PERKIN....
PERKIN....
2012-09-06 11:58:06
Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 12:11:26
"suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe that the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
Subject: PERKIN....
Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe that the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
Subject: PERKIN....
Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 12:13:41
Ooooops forget to say...my biggest misgiving about these letters ...Why on earth would Perkin want to put the ties he had with his biggest benefactress Margaret of Burgundy into jeopardy....I am sure this staunchest of Plantagenets would have been enraged that her brother Richard was being accused of murdering his nephews....
It makes no sense....Eileen
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
>
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
>
> As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
>
> Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
>
It makes no sense....Eileen
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
>
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
>
> As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
>
> Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 12:25:34
On Sep 6, 2012, at 7:11 AM, liz williams wrote:
> "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered
> that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man
> who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful
> innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he
> feared not to do it"
>
> Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to
> believe that the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow
> Richard to escape.
Yes, that makes absolutely no sense at all. I really do doubt that, if
this was the case, the man would have escaped either punishment or
blame.
Gilda
> "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered
> that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man
> who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful
> innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he
> feared not to do it"
>
> Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to
> believe that the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow
> Richard to escape.
Yes, that makes absolutely no sense at all. I really do doubt that, if
this was the case, the man would have escaped either punishment or
blame.
Gilda
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 12:25:50
Liz...me too....Sounds like that fairy story...Babes in the Wood..I think it was Babes in the Wood...when the axman refuses to carry out the wicked queen's orders to kill the children....yet another fabrication....
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
> Â
> Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe that the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.Â
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
> Subject: PERKIN....
>
>
> Â
> Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
>
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
>
> As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
>
> Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
> Â
> Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe that the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.Â
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
> Subject: PERKIN....
>
>
> Â
> Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
>
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
>
> As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
>
> Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 12:37:12
Gilda...I think that when they made up these stories they didnt think it through properly...an example is More's story of the murder where he has John Dighton... Tyrell's horse keeper and a big strong knave.. one of the murderers, given his freedom and living in freedom unpunished for the murder of a prince....
Pretty ludicrous....
--- In , Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 7:11 AM, liz williams wrote:
>
> > "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered
> > that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man
> > who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful
> > innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he
> > feared not to do it"
> >
> > Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to
> > believe that the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow
> > Richard to escape.
>
> Yes, that makes absolutely no sense at all. I really do doubt that, if
> this was the case, the man would have escaped either punishment or
> blame.
>
> Gilda
>
Pretty ludicrous....
--- In , Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 7:11 AM, liz williams wrote:
>
> > "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered
> > that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man
> > who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful
> > innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he
> > feared not to do it"
> >
> > Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to
> > believe that the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow
> > Richard to escape.
>
> Yes, that makes absolutely no sense at all. I really do doubt that, if
> this was the case, the man would have escaped either punishment or
> blame.
>
> Gilda
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 14:10:57
And this is why I come down more on the 'Perkin wasn't who he said he was'
side. The story is beautifully constructed, designed to make people believe
it to be true, but it's too good do be true. And as I'm a great believer in
Occam's Razor, I find it much more likely that Perkin wrote this and made it
up than that Morton or More or Virgil or whoever concocted it after the
fact.
Karen
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:11:23 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
"suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my
brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been
given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were,
loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe that
the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
Subject: PERKIN....
Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his
letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain
lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter
to the King James of Scotland he says:
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons
his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached
to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it
happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line
but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with
ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed
together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering
us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as
he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to
satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother,
he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to
keep me company"....
As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what
was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to
Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since
he asked for documentary evidence...
Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's
version of the 'murder'
side. The story is beautifully constructed, designed to make people believe
it to be true, but it's too good do be true. And as I'm a great believer in
Occam's Razor, I find it much more likely that Perkin wrote this and made it
up than that Morton or More or Virgil or whoever concocted it after the
fact.
Karen
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:11:23 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
"suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my
brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been
given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were,
loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe that
the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
Subject: PERKIN....
Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his
letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain
lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter
to the King James of Scotland he says:
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons
his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached
to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it
happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line
but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with
ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed
together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering
us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as
he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to
satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother,
he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to
keep me company"....
As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what
was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to
Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since
he asked for documentary evidence...
Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's
version of the 'murder'
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 14:12:38
Yes, a fabrication. But by who? Margaret of Burgundy was so keen to
embarrass Henry VII and cause him embarrassment that, yes, I think she might
well have been prepared to implicate her, after all, dead brother in order
to do that.
Karen
From: "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:25:47 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
Liz...me too....Sounds like that fairy story...Babes in the Wood..I think it
was Babes in the Wood...when the axman refuses to carry out the wicked
queen's orders to kill the children....yet another fabrication....
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my
brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given
the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed
the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
> Â
> Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe thatÂ
the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.Â
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
> Subject: PERKIN....
>
>
> Â
> Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his
letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain
lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to
the King James of Scotland he says:
>
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons
his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to
his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it
happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but
the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be
king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the
man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents
that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it.
Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part
escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to
leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
>
> As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what
was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella
although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for
documentary evidence...
>
> Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's
version of the 'murder'
>
>
>
>
>
>
embarrass Henry VII and cause him embarrassment that, yes, I think she might
well have been prepared to implicate her, after all, dead brother in order
to do that.
Karen
From: "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:25:47 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
Liz...me too....Sounds like that fairy story...Babes in the Wood..I think it
was Babes in the Wood...when the axman refuses to carry out the wicked
queen's orders to kill the children....yet another fabrication....
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my
brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given
the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed
the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
> Â
> Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe thatÂ
the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.Â
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
> Subject: PERKIN....
>
>
> Â
> Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his
letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain
lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to
the King James of Scotland he says:
>
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons
his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to
his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it
happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but
the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be
king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the
man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents
that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it.
Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part
escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to
leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
>
> As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what
was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella
although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for
documentary evidence...
>
> Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's
version of the 'murder'
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 15:13:53
I can see that Margaret would have gone along with it even knowing that Perkin was an imposter to make Henry squirm....having said that it was not necessary to concoct a story naming Richard as the murderer.
If Perkin was an imposter I think it very possible that Margaret might know the whereabouts or fate of the true princes...as IF Richard had known this himself he surely would have passed this information on to Margaret....who have have been inquisitive about their fates...and even as much discussed put one or both of the boys in her care. Either way Margaret must have known the truth about Perkin...even taking into account the fact that she had been away from England for a very long time.
Another scenario....was Perkin really Richard and these letters or the story of them fabricated after Perkins's death....
Eileen
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, a fabrication. But by who? Margaret of Burgundy was so keen to
> embarrass Henry VII and cause him embarrassment that, yes, I think she might
> well have been prepared to implicate her, after all, dead brother in order
> to do that.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:25:47 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Liz...me too....Sounds like that fairy story...Babes in the Wood..I think it
> was Babes in the Wood...when the axman refuses to carry out the wicked
> queen's orders to kill the children....yet another fabrication....
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my
> brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given
> the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed
> the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
> > Â
> > Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe thatÂ
> the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.Â
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
> > Subject: PERKIN....
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his
> letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain
> lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to
> the King James of Scotland he says:
> >
> > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons
> his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to
> his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it
> happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but
> the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be
> king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the
> man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents
> that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it.
> Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part
> escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to
> leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
> >
> > As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what
> was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella
> although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for
> documentary evidence...
> >
> > Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's
> version of the 'murder'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
If Perkin was an imposter I think it very possible that Margaret might know the whereabouts or fate of the true princes...as IF Richard had known this himself he surely would have passed this information on to Margaret....who have have been inquisitive about their fates...and even as much discussed put one or both of the boys in her care. Either way Margaret must have known the truth about Perkin...even taking into account the fact that she had been away from England for a very long time.
Another scenario....was Perkin really Richard and these letters or the story of them fabricated after Perkins's death....
Eileen
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, a fabrication. But by who? Margaret of Burgundy was so keen to
> embarrass Henry VII and cause him embarrassment that, yes, I think she might
> well have been prepared to implicate her, after all, dead brother in order
> to do that.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:25:47 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Liz...me too....Sounds like that fairy story...Babes in the Wood..I think it
> was Babes in the Wood...when the axman refuses to carry out the wicked
> queen's orders to kill the children....yet another fabrication....
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my
> brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given
> the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed
> the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
> > Â
> > Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe thatÂ
> the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.Â
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
> > Subject: PERKIN....
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his
> letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain
> lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to
> the King James of Scotland he says:
> >
> > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons
> his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to
> his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it
> happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but
> the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be
> king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the
> man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents
> that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it.
> Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part
> escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to
> leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
> >
> > As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what
> was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella
> although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for
> documentary evidence...
> >
> > Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's
> version of the 'murder'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 15:32:52
Why would they have been fabricated after his death? Once he was dead, he
was no longer of any importance. I just don't see the point of anyone going
to that trouble.And it would have been a great deal of trouble, and for no
purpose that I can work out. I don't think the letters go any way towards
establishing who might have killed one or both of the princes, unless Perkin
was the young duke of York. I know it's hard, but picking and choosing which
primary documents to trust and which not to shouldn't depend on how they fit
into our personal theories. If Perkin was the young duke of York, those
letters prove his identity and name his brother's murderer. If he wasn't the
duke of York, then nothing in the letters, or the confessions, can be taken
at face value. To dismiss the documents he used, or wrote, to prove who he
was AND still believe he was who he said he was, is baffling to me. The
story's too neat, to my thinking. It nicely explains why he has the claim,
not his brother, who (in this version) is dead. The other story, that Perkin
was really the son of a boatman, is also too neat and, paradoxically, has
too many inconsistencies. Perkin wrote an unconvincing letter to his
'mother' from the Tower. Now, if that was my son who I'd last seen when he
was just a young lad, I'd have moved heaven and earth to get to England. The
woman that letter was written to didn't.
I doubt Margaret had any idea what actually happened to the princes. Her
letter to Isabella reads to me like someone who had either convinced
herself, or wanted to convince herself, that this boy was her nephew.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:13:52 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
I can see that Margaret would have gone along with it even knowing that
Perkin was an imposter to make Henry squirm....having said that it was not
necessary to concoct a story naming Richard as the murderer.
If Perkin was an imposter I think it very possible that Margaret might know
the whereabouts or fate of the true princes...as IF Richard had known this
himself he surely would have passed this information on to Margaret....who
have have been inquisitive about their fates...and even as much discussed
put one or both of the boys in her care. Either way Margaret must have
known the truth about Perkin...even taking into account the fact that she
had been away from England for a very long time.
Another scenario....was Perkin really Richard and these letters or the story
of them fabricated after Perkins's death....
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, a fabrication. But by who? Margaret of Burgundy was so keen to
> embarrass Henry VII and cause him embarrassment that, yes, I think she might
> well have been prepared to implicate her, after all, dead brother in order
> to do that.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:25:47 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Liz...me too....Sounds like that fairy story...Babes in the Wood..I think it
> was Babes in the Wood...when the axman refuses to carry out the wicked
> queen's orders to kill the children....yet another fabrication....
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my
> brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given
> the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed
> the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
> > Â
> > Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe thatÂ
> the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.Â
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
> > Subject: PERKIN....
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his
> letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain
> lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to
> the King James of Scotland he says:
> >
> > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons
> his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to
> his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it
> happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but
> the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to
be
> king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the
> man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents
> that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it.
> Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part
> escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to
> leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
> >
> > As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what
> was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella
> although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked
for
> documentary evidence...
> >
> > Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's
> version of the 'murder'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
was no longer of any importance. I just don't see the point of anyone going
to that trouble.And it would have been a great deal of trouble, and for no
purpose that I can work out. I don't think the letters go any way towards
establishing who might have killed one or both of the princes, unless Perkin
was the young duke of York. I know it's hard, but picking and choosing which
primary documents to trust and which not to shouldn't depend on how they fit
into our personal theories. If Perkin was the young duke of York, those
letters prove his identity and name his brother's murderer. If he wasn't the
duke of York, then nothing in the letters, or the confessions, can be taken
at face value. To dismiss the documents he used, or wrote, to prove who he
was AND still believe he was who he said he was, is baffling to me. The
story's too neat, to my thinking. It nicely explains why he has the claim,
not his brother, who (in this version) is dead. The other story, that Perkin
was really the son of a boatman, is also too neat and, paradoxically, has
too many inconsistencies. Perkin wrote an unconvincing letter to his
'mother' from the Tower. Now, if that was my son who I'd last seen when he
was just a young lad, I'd have moved heaven and earth to get to England. The
woman that letter was written to didn't.
I doubt Margaret had any idea what actually happened to the princes. Her
letter to Isabella reads to me like someone who had either convinced
herself, or wanted to convince herself, that this boy was her nephew.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:13:52 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
I can see that Margaret would have gone along with it even knowing that
Perkin was an imposter to make Henry squirm....having said that it was not
necessary to concoct a story naming Richard as the murderer.
If Perkin was an imposter I think it very possible that Margaret might know
the whereabouts or fate of the true princes...as IF Richard had known this
himself he surely would have passed this information on to Margaret....who
have have been inquisitive about their fates...and even as much discussed
put one or both of the boys in her care. Either way Margaret must have
known the truth about Perkin...even taking into account the fact that she
had been away from England for a very long time.
Another scenario....was Perkin really Richard and these letters or the story
of them fabricated after Perkins's death....
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, a fabrication. But by who? Margaret of Burgundy was so keen to
> embarrass Henry VII and cause him embarrassment that, yes, I think she might
> well have been prepared to implicate her, after all, dead brother in order
> to do that.
>
> Karen
>
> From: "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:25:47 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Liz...me too....Sounds like that fairy story...Babes in the Wood..I think it
> was Babes in the Wood...when the axman refuses to carry out the wicked
> queen's orders to kill the children....yet another fabrication....
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my
> brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given
> the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed
> the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
> > Â
> > Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe thatÂ
> the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.Â
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
> > Subject: PERKIN....
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his
> letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain
> lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to
> the King James of Scotland he says:
> >
> > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons
> his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to
> his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it
> happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but
> the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to
be
> king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the
> man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents
> that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it.
> Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part
> escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to
> leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
> >
> > As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what
> was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella
> although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked
for
> documentary evidence...
> >
> > Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's
> version of the 'murder'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 16:00:28
So the supposed murderer had no compunction presumably about murdering Edward but then was stricken by conscience when it came to Richard?
On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:58 AM, EileenB wrote:
> Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
>
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
>
> As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
>
> Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
>
>
On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:58 AM, EileenB wrote:
> Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
>
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
>
> As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
>
> Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
>
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 16:01:43
That's part of what makes the story so contrived to my ears.
Karen
On 7/09/12 1:00 AM, "Florence Dove" <mdove9@...> wrote:
>So the supposed murderer had no compunction presumably about murdering
>Edward but then was stricken by conscience when it came to Richard?
>
>
>On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:58 AM, EileenB wrote:
>
>> Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in
>>his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a
>>certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in
>>his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
>>
>> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his
>>sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more
>>attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to
>>my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the
>>guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel
>>tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward
>>and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the
>>unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were,
>>loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being
>>thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part
>>escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me
>>to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
>>
>> As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out
>>what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter
>>to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James
>>since he asked for documentary evidence...
>>
>> Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to
>>More's version of the 'murder'
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Karen
On 7/09/12 1:00 AM, "Florence Dove" <mdove9@...> wrote:
>So the supposed murderer had no compunction presumably about murdering
>Edward but then was stricken by conscience when it came to Richard?
>
>
>On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:58 AM, EileenB wrote:
>
>> Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in
>>his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a
>>certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in
>>his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
>>
>> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his
>>sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more
>>attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to
>>my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the
>>guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel
>>tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward
>>and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the
>>unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were,
>>loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being
>>thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part
>>escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me
>>to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
>>
>> As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out
>>what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter
>>to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James
>>since he asked for documentary evidence...
>>
>> Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to
>>More's version of the 'murder'
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 16:03:37
I've never understood why if Richard did indeed engineer the deaths of the princes that he never had the bodies put on display to assure the populace that they were indeed dead. If the supposed murders were planned, it could have been made to look as if the boys succumbed to illness.
On Sep 6, 2012, at 7:13 AM, EileenB wrote:
> Ooooops forget to say...my biggest misgiving about these letters ...Why on earth would Perkin want to put the ties he had with his biggest benefactress Margaret of Burgundy into jeopardy....I am sure this staunchest of Plantagenets would have been enraged that her brother Richard was being accused of murdering his nephews....
>
> It makes no sense....Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
> >
> > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
> >
> > As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
> >
> > Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
> >
>
>
On Sep 6, 2012, at 7:13 AM, EileenB wrote:
> Ooooops forget to say...my biggest misgiving about these letters ...Why on earth would Perkin want to put the ties he had with his biggest benefactress Margaret of Burgundy into jeopardy....I am sure this staunchest of Plantagenets would have been enraged that her brother Richard was being accused of murdering his nephews....
>
> It makes no sense....Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
> >
> > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
> >
> > As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
> >
> > Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
> >
>
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 16:23:44
________________________________
From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 16:03
Subject: Re: Re: PERKIN....
> I've never understood why if Richard did indeed engineer the deaths of the princes that he never had the bodies put on display to assure the populace that they were indeed dead. If the
> supposed murders were planned, it could have been made to look as if the boys succumbed to illness.
That's why I subscribe to the cock-up rather than conspiracy theory of history. Something happened, either instigated by somebody or completely by chance, and the overwhelming likelihood is that we'll never.
My gripe with trad historians (and, unfortunately, some revisionists) is that they pick a preferred outcome and then try and reverse-engineer the narrative. All we can do is talk about the balance of probabilities based on the little knowledge we have. But, while doing this, we have to acknowledge that real life is not a stage-play with neat through-lines of character and motivation, and its sheer randomness and unpredictability can throw everything out of joint.
Jonathan
From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 16:03
Subject: Re: Re: PERKIN....
> I've never understood why if Richard did indeed engineer the deaths of the princes that he never had the bodies put on display to assure the populace that they were indeed dead. If the
> supposed murders were planned, it could have been made to look as if the boys succumbed to illness.
That's why I subscribe to the cock-up rather than conspiracy theory of history. Something happened, either instigated by somebody or completely by chance, and the overwhelming likelihood is that we'll never.
My gripe with trad historians (and, unfortunately, some revisionists) is that they pick a preferred outcome and then try and reverse-engineer the narrative. All we can do is talk about the balance of probabilities based on the little knowledge we have. But, while doing this, we have to acknowledge that real life is not a stage-play with neat through-lines of character and motivation, and its sheer randomness and unpredictability can throw everything out of joint.
Jonathan
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 16:25:04
My line of thinking on this...the letters being fabricated after his death..is that someone could have thought this was a golden opportunity to put the blame of Edward's murder squarely on Richard's shoulders...I suppose this achieved the purpose as well that anyone who may have believed Perkin was who he said he was would then know that both the princes were indeed dead and it was therefore useless to ferment any more rebellion in their names..
Sir William Stanley said that he would not fight Perkin if he was Richard....so he must have believed it possible...He must have at the very least thought it possible that one or both the princes were alive at that time which is encouraging if you are a believer in Richard being innocent of murdering his nephews...
Im as baffled as you are Karen...Im just speculating really and bouncing ideas about.....I dont really have a theory on the Perkin story in that I believe one way or the other but I do have an open mind about it....I think it will be forever a mystery as to the true identity of this young man...particularly, as Stephen said ,the church where he was buried was bombed in the war.....
Off to do something useful now...cooking dinner....:0)
Eileen
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Why would they have been fabricated after his death? Once he was dead, he
> was no longer of any importance. I just don't see the point of anyone going
> to that trouble.And it would have been a great deal of trouble, and for no
> purpose that I can work out. I don't think the letters go any way towards
> establishing who might have killed one or both of the princes, unless Perkin
> was the young duke of York. I know it's hard, but picking and choosing which
> primary documents to trust and which not to shouldn't depend on how they fit
> into our personal theories. If Perkin was the young duke of York, those
> letters prove his identity and name his brother's murderer. If he wasn't the
> duke of York, then nothing in the letters, or the confessions, can be taken
> at face value. To dismiss the documents he used, or wrote, to prove who he
> was AND still believe he was who he said he was, is baffling to me. The
> story's too neat, to my thinking. It nicely explains why he has the claim,
> not his brother, who (in this version) is dead. The other story, that Perkin
> was really the son of a boatman, is also too neat and, paradoxically, has
> too many inconsistencies. Perkin wrote an unconvincing letter to his
> 'mother' from the Tower. Now, if that was my son who I'd last seen when he
> was just a young lad, I'd have moved heaven and earth to get to England. The
> woman that letter was written to didn't.
>
> I doubt Margaret had any idea what actually happened to the princes. Her
> letter to Isabella reads to me like someone who had either convinced
> herself, or wanted to convince herself, that this boy was her nephew.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:13:52 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I can see that Margaret would have gone along with it even knowing that
> Perkin was an imposter to make Henry squirm....having said that it was not
> necessary to concoct a story naming Richard as the murderer.
>
> If Perkin was an imposter I think it very possible that Margaret might know
> the whereabouts or fate of the true princes...as IF Richard had known this
> himself he surely would have passed this information on to Margaret....who
> have have been inquisitive about their fates...and even as much discussed
> put one or both of the boys in her care. Either way Margaret must have
> known the truth about Perkin...even taking into account the fact that she
> had been away from England for a very long time.
>
> Another scenario....was Perkin really Richard and these letters or the story
> of them fabricated after Perkins's death....
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, a fabrication. But by who? Margaret of Burgundy was so keen to
> > embarrass Henry VII and cause him embarrassment that, yes, I think she might
> > well have been prepared to implicate her, after all, dead brother in order
> > to do that.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:25:47 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz...me too....Sounds like that fairy story...Babes in the Wood..I think it
> > was Babes in the Wood...when the axman refuses to carry out the wicked
> > queen's orders to kill the children....yet another fabrication....
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
> > <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my
> > brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given
> > the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed
> > the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
> > > Â
> > > Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe thatÂ
> > the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.Â
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
> > > Subject: PERKIN....
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his
> > letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain
> > lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to
> > the King James of Scotland he says:
> > >
> > > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons
> > his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to
> > his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it
> > happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but
> > the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to
> be
> > king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the
> > man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents
> > that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it.
> > Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part
> > escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to
> > leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
> > >
> > > As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what
> > was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella
> > although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked
> for
> > documentary evidence...
> > >
> > > Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's
> > version of the 'murder'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sir William Stanley said that he would not fight Perkin if he was Richard....so he must have believed it possible...He must have at the very least thought it possible that one or both the princes were alive at that time which is encouraging if you are a believer in Richard being innocent of murdering his nephews...
Im as baffled as you are Karen...Im just speculating really and bouncing ideas about.....I dont really have a theory on the Perkin story in that I believe one way or the other but I do have an open mind about it....I think it will be forever a mystery as to the true identity of this young man...particularly, as Stephen said ,the church where he was buried was bombed in the war.....
Off to do something useful now...cooking dinner....:0)
Eileen
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Why would they have been fabricated after his death? Once he was dead, he
> was no longer of any importance. I just don't see the point of anyone going
> to that trouble.And it would have been a great deal of trouble, and for no
> purpose that I can work out. I don't think the letters go any way towards
> establishing who might have killed one or both of the princes, unless Perkin
> was the young duke of York. I know it's hard, but picking and choosing which
> primary documents to trust and which not to shouldn't depend on how they fit
> into our personal theories. If Perkin was the young duke of York, those
> letters prove his identity and name his brother's murderer. If he wasn't the
> duke of York, then nothing in the letters, or the confessions, can be taken
> at face value. To dismiss the documents he used, or wrote, to prove who he
> was AND still believe he was who he said he was, is baffling to me. The
> story's too neat, to my thinking. It nicely explains why he has the claim,
> not his brother, who (in this version) is dead. The other story, that Perkin
> was really the son of a boatman, is also too neat and, paradoxically, has
> too many inconsistencies. Perkin wrote an unconvincing letter to his
> 'mother' from the Tower. Now, if that was my son who I'd last seen when he
> was just a young lad, I'd have moved heaven and earth to get to England. The
> woman that letter was written to didn't.
>
> I doubt Margaret had any idea what actually happened to the princes. Her
> letter to Isabella reads to me like someone who had either convinced
> herself, or wanted to convince herself, that this boy was her nephew.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:13:52 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I can see that Margaret would have gone along with it even knowing that
> Perkin was an imposter to make Henry squirm....having said that it was not
> necessary to concoct a story naming Richard as the murderer.
>
> If Perkin was an imposter I think it very possible that Margaret might know
> the whereabouts or fate of the true princes...as IF Richard had known this
> himself he surely would have passed this information on to Margaret....who
> have have been inquisitive about their fates...and even as much discussed
> put one or both of the boys in her care. Either way Margaret must have
> known the truth about Perkin...even taking into account the fact that she
> had been away from England for a very long time.
>
> Another scenario....was Perkin really Richard and these letters or the story
> of them fabricated after Perkins's death....
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, a fabrication. But by who? Margaret of Burgundy was so keen to
> > embarrass Henry VII and cause him embarrassment that, yes, I think she might
> > well have been prepared to implicate her, after all, dead brother in order
> > to do that.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:25:47 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz...me too....Sounds like that fairy story...Babes in the Wood..I think it
> > was Babes in the Wood...when the axman refuses to carry out the wicked
> > queen's orders to kill the children....yet another fabrication....
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
> > <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my
> > brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given
> > the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed
> > the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it"
> > > Â
> > > Sounds like it was written by Morton. I also find it hard to believe thatÂ
> > the "murderer" would kill the elder child but allow Richard to escape.Â
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 11:58
> > > Subject: PERKIN....
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his
> > letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain
> > lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to
> > the King James of Scotland he says:
> > >
> > > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons
> > his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to
> > his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it
> > happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but
> > the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to
> be
> > king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the
> > man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents
> > that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it.
> > Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part
> > escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to
> > leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
> > >
> > > As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what
> > was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella
> > although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked
> for
> > documentary evidence...
> > >
> > > Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's
> > version of the 'murder'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 16:43:03
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
>
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
>
> As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
Hi Gilda,
Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I was surprised as I hadn't thought there was an extant letter from 'Perkin' accusing Richard directly. Checking Wroe (it is on pages 98 and 99 of my copy), I see that it does come from Vergil, and is supposed to be represent a speech Perkin gave to James of Scotland.
Unlike Ann Wroe, I see no reason to credit this. Whilst it does contain some information that is in the letter to Isabella, and whillst there is no reason to suppose that Vergil had ever seen that, there is every reason to suppose that the version of events related to Isabella was the same version that was given in letters to other potential sources of support, and possibly in proclamations to the folk of England. Perkin's letter to Isabella seemed to point the finger at Buckingham (a 'certain lord', possibly Prince Richard's godfather), on Richard's orders or otherwise is not clear. But in the speech as recorded by Vergil the lord has vanished to be replaced with an anonymous man, and the finger of blame is pointed firmly and luridly at Richard.
I've not made a study of the Perkin Warbeck business or the later years of Henry VII or the reign of Henry VIII, but I have studied the early part of Henry VII's reign in some detail, using original sources, and it has left me firmly convinced of the unwisdom of relying on Vergil. And the 'art' of humanist history writing involved the liberal use of invented conversations, letters and speeches, which seems very odd to us but there you are.
Marie
>
> Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
>
>
> Hi Marie....I too checked my copy of Wroe's "Perkin" and see that in his letter to Isabella he states only that he was delivered up to "a certain lord"..who he does not name...Why? but further on..page 110...in his letter to the King James of Scotland he says:
>
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian to his sons his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more by loading him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened other than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but the extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together. But the man who had been given the unspeakable task of murdering us, pitiful innocents that we were, loathed the abominable deed as much as he feared not to do it. Being thus in two minds, at last, in order to satisfy the tyrant and in part escape the blame, having murdered my bother, he saved me, and allowed me to leave the country with only one servant to keep me company"....
>
> As I understand it, and I may be incorrect, it was Vergil who gave out what was written in these letters and he never actually saw the letter to Isabella although Wroe says he may have seen the letter sent to James since he asked for documentary evidence...
Hi Gilda,
Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I was surprised as I hadn't thought there was an extant letter from 'Perkin' accusing Richard directly. Checking Wroe (it is on pages 98 and 99 of my copy), I see that it does come from Vergil, and is supposed to be represent a speech Perkin gave to James of Scotland.
Unlike Ann Wroe, I see no reason to credit this. Whilst it does contain some information that is in the letter to Isabella, and whillst there is no reason to suppose that Vergil had ever seen that, there is every reason to suppose that the version of events related to Isabella was the same version that was given in letters to other potential sources of support, and possibly in proclamations to the folk of England. Perkin's letter to Isabella seemed to point the finger at Buckingham (a 'certain lord', possibly Prince Richard's godfather), on Richard's orders or otherwise is not clear. But in the speech as recorded by Vergil the lord has vanished to be replaced with an anonymous man, and the finger of blame is pointed firmly and luridly at Richard.
I've not made a study of the Perkin Warbeck business or the later years of Henry VII or the reign of Henry VIII, but I have studied the early part of Henry VII's reign in some detail, using original sources, and it has left me firmly convinced of the unwisdom of relying on Vergil. And the 'art' of humanist history writing involved the liberal use of invented conversations, letters and speeches, which seems very odd to us but there you are.
Marie
>
> Personally I give as much credence to this correspondence as I do to More's version of the 'murder'
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 16:45:01
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 16:25
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> My line of thinking on this...the letters being fabricated after his death..is that someone could have thought this was a golden opportunity to put the blame of Edward's murder squarely on > Richard's shoulders...
But, by implication, also putting the blame for the death of the younger sibling on Henry VII's shoulders... That's less a case of "too clever by half" than the 15th century precursor of the Darwin Awards. I'm with Karen on this one - I really can't see the point.
Jonathan
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 16:25
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> My line of thinking on this...the letters being fabricated after his death..is that someone could have thought this was a golden opportunity to put the blame of Edward's murder squarely on > Richard's shoulders...
But, by implication, also putting the blame for the death of the younger sibling on Henry VII's shoulders... That's less a case of "too clever by half" than the 15th century precursor of the Darwin Awards. I'm with Karen on this one - I really can't see the point.
Jonathan
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 17:02:21
A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
claim the throne of England.
IF Edward's "brother", as accepted by Tudor, said he was dead, however...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karen Clark" <Ragged_staff@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
Why would they have been fabricated after his death? Once he was dead, he
was no longer of any importance. I just don't see the point of anyone going
to that trouble.And it would have been a great deal of trouble, and for no
purpose that I can work out. I don't think the letters go any way towards
establishing who might have killed one or both of the princes, unless Perkin
was the young duke of York. I know it's hard, but picking and choosing which
primary documents to trust and which not to shouldn't depend on how they fit
into our personal theories. If Perkin was the young duke of York, those
letters prove his identity and name his brother's murderer. If he wasn't the
duke of York, then nothing in the letters, or the confessions, can be taken
at face value. To dismiss the documents he used, or wrote, to prove who he
was AND still believe he was who he said he was, is baffling to me. The
story's too neat, to my thinking. It nicely explains why he has the claim,
not his brother, who (in this version) is dead. The other story, that Perkin
was really the son of a boatman, is also too neat and, paradoxically, has
too many inconsistencies. Perkin wrote an unconvincing letter to his
'mother' from the Tower. Now, if that was my son who I'd last seen when he
was just a young lad, I'd have moved heaven and earth to get to England. The
woman that letter was written to didn't.
I doubt Margaret had any idea what actually happened to the princes. Her
letter to Isabella reads to me like someone who had either convinced
herself, or wanted to convince herself, that this boy was her nephew.
Karen
If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
claim the throne of England.
IF Edward's "brother", as accepted by Tudor, said he was dead, however...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karen Clark" <Ragged_staff@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
Why would they have been fabricated after his death? Once he was dead, he
was no longer of any importance. I just don't see the point of anyone going
to that trouble.And it would have been a great deal of trouble, and for no
purpose that I can work out. I don't think the letters go any way towards
establishing who might have killed one or both of the princes, unless Perkin
was the young duke of York. I know it's hard, but picking and choosing which
primary documents to trust and which not to shouldn't depend on how they fit
into our personal theories. If Perkin was the young duke of York, those
letters prove his identity and name his brother's murderer. If he wasn't the
duke of York, then nothing in the letters, or the confessions, can be taken
at face value. To dismiss the documents he used, or wrote, to prove who he
was AND still believe he was who he said he was, is baffling to me. The
story's too neat, to my thinking. It nicely explains why he has the claim,
not his brother, who (in this version) is dead. The other story, that Perkin
was really the son of a boatman, is also too neat and, paradoxically, has
too many inconsistencies. Perkin wrote an unconvincing letter to his
'mother' from the Tower. Now, if that was my son who I'd last seen when he
was just a young lad, I'd have moved heaven and earth to get to England. The
woman that letter was written to didn't.
I doubt Margaret had any idea what actually happened to the princes. Her
letter to Isabella reads to me like someone who had either convinced
herself, or wanted to convince herself, that this boy was her nephew.
Karen
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 17:12:45
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
claim the throne of England.
But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
Jonathan
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
claim the throne of England.
But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
Jonathan
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 17:20:25
And in the event that Edward were already dead it would have the same effect....put an end once and for all to any future imposters....
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> claim the throne of England.
> IF Edward's "brother", as accepted by Tudor, said he was dead, however...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karen Clark" <Ragged_staff@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:32 AM
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
> Why would they have been fabricated after his death? Once he was dead, he
> was no longer of any importance. I just don't see the point of anyone going
> to that trouble.And it would have been a great deal of trouble, and for no
> purpose that I can work out. I don't think the letters go any way towards
> establishing who might have killed one or both of the princes, unless Perkin
> was the young duke of York. I know it's hard, but picking and choosing which
> primary documents to trust and which not to shouldn't depend on how they fit
> into our personal theories. If Perkin was the young duke of York, those
> letters prove his identity and name his brother's murderer. If he wasn't the
> duke of York, then nothing in the letters, or the confessions, can be taken
> at face value. To dismiss the documents he used, or wrote, to prove who he
> was AND still believe he was who he said he was, is baffling to me. The
> story's too neat, to my thinking. It nicely explains why he has the claim,
> not his brother, who (in this version) is dead. The other story, that Perkin
> was really the son of a boatman, is also too neat and, paradoxically, has
> too many inconsistencies. Perkin wrote an unconvincing letter to his
> 'mother' from the Tower. Now, if that was my son who I'd last seen when he
> was just a young lad, I'd have moved heaven and earth to get to England. The
> woman that letter was written to didn't.
>
> I doubt Margaret had any idea what actually happened to the princes. Her
> letter to Isabella reads to me like someone who had either convinced
> herself, or wanted to convince herself, that this boy was her nephew.
>
> Karen
>
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> claim the throne of England.
> IF Edward's "brother", as accepted by Tudor, said he was dead, however...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karen Clark" <Ragged_staff@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:32 AM
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
> Why would they have been fabricated after his death? Once he was dead, he
> was no longer of any importance. I just don't see the point of anyone going
> to that trouble.And it would have been a great deal of trouble, and for no
> purpose that I can work out. I don't think the letters go any way towards
> establishing who might have killed one or both of the princes, unless Perkin
> was the young duke of York. I know it's hard, but picking and choosing which
> primary documents to trust and which not to shouldn't depend on how they fit
> into our personal theories. If Perkin was the young duke of York, those
> letters prove his identity and name his brother's murderer. If he wasn't the
> duke of York, then nothing in the letters, or the confessions, can be taken
> at face value. To dismiss the documents he used, or wrote, to prove who he
> was AND still believe he was who he said he was, is baffling to me. The
> story's too neat, to my thinking. It nicely explains why he has the claim,
> not his brother, who (in this version) is dead. The other story, that Perkin
> was really the son of a boatman, is also too neat and, paradoxically, has
> too many inconsistencies. Perkin wrote an unconvincing letter to his
> 'mother' from the Tower. Now, if that was my son who I'd last seen when he
> was just a young lad, I'd have moved heaven and earth to get to England. The
> woman that letter was written to didn't.
>
> I doubt Margaret had any idea what actually happened to the princes. Her
> letter to Isabella reads to me like someone who had either convinced
> herself, or wanted to convince herself, that this boy was her nephew.
>
> Karen
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 17:30:52
Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
Eileen
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
>
> A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> claim the throne of England.
>
> But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
>
> What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
>
> Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
>
> Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
Eileen
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
>
> A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> claim the throne of England.
>
> But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
>
> What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
>
> Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
>
> Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 17:49:54
Well, yes, following my own logic, people can do stupid and out of character things... But I really can't see the ghost of a point in this case, whereas with stuff like the witchcraft accusations - no matter how absurd - I *can* understand why they were crow-barred into the story at a later date. They were supposed to make credulous people believe bad things. But why help the credulous believe that events regarding Edward IV's sons might have been more complex than Henry VII would have wished?
Re all these fake letters you mention, maybe it was the period's substitute for phone-hacking?!
Jonathan
------------------------------
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 17:30 BST EileenB wrote:
>Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
>
>For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
>
>There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
>Eileen
>
>
>
>--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
>> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>>
>>
>>
>> A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
>> If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
>> there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
>> These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
>> was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
>> that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
>> other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
>> claim the throne of England.
>>
>> But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
>>
>> What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
>>
>> Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
>>
>> Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re all these fake letters you mention, maybe it was the period's substitute for phone-hacking?!
Jonathan
------------------------------
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 17:30 BST EileenB wrote:
>Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
>
>For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
>
>There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
>Eileen
>
>
>
>--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
>> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>>
>>
>>
>> A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
>> If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
>> there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
>> These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
>> was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
>> that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
>> other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
>> claim the throne of England.
>>
>> But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
>>
>> What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
>>
>> Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
>>
>> Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 18:47:27
You have certainly made some good points Jonathan...
When you think possibly Henry never knew the truth of Perkin and possibly Richard never knew the truth of what happened to the princes then its not surprising that over 500 years later we dont either.....and how maddening that, especially concerning Perkin, we never will.....
Re fake letters and phonehacking...it just goes to show that people havent changed enormously...still lacking scruples and driven by greed :0)
Eileen
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well, yes, following my own logic, people can do stupid and out of character things... But I really can't see the ghost of a point in this case, whereas with stuff like the witchcraft accusations - no matter how absurd - I *can* understand why they were crow-barred into the story at a later date. They were supposed to make credulous people believe bad things. But why help the credulous believe that events regarding Edward IV's sons might have been more complex than Henry VII would have wished?
>
> Re all these fake letters you mention, maybe it was the period's substitute for phone-hacking?!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 17:30 BST EileenB wrote:
>
> >Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> >
> >For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> >
> >There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> >Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> >> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> >> If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> >> there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> >> These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> >> was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> >> that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> >> other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> >> claim the throne of England.
> >>
> >> But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> >>
> >> What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> >>
> >> Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> >>
> >> Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
When you think possibly Henry never knew the truth of Perkin and possibly Richard never knew the truth of what happened to the princes then its not surprising that over 500 years later we dont either.....and how maddening that, especially concerning Perkin, we never will.....
Re fake letters and phonehacking...it just goes to show that people havent changed enormously...still lacking scruples and driven by greed :0)
Eileen
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well, yes, following my own logic, people can do stupid and out of character things... But I really can't see the ghost of a point in this case, whereas with stuff like the witchcraft accusations - no matter how absurd - I *can* understand why they were crow-barred into the story at a later date. They were supposed to make credulous people believe bad things. But why help the credulous believe that events regarding Edward IV's sons might have been more complex than Henry VII would have wished?
>
> Re all these fake letters you mention, maybe it was the period's substitute for phone-hacking?!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 17:30 BST EileenB wrote:
>
> >Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> >
> >For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> >
> >There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> >Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> >> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> >> If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> >> there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> >> These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> >> was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> >> that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> >> other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> >> claim the throne of England.
> >>
> >> But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> >>
> >> What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> >>
> >> Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> >>
> >> Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 19:22:50
There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
>
> For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
>
> There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> >
> >
> >
> > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > claim the throne of England.
> >
> > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> >
> > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> >
> > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> >
> > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
>
> For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
>
> There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> >
> >
> >
> > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > claim the throne of England.
> >
> > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> >
> > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> >
> > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> >
> > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 20:46:28
Marie...yes Ive seen that explanation given before...and when you think the letter, if there was a letter, would have been nearly 300 years old when seen by Buck it must have been fragile and hard to decipher so Buck may well have misread.
Trouble is that Crowland writes that Queen Anne fell ill after the Christmas festivities...we know she was well before that because she was gaily changing clothes and stuff over the festival season...She died 16 March. Do you not think that is too short a time for her illness to take a hold, be diagnosed and the fact that she was not going to survive become apparent for Richard to begin marriage negotiations for himself and Elizabeth with the Duke and Princess...? Having said that nothing would surprise me much anymore and I suppose it is possible...but it does seem very cold.....especially if Richard loved his wife. I would imagine that after the death of his son such a short time before he would have felt like he had been hit with a sledgehammer....and I am taking into account an urgency to get a heir....Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
>
> To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
> Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> >
> > For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> >
> > There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > > claim the throne of England.
> > >
> > > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> > >
> > > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> > >
> > > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> > >
> > > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Trouble is that Crowland writes that Queen Anne fell ill after the Christmas festivities...we know she was well before that because she was gaily changing clothes and stuff over the festival season...She died 16 March. Do you not think that is too short a time for her illness to take a hold, be diagnosed and the fact that she was not going to survive become apparent for Richard to begin marriage negotiations for himself and Elizabeth with the Duke and Princess...? Having said that nothing would surprise me much anymore and I suppose it is possible...but it does seem very cold.....especially if Richard loved his wife. I would imagine that after the death of his son such a short time before he would have felt like he had been hit with a sledgehammer....and I am taking into account an urgency to get a heir....Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
>
> To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
> Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> >
> > For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> >
> > There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > > claim the throne of England.
> > >
> > > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> > >
> > > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> > >
> > > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> > >
> > > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 21:11:01
Eileen,
Yes, it does seem cold, but I'm sure Richard was under pressure from his advisors.
I don't know whether the speed of Anne's illness is odd, bearing in mind that modern diagnostic tools were not available. If it was a slow illness, then we probably have to imagine Anne having had sympoms of some sort for a long time, but entering the terminal phase after Christmas. That can happen very rapidly, whether with TB or cancer; after a long long period of relatively mild or manageable symptoms there tends to be a sudden rapid and brutal decline leading to death within two or three months. In that regard, the stress of the Christmas celebrations can't have helped. We have no idea, of course, what it was that killed her, which makes it difficult to pronounce on timescales.
It would be unwise, I think, to draw conclusions about Richard's feelings from the fact that his government did not wait before casting around for a new queen; he really did need a queen and an heir - and foreign alliances - urgently, and it is probable that he had been through so much that he was emotionally numbed, in shock, and would have been gone through all these things like a sleepwalker taking the advice of the people he had learned to trust over the years. Watching someone waste away is a distressing experience and the natural reactions when the suffering ends for them are not the same as when one is faced with the totally unexpected death of a person who was fit and well the last time you saw them. Grief is a complicated and often slow-burning business, and we shouldn't try to judge others by their immediate response. I think, for instance, that a good case could be made for Richard's judgement at Bosworth having been affected by depression.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie...yes Ive seen that explanation given before...and when you think the letter, if there was a letter, would have been nearly 300 years old when seen by Buck it must have been fragile and hard to decipher so Buck may well have misread.
>
> Trouble is that Crowland writes that Queen Anne fell ill after the Christmas festivities...we know she was well before that because she was gaily changing clothes and stuff over the festival season...She died 16 March. Do you not think that is too short a time for her illness to take a hold, be diagnosed and the fact that she was not going to survive become apparent for Richard to begin marriage negotiations for himself and Elizabeth with the Duke and Princess...? Having said that nothing would surprise me much anymore and I suppose it is possible...but it does seem very cold.....especially if Richard loved his wife. I would imagine that after the death of his son such a short time before he would have felt like he had been hit with a sledgehammer....and I am taking into account an urgency to get a heir....Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
> >
> > To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
> > Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> > >
> > > For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> > >
> > > There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > > > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > > > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > > > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > > > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > > > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > > > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > > > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > > > claim the throne of England.
> > > >
> > > > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> > > >
> > > > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> > > >
> > > > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> > > >
> > > > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Yes, it does seem cold, but I'm sure Richard was under pressure from his advisors.
I don't know whether the speed of Anne's illness is odd, bearing in mind that modern diagnostic tools were not available. If it was a slow illness, then we probably have to imagine Anne having had sympoms of some sort for a long time, but entering the terminal phase after Christmas. That can happen very rapidly, whether with TB or cancer; after a long long period of relatively mild or manageable symptoms there tends to be a sudden rapid and brutal decline leading to death within two or three months. In that regard, the stress of the Christmas celebrations can't have helped. We have no idea, of course, what it was that killed her, which makes it difficult to pronounce on timescales.
It would be unwise, I think, to draw conclusions about Richard's feelings from the fact that his government did not wait before casting around for a new queen; he really did need a queen and an heir - and foreign alliances - urgently, and it is probable that he had been through so much that he was emotionally numbed, in shock, and would have been gone through all these things like a sleepwalker taking the advice of the people he had learned to trust over the years. Watching someone waste away is a distressing experience and the natural reactions when the suffering ends for them are not the same as when one is faced with the totally unexpected death of a person who was fit and well the last time you saw them. Grief is a complicated and often slow-burning business, and we shouldn't try to judge others by their immediate response. I think, for instance, that a good case could be made for Richard's judgement at Bosworth having been affected by depression.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie...yes Ive seen that explanation given before...and when you think the letter, if there was a letter, would have been nearly 300 years old when seen by Buck it must have been fragile and hard to decipher so Buck may well have misread.
>
> Trouble is that Crowland writes that Queen Anne fell ill after the Christmas festivities...we know she was well before that because she was gaily changing clothes and stuff over the festival season...She died 16 March. Do you not think that is too short a time for her illness to take a hold, be diagnosed and the fact that she was not going to survive become apparent for Richard to begin marriage negotiations for himself and Elizabeth with the Duke and Princess...? Having said that nothing would surprise me much anymore and I suppose it is possible...but it does seem very cold.....especially if Richard loved his wife. I would imagine that after the death of his son such a short time before he would have felt like he had been hit with a sledgehammer....and I am taking into account an urgency to get a heir....Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
> >
> > To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
> > Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> > >
> > > For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> > >
> > > There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > > > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > > > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > > > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > > > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > > > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > > > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > > > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > > > claim the throne of England.
> > > >
> > > > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> > > >
> > > > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> > > >
> > > > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> > > >
> > > > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 21:22:11
Marie,
Thanks for your comments. You have such a good way of putting things in perspective.
Vickie
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
Eileen,
Yes, it does seem cold, but I'm sure Richard was under pressure from his advisors.
I don't know whether the speed of Anne's illness is odd, bearing in mind that modern diagnostic tools were not available. If it was a slow illness, then we probably have to imagine Anne having had sympoms of some sort for a long time, but entering the terminal phase after Christmas. That can happen very rapidly, whether with TB or cancer; after a long long period of relatively mild or manageable symptoms there tends to be a sudden rapid and brutal decline leading to death within two or three months. In that regard, the stress of the Christmas celebrations can't have helped. We have no idea, of course, what it was that killed her, which makes it difficult to pronounce on timescales.
It would be unwise, I think, to draw conclusions about Richard's feelings from the fact that his government did not wait before casting around for a new queen; he really did need a queen and an heir - and foreign alliances - urgently, and it is probable that he had been through so much that he was emotionally numbed, in shock, and would have been gone through all these things like a sleepwalker taking the advice of the people he had learned to trust over the years. Watching someone waste away is a distressing experience and the natural reactions when the suffering ends for them are not the same as when one is faced with the totally unexpected death of a person who was fit and well the last time you saw them. Grief is a complicated and often slow-burning business, and we shouldn't try to judge others by their immediate response. I think, for instance, that a good case could be made for Richard's judgement at Bosworth having been affected by depression.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie...yes Ive seen that explanation given before...and when you think the letter, if there was a letter, would have been nearly 300 years old when seen by Buck it must have been fragile and hard to decipher so Buck may well have misread.
>
> Trouble is that Crowland writes that Queen Anne fell ill after the Christmas festivities...we know she was well before that because she was gaily changing clothes and stuff over the festival season...She died 16 March. Do you not think that is too short a time for her illness to take a hold, be diagnosed and the fact that she was not going to survive become apparent for Richard to begin marriage negotiations for himself and Elizabeth with the Duke and Princess...? Having said that nothing would surprise me much anymore and I suppose it is possible...but it does seem very cold.....especially if Richard loved his wife. I would imagine that after the death of his son such a short time before he would have felt like he had been hit with a sledgehammer....and I am taking into account an urgency to get a heir....Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
> >
> > To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
> > Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> > >
> > > For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> > >
> > > There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > > > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > > > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > > > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > > > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > > > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > > > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > > > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > > > claim the throne of England.
> > > >
> > > > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> > > >
> > > > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> > > >
> > > > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> > > >
> > > > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Thanks for your comments. You have such a good way of putting things in perspective.
Vickie
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
Eileen,
Yes, it does seem cold, but I'm sure Richard was under pressure from his advisors.
I don't know whether the speed of Anne's illness is odd, bearing in mind that modern diagnostic tools were not available. If it was a slow illness, then we probably have to imagine Anne having had sympoms of some sort for a long time, but entering the terminal phase after Christmas. That can happen very rapidly, whether with TB or cancer; after a long long period of relatively mild or manageable symptoms there tends to be a sudden rapid and brutal decline leading to death within two or three months. In that regard, the stress of the Christmas celebrations can't have helped. We have no idea, of course, what it was that killed her, which makes it difficult to pronounce on timescales.
It would be unwise, I think, to draw conclusions about Richard's feelings from the fact that his government did not wait before casting around for a new queen; he really did need a queen and an heir - and foreign alliances - urgently, and it is probable that he had been through so much that he was emotionally numbed, in shock, and would have been gone through all these things like a sleepwalker taking the advice of the people he had learned to trust over the years. Watching someone waste away is a distressing experience and the natural reactions when the suffering ends for them are not the same as when one is faced with the totally unexpected death of a person who was fit and well the last time you saw them. Grief is a complicated and often slow-burning business, and we shouldn't try to judge others by their immediate response. I think, for instance, that a good case could be made for Richard's judgement at Bosworth having been affected by depression.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie...yes Ive seen that explanation given before...and when you think the letter, if there was a letter, would have been nearly 300 years old when seen by Buck it must have been fragile and hard to decipher so Buck may well have misread.
>
> Trouble is that Crowland writes that Queen Anne fell ill after the Christmas festivities...we know she was well before that because she was gaily changing clothes and stuff over the festival season...She died 16 March. Do you not think that is too short a time for her illness to take a hold, be diagnosed and the fact that she was not going to survive become apparent for Richard to begin marriage negotiations for himself and Elizabeth with the Duke and Princess...? Having said that nothing would surprise me much anymore and I suppose it is possible...but it does seem very cold.....especially if Richard loved his wife. I would imagine that after the death of his son such a short time before he would have felt like he had been hit with a sledgehammer....and I am taking into account an urgency to get a heir....Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
> >
> > To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
> > Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> > >
> > > For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> > >
> > > There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > > > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > > > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > > > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > > > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > > > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > > > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > > > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > > > claim the throne of England.
> > > >
> > > > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> > > >
> > > > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> > > >
> > > > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> > > >
> > > > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 21:57:33
An excellent analysis, cheers!
is it generally considered (or deemed likely) to have been pul. TB? If so that can take yonks to become apparent, although none the less fatal in the 15th C. for all that.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
Eileen,
Yes, it does seem cold, but I'm sure Richard was under pressure from his advisors.
I don't know whether the speed of Anne's illness is odd, bearing in mind that modern diagnostic tools were not available. If it was a slow illness, then we probably have to imagine Anne having had sympoms of some sort for a long time, but entering the terminal phase after Christmas. That can happen very rapidly, whether with TB or cancer; after a long long period of relatively mild or manageable symptoms there tends to be a sudden rapid and brutal decline leading to death within two or three months. In that regard, the stress of the Christmas celebrations can't have helped. We have no idea, of course, what it was that killed her, which makes it difficult to pronounce on timescales.
It would be unwise, I think, to draw conclusions about Richard's feelings from the fact that his government did not wait before casting around for a new queen; he really did need a queen and an heir - and foreign alliances - urgently, and it is probable that he had been through so much that he was emotionally numbed, in shock, and would have been gone through all these things like a sleepwalker taking the advice of the people he had learned to trust over the years. Watching someone waste away is a distressing experience and the natural reactions when the suffering ends for them are not the same as when one is faced with the totally unexpected death of a person who was fit and well the last time you saw them. Grief is a complicated and often slow-burning business, and we shouldn't try to judge others by their immediate response. I think, for instance, that a good case could be made for Richard's judgement at Bosworth having been affected by depression.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie...yes Ive seen that explanation given before...and when you think the letter, if there was a letter, would have been nearly 300 years old when seen by Buck it must have been fragile and hard to decipher so Buck may well have misread.
>
> Trouble is that Crowland writes that Queen Anne fell ill after the Christmas festivities...we know she was well before that because she was gaily changing clothes and stuff over the festival season...She died 16 March. Do you not think that is too short a time for her illness to take a hold, be diagnosed and the fact that she was not going to survive become apparent for Richard to begin marriage negotiations for himself and Elizabeth with the Duke and Princess...? Having said that nothing would surprise me much anymore and I suppose it is possible...but it does seem very cold.....especially if Richard loved his wife. I would imagine that after the death of his son such a short time before he would have felt like he had been hit with a sledgehammer....and I am taking into account an urgency to get a heir....Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
> >
> > To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
> > Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> > >
> > > For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> > >
> > > There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > > > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > > > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > > > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > > > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > > > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > > > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > > > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > > > claim the throne of England.
> > > >
> > > > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> > > >
> > > > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> > > >
> > > > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> > > >
> > > > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
is it generally considered (or deemed likely) to have been pul. TB? If so that can take yonks to become apparent, although none the less fatal in the 15th C. for all that.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: PERKIN....
Eileen,
Yes, it does seem cold, but I'm sure Richard was under pressure from his advisors.
I don't know whether the speed of Anne's illness is odd, bearing in mind that modern diagnostic tools were not available. If it was a slow illness, then we probably have to imagine Anne having had sympoms of some sort for a long time, but entering the terminal phase after Christmas. That can happen very rapidly, whether with TB or cancer; after a long long period of relatively mild or manageable symptoms there tends to be a sudden rapid and brutal decline leading to death within two or three months. In that regard, the stress of the Christmas celebrations can't have helped. We have no idea, of course, what it was that killed her, which makes it difficult to pronounce on timescales.
It would be unwise, I think, to draw conclusions about Richard's feelings from the fact that his government did not wait before casting around for a new queen; he really did need a queen and an heir - and foreign alliances - urgently, and it is probable that he had been through so much that he was emotionally numbed, in shock, and would have been gone through all these things like a sleepwalker taking the advice of the people he had learned to trust over the years. Watching someone waste away is a distressing experience and the natural reactions when the suffering ends for them are not the same as when one is faced with the totally unexpected death of a person who was fit and well the last time you saw them. Grief is a complicated and often slow-burning business, and we shouldn't try to judge others by their immediate response. I think, for instance, that a good case could be made for Richard's judgement at Bosworth having been affected by depression.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie...yes Ive seen that explanation given before...and when you think the letter, if there was a letter, would have been nearly 300 years old when seen by Buck it must have been fragile and hard to decipher so Buck may well have misread.
>
> Trouble is that Crowland writes that Queen Anne fell ill after the Christmas festivities...we know she was well before that because she was gaily changing clothes and stuff over the festival season...She died 16 March. Do you not think that is too short a time for her illness to take a hold, be diagnosed and the fact that she was not going to survive become apparent for Richard to begin marriage negotiations for himself and Elizabeth with the Duke and Princess...? Having said that nothing would surprise me much anymore and I suppose it is possible...but it does seem very cold.....especially if Richard loved his wife. I would imagine that after the death of his son such a short time before he would have felt like he had been hit with a sledgehammer....and I am taking into account an urgency to get a heir....Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
> >
> > To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
> > Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> > >
> > > For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> > >
> > > There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > > > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > > > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > > > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > > > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > > > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > > > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > > > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > > > claim the throne of England.
> > > >
> > > > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> > > >
> > > > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> > > >
> > > > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> > > >
> > > > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 22:42:45
Vickie is right there Marie...you make it sound so reasonable....Yes I can see if Anne had been ill for a long time and had a sudden collapse after Christmas then it wouldnt have been unexpected and probably the Council had plans afoot...and possibly not even put it to Richard until a serious decline...yes...I can see that....I had never thought of that....Eileen
--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> Marie,
> Thanks for your comments. You have such a good way of putting things in perspective.
> Vickie
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
> Â
>
> Eileen,
>
> Yes, it does seem cold, but I'm sure Richard was under pressure from his advisors.
> I don't know whether the speed of Anne's illness is odd, bearing in mind that modern diagnostic tools were not available. If it was a slow illness, then we probably have to imagine Anne having had sympoms of some sort for a long time, but entering the terminal phase after Christmas. That can happen very rapidly, whether with TB or cancer; after a long long period of relatively mild or manageable symptoms there tends to be a sudden rapid and brutal decline leading to death within two or three months. In that regard, the stress of the Christmas celebrations can't have helped. We have no idea, of course, what it was that killed her, which makes it difficult to pronounce on timescales.
> It would be unwise, I think, to draw conclusions about Richard's feelings from the fact that his government did not wait before casting around for a new queen; he really did need a queen and an heir - and foreign alliances - urgently, and it is probable that he had been through so much that he was emotionally numbed, in shock, and would have been gone through all these things like a sleepwalker taking the advice of the people he had learned to trust over the years. Watching someone waste away is a distressing experience and the natural reactions when the suffering ends for them are not the same as when one is faced with the totally unexpected death of a person who was fit and well the last time you saw them. Grief is a complicated and often slow-burning business, and we shouldn't try to judge others by their immediate response. I think, for instance, that a good case could be made for Richard's judgement at Bosworth having been affected by depression.
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie...yes Ive seen that explanation given before...and when you think the letter, if there was a letter, would have been nearly 300 years old when seen by Buck it must have been fragile and hard to decipher so Buck may well have misread.
> >
> > Trouble is that Crowland writes that Queen Anne fell ill after the Christmas festivities...we know she was well before that because she was gaily changing clothes and stuff over the festival season...She died 16 March. Do you not think that is too short a time for her illness to take a hold, be diagnosed and the fact that she was not going to survive become apparent for Richard to begin marriage negotiations for himself and Elizabeth with the Duke and Princess...? Having said that nothing would surprise me much anymore and I suppose it is possible...but it does seem very cold.....especially if Richard loved his wife. I would imagine that after the death of his son such a short time before he would have felt like he had been hit with a sledgehammer....and I am taking into account an urgency to get a heir....Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
> > >
> > > To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
> > > Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> > > >
> > > > For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> > > >
> > > > There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > > > > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > > > > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > > > > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > > > > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > > > > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > > > > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > > > > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > > > > claim the throne of England.
> > > > >
> > > > > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> > > > >
> > > > > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> > > > >
> > > > > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> Marie,
> Thanks for your comments. You have such a good way of putting things in perspective.
> Vickie
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
> Â
>
> Eileen,
>
> Yes, it does seem cold, but I'm sure Richard was under pressure from his advisors.
> I don't know whether the speed of Anne's illness is odd, bearing in mind that modern diagnostic tools were not available. If it was a slow illness, then we probably have to imagine Anne having had sympoms of some sort for a long time, but entering the terminal phase after Christmas. That can happen very rapidly, whether with TB or cancer; after a long long period of relatively mild or manageable symptoms there tends to be a sudden rapid and brutal decline leading to death within two or three months. In that regard, the stress of the Christmas celebrations can't have helped. We have no idea, of course, what it was that killed her, which makes it difficult to pronounce on timescales.
> It would be unwise, I think, to draw conclusions about Richard's feelings from the fact that his government did not wait before casting around for a new queen; he really did need a queen and an heir - and foreign alliances - urgently, and it is probable that he had been through so much that he was emotionally numbed, in shock, and would have been gone through all these things like a sleepwalker taking the advice of the people he had learned to trust over the years. Watching someone waste away is a distressing experience and the natural reactions when the suffering ends for them are not the same as when one is faced with the totally unexpected death of a person who was fit and well the last time you saw them. Grief is a complicated and often slow-burning business, and we shouldn't try to judge others by their immediate response. I think, for instance, that a good case could be made for Richard's judgement at Bosworth having been affected by depression.
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie...yes Ive seen that explanation given before...and when you think the letter, if there was a letter, would have been nearly 300 years old when seen by Buck it must have been fragile and hard to decipher so Buck may well have misread.
> >
> > Trouble is that Crowland writes that Queen Anne fell ill after the Christmas festivities...we know she was well before that because she was gaily changing clothes and stuff over the festival season...She died 16 March. Do you not think that is too short a time for her illness to take a hold, be diagnosed and the fact that she was not going to survive become apparent for Richard to begin marriage negotiations for himself and Elizabeth with the Duke and Princess...? Having said that nothing would surprise me much anymore and I suppose it is possible...but it does seem very cold.....especially if Richard loved his wife. I would imagine that after the death of his son such a short time before he would have felt like he had been hit with a sledgehammer....and I am taking into account an urgency to get a heir....Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
> > >
> > > To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
> > > Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> > > >
> > > > For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> > > >
> > > > There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > > > > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > > > > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > > > > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > > > > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > > > > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > > > > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > > > > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > > > > claim the throne of England.
> > > > >
> > > > > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> > > > >
> > > > > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> > > > >
> > > > > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: PERKIN....
2012-09-06 22:44:15
Ed...if it was TB or cancer I wonder if the shock of her little son's death triggered it....All so sad don't you think? Eileen
--- In , Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> An excellent analysis, cheers!
> is it generally considered (or deemed likely) to have been pul. TB? If so that can take yonks to become apparent, although none the less fatal in the 15th C. for all that.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 9:10 PM
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
> Â
>
> Eileen,
>
> Yes, it does seem cold, but I'm sure Richard was under pressure from his advisors.
> I don't know whether the speed of Anne's illness is odd, bearing in mind that modern diagnostic tools were not available. If it was a slow illness, then we probably have to imagine Anne having had sympoms of some sort for a long time, but entering the terminal phase after Christmas. That can happen very rapidly, whether with TB or cancer; after a long long period of relatively mild or manageable symptoms there tends to be a sudden rapid and brutal decline leading to death within two or three months. In that regard, the stress of the Christmas celebrations can't have helped. We have no idea, of course, what it was that killed her, which makes it difficult to pronounce on timescales.
> It would be unwise, I think, to draw conclusions about Richard's feelings from the fact that his government did not wait before casting around for a new queen; he really did need a queen and an heir - and foreign alliances - urgently, and it is probable that he had been through so much that he was emotionally numbed, in shock, and would have been gone through all these things like a sleepwalker taking the advice of the people he had learned to trust over the years. Watching someone waste away is a distressing experience and the natural reactions when the suffering ends for them are not the same as when one is faced with the totally unexpected death of a person who was fit and well the last time you saw them. Grief is a complicated and often slow-burning business, and we shouldn't try to judge others by their immediate response. I think, for instance, that a good case could be made for Richard's judgement at Bosworth having been affected by depression.
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie...yes Ive seen that explanation given before...and when you think the letter, if there was a letter, would have been nearly 300 years old when seen by Buck it must have been fragile and hard to decipher so Buck may well have misread.
> >
> > Trouble is that Crowland writes that Queen Anne fell ill after the Christmas festivities...we know she was well before that because she was gaily changing clothes and stuff over the festival season...She died 16 March. Do you not think that is too short a time for her illness to take a hold, be diagnosed and the fact that she was not going to survive become apparent for Richard to begin marriage negotiations for himself and Elizabeth with the Duke and Princess...? Having said that nothing would surprise me much anymore and I suppose it is possible...but it does seem very cold.....especially if Richard loved his wife. I would imagine that after the death of his son such a short time before he would have felt like he had been hit with a sledgehammer....and I am taking into account an urgency to get a heir....Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
> > >
> > > To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
> > > Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> > > >
> > > > For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> > > >
> > > > There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > > > > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > > > > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > > > > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > > > > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > > > > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > > > > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > > > > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > > > > claim the throne of England.
> > > > >
> > > > > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> > > > >
> > > > > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> > > > >
> > > > > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> An excellent analysis, cheers!
> is it generally considered (or deemed likely) to have been pul. TB? If so that can take yonks to become apparent, although none the less fatal in the 15th C. for all that.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 9:10 PM
> Subject: Re: PERKIN....
>
>
> Â
>
> Eileen,
>
> Yes, it does seem cold, but I'm sure Richard was under pressure from his advisors.
> I don't know whether the speed of Anne's illness is odd, bearing in mind that modern diagnostic tools were not available. If it was a slow illness, then we probably have to imagine Anne having had sympoms of some sort for a long time, but entering the terminal phase after Christmas. That can happen very rapidly, whether with TB or cancer; after a long long period of relatively mild or manageable symptoms there tends to be a sudden rapid and brutal decline leading to death within two or three months. In that regard, the stress of the Christmas celebrations can't have helped. We have no idea, of course, what it was that killed her, which makes it difficult to pronounce on timescales.
> It would be unwise, I think, to draw conclusions about Richard's feelings from the fact that his government did not wait before casting around for a new queen; he really did need a queen and an heir - and foreign alliances - urgently, and it is probable that he had been through so much that he was emotionally numbed, in shock, and would have been gone through all these things like a sleepwalker taking the advice of the people he had learned to trust over the years. Watching someone waste away is a distressing experience and the natural reactions when the suffering ends for them are not the same as when one is faced with the totally unexpected death of a person who was fit and well the last time you saw them. Grief is a complicated and often slow-burning business, and we shouldn't try to judge others by their immediate response. I think, for instance, that a good case could be made for Richard's judgement at Bosworth having been affected by depression.
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie...yes Ive seen that explanation given before...and when you think the letter, if there was a letter, would have been nearly 300 years old when seen by Buck it must have been fragile and hard to decipher so Buck may well have misread.
> >
> > Trouble is that Crowland writes that Queen Anne fell ill after the Christmas festivities...we know she was well before that because she was gaily changing clothes and stuff over the festival season...She died 16 March. Do you not think that is too short a time for her illness to take a hold, be diagnosed and the fact that she was not going to survive become apparent for Richard to begin marriage negotiations for himself and Elizabeth with the Duke and Princess...? Having said that nothing would surprise me much anymore and I suppose it is possible...but it does seem very cold.....especially if Richard loved his wife. I would imagine that after the death of his son such a short time before he would have felt like he had been hit with a sledgehammer....and I am taking into account an urgency to get a heir....Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is perhaps another more plausible explanation for the Elizabeth of York letter than forgery, and that is that it wasn't saying what Buck assumed. He didn't take it down verbatim, just paraphrased it, and in his notes tinkered with the wording quie a lot. Particularly when you look at earlier versions, it seems by no means clear that she was talking about marrying Richard rather than just asking Norfolk to speak to Richard about her marriage (as I recall, Buck altered the position of the words 'to the king'). It has been suggested that what Elizabeth was actually writing about was the possibility of her marrying Manuel Duke of Beja, because that too would have to wait on Queen Anne's death since it was to be a secondary match to Richard's marriage to the Princess Joanna. Seems a sensible idea to me.
> > >
> > > To return to my last post, though, there is only ONE letter from Perkin about what happened to himself and his elder brother. The other thing - where he names Richard as the villain - is a passage from Vergil purporting to be a verbal account he gave to James IV. In other words it's just the usual humanist dramatised "history" and shouldn't be confused with documentary evidence.
> > > Humanist writers made up speeches all the time in their "histories" but I don't imagine much diplomatic correspondence consisted of forgeries - apart from anything else diplomatic correspondence was a two-way process, so forgeries would get found out and discarded, and diplomacy was carried out by proper ambassadors and emissaries who presented the letters in person.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it was just something they done Jonathan....
> > > >
> > > > For example why say that Richard accused La Woodville of witchcraft and withering his arm...when clearly in real life this was not the case...We know this for sure as Richard had no withered arm at Bosworth...
> > > >
> > > > There were probably fake letters flying all around the place....for surely the letter, read by Buck and kept in a cabinet at Arundel Castle supposedly written by Princess Elizabeth regarding her longing for both the death of Queen Anne and marriage to Richard was a fake....? Going off on a bit of a tangent here....!
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012, 18:02
> > > > > Subject: Re: PERKIN....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > A lot of "if's" but perhaps this fits:
> > > > > If Perkin WERE Richard of York and IF Tudor believed him to be Richard, then
> > > > > there was still the problem of "Where was Edward (V)?"
> > > > > These letters would make it just that much harder for Edward, wherever he
> > > > > was, to get foreign support in a bid to reclaim his throne. I should think
> > > > > that Tudor knew full well how, if it was thought in their their interest,
> > > > > other countries were more than willing to provide support to someone to
> > > > > claim the throne of England.
> > > > >
> > > > > But then you get the scenario that *if* (yes, lots of ifs!), Edward V were still out there (or a likely pretender), he could say "You know Henry Tudor is the prince of lies - he killed my brother, so is he really fit to be a king?"
> > > > >
> > > > > What I mean is that for the Warbeck letter/account/whatever to be in the least bit credible, *Warbeck* has to be credible, too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Far better to leave it as "we all know the princes died years ago - Warbeck claimed he was the younger one and escaped, but the story is impossibly ludicrous".
> > > > >
> > > > > Why add unnecessary - and potentially highly counter-productive and disaffection fuelling - levels of complexity?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.