Leicester, Richard III and other connected matters
Leicester, Richard III and other connected matters
2012-09-18 12:09:42
Just to say still as excited with the finds at Leicester, I hope and believe it is him. Its been a long time coming.
Been interested in Richard III from before teens so nearly 45 years, and think this is the most exciting time in all those years.
My slant on a few things, think Annette is a great a gifted writer, loved her book. Unlike her I have always believed that the prince/s were sent abroad and the Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury. The other boy from Kent I believe could have been the illegitimate son of any of the brothers or another nobleman. Taken great interest in the growth of knowlegde of DNA, it has solved some historical questions. Regarding the Duke of Bedford refusing to give DNA this makes me wonder what he wants to hide or not want to know?
As for the urn and the children in the tower, think it would have been far easier to smuggle one/two boys out of the tower, with all the delivery's, comings and goings even during the day, especially if they knew their lives depended on it. Much easier I would say than digging a trench and putting two bodies in it.
If the princes were taken abroad, probably with the knowledge of their uncle, mother and aunt, they would probably been seperated for safety. As others have said those involved had reasons to not let Tudor etc know of their whereabouts.
I do have a couple of questions if anyone is able to help.
Warbeck had one or two children, is it known what happened to them? Why did Henry VII need to keep Catherine Gordon/Warbeck under such close scrutiny for as long as he did. I do not buy it was because he was attracted to her.
We live in such exciting times, I thought at first if the bones are those of Richard he should be buried in Westminster Abbey, but have rethought this he died in the Midlands, was buried here with some reverence by monks who must have done so because they thought he deserved a Christian burial, even if it might have been dangerous for them to do so. The cost of most of the dig was given by Leicester Council, University is involved etc, why take him to London, a place he was not keen on and claims too much of this country's history.
I must have a patient husband, he took me to bosworth, raby castle, middleham etc and did not seem to miss a beat when I asked if it were possible in the future to take me to a funeral for a long dead King, if proven he just said yes if we can.
Our other halfs must put up with alot due to our 'hobbies'.
M
Been interested in Richard III from before teens so nearly 45 years, and think this is the most exciting time in all those years.
My slant on a few things, think Annette is a great a gifted writer, loved her book. Unlike her I have always believed that the prince/s were sent abroad and the Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury. The other boy from Kent I believe could have been the illegitimate son of any of the brothers or another nobleman. Taken great interest in the growth of knowlegde of DNA, it has solved some historical questions. Regarding the Duke of Bedford refusing to give DNA this makes me wonder what he wants to hide or not want to know?
As for the urn and the children in the tower, think it would have been far easier to smuggle one/two boys out of the tower, with all the delivery's, comings and goings even during the day, especially if they knew their lives depended on it. Much easier I would say than digging a trench and putting two bodies in it.
If the princes were taken abroad, probably with the knowledge of their uncle, mother and aunt, they would probably been seperated for safety. As others have said those involved had reasons to not let Tudor etc know of their whereabouts.
I do have a couple of questions if anyone is able to help.
Warbeck had one or two children, is it known what happened to them? Why did Henry VII need to keep Catherine Gordon/Warbeck under such close scrutiny for as long as he did. I do not buy it was because he was attracted to her.
We live in such exciting times, I thought at first if the bones are those of Richard he should be buried in Westminster Abbey, but have rethought this he died in the Midlands, was buried here with some reverence by monks who must have done so because they thought he deserved a Christian burial, even if it might have been dangerous for them to do so. The cost of most of the dig was given by Leicester Council, University is involved etc, why take him to London, a place he was not keen on and claims too much of this country's history.
I must have a patient husband, he took me to bosworth, raby castle, middleham etc and did not seem to miss a beat when I asked if it were possible in the future to take me to a funeral for a long dead King, if proven he just said yes if we can.
Our other halfs must put up with alot due to our 'hobbies'.
M
Re: Leicester, Richard III and other connected matters
2012-09-18 12:26:46
I don't think anything's known about the fate of Perkin's children, Marion.
Wroe surmises that his son might have been 'sent away' somewhere, but makes
no guesses where or what became of him. I think Henry was in a difficult
position re Perkin. Letting him live at large, or even sending him back to
Burgundy, was far too risky, and, without cause, he clearly had no intention
of having him executed. Catherine Gordon was a high ranking Scots
noblewoman, and that complicated things. Perkin was essentially under house
arrest until his escape and went wherever the king did. I don't buy a love
affair between Henry and Catherine, or even that Henry was fatally attracted
to her. He was probably very conscious of her rank and may have developed a
platonic affection for her. He certainly made sure she was looked after
well, except for one stretch, I think, when Perkin was first in the Tower.
Karen
From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:09:40 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Leicester, Richard III and other
connected matters
Just to say still as excited with the finds at Leicester, I hope and believe
it is him. Its been a long time coming.
Been interested in Richard III from before teens so nearly 45 years, and
think this is the most exciting time in all those years.
My slant on a few things, think Annette is a great a gifted writer, loved
her book. Unlike her I have always believed that the prince/s were sent
abroad and the Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury. The other boy from Kent I
believe could have been the illegitimate son of any of the brothers or
another nobleman. Taken great interest in the growth of knowlegde of DNA,
it has solved some historical questions. Regarding the Duke of Bedford
refusing to give DNA this makes me wonder what he wants to hide or not want
to know?
As for the urn and the children in the tower, think it would have been far
easier to smuggle one/two boys out of the tower, with all the delivery's,
comings and goings even during the day, especially if they knew their lives
depended on it. Much easier I would say than digging a trench and putting
two bodies in it.
If the princes were taken abroad, probably with the knowledge of their
uncle, mother and aunt, they would probably been seperated for safety. As
others have said those involved had reasons to not let Tudor etc know of
their whereabouts.
I do have a couple of questions if anyone is able to help.
Warbeck had one or two children, is it known what happened to them? Why did
Henry VII need to keep Catherine Gordon/Warbeck under such close scrutiny
for as long as he did. I do not buy it was because he was attracted to her.
We live in such exciting times, I thought at first if the bones are those
of Richard he should be buried in Westminster Abbey, but have rethought this
he died in the Midlands, was buried here with some reverence by monks who
must have done so because they thought he deserved a Christian burial, even
if it might have been dangerous for them to do so. The cost of most of the
dig was given by Leicester Council, University is involved etc, why take him
to London, a place he was not keen on and claims too much of this country's
history.
I must have a patient husband, he took me to bosworth, raby castle,
middleham etc and did not seem to miss a beat when I asked if it were
possible in the future to take me to a funeral for a long dead King, if
proven he just said yes if we can.
Our other halfs must put up with alot due to our 'hobbies'.
M
Wroe surmises that his son might have been 'sent away' somewhere, but makes
no guesses where or what became of him. I think Henry was in a difficult
position re Perkin. Letting him live at large, or even sending him back to
Burgundy, was far too risky, and, without cause, he clearly had no intention
of having him executed. Catherine Gordon was a high ranking Scots
noblewoman, and that complicated things. Perkin was essentially under house
arrest until his escape and went wherever the king did. I don't buy a love
affair between Henry and Catherine, or even that Henry was fatally attracted
to her. He was probably very conscious of her rank and may have developed a
platonic affection for her. He certainly made sure she was looked after
well, except for one stretch, I think, when Perkin was first in the Tower.
Karen
From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:09:40 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Leicester, Richard III and other
connected matters
Just to say still as excited with the finds at Leicester, I hope and believe
it is him. Its been a long time coming.
Been interested in Richard III from before teens so nearly 45 years, and
think this is the most exciting time in all those years.
My slant on a few things, think Annette is a great a gifted writer, loved
her book. Unlike her I have always believed that the prince/s were sent
abroad and the Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury. The other boy from Kent I
believe could have been the illegitimate son of any of the brothers or
another nobleman. Taken great interest in the growth of knowlegde of DNA,
it has solved some historical questions. Regarding the Duke of Bedford
refusing to give DNA this makes me wonder what he wants to hide or not want
to know?
As for the urn and the children in the tower, think it would have been far
easier to smuggle one/two boys out of the tower, with all the delivery's,
comings and goings even during the day, especially if they knew their lives
depended on it. Much easier I would say than digging a trench and putting
two bodies in it.
If the princes were taken abroad, probably with the knowledge of their
uncle, mother and aunt, they would probably been seperated for safety. As
others have said those involved had reasons to not let Tudor etc know of
their whereabouts.
I do have a couple of questions if anyone is able to help.
Warbeck had one or two children, is it known what happened to them? Why did
Henry VII need to keep Catherine Gordon/Warbeck under such close scrutiny
for as long as he did. I do not buy it was because he was attracted to her.
We live in such exciting times, I thought at first if the bones are those
of Richard he should be buried in Westminster Abbey, but have rethought this
he died in the Midlands, was buried here with some reverence by monks who
must have done so because they thought he deserved a Christian burial, even
if it might have been dangerous for them to do so. The cost of most of the
dig was given by Leicester Council, University is involved etc, why take him
to London, a place he was not keen on and claims too much of this country's
history.
I must have a patient husband, he took me to bosworth, raby castle,
middleham etc and did not seem to miss a beat when I asked if it were
possible in the future to take me to a funeral for a long dead King, if
proven he just said yes if we can.
Our other halfs must put up with alot due to our 'hobbies'.
M
Re: Leicester, Richard III and other connected matters
2012-09-18 15:37:41
Lol Marian...your message struck a chord with me....My poor husband....lately dinner is always late, not much conversaton because I always seem to have my head in a book not to mention surrounded by them....I overheard him say to out neighbour the other days..."This will mean a trip to Leicester....I think she's a throwback" :0) Oh bless....Eileen
--- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>
>
> I must have a patient husband, he took me to bosworth, raby castle, middleham etc and did not seem to miss a beat when I asked if it were possible in the future to take me to a funeral for a long dead King, if proven he just said yes if we can.
>
> Our other halfs must put up with alot due to our 'hobbies'.
>
> M
>
>
>
--- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>
>
> I must have a patient husband, he took me to bosworth, raby castle, middleham etc and did not seem to miss a beat when I asked if it were possible in the future to take me to a funeral for a long dead King, if proven he just said yes if we can.
>
> Our other halfs must put up with alot due to our 'hobbies'.
>
> M
>
>
>
Re: Leicester, Richard III and other connected matters
2012-09-18 19:09:16
Hello Marion and thanks for your kind words. So glad you are as excited as ever about the discoveries in Leicester, it has been an amazing journey.
Just wanted to say that Ann Wroe is my absolute bible on 'Perkin', and she doesn't say what happened to his son(s). I've followed other articles of hers and she just doesn't know, they are never heard of again. There's a definite report of one son, but she has found a letter in which 'sons' in the plural are mentioned, so there might have been two. I have my own ideas why Henry Tudor behaved as he did, but purely based on my jaundiced view of his character ... not very scholarly so I won't go into it.
----- Original Message -----
From: marion cheatham
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:09 PM
Subject: Leicester, Richard III and other connected matters
Just to say still as excited with the finds at Leicester, I hope and believe it is him. Its been a long time coming.
Been interested in Richard III from before teens so nearly 45 years, and think this is the most exciting time in all those years.
My slant on a few things, think Annette is a great a gifted writer, loved her book. Unlike her I have always believed that the prince/s were sent abroad and the Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury. The other boy from Kent I believe could have been the illegitimate son of any of the brothers or another nobleman. Taken great interest in the growth of knowlegde of DNA, it has solved some historical questions. Regarding the Duke of Bedford refusing to give DNA this makes me wonder what he wants to hide or not want to know?
As for the urn and the children in the tower, think it would have been far easier to smuggle one/two boys out of the tower, with all the delivery's, comings and goings even during the day, especially if they knew their lives depended on it. Much easier I would say than digging a trench and putting two bodies in it.
If the princes were taken abroad, probably with the knowledge of their uncle, mother and aunt, they would probably been seperated for safety. As others have said those involved had reasons to not let Tudor etc know of their whereabouts.
I do have a couple of questions if anyone is able to help.
Warbeck had one or two children, is it known what happened to them? Why did Henry VII need to keep Catherine Gordon/Warbeck under such close scrutiny for as long as he did. I do not buy it was because he was attracted to her.
We live in such exciting times, I thought at first if the bones are those of Richard he should be buried in Westminster Abbey, but have rethought this he died in the Midlands, was buried here with some reverence by monks who must have done so because they thought he deserved a Christian burial, even if it might have been dangerous for them to do so. The cost of most of the dig was given by Leicester Council, University is involved etc, why take him to London, a place he was not keen on and claims too much of this country's history.
I must have a patient husband, he took me to bosworth, raby castle, middleham etc and did not seem to miss a beat when I asked if it were possible in the future to take me to a funeral for a long dead King, if proven he just said yes if we can.
Our other halfs must put up with alot due to our 'hobbies'.
M
Just wanted to say that Ann Wroe is my absolute bible on 'Perkin', and she doesn't say what happened to his son(s). I've followed other articles of hers and she just doesn't know, they are never heard of again. There's a definite report of one son, but she has found a letter in which 'sons' in the plural are mentioned, so there might have been two. I have my own ideas why Henry Tudor behaved as he did, but purely based on my jaundiced view of his character ... not very scholarly so I won't go into it.
----- Original Message -----
From: marion cheatham
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:09 PM
Subject: Leicester, Richard III and other connected matters
Just to say still as excited with the finds at Leicester, I hope and believe it is him. Its been a long time coming.
Been interested in Richard III from before teens so nearly 45 years, and think this is the most exciting time in all those years.
My slant on a few things, think Annette is a great a gifted writer, loved her book. Unlike her I have always believed that the prince/s were sent abroad and the Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury. The other boy from Kent I believe could have been the illegitimate son of any of the brothers or another nobleman. Taken great interest in the growth of knowlegde of DNA, it has solved some historical questions. Regarding the Duke of Bedford refusing to give DNA this makes me wonder what he wants to hide or not want to know?
As for the urn and the children in the tower, think it would have been far easier to smuggle one/two boys out of the tower, with all the delivery's, comings and goings even during the day, especially if they knew their lives depended on it. Much easier I would say than digging a trench and putting two bodies in it.
If the princes were taken abroad, probably with the knowledge of their uncle, mother and aunt, they would probably been seperated for safety. As others have said those involved had reasons to not let Tudor etc know of their whereabouts.
I do have a couple of questions if anyone is able to help.
Warbeck had one or two children, is it known what happened to them? Why did Henry VII need to keep Catherine Gordon/Warbeck under such close scrutiny for as long as he did. I do not buy it was because he was attracted to her.
We live in such exciting times, I thought at first if the bones are those of Richard he should be buried in Westminster Abbey, but have rethought this he died in the Midlands, was buried here with some reverence by monks who must have done so because they thought he deserved a Christian burial, even if it might have been dangerous for them to do so. The cost of most of the dig was given by Leicester Council, University is involved etc, why take him to London, a place he was not keen on and claims too much of this country's history.
I must have a patient husband, he took me to bosworth, raby castle, middleham etc and did not seem to miss a beat when I asked if it were possible in the future to take me to a funeral for a long dead King, if proven he just said yes if we can.
Our other halfs must put up with alot due to our 'hobbies'.
M
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.