dead right about the 'convenience' of the discovery of the
> > pre-contract. The argument that it had no importance while Edward was alive
> > is very slippery in my view. A challenge to the legitimacy of Elizabeth
> > Wydeville's marriage to the king would have suited a whole bunch of people.
> > Unless Eleanor Butler spoke to no-one (and I can't imagine anyone in her
> > position staying silent, I'd have been outraged if it was me!), someone in
> > her family knew something. And one of the people in her family was the
> > countess of Warwick. Her husband was utterly silent on the matter, clearly
> > neither of them knew of it. The older I get and the more I read and
> > research, the more like a desperate pretext this precontract story becomes.
> > Not because it couldn't have been true, but because, even if it was, it
> > really shouldn't have mattered one jot, to Richard or to anyone else. The
> > boys were born after Eleanor Butler's death when their parents' marriage
> > would no longer have been bigamous. (And the whole 'speak now or forever
> > hold your peace' covers this kind of thing). Whether it was seeing just how
> > much Edward V wanted to keep uncle Anthony with him, and therefore
> > sidelining uncle Richard, or something else, I can't see any other reading
> > of the events than a premeditated bid for the throne. Of course, this
> > doesn't make him a hunchbacked serial killer, but it does put him in the
> > context of his times. Not a Too Good to be True Saint, but a 15th century
> > prince who saw his chance and took it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Karen, Richard PREFERRED the North, there is no question in my mind! The farther south he went away from his supporters, the more in danger he was from his enemies.

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> According to the Itinerary I've got (Rhoda Edwards), he spent all of
> September and a good chunk of October in York and Pontefract, being back in
> London by the end of November. More time was spent in the north than
> anywhere else. I know the journey was interrupted, but he travelled fairly
> swiftly from London to Yorkshire and there he stayed for quite a while.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 21:29:07 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
> Richard?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Liz - Basically the progress was interrupted when news reached Richard in
> Lincoln (about 11 October) of the rebellion that had broken out in some
> southern and western areas. His muster of troops was set for Leicester,
> which he reached on 22 October. However, he would probably have received
> news of the rebels' defeat a couple of days later, so it seems he was able
> to continue his progress in no great hurry, pausing to pay his respects
> again at Magdalen College, then heading for parts of the south-west which he
> hadn't previously visited. After Buckingham's execution at Salisbury he made
> his way along the coast towards Exeter, likely because of the possible
> threat of Henry Tudor's Breton ships, then when that threat melted away he
> carried on up to Bridgwater and back east to Salisbury, then towards the
> home counties. Doubtless his interest in many of the following destinations
> was also informed by what happened in the rebellion and what he needed to do
> in its aftermath. In January he went on to Kent. All this is in a handy
> little booklet (with maps) which Warren can get from the Society for a few
> pounds.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: liz williams
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
> Richard?
>
> Not sure if Richard would have but York is well over 100 miles south of the
> border (To you 100 plus miles may not sound much but it is quite a
> distance on our map.) However he may not have wanted to travel any further
> north than York - he had spent a lot of time around Carlisle and Berwick and
> the borders but that was fairly wild country and there were always problems
> with the Scots.
>
> I'm sure that like most tourists you had a limited time to see Great
> Britain and therefore would have missed big chunks of it. For example did
> you see Wales, East Anglia, Cornwall? Richard obviously didn't have such
> time constraints but may have felt he needed to be back in London - Annette
> will know about that far better than I. I'm not sure how long the royal
> progress took.
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...
> <mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:44
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
> Richard?
>
> Would Richard have said "Once you've seen York, you've seen the North!"?
> I've known people who feel that if they've seen the major city or tourist
> attaction, they've seen the "whole place." I don't think when I visited
> England for the second time in 1973 that I ever got any farther "north" in
> England (as opposed to Scotland) than York, which I thought was a beautiful
> city, especially Yorkminister, where we attended a "Sound and Light"
> program. An important point for me would be that Richard did NOT "return to
> the North" simply to "shore up" support among his Northern followers after
> his coronation.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I know where you're from!
> > Â
> > Incidentally I'm surprised that Richard didn't visit more towns in the
> north.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 22:28
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
> Richard?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Okay, so what should this poor, benighted Yank learn from looking at a
> map of England relative to Richard's progress in 1483? Is there something
> here that I didn't understand?
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > We all know what you meant, Warren.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: warrenmalach
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from
> Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you, Annette! So Richard DID go to the "North," THROUGH other
> towns in the "South." Therefore I don't understand the point about needing
> to look at a map of England. Is it considered inaccurate to refer to what
> Richard did as a "northern progress"? I did NOT mean to imply that "going to
> the North" was ALL that Ridhard was trying to do on this progress, as if he
> was afraid of remaining in the "South."
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette
> Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians,
> there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the
> internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor,
> Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell,
> Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester
> Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham,
> Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln,
> Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford,
> Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester,
> Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: warrenmalach
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect
> from Richard?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North"
> during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference
> books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's
> itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor
> Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > > > > paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to
> pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the
> North?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced
> marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I
> can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of
> his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies
> because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT
> "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard
> after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by
> those who consider him a usurper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul
> Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and
> Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All
> these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a
> northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > > > > >> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be
> another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early
> on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this
> would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > > > > >> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't
> manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to
> jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't
> think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had
> been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister
> Margaret after Ludlow.
> > > > > >> Paul
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have
> significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given
> the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to
> imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have
> a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is
> significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his
> coronation.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that
> this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William
> Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly
> wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry
> Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next
> Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands,
> positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topÂ
> councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to
> make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby,
> Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. Â
> Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would
> be questioned by many.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > > > >>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > > > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > > > > >>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect
> from Richard?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Â
> > > > > >>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham
> defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had
> Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each
> other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to
> seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than
> the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have
> still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians
> he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing
> of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events
> developed?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Certainly, Stephen! So WHY didn't Richard ANNOUNCE those events, IF they had happened? If one or other had died of natural causes or even unnatural causes, why wasn't/weren't the body/bodies put on public display, as with Henry VI? If one or other had been kidnapped, why wasn't that announced and efforts made to recover them, as with recovery operations, the offer of a reward, etc.?
No, the fact that none of these things are reported to have happened makes their possibility rather remote for me.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Warren,
>
> You seem to believe that both the ex-Princes were murdered and that one or more of about four people were responsible. Have you considered the likelihood of the elder boy dying of natural causes and his brother being spirited away?
>
> Stephen.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warrenmalach
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>
> It seems to me that, after the death of Edward IV, Richard "needed all of the friends that he could get," and that for this reason the offer of support from Buckingham was too good to turn down. By the time of Richard's coronation and subsequent "campaign swing through England," the situation had changed, and Richard may well have become very suspicious of, and concerned about, Buckingham. Still, Bishop Morton HAD been given into Buckingham's custody, which does not appear to have been a very good idea in retrospect. All that being said, Richard apparently was still caught by surprise by Buckingham's rebellion. For me, the apparent fact that Richard faced a coalition of enemies--Yorkists AND Lancastrians--in the fall of 1483 leaves me wondering about the allegations of "widespread support" when Richard took the throne.
>
> --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to clarify what I meant by johnny-come-lately. Although it is true that Buckingham and Richard had known each other for a long time, I've never seen any documentation that suggests the two were personally close. I may be wrong, but I can't remember any time in which Richard and Buckingham closeted together to discuss policy and strategy, other than when Buckingham joined Richard on the journey to London. It is still my belief that Buckingham was angling, and that Richard knew it. Richard played along to see where Buckingham was coming from. He kept testing Buckingham to determine whether Buckingham was a worthy addition to his inner coterie. Somewhere along the line, Buckingham failed the test, and Buckingham panicked.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: William Barber <karenandbillb@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:09:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> >
> > Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Do you mean which side was it during the Civil War?
 
Isn't it in the middle of the continental US - I'd say more northern than southern but to be honest I don't have enough interest to check a map.  However I'm not arguing (for want of a better word)that an American President made a northern progress around the country or that it included Missouri (is that the Show Me state?) 


________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012, 22:29
Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?


 
My apologies, Paul. Now, tell me if the State of Missouri is "northern" or "southern"?

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Annette. As anyone who knows the geography of England would know, only Nottingham, Pontefract, and York and considered northern.
> Paul
>
> On 27 Jul 2012, at 20:44, Annette Carson wrote:
>
> > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: warrenmalach
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >
> >
> >
> > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> >> paul
> >>
> >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> >>
> >>> Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> >>>
> >>> Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> >>>> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> >>>> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> >>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> >>>>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Â
> >>>>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Now Liz, what would have been the response in this forum if, with reference to what I had said about Richard's "progress," I had said "I don't have enough interest to check a map"? Can you IMAGINE what would have been said about my "Yankee ignorance" and "insulting, chauvinistic attitude"? Fortunately, I did NOT respond in that fashion, but I DID determine that the possibility exists that some people in the UK are just as "ignorant" of the geography of the US as I appear to be of geography in England. Yes, since we are discussing English history here it could be asserted that the non-English members of this forum should do a better job of knowing English geography, but the next time I'm asked to check a map of England, I'll give them "Liz's answer" and see what happens!

By the way, I was going to respond at the time by saying, "Sorry, the nearest 'petrol' station was fresh out of English maps!"

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Do you mean which side was it during the Civil War?
>  
> Isn't it in the middle of the continental US - I'd say more northern than southern but to be honest I don't have enough interest to check a map.  However I'm not arguing (for want of a better word)that an American President made a northern progress around the country or that it included Missouri (is that the Show Me state?) 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012, 22:29
> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
>  
> My apologies, Paul. Now, tell me if the State of Missouri is "northern" or "southern"?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Annette. As anyone who knows the geography of England would know, only Nottingham, Pontefract, and York and considered northern.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 20:44, Annette Carson wrote:
> >
> > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: warrenmalach
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
> > >> paul
> > >>
> > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
> > >>>
> > >>> Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
> > >>>> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
> > >>>> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far. Â
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his top councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted.  Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ________________________________
> > >>>>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
> > >>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
> > >>>>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Â
> > >>>>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Google Earth is a wonderful way to follow any route. It is right online and easily accessible for download.  I use it a lot to check geography of areas with which I'm unfamiliar (all of England being some of that geography!)

Sheffe




>________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:29 PM
>Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>
>
> 
>Now Liz, what would have been the response in this forum if, with reference to what I had said about Richard's "progress," I had said "I don't have enough interest to check a map"? Can you IMAGINE what would have been said about my "Yankee ignorance" and "insulting, chauvinistic attitude"? Fortunately, I did NOT respond in that fashion, but I DID determine that the possibility exists that some people in the UK are just as "ignorant" of the geography of the US as I appear to be of geography in England. Yes, since we are discussing English history here it could be asserted that the non-English members of this forum should do a better job of knowing English geography, but the next time I'm asked to check a map of England, I'll give them "Liz's answer" and see what happens!
>
>By the way, I was going to respond at the time by saying, "Sorry, the nearest 'petrol' station was fresh out of English maps!"
>
>--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> Do you mean which side was it during the Civil War?
>>  
>> Isn't it in the middle of the continental US - I'd say more northern than southern but to be honest I don't have enough interest to check a map.  However I'm not arguing (for want of a better word)that an American President made a northern progress around the country or that it included Missouri (is that the Show Me state?) 
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012, 22:29
>> Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>>
>>
>>  
>> My apologies, Paul. Now, tell me if the State of Missouri is "northern" or "southern"?
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank you Annette. As anyone who knows the geography of England would know, only Nottingham, Pontefract, and York and considered northern.
>> > Paul
>> >
>> > On 27 Jul 2012, at 20:44, Annette Carson wrote:
>> >
>> > > Much as one likes to assist the researches of fellow Ricardians, there is also much that can easily be found in the public domain and on the internet. Richard's travels followed the route London, Greenwich, Windsor, Reading, Oxford (and Oxford University), Woodstock, Minster Lovell, Gloucester (and Gloucester Abbey), Tewkesbury, Worcester (and Worcester Priory), Warwick, Coventry, Leicester (and Leicester Castle), Nottingham, Pontefract (and Pontefract Castle), York, Pontefract, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Nottingham, Grantham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Coventry, Oxford, Salisbury, Dorchester, Bridport, Exeter, Bridgwater, Salisbury, Winchester, Farnham, Guildford, London.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: warrenmalach
>> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:51 PM
>> > > Subject: Re: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > My apologies, am I mistaken that Richard ended up in "the North" during his progress in the summer/fall of 1483? I don't have my reference books or maps in front of me, so if someone wants to post Richard's itenerary for his progress, I would appreciate it.
>> > >
>> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Warren, may I respectfully suggest you look at a map of England?
>> > >> paul
>> > >>
>> > >> On 27 Jul 2012, at 17:07, warrenmalach wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Paul, since Richard didn't travel by airplane, didn't he HAVE to pass through those "southern" towns on his progress in order to GET to the North?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Buckingham had his own grievances, expecially his forced marriage. If Richard wasn't going to give him everything that he wanted, I can understand him thinking of "other options." This is where the timing of his revolt becomes interesting: did he simply "join" other conspiracies because they were available to be used at that time? He certainly did NOT "wait on further developments." The quickness of the risings against Richard after his coronation have always been used to "blacken" his reputation by those who consider him a usurper.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Well Richard's progress went to Windsor, Oxford, Bristol, and Gloucester, all well known 'northern' towns[!] followed by Leicester. All these before he crossed the Trent into the northern regions. Not really a northern progress then, but a country wide one that ended in the north.
>> > >>>> As for Buckingham, as Bill said, he wanted for starters to be another Warwick, but I think Richard got wise to his ambitions very early on, thus creating a principality in Wales and the West for him, hoping this would keep him happy, and out of his hair.
>> > >>>> I do think Harry was after the crown all along, but this didn't manifest itself until after Edward IV died and he saw his opportunity to jump into the centre of affairs. Edward had never trusted him, and I don't think Richard ever would have either. Remember he had known him since he had been a prisoner in Tonbridge with his mother, brother George and sister Margaret after Ludlow.
>> > >>>> Paul
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On 27 Jul 2012, at 00:33, warrenmalach wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> Wasn't that part of Richard's problem, that he did not have significant support outside of the North, for understandable reasons given the time he had spent there during his brother's reign? I don't mean to imply that Richard SHOULD have trusted Buckingham, but that Richard DID have a problem establishing support outside of the North. I believe that it is significant that the North is where he went on his first progress after his coronation.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Ultimately, Richard seems to me to be "odd man out" and that this problem dogged him throughout his short reign.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> I've always supported Paul's contention that Buckingham truly wanted to be Henry VII, and that he needed to establish himself before Henry Tudor's plans went too far.Ã Ã
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Also, at the very least, Buckingham wanted to be the next Warwick, but although Richard was willing to reward Buckingham with lands, positions and riches, he was not willing to make Buckingham his topà councilor/strategist. For that matter, Richard was probably not going to make him a true intimate at any level. He already had Lovell, Catesby, Ratcliffe, Brackenbury and other henchmen whom he completely trusted. à Buckingham was a johnny-come-lately whose motives for joining Richard would be questioned by many.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> ________________________________
>> > >>>>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@>
>> > >>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16:00 PM
>> > >>>>>> Subject: Why did Buckingham defect from Richard?
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Ã
>> > >>>>>> To get back to Richard III, why did the Duke of Buckingham defect from Richard so quickly after Richard's coronation? Yes, he had Bishop Morton "working on him," but was he trying to play off against each other Richard, the non-Ricardian Yorkists, and the Lancastrians, in order to seixe the crown for himself? As a Duke, what "more" could he strive for than the crown itself? If he sided with the non-Ricardian Yorkists, he would have still have had to serve another king, and if he sided with the Lancastrians he would have had the same situation with Henry Tudor. What made the timing of his defection so critical, as opposed to waiting to see how events developed?
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> ------------------------------------
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> ------------------------------------
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > Richard Liveth Yet!
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>