Claim to the Throne

After the Death of Edward the 1V.
Who was rightfully next in line to the throne, was it Richard or was
it Henry the V11.
During Richard's reign, ( I think it was 2 years), did he ever make
reference to the princes in the tower, if indeed they ever were
locked in the tower?
It does seem odd that they were forgotten during Richard's reign.

Was Richard responsible for the murders of , Rivers, Hastings and
Buckingham.

Granted Richard may have been an inspiring Military Commander, but
he was surely a man also steeped in blood. -- I think Richard could
be morally evil and corrupt, and a product of the Wars of The Roses
as much as any of the rest of them fighting for their position.
But no, he was no monster.
I love the film of Richard 111, played by Ian Mcellan, and Nigel
Hawthorn, was brilliant as The Duke of Clarence.

--- In , clytumnestra2000
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> After the Death of Edward the 1V.
> Who was rightfully next in line to the throne, was it Richard or
was
> it Henry the V11.

No way it was Henry VII. At least ten other heirs had stronger
claims than Henry VII did. That leaves us with RIII.

> During Richard's reign, ( I think it was 2 years), did he ever make
> reference to the princes in the tower, if indeed they ever were
> locked in the tower?

Not as far as I know. There were only vague rumors towards the end
of his reign, and no formal accusations were ever made until 20 years
later.

> It does seem odd that they were forgotten during Richard's reign.
>
> Was Richard responsible for the murders of , Rivers, Hastings and
> Buckingham.

Responsible for the "killings" of the aforementioned characters?
Yes. Were they justified killings? That depends on your point of
view. Rivers was perhaps the only real loss to the medieval world.
Buckingham was not. Tudor would have killed him anyway.
>
> Granted Richard may have been an inspiring Military Commander, but
> he was surely a man also steeped in blood. -- I think Richard
could
> be morally evil and corrupt, and a product of the Wars of The Roses
> as much as any of the rest of them fighting for their position.

Steeped in blood from battle, yes. From murder, I doubt it. Most
Kings of that era were steeped in blood. Edward IV killed both Henry
VI and his brother, the Duke of Clarence, and don't even get me
started about the Tudors.

> But no, he was no monster.

Precisely.

> I love the film of Richard 111, played by Ian Mcellan, and Nigel
> Hawthorn, was brilliant as The Duke of Clarence.

Have you seen the Olivier Richard the Third? Though the McKellan cast
was strong, it was marred by a bad concept and by McKellen himself
(much as I love him as Gandalf). The Olivier version is far superior
in just about every way. Please see it and tell me what you think!

Nate

--- In , clytumnestra2000
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
, did he ever make> reference to the princes in the tower, if indeed
they ever were> locked in the tower?
> It does seem odd that they were forgotten during Richard's reign.

They were hardly forgotten. A rebellion was raised in their name in
1483, contemporary sources: Mancini, Croyland & the London Chronicle
state suspicion that they were murdered by Richard, who never denied
it. Vergil states they were murdered. Henry VII declared them dead
by making marriage to their sister Elizabeth important. Richard moved
the debate from them to their sister by denying that he planned to
marry her.

And then there is Saint/Sir Thomas More, one of the the most brilliant
minds of his time and well known for his integrity, who had openly
rejoiced when Henry VII died. More may have made some mistakes in his
unfinished account of Richard, but he is unequivocable that Richard
had his nephews done to death. He even states that one of the
murderers is still alive. Would a man of More's integrity & legal
background perjure himself & commit a gross libel on someone still
alive unless he was sure of his facts?

The first defence of Richard doesn't occur until the 17th century.
Shakespeare's genius with drama probably did more to exaggerate
Richard's character defects than anyone, but it was based on More &
probably had more than a grain of truth in it. Richard did kill
Hastings, Rivers, Vaughan, Grey, Haute illegally without trial, he was
certainly responsible for killing many others, sometimes with his own
hand as at Bosworth. Law can be twisted and what is legal is relative
as with the 'moral' case against Iraq currently, but that Richard was
a killer there can be no doubt and he has been accused of murdering
his nephews by most historians, including Churchill, right up to the
present day.

Having a rebellion in the prince's name, may I remind you, meant that
they were ALIVE rather than DEAD. There was utterly no contemporary
accusation levelled at Richard until 20 (20!) years after his death
at Bosworth! What does that mean to you?

Vergil and Mancini were both Tudor mouthpieces and hardly independent
sources. Henry VII NEVER declared the princes dead by repealing
Titilus Regius, he only made the elder, Edward V, King of England,
and his sister eligible to be Queen. Since no one knew what happened
to the princes, Henry VII took a huge risk and suffered two
rebellions for it.

"More may have made some mistakes in his
> unfinished account of Richard, but he is unequivocable that Richard
> had his nephews done to death. He even states that one of the
> murderers is still alive. Would a man of More's integrity & legal
> background perjure himself & commit a gross libel on someone still
> alive unless he was sure of his facts?"

Considering he was EIGHT in 1485 when Richard was slain at Bosworth,
how sure could he have been? Was he there, a child-sleuth, in those
Shakespearean meetings where Richard plotted the death of the whole
world? Was he not a protege of Morton's, Richard's implacable
enemy? And how could he "perjure" himself and commit "gross libel"
against a dead king whom his Tudor masters hated? Let's just say it
sure didn't hurt his career! And why are you so willing to give More
a pass given his more outlandish claims contra Richard, but
everything else is God's honest truth, from the Saint himself?

"Richard did kill
> Hastings, Rivers, Vaughan, Grey, Haute illegally without trial"

Are you sure about the without trial bit? I'd heard they were all
tried. Not only that, but they plotted against him during the
Protectorate. It was either survival, or death at Woodville hands.
What would you do? What would you do?

"he was
> certainly responsible for killing many others, sometimes with his
own
> hand as at Bosworth."

Oh, save me from Richard detractors! You mean he killed people in
battle? Hang him from the highest bough! You mean that's what
battle's about? You mean he was a brave and capable warrior? Or
can't you admit that, even though the Tudors do?

Whom else did he kill with his own hand? Are you insinuating, in
step with Tudor propagandists, that he killed Edward Prince of Wales
and Henry VI? Don't make me laugh! That's not even worth debating,
although I'm sure Weir would cheer you on!

"but that Richard was
> a killer there can be no doubt and he has been accused of murdering
> his nephews by most historians, including Churchill, right up to
the
> present day."

What do you mean: killer? Are you oblivious as to the age in which
he lived? And why oh why oh WHY do the two subsequent Tudors get
absolute and total free passes for all their killing when Richard is
labelled as a killer? As soon as I mention, in these very forums,
that Henry VII and Henry VIII individually killed/judicially murdered
more people than Richard ever did, I'm accused of Tudor bashing!
Tudor bashing! As if that has been a staple of modern debate!

And Churchill, for all his vaunted prowess, lived five hundred years
after the princes died. How could he know? He was merely spouting
the party line. If such a man as Churchill can be wrong about
something as obvious as Italy being the soft underbelly to Europe
(which it was not!), do you really think he carries the truth of the
princes with him?


It's really lovely that we can keep having these same debates every
few months like clock-work as if previous discussions had never
occurred. Why can't you come up with some new evidence at least,
some new angle, SOMETHING apart from these tired, warmed-over
accusations? If I, one of the people in this forum most ignorant of
Ricardian scholarship, can refute your arguments so easily and
logically, I shudder to think what other more restrained members here
could do.

And what are your aguments, after all? Immuendo and hearsay! You
accuse him of killing people in battle to bolster your point, which
is totally ridiculous! Kings before and after may have slaughtered
hundreds, but let's ignore all that, because Richard is the mark,
correct? You accuse him of killing men who were out to depose and
murder him, as if during the Protectorate he had many other choices!
You cite Churchill and More as being contra Richard, therefore it
must be so!

If you're looking for a saintly martyr-king--and you keep taking
Richard to task because he was not--you're in the wrong place. The
Henry VI forum is right down the hall.

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , clytumnestra2000
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> , did he ever make> reference to the princes in the tower, if
indeed
> they ever were> locked in the tower?
> > It does seem odd that they were forgotten during Richard's reign.
>
> They were hardly forgotten. A rebellion was raised in their name
in
> 1483, contemporary sources: Mancini, Croyland & the London
Chronicle
> state suspicion that they were murdered by Richard, who never
denied
> it. Vergil states they were murdered. Henry VII declared them
dead
> by making marriage to their sister Elizabeth important. Richard
moved
> the debate from them to their sister by denying that he planned to
> marry her.
>
> And then there is Saint/Sir Thomas More, one of the the most
brilliant
> minds of his time and well known for his integrity, who had openly
> rejoiced when Henry VII died. More may have made some mistakes in
his
> unfinished account of Richard, but he is unequivocable that Richard
> had his nephews done to death. He even states that one of the
> murderers is still alive. Would a man of More's integrity & legal
> background perjure himself & commit a gross libel on someone still
> alive unless he was sure of his facts?
>
> The first defence of Richard doesn't occur until the 17th century.
> Shakespeare's genius with drama probably did more to exaggerate
> Richard's character defects than anyone, but it was based on More &
> probably had more than a grain of truth in it. Richard did kill
> Hastings, Rivers, Vaughan, Grey, Haute illegally without trial, he
was
> certainly responsible for killing many others, sometimes with his
own
> hand as at Bosworth. Law can be twisted and what is legal is
relative
> as with the 'moral' case against Iraq currently, but that Richard
was
> a killer there can be no doubt and he has been accused of murdering
> his nephews by most historians, including Churchill, right up to
the
> present day.

At 03:12 PM 2/26/03 -0000, you wrote:

[...]

>Vergil and Mancini were both Tudor mouthpieces and hardly independent
>sources.

[...]

I hate to take away from a spirited and stellar defense of Richard, but
Mancini wasn't a Tudor mouthpiece. He was an Italian spying for, I think,
the French.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.pacscl.org/
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

natusm <nvenice2@...>26/02/2003 16:12nvenice2@...

> And what are your aguments, after all? Innuendo and hearsay!
what can we expect from the "gentlemen" who posted what you have so ably
argued against?
What you did miss out were the facts that the "sainted More" was a bigot,
who beat his servants physically as well as financially, and hounded a man
to his death for simply wanting to translate the Bible into English. Far
from the "lovely" man of Man for All Seasons!
Let us alsonot forget that More's Richard was never finished nor intended
for publication but found amongst his belongings after his execution. There
is even doubt about his outhorship, and may well have been written by Morton
himself, or been written down by More on his dictation.
Paul

In a message dated 2/26/03 10:14:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
nvenice2@... writes:


> And what are your aguments, after all? Immuendo and hearsay! You
> accuse him of killing people in battle to bolster your point, which
> is totally ridiculous! Kings before and after may have slaughtered
> hundreds, but let's ignore all that, because Richard is the mark,
> correct? You accuse him of killing men who were out to depose and
> murder him, as if during the Protectorate he had many other choices!
> You cite Churchill and More as being contra Richard, therefore it
> must be so!

In response to this and the subject line, isn't that what we're all about?
Debating this over? I love hearing the various theories to it lol. With that
out of the way...Thomas More is probably my favorite person from Tudor
history, but his Richard III is not a reliable source. He was eight years old
in 1485, and he was a page for Morton before he attended Oxford, so his
RIchard III must be at least a little biased. Also, he wrote it in the
1510's, under the reign of Henry VIII so he had to appease the king. Besides,
didn't he intend to never have it published? For all we know he wrote it as
satire.
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

In a message dated 2/26/03 2:33:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
paultrevor@... writes:


> What you did miss out were the facts that the "sainted More" was a bigot,
> who beat his servants physically as well as financially, and hounded a man
> to his death for simply wanting to translate the Bible into English. Far
> from the "lovely" man of Man for All Seasons!

Ugh here we go...where is there evidence that Thomas More beat his servants
(even more absurd was Jasper Ridley saying that Thomas More enjoyed having
his daughter Margaret flog him for pleasure). One of his closest friends was
Erasmus, who was Dutch, so he couldn't have been bigoted. Peter Giles,
another friend from Utopia, was from Antwerp. Unless you meant bigoted by
religion.
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 2/26/03 10:14:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> nvenice2@a... writes:
>
>
> > And what are your aguments, after all? Immuendo and hearsay! You
> > accuse him of killing people in battle to bolster your point,
which
> > is totally ridiculous! Kings before and after may have
slaughtered
> > hundreds, but let's ignore all that, because Richard is the mark,
> > correct? You accuse him of killing men who were out to depose and
> > murder him, as if during the Protectorate he had many other
choices!
> > You cite Churchill and More as being contra Richard, therefore it
> > must be so!
>
> In response to this and the subject line, isn't that what we're all
about?
> Debating this over? I love hearing the various theories to it lol.
With that
> out of the way...Thomas More is probably my favorite person from
Tudor
> history, but his Richard III is not a reliable source. He was eight
years old
> in 1485, and he was a page for Morton before he attended Oxford, so
his
> RIchard III must be at least a little biased. Also, he wrote it in
the
> 1510's, under the reign of Henry VIII so he had to appease the king.
Besides,
> didn't he intend to never have it published? For all we know he
wrote it as
> satire.
> Victoria

More wasn't all that frightened of the Tudors. He's rejoiced over the
death of Henry VII who was a scrooge and he opposed Henry VIII over
the Boleyn marriage. Modern historians are not anywhere contemporary
to Richard, does that mean that we should discount their views because
some people want to form a fanzine around Richard? More being 8 in
1485 is irrelevant. And we don't know what he thought of Morton.
More's character seems very different: Morton was a crafty survivor,
More was prepared to martyr himself for his beliefs. His Richard III
was a satire, it was unfinished and he does seem to quote rubbish such
as the Rous story about Richard's unusual birth, but would he accuse a
man still alive of being a murderer unless he felt confident of his
facts? A man of More's integrity and legal background?

David

>
> More wasn't all that frightened of the Tudors. He's rejoiced over the
> death of Henry VII who was a scrooge and he opposed Henry VIII over
> the Boleyn marriage.


Actually can we at least try to stick to some facts about More he was far
from perfect. A gifted man but let's not forget that his opposition was the
to the Act of Supremacy not the Boleyn marriage. And let's be perfectly
truthful about Morton - he was whatever your personal view of him an
intelligent man, who'd been in the service of the crown for much of his
adult life and a seasoned diplomat - the idea that he would have told his
secrets to a page in his household smack of the downright bizarre.


Modern historians are not anywhere contemporary
> to Richard, does that mean that we should discount their views because
> some people want to form a fanzine around Richard? More being 8 in
> 1485 is irrelevant. And we don't know what he thought of Morton.
> More's character seems very different: Morton was a crafty survivor,
> More was prepared to martyr himself for his beliefs. His Richard III
> was a satire, it was unfinished and he does seem to quote rubbish such
> as the Rous story about Richard's unusual birth, but would he accuse a
> man still alive of being a murderer unless he felt confident of his
> facts? A man of More's integrity and legal background?
>
> David
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Hi Tim

< And let's be perfectly truthful about Morton - he was whatever
your personal view of him an intelligent man, who'd been in the
service of the crown for much of his adult life and a seasoned
diplomat - the idea that he would have told his
> secrets to a page in his household smack of the downright bizarre.>

Bit disingenuous, that last...

Whilst I agree That More would have had to have been exceptionally
placed as Morton's protege to be privy to his secrets, there is such
a thing as the 'party line', you know, and it is therefore equally
bizarre to think that any employee, servant, slave or, indeed, any
other kind of subordinate, including favoured page, would not know
Morton's broad opinions on Richard III. Human nature being what it
is, it is likely that More's own views on R3 was at least coloured by
what he heard as a boy, be it from Morton, Morton's household
retainers, or Mr More, Snr.

And David - do you ever actually assess what you read, David?

<he does seem to quote rubbish such as the Rous story about Richard's
unusual birth, but would he accuse a man still alive of being a
murderer unless he felt confident of his facts? A man of More's
integrity and legal background?>

If More was indeed the author of the account in question, He
doesn't 'seem' to quote rubbish such as Rous' story, he *actually*
does so - so unles she had an off day, a man of his integrity and
legal background repeats basic errors, not to mention relying on
backstairs gossip and long tracts of dialogue that would of itself be
dodgy evidence to present to a courtroom, even if the contents were
confirmed by the participants themselves (can you recall precisely
what you said in conversation with someone from years ago? No,
neither can I, and neither, I bet ya, could Morton).

Lorraine

You are quite right as always but "the party line" given the period was
probably the fairly downright accepted and common line twenty years after
Richard's death.

----- Original Message -----
From: <lpickering2@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: Here we go again, ad nauseam and
forever...


> Hi Tim
>
> < And let's be perfectly truthful about Morton - he was whatever
> your personal view of him an intelligent man, who'd been in the
> service of the crown for much of his adult life and a seasoned
> diplomat - the idea that he would have told his
> > secrets to a page in his household smack of the downright bizarre.>
>
> Bit disingenuous, that last...
>
> Whilst I agree That More would have had to have been exceptionally
> placed as Morton's protege to be privy to his secrets, there is such
> a thing as the 'party line', you know, and it is therefore equally
> bizarre to think that any employee, servant, slave or, indeed, any
> other kind of subordinate, including favoured page, would not know
> Morton's broad opinions on Richard III. Human nature being what it
> is, it is likely that More's own views on R3 was at least coloured by
> what he heard as a boy, be it from Morton, Morton's household
> retainers, or Mr More, Snr.
>
> And David - do you ever actually assess what you read, David?
>
> <he does seem to quote rubbish such as the Rous story about Richard's
> unusual birth, but would he accuse a man still alive of being a
> murderer unless he felt confident of his facts? A man of More's
> integrity and legal background?>
>
> If More was indeed the author of the account in question, He
> doesn't 'seem' to quote rubbish such as Rous' story, he *actually*
> does so - so unles she had an off day, a man of his integrity and
> legal background repeats basic errors, not to mention relying on
> backstairs gossip and long tracts of dialogue that would of itself be
> dodgy evidence to present to a courtroom, even if the contents were
> confirmed by the participants themselves (can you recall precisely
> what you said in conversation with someone from years ago? No,
> neither can I, and neither, I bet ya, could Morton).
>
> Lorraine
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In , "lpickering2
<lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
>>
> And David - do you ever actually assess what you read, David?

Do you actually ever read what I put: 'More made mistakes,' 'More
included rubbish.' But More admits that some of his material is
gossip. He unfortunately doesn't quote all of his sources, but I did
read that he had connections with the Brackenbury family, so an
insight into what was going on in the Tower is conceivable. The
stair foot burial place was correct, pity there are lots of stairs
in the Tower. More seems certain that Richard did his nephews down,
as too dangerous to leave alive and we all know that he wasn't the
first to accuse Richard of this: Croyland, the Chancellor of France,
Henry 7 in his attainder, the London Chronicle, Mancini's hunch that
they would go. People knew what Richard was like. Ambitious and
ruthless. Richard had never turned down land as Duke, was a military
man, no one disputes that Hastings was NOT given a trial, but simply
dragged out of the Council Chamber by the orders of someone who was
not then King and his head smote off. Does anyone dispute that this
happened? Does anyone think this was legally or morally correct?
Most people then & now think Hastings was in the way. Is it right to
bump off people who deny us career moves?

But more on More. He specifies the murderers: Tyrell, Forest &
Dighton & that one is still alive. A lawyer and man who always tried
to be honest to his own belief system would find it difficult to
unjustly accuse someone living of such a crime without good cause,
surely?


t
> <he does seem to quote rubbish such as the Rous story about
Richard's
> unusual birth, but would he accuse a man still alive of being a
> murderer unless he felt confident of his facts? A man of More's
> integrity and legal background?>
>
> If More was indeed the author of the account in question, He
> doesn't 'seem' to quote rubbish such as Rous' story, he *actually*
> does so - so unles she had an off day, a man of his integrity and
> legal background repeats basic errors, not to mention relying on
> backstairs gossip and long tracts of dialogue that would of itself
be
> dodgy evidence to present to a courtroom, even if the contents were
> confirmed by the participants themselves (can you recall precisely
> what you said in conversation with someone from years ago? No,
> neither can I, and neither, I bet ya, could Morton).
>
> Lorraine

The addition of dialogue was simply a way of illustrating characters 7
I doubt if anyone then as now took it as verbatim.

The fact remains that every source suggests Richard as the murderer of
his nephews. It's strange that NO evidence to the contrary ever
escaped to the outside, especially from an arch-propagandist like
Richard. We have to wait until the early 17th century Buck? at the
court of the truly bizarre James I for a defence of Richard.

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> You are quite right as always but "the party line" given the period
was
> probably the fairly downright accepted and common line twenty years
after
> Richard's death.

It wasn't only the party line, but the only line until Buck: that
Richard murdered his illegitimate & dangerous nephews. It seems
strange that no view to the contrary escaped abroad, e.g. to Burgundy.
There were Richard supporters floating around after Bosworth. Even
the pretenders suggested that Richard had a hand in killing at least
one of the princes.

Most people accept that Isabella ordered the death of Edward 2, Henry
4 that of Richard 2, Edward 4 that of Henry 6, but are we to believe
that Richard 3 was soft on bastards who threatened his own life & that
of his son, a Richard was had overseen the death of a mad, saintly,
feeble Henry? This was the Richard who had the prince's half brother
Grey executed, Rivers, Hastings, etc.,? A man who was quite prepared
to slice off people's heads with his own hand at Bosworth.

Edward 4 tried to make out that Henry 6 had died of 'pure displeasure'
but was that ever believed? Was Henry 7's propaganda machine so
watertight that no evidence suggesting Richard's innocence shone
through? In fact, Henry 7's reputation was aved by his
supposed perfect propaganda machine. Everyone knew he
engineered the judicial murder of the last male Plantagenet
Warwick in 1499 & Henry has come down to us as miserly and
narrow. Richard himself never bothered to mention the princes after
1483, which suggests that he thought he could ride any damage to his
reputation, as Edward 4 had over Henry 6. Politics didn't depend on
public opinion polls, but on who could muster the biggest army.

Thomas More stated that Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville were
married in public with "full solemnity" or words to that effect,
which is demonstrably false. He also stated that "Jane" Shore was
living in poverty at the time of his writing, which is demonstrably
false. (In fact she married a member of his own profession and died
as a lady of the manor. I rather think - but don't take this as
gospel - that her tomb is extant.)
A trained lawyer of More's experience would have known, or ought to
have known, that if you go into a witness box and make demonstrably
false statements (commonly known as lies) it seriously damages the
credibility of your remaining evidence, even if that evidence is true.
It is also worth pondering on the fact that More states - he does not
imply or suggest but states - that Cecily, Duchess of York,Edward
IV's own mother and leading lady in the land - made a *public*
objection to King Edward's marriage on the grounds that he was
already married to Elizabeth Lucy. More sets this tale up to demolish
it, but as the Duchess's allegations weaken his case, I cannot
believe he would have referred to them unless the protest was so
notorious that it could not be ignored. I have yet to come across any
Richard-hater referring to this part of More, or dealing with the
question of why Cecily should make such a remarkable, indeed nigh on
incredible statement. If she objected to Elizabeth Woodville on
grounds of snobbery, then Elizabeth Lucy was a far less significant
person still. The minimum we can make of it (unless it turns out to
be another case of "demonstrably false") is that the *deeply
religious* Cecily sincerely believed that her son was already
married.Why should she think such a thing? Why would she risk her
immortal soul, and damage her own son's political position, by
deliberately making a false statement? For the fun of it? To brighten
up at dull day over the embroidery frame at Berkhampstead?
I do not believe that More is a reliable source, but if it is to be
used at all it should be read as a whole, and in context, and tested
for internal and external consistency.
Brian

There is a very simple reason why More states this and it has nothing to do
with whether Cecily made the statement or not and given her reputation
(although personally she seems to be cut from the same cloth as Margaret
Beaufort <g>) I doubt it.

However More uses it to illustrate the blatant falsehood of the accusation
of bastardy against Edward IV's children - given that its debatable whether
More knew that the alleged first wife was Eleanor Butler. He uses the only
other woman apart from Jane Shore that was linked to Edward and whose name
was known and he uses it to prove the falseness of the accussation.

As to Cecily and whether she said it or not - well one has to wonder if that
was publicly stated why her son continued to treat her with respect
throughout his life and why she willingly stood as Godmother to several of
his daughters.



> It is also worth pondering on the fact that More states - he does not
> imply or suggest but states - that Cecily, Duchess of York,Edward
> IV's own mother and leading lady in the land - made a *public*
> objection to King Edward's marriage on the grounds that he was
> already married to Elizabeth Lucy. More sets this tale up to demolish
> it, but as the Duchess's allegations weaken his case, I cannot
> believe he would have referred to them unless the protest was so
> notorious that it could not be ignored. I have yet to come across any
> Richard-hater referring to this part of More, or dealing with the
> question of why Cecily should make such a remarkable, indeed nigh on
> incredible statement. If she objected to Elizabeth Woodville on
> grounds of snobbery, then Elizabeth Lucy was a far less significant
> person still. The minimum we can make of it (unless it turns out to
> be another case of "demonstrably false") is that the *deeply
> religious* Cecily sincerely believed that her son was already
> married.Why should she think such a thing? Why would she risk her
> immortal soul, and damage her own son's political position, by
> deliberately making a false statement? For the fun of it? To brighten
> up at dull day over the embroidery frame at Berkhampstead?
> I do not believe that More is a reliable source, but if it is to be
> used at all it should be read as a whole, and in context, and tested
> for internal and external consistency.
> Brian
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

At 06:56 PM 2/27/03 -0000, you wrote:
but I did
>read that he had connections with the Brackenbury family, so an
>insight into what was going on in the Tower is conceivable.

His "connection" with the Brackenbury family was that he had a friend who
was a corrodar at the same convent where Brackenbury's widow was also a
corrodar. Frankly, I don't think that's enough to hang a theory on.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.pacscl.org/
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

willison2001 <willison2001@...>27/02/2003
19:56willison2001@...

> The
> stair foot burial place was correct, pity there are lots of stairs
> in the Tower.
oh please!
some bones were found under a staircase within the Tower, actually by the
White Tower, not the Garden Tower where the princes were supposedly
imprisoned. If you consider how many people died within the Tower over the
centuries it is not really surprising they found bones when they dug
anywhere. As they don't even know the sex of the bones to say that More
"knew" what happened ansd was proved right is arrant nonsense.

It's nice to believe that the truth always comes out about events.
It's remarkable that no-one until Buck well over a century later
suggested that Richard had not murdered his nephews. Are we all
brainwashed by lies by Croyland, Mancini, the London Chronicle, More
ad nauseum?

It may be that where power politics are concerned we are all
manipulated by propaganda, blackmail & bullying, whether about Iraq,
the UN or Richard or Tudor, but some counter view is usually expressed
by contemporary opinion. Sadly, in the case of Richard this is
entirely absent.


--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 06:56 PM 2/27/03 -0000, you wrote:
> but I did
> >read that he had connections with the Brackenbury family, so an
> >insight into what was going on in the Tower is conceivable.
>
> His "connection" with the Brackenbury family was that he had a
friend who
> was a corrodar at the same convent where Brackenbury's widow was
also a
> corrodar. Frankly, I don't think that's enough to hang a theory on.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://www.pacscl.org/
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Hi David

Forget the exchange - you clearly got the wrong end of the stick - I
was merely curious as to your approach to sources. Do you critically
evaluate the source or are you happy to quote anything with a ant-R3
stance for some private vendetta you seem to be running on the
bloke? Some Ricardians I know have a favourite source and freely
quote from it, and have clearly never questioned a single sentence.
My own approach is somewhat different. Very anal, sure, but then
again, I'm a lot more informed than I would have been had I merely
stuck to reading only pro-Ricardian material or had never questioned
the motives of the writer...

<He unfortunately doesn't quote all of his sources, but I did
read that he had connections with the Brackenbury family, so an
insight into what was going on in the Tower is conceivable. >

Conceivable, but unlikely I would have thought. The Brackenbury
connection is two-fold and extremely loose. The first is perhaps (as
Laura said) the Minories in Aldgate connection, when relatives of
Brackenbury, James Tyrrel, Eleanor Butler (her sister) and perhaps
More (altho' I don't remember who) were lodged together for a time
This group was mentioned in Alison Weir's 'Princes of the Tower', I
believe.

The second is a Barnard Castle connection, where Brackenbury had
connections and so did one of More's alleged murderers, Miles Forrest.

<The stair foot burial place was correct, pity there are lots of
stairs in the Tower. >

Well, if you read More again closely, he says they were buried under
some stairs on one page, then reckons they were dug up and reburied
in a secret place somewhere else. If R3 or Brackenbury or
Brackenbury's priest really didn't care to have them buried in such
unfit ground, why did they rebury the boys at the site of yet another
staircase? It doesn't make sense. More doesn't make sense. It
doesn't make sense because it didn't happen. For such a clever man,
this is a particularly silly error. Maybe More was so in love with
his Nasty Dickon theory that he forgot he had them down as being
reburied! Whatever, it spoils his argument, somewhat.

<More seems certain that Richard did his nephews down>

Or More was determined to give the strong impression that
Richard 'did his nephews down' depending on how you read the account
and what you think his justifications for his account were.

<we all know that he wasn't the first to accuse Richard of this:
Croyland, the Chancellor of France, Henry 7 in his attainder, the
London Chronicle, Mancini's hunch that they would go.>

I covered most of these commentators in my earlier post.
The fact these guys say what they said really needs to be thrashed
out in depth, and this forum is not necessarily the place to do
that. Especially when we hold such disparate views about what we're
reading when we look at this source material.

<People knew what Richard was like. Ambitious and ruthless. Richard
had never turned down land as Duke, was a military man>

And James Hanratty was a car thief - that doesn't make him a rapist
and murderer! Richard was a man of his class and his time. Neither
Hastings or Howard or Oxford or any one of his kind 'turned down
land', such observations are non-arguments, David. Indeed, Richard
gave up land, offices and the income from them on several occasions,
notably to Clarence's immediate benefit, and, furthermore he swopped
land, esp. in the south, with a number of people, in order to
consolidate his northern holdings.

<no one disputes that Hastings was NOT given a trial, but simply
> dragged out of the Council Chamber by the orders of someone who was
> not then King and his head smote off. Does anyone dispute that
this happened? >

Me - I think there's enough circumstantial evidence to allow for the
possibility of a trial, if only of the sort that H7 allowed Warwick,
a hasty affair in front of some peers, just to say justice had been
seen to be done.

Does anyone think this was legally or morally correct?

Someone did. There's an contemporaneous archive note somewhere (St
Alban's, I think) that clearly reckons Hastings got what he
deserved. I paraphrase as I'm away from my cardfiles, but the
sentiment is quite clear.

< Is it right to bump off people who deny us career moves?>

Oh, (she says airily) I think it is morally justified in some cases.
Why? Don't you? ;)

<But more on More. He specifies the murderers: Tyrell, Forest &
Dighton & that one is still alive. >

Tyrrel - denied a public execution and last words, whose 'confession'
was secret and unrecorded, except for what Tudor 'gave out'. An
expedient arrest, confession and execution, furthermore, that was
obtained under false pretences after Tyrrel had given Tudor 17 years
of loyal service.

Forrest - Miles Forrest was a very old bloke in 1483, a retired
retainer, formerly at Barnard Castle (he took care of the Wardrobe
there).

Dighton was a priest, IIRC, and Black Will Slaughter just has a
cartoon villain name.

Granted a priest, an elderly man, a cartoon name and a loyal officer
can all be capable of murder, but it's rather more likely that these
are just names, convenient and handy. Not one of them was arrested
in connection the murder (Tyrrel was arrested onboard a ship for
allegedly aiding and abetting a De la Pole, and after being promised
safe passage), none were executed for regicide, which they should
have been if their names were that well-known, and one of them was
even walking around as free a bird as More was getting his quill
sharpened.

I generally work on the principle that if sounds like bollocks, looks
like bollocks, reads like bollocks and as a theory it pans out as
bollocks, then it must be bollocks.

Suggest you apply this tenet liberally to a lot of More's supposed
history of R3, people...! ;)

Lorraine

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
> There is a very simple reason why More states this and it has
nothing to do
> with whether Cecily made the statement or not and given her
reputation
> (although personally she seems to be cut from the same cloth as
Margaret
> Beaufort <g>) I doubt it.
>
> However More uses it to illustrate the blatant falsehood of the
accusation
> of bastardy against Edward IV's children - given that its debatable
whether
> More knew that the alleged first wife was Eleanor Butler.

Tim, forgive me if I am being numb, but I am not sure I grasp your
meaning here. You *seem* to me to be saying that out of a desire to
prove that Edward and Elizabeth were legally married, More cooked up
a load of porkies. Rather like a well-meaning but ultimately corrupt
policemen might "fit up" a criminal he knows is guilty but lacks the
honest evidence to take to court.

If that is what you are saying, then I agree with you, 100%.

Where we probably disagree is that I think More's statements on this
matter are so obviously flawed, and indeed factually untrue, that it
actually has the opposite effect to that he intended. To even suggest
that someone like Duchess Cecily - no airhead she - would publicly
protest against her son's marriage makes it look as if there was
something fishy there. More's statement that "everyone" knew that the
Duchess was wrong does not help. How could "everyone" know? Why
would "everyone" be better informed than the King's own mother? In my
circles at least it is customary to inform one's mother about one's
marital plans before notifying the milkman and the local curry house
proprietor. I tend to think the House of York might well have
conducted itself on similar lines.

By the way have you seen Michael Jones's book? It states that Edward
took Fotheringhay (newly refurbished) from Cecily and gave her
Berkhampstead (a near ruin) in exchange. Jones attributes this to her
proclaiming Edward a bastard. So maybe there is some evidence (I say
maybe 'cos I don't honestly know) that there were at odds from time
to time.

Regards
Brian

< It wasn't only the party line, but the only line until Buck: that
> Richard murdered his illegitimate & dangerous nephews. It seems
> strange that no view to the contrary escaped abroad, e.g. to
Burgundy. >

The Burgundian record of the period was largely subsumed by France
and lost at the Revolution. We therefore have very little evidence
about the English at the Burgundian Court. Francis Lovell was
definitely in Burgundy for some time before Stoke, yet there is no
record of him there, where he lived, how he maintained himself etc.
Doesn't mean he wasn't there, because we know from corroborative
evidence he was, but it's indicative of the impossibility of
supplying what you are after - incontrovertible *proof*. There are
several foreign reports who do NOT claim the Princes were murdered
by Richard. I've mentioned von Poppelau, but The Divisie is another
one, and its also a good example of how the contents of these foreign
accounts are often misunderstood. Wrongly translated by Pollard in
his 'Princes..' book, the operative word in the Divisie Chronicle on
the Princes reports they were 'stukken': 'hidden', in other words.
(Pollard mistranslates the word to mean 'stabbed').

<Even the pretenders suggested that Richard had a hand in killing at
least one of the princes.>

Wrong. Simnel didn't claim anything of the sort.
Warbeck's account is 'unsafe', anyway, given he doesn't
know several pertinent facts.

Besides what Warbeck does say on the matter could just as easily have
been an account he was given to understand was correct by
people who wanted him to give out that 'party line'.

<a Richard was had overseen the death of a mad, saintly,
feeble Henry? >

I'll assume this was written before I posted the info from official
sources that refutes this accusation.

<This was the Richard who had the prince's half brother
> Grey executed, Rivers, Hastings, etc.,? >

Gone into loads of times before: Richard didn't execute these
people, altho' no doubt he was happy with the decision of the
*Council*, who must take collective responsibility for this
outcome. An earlier poster wondered if there had been a trial for
Rivers & Co - well, according to Rous there was, and Northumberland
presided at it. Rous is quite clear on this point.

<A man who was quite prepared to slice off people's heads with his
own hand at Bosworth.>

This is emotive and silly. THere's no record of Richard slicing
anyone's head of at Bosworth as such, merely fighting bravely, as
even his contemporaneous detractors contend. What's the matter with
you? If indeed Richard WAS 'quite prepared to slice off people's
heads with his own hand at Bosworth' then he certainly wouldn't have
been alone in being prepared for such tactics.

< Richard himself never bothered to mention the princes after
1483, which suggests that he thought he could ride any damage to his
reputation, as Edward 4 had over Henry 6. >

Suggests nothing of the kind to me.

Rather that the boys were rehomed and being looked after and that it
wasn't necessary to make proclamations about them.

Richard mentions others in his family, including his heir Edward and
son John, rarely, if at all, by name - even in official records. He
even spends 2 days with von Poppeleau a month after his heir's death
and apparently doesn't mention him.

Where it's warranted, it's mentioned, so John gets a mention because
of his Captaincy of Calais, his neices are mentioned collectively
because he's saying they should be treated like his kinswomen, his
daughter gets a mention because she marries and is given property.
He doesn't mention Warwick's sister or the younger de la Poles,
either, and no-one suggesting that he murdered them!

Lorraine

--- In , "lpickering2
<lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi David
>
> Forget the exchange - you clearly got the wrong end of the stick - I
> was merely curious as to your approach to sources. Do you
critically > evaluate the source or are you happy to quote anything
with a ant-R3> stance for some private vendetta you seem to be running
on the > bloke?

I do crtically analyse everything. I've no vendetta against Richard.
He was what he was. Circumstancially, I would say he probably did
eliminate the former King Edward V, but the impression I get is that
he - like the fictional Macbeth - had a conscience about it. He
reinterred Henry VI, took care of Hasting's widow, had Hastings buried
beside Edward IV. More's account of Richard unable to sleep after the
removal of the princes seems authentic. We could all suspend
judgement about virtually anything, but most people have an opinion,
collected from a range of sources. Some Ricardians, who seem sorry
that that weren't at Bosworth ready to fight for Richard, seem to feel
that butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.

Some Ricardians I know have a favourite source and freely
> quote from it, and have clearly never questioned a single sentence.
> My own approach is somewhat different. Very anal, sure, but then
> again, I'm a lot more informed than I would have been had I merely
> stuck to reading only pro-Ricardian material or had never questioned
> the motives of the writer...

Quite right, too!


> <He unfortunately doesn't quote all of his sources, but I did
> read that he had connections with the Brackenbury family, so an
> insight into what was going on in the Tower is conceivable. >
>
> Conceivable, but unlikely I would have thought. The Brackenbury
> connection is two-fold and extremely loose. The first is perhaps
(as
> Laura said) the Minories in Aldgate connection, when relatives of
> Brackenbury, James Tyrrel, Eleanor Butler (her sister) and perhaps
> More (altho' I don't remember who) were lodged together for a time
> This group was mentioned in Alison Weir's 'Princes of the Tower', I
> believe.

More is annoying that he doesn't adhere to 21st standards of quoting
from sources, but a damned sight better than some of the Chroniclers
who came before. He didn't have our benefit of hindsight. Of course
his work is unfinished and a miscellany of gossip. Whether More was
all that bothered about flattering Henry 7, who was dead & Henry 8 who
he was to snub and lose his life over rather than deny the Catholicism
which he'd supported for many years, I doubt. What does annoy me
about detractors and apologists of Richard is that they either dismiss
ALL of More as junk or quote him as gospel. We don't know. Maybe, we
are brainwashed through our lives into various beliefs. Perhaps,
'morality' doesn't exist? What was the morality of a T Rex eating a
stegosaurus 70 million years ago? There wasn't any! It was just a
predator eating a snack! So this quibbling about Richard as saint or
devil perhaps doesn't matter!

What More leaned from the Brackenbury connection we don't know. He
may've dreamed up the entire story, but he says that he heard from
people who should know!


> <The stair foot burial place was correct, pity there are lots of
> stairs in the Tower. >
>
> Well, if you read More again closely, he says they were buried under
> some stairs on one page, then reckons they were dug up and reburied
> in a secret place somewhere else. If R3 or Brackenbury or
> Brackenbury's priest really didn't care to have them buried in such
> unfit ground, why did they rebury the boys at the site of yet
another> staircase? It doesn't make sense. More doesn't make sense.
It> doesn't make sense because it didn't happen. For such a clever
man,> this is a particularly silly error. Maybe More was so in love
with> his Nasty Dickon theory that he forgot he had them down as being
> reburied! Whatever, it spoils his argument, somewhat.

How 'clever' More was is debateable as with anyone. I answered this
elswewhere. Many people think the bones were those of the princes:
ages & family link established, velvet found dates them post 1400 &
pre 1674. If they weren't the princes who were they? Who else could
they be? We dont know for sure. But circumstantially they suggest
the princes killed in 1483. If you accept this - I bet you won't -
More therefore was correct in mentioning a stair foot burial. The
'reburial' bit may've been added - who knows? - because someome had
heard from someone now dead - Tyrell? - that the burial had been at a
stairfoot, but More wasn't told which one & accounting for the fact
that no-one had bothered to search: not wanting to dig up every stair
foot in the Tower, the idea of reburial was added. I read that a
reburial to the '1674' staircase was significant as it was a)
concealed & private with a passageway to Royal apartments at the time
of 1483 & b) led to a chapel & was more fitiing as a burial place for
Royal children. Does this fit in with Richard's penchant for
re-burying Royals in better places, such as the re-interment of Henry
6?

> <More seems certain that Richard did his nephews down>
> Or More was determined to give the strong impression that
> Richard 'did his nephews down' depending on how you read the account
> and what you think his justifications for his account were.

This is an interesting point. Was More simply writing a satire on
Kingship or was he genuinely attacking Richard because he found him
obnoxious? Satirising real people is the norm, but it's usually with
some justification. Remember, More doesn't seem the type to wickedly
attack someone - blacken their name - without reason. He was monkish
in religious belief, idealistic in his Utopia, put the after life
before this one & stood up to Henry 8 who made Shakespeare's Richard 3
pale into insignificance.
>
> <we all know that he wasn't the first to accuse Richard of this:
> Croyland, the Chancellor of France, Henry 7 in his attainder, the
> London Chronicle, Mancini's hunch that they would go.>
>
> I covered most of these commentators in my earlier post.
> The fact these guys say what they said really needs to be thrashed
> out in depth, and this forum is not necessarily the place to do
> that. Especially when we hold such disparate views about what we're
> reading when we look at this source material.

Well, I agree it's possible to argue about the motives & integrity of
all of these sources, but there's a terrible contemporay paucity of
data supporting Richard. Perhaps, Vergil burned material pro-Richard?
We don't know. Richard dosn't help his case with the rather weak
Titulus Regius attack on his brother: the precontract sounds like a
pretext for Richard's claim, Elizabeth Woodbville a witch...I mean?
Richard's hypocrisy over fallen women such as Jane Shore when he'd
made avail - he had several bastards - of such women himself
even if possibly before his marriage.
>
> <People knew what Richard was like. Ambitious and ruthless.
Richard > had never turned down land as Duke, was a military man>
>
> And James Hanratty was a car thief - that doesn't make him a rapist
> and murderer! Richard was a man of his class and his time. Neither
> Hastings or Howard or Oxford or any one of his kind 'turned down
> land', such observations are non-arguments, David. Indeed, Richard
> gave up land, offices and the income from them on several occasions,
> notably to Clarence's immediate benefit, and, furthermore he swopped
> land, esp. in the south, with a number of people, in order to
> consolidate his northern holdings.

Well, we could argue all night about Richard's landholdings. I get
the impression that he was virtually King of the North by 1483. I was
making the point that his ambition may've been a factor in him wanting
the throne. He probably was the most competent, but the hereditary
law was against him. He certainly was better than King Thomas Dorset
who was acting like an upstart de facto King. Probaly fear & ambition
drove Richard.
>
> <no one disputes that Hastings was NOT given a trial, but simply
> > dragged out of the Council Chamber by the orders of someone who
was > > not then King and his head smote off. Does anyone dispute
that> this happened? >

> Me - I think there's enough circumstantial evidence to allow for the
> possibility of a trial, if only of the sort that H7 allowed Warwick,
> a hasty affair in front of some peers, just to say justice had been
> seen to be done.

Yes, but Henry was King, Richard wasn't for Hastings. While not
supporting what Henry did to Warwick, there's no evidence that Richard
or Tudor used any sort of trial. I get the impression that 'trials'
like the UN today could be rigged to suit the people with the biggest
military power.
>
> Does anyone think this was legally or morally correct?
>
> Someone did. There's an contemporaneous archive note somewhere (St
> Alban's, I think) that clearly reckons Hastings got what he
> deserved. I paraphrase as I'm away from my cardfiles, but the
> sentiment is quite clear.

Really? You must check the source.
>
> < Is it right to bump off people who deny us career moves?>
>
> Oh, (she says airily) I think it is morally justified in some cases.

> Why? Don't you? ;)

I've been tempted myself & believe that some people deserve what's
coming to them, but for the sake of a moral or legal argument it would
be impossible to justify.
>
> <But more on More. He specifies the murderers: Tyrell, Forest &
> Dighton & that one is still alive. >
>
> Tyrrel - denied a public execution and last words, whose
'confession'> was secret and unrecorded, except for what Tudor 'gave
out'. An
> expedient arrest, confession and execution, furthermore, that was
> obtained under false pretences after Tyrrel had given Tudor 17 years
> of loyal service.>
> Forrest - Miles Forrest was a very old bloke in 1483, a retired
> retainer, formerly at Barnard Castle (he took care of the Wardrobe
> there).
>
> Dighton was a priest, IIRC, and Black Will Slaughter just has a
> cartoon villain name.
>
> Granted a priest, an elderly man, a cartoon name and a loyal officer
> can all be capable of murder, but it's rather more likely that these
> are just names, convenient and handy. Not one of them was arrested
> in connection the murder (Tyrrel was arrested onboard a ship for
> allegedly aiding and abetting a De la Pole, and after being promised
> safe passage), none were executed for regicide, which they should
> have been if their names were that well-known, and one of them was
> even walking around as free a bird as More was getting his quill
> sharpened.
>
> I generally work on the principle that if sounds like bollocks,
looks
> like bollocks, reads like bollocks and as a theory it pans out as
> bollocks, then it must be bollocks.>
> Suggest you apply this tenet liberally to a lot of More's supposed
> history of R3, people...! ;)
>
> Lorraine

It could be bollocks, have you identified the correct 'Dighton,' for
instance? So could anything. So you feel sure that More, a lawyer
with a generally good reputation concocted the entire story to blacken
Richard? There's no possibility that there was truth in this?
Perhaps, the saying should run: 'bollocks, damned bollocks & history?'

And why pray are you so convinced that Richard was incapable of a
fairly obvious precedent of removing an ex-monarch, which his brother
& he had done to poor old Henry 6? You think he was somewhere between
men & angels?

David

Relying on foreign records is problematical as you admit; they were
too remote from events. I agree that the Warbeck story was probably
just that, but, again, no-one is sticking up for Richard. I would've
thought that Richard would've made some comment about the French
Chancellor's charge in 1484. Richard is on record as killing several
men at Bosworth - he had to do a lot of the fighting himself because
he was unpopular & probably trapped by the Stanley attack from the
rear - but I'm not saying that this was wrong in context, but it
hardly suggests a man so tender hearted as to not remove an ex-King,
following long precedent, who Richard himself had bastardized. What
do you think Edward V would've done with Richard if he had escaped?
What do you think Edward IV would've done with Richard if he'd been
miraculously resurrected? They wouldn't have just slapped his wrist!

--- In , "lpickering2
<lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> < It wasn't only the party line, but the only line until Buck: that
> > Richard murdered his illegitimate & dangerous nephews. It seems
> > strange that no view to the contrary escaped abroad, e.g. to
> Burgundy. >
>
> The Burgundian record of the period was largely subsumed by France
> and lost at the Revolution. We therefore have very little evidence
> about the English at the Burgundian Court. Francis Lovell was
> definitely in Burgundy for some time before Stoke, yet there is no
> record of him there, where he lived, how he maintained himself etc.
> Doesn't mean he wasn't there, because we know from corroborative
> evidence he was, but it's indicative of the impossibility of
> supplying what you are after - incontrovertible *proof*. There are
> several foreign reports who do NOT claim the Princes were murdered
> by Richard. I've mentioned von Poppelau, but The Divisie is another
> one, and its also a good example of how the contents of these
foreign
> accounts are often misunderstood. Wrongly translated by Pollard in
> his 'Princes..' book, the operative word in the Divisie Chronicle on
> the Princes reports they were 'stukken': 'hidden', in other words.
> (Pollard mistranslates the word to mean 'stabbed').
>
> <Even the pretenders suggested that Richard had a hand in killing at
> least one of the princes.>
>
> Wrong. Simnel didn't claim anything of the sort.
> Warbeck's account is 'unsafe', anyway, given he doesn't
> know several pertinent facts.
>
> Besides what Warbeck does say on the matter could just as easily
have
> been an account he was given to understand was correct by
> people who wanted him to give out that 'party line'.
>
> <a Richard was had overseen the death of a mad, saintly,
> feeble Henry? >
>
> I'll assume this was written before I posted the info from official
> sources that refutes this accusation.
>
> <This was the Richard who had the prince's half brother
> > Grey executed, Rivers, Hastings, etc.,? >
>
> Gone into loads of times before: Richard didn't execute these
> people, altho' no doubt he was happy with the decision of the
> *Council*, who must take collective responsibility for this
> outcome. An earlier poster wondered if there had been a trial for
> Rivers & Co - well, according to Rous there was, and Northumberland
> presided at it. Rous is quite clear on this point.
>
> <A man who was quite prepared to slice off people's heads with his
> own hand at Bosworth.>
>
> This is emotive and silly. THere's no record of Richard slicing
> anyone's head of at Bosworth as such, merely fighting bravely, as
> even his contemporaneous detractors contend. What's the matter with
> you? If indeed Richard WAS 'quite prepared to slice off people's
> heads with his own hand at Bosworth' then he certainly wouldn't have
> been alone in being prepared for such tactics.
>
> < Richard himself never bothered to mention the princes after
> 1483, which suggests that he thought he could ride any damage to his
> reputation, as Edward 4 had over Henry 6. >
>
> Suggests nothing of the kind to me.
>
> Rather that the boys were rehomed and being looked after and that it
> wasn't necessary to make proclamations about them.
>
> Richard mentions others in his family, including his heir Edward and
> son John, rarely, if at all, by name - even in official records. He
> even spends 2 days with von Poppeleau a month after his heir's death
> and apparently doesn't mention him.
>
> Where it's warranted, it's mentioned, so John gets a mention because
> of his Captaincy of Calais, his neices are mentioned collectively
> because he's saying they should be treated like his kinswomen, his
> daughter gets a mention because she marries and is given property.
> He doesn't mention Warwick's sister or the younger de la Poles,
> either, and no-one suggesting that he murdered them!
>
> Lorraine

> Richard's hypocrisy over fallen women such as Jane Shore when he'd
> made avail - he had several bastards - of such women himself
> even if possibly before his marriage.
> >
>
It seems incontrovertible that Richard was being hypocritical over his
double standards. He can abuse unmarried women himself, have
bastards, but he goes on & on about the bastardy of others: the
princes, Tudor & the lascivious nature of Edward IV, Hastings, Dorset,
Tudor & his army...Uncle Tom Cobley. Are we in the realm of
'bollocks' here?

If Richard was a moral hypocrite, as with his feigning that he was
reluctant to accept the crown at Baynard's castle, then his entire
good governance may've been a pretence. Would you buy a second hand
car from this man, let alone believe that he planned a nice holiday
home, with deck chairs and superb catering for the princes as some
Ricardians would have us believe?

Hi David

I've cut a lot from this exchange more to save other readers.

You said:

<I do crtically analyse everything. I've no vendetta against
Richard. >

You do, however, seem to have a thing about 'Ricardians', given how
often we're lumped together and how we've even been likened to
chickens. I shouldn't have to point out that all of us are different
and as a Ricardian my approach to Richard and indeed to Ricardianism
is often very much different to that of many of my colleagues. To
lump us all together as a group is both lazy and rather tedious. And
it's not like it's not been done before.

< More is annoying that he doesn't adhere to 21st standards of
quoting from sources, but a damned sight better than some of the
Chroniclers who came before. He didn't have our benefit of
hindsight. >

He did, however, have the benefit of hindsight not afforded to his
earlier colleagues.

<What does annoy me about detractors and apologists of Richard is
that they either dismiss ALL of More as junk or quote him as gospel. >

Some might. You really shouldn't generalise in this fashion. You
took my tongue in cheek remark about 'a lot' of More
being 'bollocks' and twisted it mightily to suit yourself in another
post. A lot of More's thing on R3 is complete tripe: a lot of it is
interesting. As a sit down and read it account I find it a better
read than most fiction on R3 that I've read, and I really enjoyed
his 'Utopia' when I sat and read that straight through. What I don't
agree with is someone from the present day, like Seward and Weir,
reading the account, taking everything in it as Gospel and further
diluting the work with fanciful interpretations that don't stand up.
More's nephew did to More's original, almost as much damage as Buck's
nephew did to his uncle's original (you just have to read the
unexcised version bedited by Kincaid to see that). We could cherry-
pick at all the accounts to suit our purposes if we want to score
points rather than learn and educate. I prefer to learn and educate.

<Maybe, we are brainwashed through our lives into various beliefs.>

Well, I'm sure it's a factor.

<Many people think the bones were those of the princes:
ages & family link established, velvet found dates them post 1400 &
pre 1674. If they weren't the princes who were they? Who else could
they be? We dont know for sure. >

I think your last point says it all. I don't want to get into the
velvet debate, since we only have one major source for that, IIRC,
and that was some bloke from Charles II's. The contents in the urn
had had a rough journey before C2 had them reburied, and the bit of
velvet could have come from that period. It hasn't been carbon-
dated. I can't recall if Tanner and Wright mention velvet in their
report. They certainly mention fish bones and other most
unPrincelike gubbins that was buried with them.

<But circumstantially they suggest the princes killed in 1483. If
you accept this - I bet you won't - More therefore was correct in
mentioning a stair foot burial. >

Actually, I don't know what happened to the Princes. I neither know
nor care whose bones are in the Urn, as it happens. My personal
feeling, based on many years of research and pondering, is that they
outlived Richard , because they left England during his rein. That
was why they weren't displayed, that was why there's the odd one or
two refs in the official record to Edward Bastard and 'the children',
that's why Tyrrel went across the 'see to Flaunders', that's why
Canterbury mentions provciding hospitality to Brackenbury and the
Lord Bastard who was on his way to Calais. I can't prove it, but it
makes sense of those anomolies that people try to make sense of,
including Wm. Stanley's subsequent comments.

<The 'reburial' bit may've been added - who knows?>

Who knows. Wotsitsname the Son-in-Law could have done so.

<but More wasn't told which one & accounting for the fact
that no-one had bothered to search: >

The Tower was extensively searched early in H7's reign, and many of
the retainers replaced.

<a) concealed & private with a passageway to Royal apartments at the
time of 1483 & b) led to a chapel>

I'm not sure that is correct. I have read that the area was not
private and concealed. I can't remember any mention of a chapel
there. There was a chapel in the area where H6 was housed, however.
You or your source may be mixed up on that. I'll have to check my
own information on that, as once again I'm away from my material.

< This is an interesting point. Was More simply writing a satire on
Kingship or was he genuinely attacking Richard>

Having read Utopia I'm inclined to believe it was a sort of satire
(I'm not sure it was actual satire). I believe it to be an
intellectual exercise on tyranny, more properly.

<Remember, More doesn't seem the type to wickedly
attack someone - blacken their name - without reason.>

I don't agree with this - his scatalogical discourse about Luther was
pretty low, and I'm sure Luther and R3 weren't the only people he
attacked.

<but there's a terrible contemporay paucity of
data supporting Richard. Perhaps, Vergil burned material pro-
Richard? >

I've heard differing views on this. PV was certainly attacked
contemporaneously by the Master of some UK college or other for
destroying and not returning research material from his educational
establishment, but a modern writer also argued recently that this was
not true.

<Richard dosn't help his case with the rather weak
Titulus Regius attack on his brother: >

Titulus regious is actually a fairly watertight legal document.
drafted by Russell, as I said in a previous post, the contents were
pretty much par for the course at the time. The witchcraft charge
was fairly standard, I gather. Maybe not very brother-in-lawly, but
they were strange times.

<the precontract sounds like a pretext for Richard's claim>

It may well have been a pretext. Doesn't mean it was Richard's
idea. Indeed, your More In The Original points out that Stillington
subjected the claim to various 'proctors' and showed 'diverse
instruments' to support the evidence.

< Someone did. There's an contemporaneous archive note somewhere (St
> > Alban's, I think) that clearly reckons Hastings got what he
> > deserved. I paraphrase as I'm away from my cardfiles, but the
> > sentiment is quite clear.
>
> Really? You must check the source.>

I did. It *is* St St. Albans, in the Register there. Hicks also
mentions it in his biog.

< It could be bollocks, have you identified the correct 'Dighton,'
for instance? >

Dunno. I'm aware of multiple candidates for the job. Who do you
think is the corrct Dighton, if not 'my' Dighton? Whoever it was, he
was he got away with regicide. Interesting outcome if he was known
at the time.

< And why pray are you so convinced that Richard was incapable of a
> fairly obvious precedent of removing an ex-monarch>

And what, pray, ever gave you that impression?

< which his brother & he had done to poor old Henry 6? >
'he' hadn't. See my previous post about how he was in Sandwich. If
you don't believe me, look up the record yourself. The Maintenance
Accounts have survived, and several books can give you the exact
source.

<You think he was somewhere between men & angels?>

Nope. I think he was a man who didn't murder his nephews, and who
has been bequeathed a rotten reputation he doesn't deserve by bigots,
cowards, fools and people like yourself. That's all.

Lorraine

You don't notice humour, e.g. chickens! I did notice YOUR FOWL/Foul
joke. Fine!

We do cherrypick. We don't have a cosmic view of History.

I do think, myself, that IF Buckingham had spread a rumour about me:
that I'd murdered my own nephews, whom many thought legitimate heirs
of King Edward 4 that I wouldn't have remained silent about it.
Silence in law usually denotes affirmation. If Richard didn't
think this rumour was slowly eroding his reputation, then HE was the
bigot, fool & coward, in facing reality, that you appear to associate
me with.

It's possible that Richard shipped his nephews over to sunny Burgundy
to the equivalent of Disneyland in those days, but:

1. This was a break with precedence. Ex-monarchs were seen as
dangerous focal points for war, even dotty Henry 6!

2. The 1674 remains in the urn do have a lot going for them as the
princes who died in 1483. Now, it could've been Buckingham or the
infestation of voles alleged to exist in the Tower that killed them or
plague or they died of 'pure displeasure & melancholy' as Edward 4
authorised about Henry 6, but we do come back to 1. New monarchs
often do their predecessors down! I've no reason to belive that
Richard was Mr. Nice Guy. Your alleged reference to Hastings getting
his desserts & the view that Richard wasn't present when Henry 6 died.
(Those records were buggers for being inaccurate about times in those
days,) the view that Rivers, Grey got what they deserved and that
fighting in battle doesn't brutalise the mind, are fine from a
pro-Richard view, but surely you can see why the nature of Richard's
character as been such an object of fascination for so long?

He may not have been Mr. Nice Guy or Mr. Perfect and if he decided to
eliminate the princes, the common approach to dangerous ex-monarchs,
may we not have done the same ourselves? Many would like to see Osama
Bin Laden marmalised, but he, like the princes, has his fans. It
seems that 'party politics' continues throughout History.


.--- In , "lpickering2
<lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi David
>
> I've cut a lot from this exchange more to save other readers.
>
> You said:
>
> <I do crtically analyse everything. I've no vendetta against
> Richard. >
>
> You do, however, seem to have a thing about 'Ricardians', given how
> often we're lumped together and how we've even been likened to
> chickens. I shouldn't have to point out that all of us are
different
> and as a Ricardian my approach to Richard and indeed to Ricardianism
> is often very much different to that of many of my colleagues. To
> lump us all together as a group is both lazy and rather tedious.
And
> it's not like it's not been done before.
>
> < More is annoying that he doesn't adhere to 21st standards of
> quoting from sources, but a damned sight better than some of the
> Chroniclers who came before. He didn't have our benefit of
> hindsight. >
>
> He did, however, have the benefit of hindsight not afforded to his
> earlier colleagues.
>
> <What does annoy me about detractors and apologists of Richard is
> that they either dismiss ALL of More as junk or quote him as gospel.
>
>
> Some might. You really shouldn't generalise in this fashion. You
> took my tongue in cheek remark about 'a lot' of More
> being 'bollocks' and twisted it mightily to suit yourself in another
> post. A lot of More's thing on R3 is complete tripe: a lot of it is
> interesting. As a sit down and read it account I find it a better
> read than most fiction on R3 that I've read, and I really enjoyed
> his 'Utopia' when I sat and read that straight through. What I
don't
> agree with is someone from the present day, like Seward and Weir,
> reading the account, taking everything in it as Gospel and further
> diluting the work with fanciful interpretations that don't stand up.

> More's nephew did to More's original, almost as much damage as
Buck's
> nephew did to his uncle's original (you just have to read the
> unexcised version bedited by Kincaid to see that). We could cherry-
> pick at all the accounts to suit our purposes if we want to score
> points rather than learn and educate. I prefer to learn and
educate.
>
> <Maybe, we are brainwashed through our lives into various beliefs.>
>
> Well, I'm sure it's a factor.
>
> <Many people think the bones were those of the princes:
> ages & family link established, velvet found dates them post 1400 &
> pre 1674. If they weren't the princes who were they? Who else
could
> they be? We dont know for sure. >
>
> I think your last point says it all. I don't want to get into the
> velvet debate, since we only have one major source for that, IIRC,
> and that was some bloke from Charles II's. The contents in the urn
> had had a rough journey before C2 had them reburied, and the bit of
> velvet could have come from that period. It hasn't been carbon-
> dated. I can't recall if Tanner and Wright mention velvet in their
> report. They certainly mention fish bones and other most
> unPrincelike gubbins that was buried with them.
>
> <But circumstantially they suggest the princes killed in 1483. If
> you accept this - I bet you won't - More therefore was correct in
> mentioning a stair foot burial. >
>
> Actually, I don't know what happened to the Princes. I neither know
> nor care whose bones are in the Urn, as it happens. My personal
> feeling, based on many years of research and pondering, is that they
> outlived Richard , because they left England during his rein. That
> was why they weren't displayed, that was why there's the odd one or
> two refs in the official record to Edward Bastard and 'the
children',
> that's why Tyrrel went across the 'see to Flaunders', that's why
> Canterbury mentions provciding hospitality to Brackenbury and the
> Lord Bastard who was on his way to Calais. I can't prove it, but it
> makes sense of those anomolies that people try to make sense of,
> including Wm. Stanley's subsequent comments.
>
> <The 'reburial' bit may've been added - who knows?>
>
> Who knows. Wotsitsname the Son-in-Law could have done so.
>
> <but More wasn't told which one & accounting for the fact
> that no-one had bothered to search: >
>
> The Tower was extensively searched early in H7's reign, and many of
> the retainers replaced.
>
> <a) concealed & private with a passageway to Royal apartments at the
> time of 1483 & b) led to a chapel>
>
> I'm not sure that is correct. I have read that the area was not
> private and concealed. I can't remember any mention of a chapel
> there. There was a chapel in the area where H6 was housed, however.

> You or your source may be mixed up on that. I'll have to check my
> own information on that, as once again I'm away from my material.
>
> < This is an interesting point. Was More simply writing a satire on
> Kingship or was he genuinely attacking Richard>
>
> Having read Utopia I'm inclined to believe it was a sort of satire
> (I'm not sure it was actual satire). I believe it to be an
> intellectual exercise on tyranny, more properly.
>
> <Remember, More doesn't seem the type to wickedly
> attack someone - blacken their name - without reason.>
>
> I don't agree with this - his scatalogical discourse about Luther
was
> pretty low, and I'm sure Luther and R3 weren't the only people he
> attacked.
>
> <but there's a terrible contemporay paucity of
> data supporting Richard. Perhaps, Vergil burned material pro-
> Richard? >
>
> I've heard differing views on this. PV was certainly attacked
> contemporaneously by the Master of some UK college or other for
> destroying and not returning research material from his educational
> establishment, but a modern writer also argued recently that this
was
> not true.
>
> <Richard dosn't help his case with the rather weak
> Titulus Regius attack on his brother: >
>
> Titulus regious is actually a fairly watertight legal document.
> drafted by Russell, as I said in a previous post, the contents were
> pretty much par for the course at the time. The witchcraft charge
> was fairly standard, I gather. Maybe not very brother-in-lawly, but
> they were strange times.
>
> <the precontract sounds like a pretext for Richard's claim>
>
> It may well have been a pretext. Doesn't mean it was Richard's
> idea. Indeed, your More In The Original points out that Stillington
> subjected the claim to various 'proctors' and showed 'diverse
> instruments' to support the evidence.
>
> < Someone did. There's an contemporaneous archive note somewhere (St
> > > Alban's, I think) that clearly reckons Hastings got what he
> > > deserved. I paraphrase as I'm away from my cardfiles, but the
> > > sentiment is quite clear.
> >
> > Really? You must check the source.>
>
> I did. It *is* St St. Albans, in the Register there. Hicks also
> mentions it in his biog.
>
> < It could be bollocks, have you identified the correct 'Dighton,'
> for instance? >
>
> Dunno. I'm aware of multiple candidates for the job. Who do you
> think is the corrct Dighton, if not 'my' Dighton? Whoever it was,
he
> was he got away with regicide. Interesting outcome if he was known
> at the time.
>
> < And why pray are you so convinced that Richard was incapable of a
> > fairly obvious precedent of removing an ex-monarch>
>
> And what, pray, ever gave you that impression?
>
> < which his brother & he had done to poor old Henry 6? >
> 'he' hadn't. See my previous post about how he was in Sandwich. If
> you don't believe me, look up the record yourself. The Maintenance
> Accounts have survived, and several books can give you the exact
> source.
>
> <You think he was somewhere between men & angels?>
>
> Nope. I think he was a man who didn't murder his nephews, and who
> has been bequeathed a rotten reputation he doesn't deserve by
bigots,
> cowards, fools and people like yourself. That's all.
>
> Lorraine

David

You can't have it both ways:

<You don't notice humour, e.g. chickens! I did notice YOUR FOWL/Foul
joke. Fine!>

Do you think I would have made the remark about the fowl if I'd not
found your remark amusing? I did. Not sure you meant it to be, but
then, I'm not overly bothered to work out when you are joshing and
when you are not.

< I do think, myself, that IF Buckingham had spread a rumour about
me: that I'd murdered my own nephews, whom many thought legitimate
heirs of King Edward 4 that I wouldn't have remained silent about it.
>

Well, once he found out about Buckingham, he did something about it.
Once he knew about 'an enterprise' he told Russell to get on with it
pimmediately (see his note from Minster Lovell when he was on
Progress. The surviving note is in the PRO, where I first read it,
and Pamela Tudor Craig had earlier 'discovered' it, in the early 70s
when trawling for her NPG Exhibition of R3 atifacts).

Like I said, Croyland doesn't say who it was.

<then HE was the bigot, fool & coward, in facing reality, that you
appear to associate me with.>

I could, more relevantly, also say I think your logic is flawed. I
don't honestly see what's 'bigoted' about R3 remaining silent. Or
what was cowardly in that particularly instance, since according to
you, staying quiet didn't actually do him any good at all.

Was he foolish not to say anything? Maybe. Depends if he really did
remain stay silent, doesn't it? I already gave an example of how he
may have been refuting the rumours every day he was on Progress. I
always try to bear in mind that just because there's no apparent
written record doesn't mean there never was one. It's perfectly
possible that he made a verbal refutation that didn't get noted down.

<It's possible that Richard shipped his nephews over to sunny
Burgundy to the equivalent of Disneyland in those days, but:>

< 1. This was a break with precedence. >

R3 broke with precedent on several occasions, actually.

< 2. The 1674 remains in the urn do have a lot going for them as the
princes who died in 1483.>

If you insist, David. They don't to me.

<New monarchs often do their predecessors down!>

Yes, that's what I said to you (quoting Sutton).

<I've no reason to belive that Richard was Mr. Nice Guy. >

Me neither.

<Your alleged reference to Hastings getting his desserts>

Hah - somebody who clearly plays fast and loose with detail,
interpretation, sources doubting something *I've* said! How
absolutely ******* hilarious! Ah well (wipes tears of mirth from
eyes). Sorry I didn't spoonfeed you Chapter and Verse. If you think
I made it up, I suggest you read your Michael Hicks biog carefully
seeing's as - like I'd already said - he also mentions the quote from
the St Albans Register.

<& the view that Richard wasn't present when Henry 6 died.
(Those records were buggers for being inaccurate about times in those
days,)>

Well in the real world two completely different *official* sources on
the bed and board dates issue, *plus* the official troops account, as
opposed to an already demonstrable flawed account by a Lancastrian
sympathiser who reports on ghosts wailing at roadsides, would rather
suggest that Richard just wasn't there at the relevant time and
date. One always has to allow for error, of course, but on the
balance of probabilities, it seems Richard was miles away. Damned
unfortunate for your theory, but there you go - we can't always get
what we want.

<suggest the view that Rivers, Grey got what they deserved>

I personally don't think Rivers & Grey got what they deserve. I
think they were a bit derelict in the duty of care, yes, but in the
end they got caught up in events not entirely of their making. I
also think the actions of the other Wydevilles (Lionel, the Queen,
and Dorset) didn't help their corner, either. Especially Edward
Wydeville, who may have started out with the blessing of the Council,
but quickly went native once he was at sea.

<but surely you can see why the nature of Richard's
character as been such an object of fascination for so long?>

Of course I do. Did I argue otherwise?

<He may not have been Mr. Nice Guy or Mr. Perfect and if he decided
to eliminate the princes, the common approach to dangerous ex-
monarchs, may we not have done the same ourselves? >

I don't think R3 always thought along 'common approach' lines,
myself. That's what makes him a fascinating subject for me to
study. And I'm getting the general drift of what you'd likely do,
but I wouldn't necessarily eliminate my tricky nephews, if I was in
R3's shoes. I believe I would have done what I think Richard did.
Burgundy was a logical place to go, to me.

Remember R3 certainly sanctioned somebody youngish to go abroad - as
the Canterbury reference to the Lord Bastard going to Calais
indicates, so it appears that he can't have thought it was that
dangerous or risky a journey or notion for a royal bastard to
undertake, since the likely candidate for that particular journey
*has* to be either one of the Princes or John of Gloucester: his own
son, and a minor, as his Captaincy of Calais Patent states.

<like Many would like to see Osama Bin Laden marmalised, but he, like
the princes, has his fans. >

It is somewhat inappropriate to discuss that particular bloke on this
particular list. As it is often fruitless to compare 15thC mores
with present day ones, I'm certainly not going to now.

Lorraine

Lorraine,
Yep. Having both accepted that I was joking about
Ricardians being chickens, you then lamabsted me for putting them all
in the same pot! I don't add LOL because what I find amusing I
imagine not everyone would agree with!

Buckingham's 'enterprise' which Richard refers to of course could've
been Buckingham's rebellion in general, which I suspect was really to
put Buckingham on the throne. Tudor had a paltry claim, Buckingham
would've been glad to get rid of his Woodville wife & marry the lovely
Elizabeth himself.

I> don't honestly see what's 'bigoted' about R3 remaining silent.

Blind to the consequences to his reputation of letting a lie by
Buckingham erode his popularity. Much of his public declarartions
about morality were designed to show what a wonderful exemplar of
virtue he was & how dreadful fornicators, like Dorset & Hastings were,
despite Richard's own flurries with various women! Seems odd that he
didn't deny the lie or perhaps he did, but it hasn't survived.
Unlikely, as important gossip like this usually does.

Or > what was cowardly in that particularly instance, since according
to> you, staying quiet didn't actually do him any good at all.

Cowardly in not facing reality and bothering to deny the lie or give
the lie to the lie. He was either being lazy or complacent, doesn't
sound like Richard or thought Edward 5 would pass as a problem as
Henry 6 did or the above...

I haven't had time to check your St. Aban's reference to Hastings
deserving what he got, but in any case we know that was Richard's view
& that of his acolytes, was.

I do think that we can't be sure of the times of records over whether
Richard was present at Henry 6's demise or not, but is this relevant?
Do you think Richard didn't agree with his big brother that Henry was
nominally, like Edward 5 later, at the centre of the web & had to go?
Edward & Richard had just finished carving up the Lancastrians at
Barnet & Tewkesbury & were unlikely to be sentimental about Henry 6,
who was probably seen as more of an idiot than a saint. There is the
theory that Henry 6 slipped and hit his head at the time. Seems
amazingly convenient for Edward, about as liklely as him expiring
through 'pure displeasure & melancholy,' which is the feeling I get
when I read such tripe, but as you can see I'm still around!!!!

I do think Richard, quick of thought & aggressive when he needed to
be, dealt with the arrogant Woodvilles as they deserved, pathing the
way for his only survival route: the crown. Loudmouthed Dorset,
manipulated by his Mother, were probably to blame. The consequence
was that Hastings & Edward 5 had to go too.

John of Gloucester for the trip abroad is my candidate. I do think
the princes were too dangerous to be allowed to roam abroad. That's
why Richard added the younger one to Edward 5 in the Tower.

It's a shame if they ended up in that coffin at the stair foot, but
power politics had ALWAYS been like that & MANY innocent people have
died miserable deaths they didn't deserve. Think of all the children
who were routinely gassed during the 1940s.

I'm not sure that ABSOLUTE mores change over time, it's just that they
are confused. Thou shalt not murder goes back to biblical times & the
fact of people killing others also does. Depends on what we
believe...

David


<Buckingham's 'enterprise' which Richard refers to of course could've
been Buckingham's rebellion in general, which I suspect was really to
put Buckingham on the throne. >

You may be confusing the July 83 letter from Minster Lovell I was
actually referring to with the more well-known one of October of that
year.

The one I'm talking about merely refers to a LATE enterprise.
Buckingham is not referrred to. In the latter, Richard is indeed
referring to Buckingham, calling him 'the most untrue creature
living'.

Buckingham may have thought it was to put him on the throne, but I
doubt he took the south-westerners with him on that score. He came
onboard late to what in any case was a series of often disconnected
spats, most of which had no connection with Richard but a lot to do
with ongoing local disputes and feuding.

< Buckingham would've been glad to get rid of his Woodville wife &
marry the lovely Elizabeth himself.>

Uh? Sez who?

< Much of his public declarartions
> about morality were designed to show what a wonderful exemplar of
> virtue he was & how dreadful fornicators, like Dorset & Hastings
were, despite Richard's own flurries with various women!>

Actually it was incumbent on him *as King* to uphold virtuous living.
IIRC this was laid down in the Coronation oath, which he took in
English, so everyone knew what he'd agreed to do.

We don't know he had 'flurries' with 'various' women - one woman could
have been mother to each of his natural children, and it was also
likely he was single at the time of their conception.

This wasn't hipocracy - his position as a Duke and subject and his
position as a King called for an entirely different public standpoint.

<Seems odd that he
> didn't deny the lie or perhaps he did, but it hasn't survived.
> Unlikely, as important gossip like this usually does.>

Important or not, which itself is arguable, gossip is just gossip.
Not all gossip survives. Besides, one really cannot extrapolate what
'everyone' was thinking from a handful of surviving accounts, no
matter how interesting these are from a particular standpoint.

< He was either being lazy or complacent,>

That's quite a leap from 'cowardly', is it not?

< I haven't had time to check your St. Aban's reference to Hastings
> deserving what he got, but in any case we know that was Richard's
view >

Again, I'm not sure we can say that. In fact Richard's subsequent
actions rather suggest he didn't think Hastings got what he deserved.
Unlike with Rivers, I happen to think he did, but that's because the
more I researched Hastings the more I found him wanting, in many ways.

.
< I do think that we can't be sure of the times of records over
whether Richard was present at Henry 6's demise or not, but is this
relevant? >

Yes, it is, when a lot of the case for his committing murder is based
on the erroneous belief that he'd killed before away from the
battlefield - Clarence, H6 etc.

<Do you think Richard didn't agree with his big brother that Henry wa
nominally, like Edward 5 later, at the centre of the web & had to go?
>

I don't know what he thought.
>
< Seems amazingly convenient for Edward, >

I believe Edward ordered H6's death. I don't believe it was Richard
who carried it out. In other words - it is Edward's 'crime', if you
like, not Richard's.


<I do think Richard, quick of thought & aggressive when he needed to
> be, dealt with the arrogant Woodvilles as they deserved,>

See my previous post on this.

< Loudmouthed Dorset, manipulated by his Mother, were probably to
blame. >

Hmm - yes and no. Remember, Richard wasn't even in town when Dorset
made that unfortunate comment.

Lorraine

<By the way have you seen Michael Jones's book? It states that Edward
took Fotheringhay (newly refurbished) from Cecily and gave her
Berkhampstead (a near ruin) in exchange. Jones attributes this to her
proclaiming Edward a bastard. So maybe there is some evidence (I say
maybe 'cos I don't honestly know) that there were at odds from time
to time.>

This is an interesting point, Brian. No doubt Timbo will come back
with something to the effect that E4 was running low on funds and
needed the property, much as his future son-in-law did when
he 'seised' poor Dame Elizabeth Grey's manors to give to his equally
hard up Queen later on. Remember how the Tudor chap was so short of
funds that he was obliged to take back the manors he'd only just
granted to the Countess of Warwick. It must be awful to be that
strapped for cash that you're forced to take income from old ladies.

And they criticise Richard...

Sigh.

Regards - Lorraine

Lorraine,
I doubt if Buckingham could've take anybody onboard for
his side. He seems to be a two-faced, treacherous type, not using
stronger words. It's seems a pity that Richard ever felt it wise
to gang up with him in the first place, but we don't always know
people...do we?

I have read that Buckingham wasn't thrilled about his Woodville bride.
Buckingham had a very high opinion of himself & probably thought the
match too lowly. I can imagine that marrying Elizabeth would've been
beneficial on political & personal grounds & I speculate what
Buckingham had in mind there, but, as we know, his ship ran onto the
rocks.

I've never ruled out Buckingham as the murderer of the princes.
Kendall makes a good case, but Richard's apparent silence over the
issue is infuriating & Kendall certainly doesn't rule out Richard as
the possible perpetrator. That Richard associated with a man of very
dubious character like Buckingham may mean that he took advice from
him over the dosposal of the princes, which in Buckingham's
egotistical mind would pave the way for his own bid for the crown.

Whether Richard had one or more sexual liaisons which produced his
bastards - apparently had possibly up to 4 or 5 I've read - it was a
bit rich - hypocritical - him attacking Hastings & Dorset for having
some fun with Jane Shore.

I think it fair to assume that Richard having sturdily fought for his
brother & overseen executions of Lancastrians would've accepted that
it was time for Henry 6 to meet his maker.

Hastings tipped off Richard about Dorset'e arrogant posturing as
'more important' than Richard, which I think produced a not unnatural
fury from Richard. Richard probably did have mixed feelings about the
fate of Hastings or even the princes. More reckons that Richard was a
man of conscience, but affairs of State aren't always tidy. I think
we would agree that Richard was in a difficult, if not impossible,
situation and with so many wolves around staring from the dark, who
can blame him if he did flail out occasionally? ( Quite a lot of
people have actually!)

David

--- In , "lpickering2
<lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> David
>
>
> <Buckingham's 'enterprise' which Richard refers to of course
could've
> been Buckingham's rebellion in general, which I suspect was really
to
> put Buckingham on the throne. >
>
> You may be confusing the July 83 letter from Minster Lovell I was
> actually referring to with the more well-known one of October of
that
> year.
>
> The one I'm talking about merely refers to a LATE enterprise.
> Buckingham is not referrred to. In the latter, Richard is indeed
> referring to Buckingham, calling him 'the most untrue creature
> living'.
>
> Buckingham may have thought it was to put him on the throne, but I
> doubt he took the south-westerners with him on that score. He came
> onboard late to what in any case was a series of often disconnected
> spats, most of which had no connection with Richard but a lot to do
> with ongoing local disputes and feuding.
>
> < Buckingham would've been glad to get rid of his Woodville wife &
> marry the lovely Elizabeth himself.>
>
> Uh? Sez who?
>
> < Much of his public declarartions
> > about morality were designed to show what a wonderful exemplar of
> > virtue he was & how dreadful fornicators, like Dorset & Hastings
> were, despite Richard's own flurries with various women!>
>
> Actually it was incumbent on him *as King* to uphold virtuous
living.
> IIRC this was laid down in the Coronation oath, which he took in
> English, so everyone knew what he'd agreed to do.
>
> We don't know he had 'flurries' with 'various' women - one woman
could
> have been mother to each of his natural children, and it was also
> likely he was single at the time of their conception.
>
> This wasn't hipocracy - his position as a Duke and subject and his
> position as a King called for an entirely different public
standpoint.
>
> <Seems odd that he
> > didn't deny the lie or perhaps he did, but it hasn't survived.
> > Unlikely, as important gossip like this usually does.>
>
> Important or not, which itself is arguable, gossip is just gossip.
> Not all gossip survives. Besides, one really cannot extrapolate
what
> 'everyone' was thinking from a handful of surviving accounts, no
> matter how interesting these are from a particular standpoint.
>
> < He was either being lazy or complacent,>
>
> That's quite a leap from 'cowardly', is it not?
>
> < I haven't had time to check your St. Aban's reference to Hastings
> > deserving what he got, but in any case we know that was Richard's
> view >
>
> Again, I'm not sure we can say that. In fact Richard's subsequent
> actions rather suggest he didn't think Hastings got what he
deserved.
> Unlike with Rivers, I happen to think he did, but that's because
the
> more I researched Hastings the more I found him wanting, in many
ways.
>
> .
> < I do think that we can't be sure of the times of records over
> whether Richard was present at Henry 6's demise or not, but is this
> relevant? >
>
> Yes, it is, when a lot of the case for his committing murder is
based
> on the erroneous belief that he'd killed before away from the
> battlefield - Clarence, H6 etc.
>
> <Do you think Richard didn't agree with his big brother that Henry
wa
> nominally, like Edward 5 later, at the centre of the web & had to
go?
> >
>
> I don't know what he thought.
> >
> < Seems amazingly convenient for Edward, >
>
> I believe Edward ordered H6's death. I don't believe it was Richard
> who carried it out. In other words - it is Edward's 'crime', if you
> like, not Richard's.
>
>
> <I do think Richard, quick of thought & aggressive when he needed to
> > be, dealt with the arrogant Woodvilles as they deserved,>
>
> See my previous post on this.
>
> < Loudmouthed Dorset, manipulated by his Mother, were probably to
> blame. >
>
> Hmm - yes and no. Remember, Richard wasn't even in town when Dorset
> made that unfortunate comment.
>
> Lorraine

Hi David

< I doubt if Buckingham could've take anybody onboard for
> his side. He seems to be a two-faced, treacherous type, not using
> stronger words. It's seems a pity that Richard ever felt it wise
> to gang up with him in the first place, but we don't always know
> people...do we?>

Hear, hear! Some agreement b/w us...this'll have to stop! ;)

<I have read that Buckingham wasn't thrilled about his Woodville bride.>

Yes - I think it's Mancini who reckoned this. In that case I wonder
who his informant was? If it *was* Argentine, E5's physician, then
Argentine may have picked this up from his time with the Prince's
Household in Wales, where Grey and Rivers were also stationed, and
slights to other Wydevilles noted and/or discussed at dinner, or
whatever. Buckingham also had interests in Wales, so it may also have
been local 'knowledge'. IIRC Tim argued on another List some time ago
that the supposed rift b/w the Buckinghams may have not been all that
huge - and they did have a number of children together, though of
course that doesn't necessarily signify anything other than a wish to
keep the line going, which of course would have been in both Harry and
Katherine's interests. And darn it but I can't remember at all what
line Rawcliffe took on the Buckingham-Wydeville marriage in her
History of the the Staffords. Another one to check out, I guess.

< Buckingham had a very high opinion of himself>

Yes, I think the Coronation Outfit probably bears that out - and his
behaviour at Stoney Stratford (*not* the most edifying moment in the
lives of Richard, Buckingham, Rivers and Grey).

< I can imagine that marrying Elizabeth would've been
beneficial on political & personal grounds & I speculate what
Buckingham had in mind there, but, as we know, his ship ran onto the
rocks.>

How interesting. I confess I have never even thought that Buckingham
may have considered divorcing his wife to marry her niece. I can't
imagine the surviving Wydevilles being delighted by it, can you? Had
he been planning a coup and winning the crown, his wife would have
replaced her sister as Queen on somewhat dodgy grounds. Had he
subsequently divorced her to marry their neice, then, oh dear - how
much support could he have expected in all that?

It was said that Richard lost support over a similar proposal and he
was a widower (or as near as dammit) when the rumours first surfaced,
if my chronology is correct, but Katherine Wydeville was fit and
presumably still fertile in the 1480s and would have been a lot harder
to dislodge in favour of Young Elizabeth.

And whatever we think of him, I think its fair to say that Richard had
more support than Buckingham both historically from the 1470s on, and
at the time of the Rebellion. The unrest wasn't that widespread
certainly not nationwide, and confined mainly to the south-west, and
it easily crushed by R3 supporters, even taking the weather into
consideration.

So - while it is an interesting thought, and throws up some ghastly
scenarios of What Might Have Been that maybe I've been spared not
having to think about <g>, speaking personally, I'm not certain that
it would have been all that practical or useful for Buckingham to
instigate, despite the fact that there had already been very different
precedents set since E4's demise.

Lorraine

--- In , "lpickering2
<lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
Remember how the Tudor chap was so short of
> funds that he was obliged to take back the manors he'd only just
> granted to the Countess of Warwick. It must be awful to be that
> strapped for cash that you're forced to take income from old ladies.
>
> And they criticise Richard...

There is a simple principle here, Lorraine. I think I shall call it
the "More" or "Morton" Principle.

If Edward IV or Henry VII did anything not 100% kosher they did it
for a very good reason, in the national interest and so forth, and
were fully justified. Any criticism of their action is therefore
illegitimate and peverse. Everyone knows what splendid upright chaps
they were.

Whereas if Richard III does something not 100% kosher, why, in his
case it was because he was a thoroughly bad lot who enjoyed doing
wicked and nasty things. He could not possibly have had a good reason
for doing it, and it was not in the national interest. Therefore
criticism of his action is fully justified.Everyone knows what a
thorough villain he was.

Seems fair and balanced to me:-)

All the best
Brian

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:

Had he been planning a coup and winning the crown, his wife would have
replaced her sister as Queen on somewhat dodgy grounds. Had he
subsequently divorced her to marry their neice, then, oh dear - how
much support could he have expected in all that?

Hi Lorraine,
Well, it is only speculation. The impression I get with
Buckingham is that he was so self-obsessed that he didn't consider
how other people might react to him. He must've felt rather lonely &
silly when he was being trundled to Salisbury to have his head chopped
off!

Hi Brian

< Whereas if Richard III does something not 100% kosher, why, in his
> case it was because he was a thoroughly bad lot who enjoyed doing
> wicked and nasty things. He could not possibly have had a good reason
> for doing it, and it was not in the national interest. Therefore
> criticism of his action is fully justified.Everyone knows what a
> thorough villain he was.
>
> Seems fair and balanced to me:-)>

And now you've explained it so pithily,
it all seems so fair and balanced to
me, an'all! :)

Regards - Lorraine

<Well, it is only speculation. >

Yep - I did realise. That still didn't stop me thinking all afternoon
of what a dreadful scenario it would've made, I have to say! ;)

< He must've felt rather lonely & silly when he was being trundled to
Salisbury to have his head chopped off!>

I get the impression, reading of how Buckingham was supposed to be a)
begging for an audience w. R3 and b) planning Richard's
assassination, even at that late stage (according to a later account
by his son, who was a toddler in 1483, if memory serves) that Harry
was feeling a whole helluva lot more than just lonely and silly. I
don't normally approve of capital punishment, but here's one case
where it was more than justified.

A 'most untrue creature' indeed! Richard was bang on there...

Lorraine

I reckon Buckingham was probably unhappy & panicing about losing
his position & facing the block. I don't see how his son, as
a toddler, could've known what his father was planning to do.
Sounds like a bit of anti-Richard, creeping around the Tudors,
bollocks stuff to me.

I think hanging, drawing & quartering would've been more
appropriate with a sign saying here lies the murderer of the princes,
if that was the case.


--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> <Well, it is only speculation. >
>
> Yep - I did realise. That still didn't stop me thinking all
afternoon
> of what a dreadful scenario it would've made, I have to say! ;)
>
> < He must've felt rather lonely & silly when he was being trundled
to
> Salisbury to have his head chopped off!>
>
> I get the impression, reading of how Buckingham was supposed to be
a)
> begging for an audience w. R3 and b) planning Richard's
> assassination, even at that late stage (according to a later account
> by his son, who was a toddler in 1483, if memory serves) that Harry
> was feeling a whole helluva lot more than just lonely and silly. I
> don't normally approve of capital punishment, but here's one case
> where it was more than justified.
>
> A 'most untrue creature' indeed! Richard was bang on there...
>
> Lorraine

hi David

< I don't see how his son, as
> a toddler, could've known what his father was planning to do.
> Sounds like a bit of anti-Richard, creeping around the Tudors,
> bollocks stuff to me.>

Me an'all. IIRC, the story how Buckingham Jnr tells it has Buckingham
concealing a dagger on his person. His begging for a last audience
was so he could stick said sharp object into Richard (he may even have
added 'for murdering the Princes', but I may have just remembered that
bit from a bad novel <g> - I'm still away from my cardfiles).

Lorraine

I think I'd stay away from your card files on that one. We are
definitely in the land of bollocks there.

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> hi David
>
> < I don't see how his son, as
> > a toddler, could've known what his father was planning to do.
> > Sounds like a bit of anti-Richard, creeping around the Tudors,
> > bollocks stuff to me.>
>
> Me an'all. IIRC, the story how Buckingham Jnr tells it has
Buckingham
> concealing a dagger on his person. His begging for a last audience
> was so he could stick said sharp object into Richard (he may even
have
> added 'for murdering the Princes', but I may have just remembered
that
> bit from a bad novel <g> - I'm still away from my cardfiles).
>
> Lorraine

willison200105/03/2003 20:24willison2001@...

>I don't see how his son, as
> a toddler, could've known what his father was planning to do.
However More, at 8 years old knew exactly what people were thinking at the
time?

willison200105/03/2003 21:15willison2001@...

> We are
> definitely in the land of bollocks there.
I was going to ask you to go to that land and refrain from the foul
language, but as you speak that language here most of the time I guess that
is your native tongue and that is where you come from.
Explains everything.....

If you bothered to follow the thread it was Lorraine who first used
that word about Tim & I: that we were talking it!

I don't become so hot under the collar as you about its use.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> willison200105/03/2003 21:15willison2001@y...
>
> > We are
> > definitely in the land of bollocks there.
> I was going to ask you to go to that land and refrain from the foul
> language, but as you speak that language here most of the time I
guess that
> is your native tongue and that is where you come from.
> Explains everything.....

Hi Paul

Sorry - it was me that recently introduced the concept of 'bollocks'
to the Forum - a word David has been having fun with ever since,
I see.

I prefer the Sex Pistols' lawyer's definition of the
word as not being particularly rude, and definitely historical,
(a definition which, incidentally, was subsequently upheld by the
judge in the famous obscenity case in the 70s), but in light of your
post, I felt I should apologise to those who are offended.

Can't say I'll never use it if I get provoked in the
future by David's more 'out there' premises, but I'll try. ;)

Regards - Lorraine

So, it was really my 'out there' comments which caused offence to
arise?

I think anyone could say that! (g)

David--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> Sorry - it was me that recently introduced the concept of 'bollocks'
> to the Forum - a word David has been having fun with ever since,
> I see.
>
> I prefer the Sex Pistols' lawyer's definition of the
> word as not being particularly rude, and definitely historical,
> (a definition which, incidentally, was subsequently upheld by the
> judge in the famous obscenity case in the 70s), but in light of your
> post, I felt I should apologise to those who are offended.
>
> Can't say I'll never use it if I get provoked in the
> future by David's more 'out there' premises, but I'll try. ;)
>
> Regards - Lorraine

< If you bothered to follow the thread it was Lorraine who first used
that word about Tim & I: that we were talking it!>

See my earlier post and apology, but now seems to be a good place to
mention that I was more in a teasing vein, than a particularly
critical one.

Frustrations seem to bubble up and over alarming on the Internet. I
suspect we'd all be arrested for public disorder offences if we were
to re-enact half of our exchanges face-to-face! :)

Fortunately, being a reasonable sort of cove anyway in Real Life
as opposed to Cyber Space, I actually get along just famously with
Young Timbo the Tudorite when we meet face to face. I'm particularly
proud of that fact. (My next rite of passage will be when I can have
a civilised debate with a hardline Conservative voter <vbg>).

Mind you, there *are* times when I'd still like to clout him hard with
something heavy when he's being particularly stubborn and awkward
about Richard, but, for me, our Ricardian debates are personally
interesting, informative and always welcome. It helps that Tim & I
share a similar sense of humour and that I think we have enough
respect for each other's scholarship and POV to overcome those
tricky 'sticking points' that freqently crop up in our online and
face-to-face discussions.

That's why, like Marie, I get a tad frustrated when Ricardians are
all lumped together. Not only is it a false premise, but I'd suggest
we're on this Forum for many different reasons.

For my part, I do all this Richard Malarky a) because I'm interested
in putting the man and the period into context b) because I honestly,
truly believe he's personally had a raw deal from history and
c) because I can't abide the thought of outdated opinion and/or
sloppy research and lazy historians (and other commentators)
informing future generations about this particular monarch and his
times and I want to do my little bit to change that. If I get a bit
carried away in pursuit of that objective, then I must
apologise, and keep the expostulations for when I'm sharing a bottle
of vino with a certain Ricardian Sceptic...!

Lorraine

I too will try to avoid being provoked by Lorraine & her wrong headed
interpretation of any remarks I may make.

These messages may be the only contact with the outside World for
Cistercian monks and imagine them being confronted, after Vespers,
with Lorraine's Subject title!!!


--- In , "willison2001"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> So, it was really my 'out there' comments which caused offence to
> arise?
>
> I think anyone could say that! (g)
>
> David--- In , "lpickering2"
> <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > Hi Paul
> >
> > Sorry - it was me that recently introduced the concept of
'bollocks'
> > to the Forum - a word David has been having fun with ever since,
> > I see.
> >
> > I prefer the Sex Pistols' lawyer's definition of the
> > word as not being particularly rude, and definitely historical,
> > (a definition which, incidentally, was subsequently upheld by the
> > judge in the famous obscenity case in the 70s), but in light of
your
> > post, I felt I should apologise to those who are offended.
> >
> > Can't say I'll never use it if I get provoked in the
> > future by David's more 'out there' premises, but I'll try. ;)
> >
> > Regards - Lorraine

Fine, but are you ever going to get the 'truth' about Richard?
Everything is subject to interpretation. What YOU think is lazy &
sloppy may be due to lack of time or may be that your
interpretation is being challenged.

It would be absurd if anyone thinks that Richard's controversial reign
will ever be completely agreed upon. There are some things we will
never know. The personalities involved! Richard may've had a dry
sense of humour sometimes, but was he subject to temper tantrums as
well..? What was Dorset like? On & on.

I'm not especially interested in Richard's reputation, but a more
general understanding. I'm not sure that anyone is to blame for what
they are or were. Richard may've been maligned, but do historians
ever whitewash anyone? Henry VII & Henry VIII, for examples, aren't
exactly bathed in glory. The reason why we have traditionalists and
revisionists may be due to the fact that Richard was a mixture of
things. He was competent in many ways, but could be selfish as
well...

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> < If you bothered to follow the thread it was Lorraine who first
used
> that word about Tim & I: that we were talking it!>
>
> See my earlier post and apology, but now seems to be a good place to
> mention that I was more in a teasing vein, than a particularly
> critical one.
>
> Frustrations seem to bubble up and over alarming on the Internet. I
> suspect we'd all be arrested for public disorder offences if we were
> to re-enact half of our exchanges face-to-face! :)
>
> Fortunately, being a reasonable sort of cove anyway in Real Life
> as opposed to Cyber Space, I actually get along just famously with
> Young Timbo the Tudorite when we meet face to face. I'm
particularly
> proud of that fact. (My next rite of passage will be when I can
have
> a civilised debate with a hardline Conservative voter <vbg>).
>
> Mind you, there *are* times when I'd still like to clout him hard
with
> something heavy when he's being particularly stubborn and awkward
> about Richard, but, for me, our Ricardian debates are personally
> interesting, informative and always welcome. It helps that Tim & I
> share a similar sense of humour and that I think we have enough
> respect for each other's scholarship and POV to overcome those
> tricky 'sticking points' that freqently crop up in our online and
> face-to-face discussions.
>
> That's why, like Marie, I get a tad frustrated when Ricardians are
> all lumped together. Not only is it a false premise, but I'd
suggest
> we're on this Forum for many different reasons.
>
> For my part, I do all this Richard Malarky a) because I'm interested
> in putting the man and the period into context b) because I
honestly,
> truly believe he's personally had a raw deal from history and
> c) because I can't abide the thought of outdated opinion and/or
> sloppy research and lazy historians (and other commentators)
> informing future generations about this particular monarch and his
> times and I want to do my little bit to change that. If I get a bit
> carried away in pursuit of that objective, then I must
> apologise, and keep the expostulations for when I'm sharing a bottle
> of vino with a certain Ricardian Sceptic...!
>
> Lorraine

Hi David

And here's me thinking I was being reasonable...

< Fine, but are you ever going to get the 'truth' about Richard? >

God, I hope not. I'd have to find something else then to fill in the
time! ;)

<Everything is subject to interpretation. >

Well, I sort of expected everyone to take this as read...

<What YOU think is lazy & sloppy may be due to lack of time or may be
that your interpretation is being challenged.>

I'm not daft. I expect to have my interpretations challenged - to me,
that's half the joy of researching this particular period, and I
would have thought that even my brief forays on this Forum have
demonstrated that I'm perfectly willing to have my interpretations
challenged, and see nothing wrong with that happening. Indeed, I'm
all the richer for it. Over the years I have changed my position on
most everything to do with Richard's life and times, and those of his
contemporaries, and, furthermore, I expect to do so many times more
before I kick the bucket.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure we all have examples of how
sloppy and lazy thinking has found its way into tomes on Richard!

If historians and writers publish work and expect to
charge money for it, lack of time isn't really an excuse
for poor research, IMO. .

In my own profession, you work out your timescales and
state your terms of reference and work within those. If I used
the 'lack of time' excuse, I'd be drummed out of the industry, and
rightly so.

Lorraine

< These messages may be the only contact with the outside World for
Cistercian monks and imagine them being confronted, after Vespers,
with Lorraine's Subject title!!!>

Harumph! After all the messages in their Inbox concerning baldness
and impotence and financial scams, I should imagine my scholarly -
and accurate! - headers will come as a great relief to most of
them! ;)

Lorraine


>
>
> --- In , "willison2001"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > So, it was really my 'out there' comments which caused offence to
> > arise?
> >
> > I think anyone could say that! (g)
> >
> > David--- In , "lpickering2"
> > <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > > Hi Paul
> > >
> > > Sorry - it was me that recently introduced the concept of
> 'bollocks'
> > > to the Forum - a word David has been having fun with ever since,
> > > I see.
> > >
> > > I prefer the Sex Pistols' lawyer's definition of the
> > > word as not being particularly rude, and definitely historical,
> > > (a definition which, incidentally, was subsequently upheld by
the
> > > judge in the famous obscenity case in the 70s), but in light of
> your
> > > post, I felt I should apologise to those who are offended.
> > >
> > > Can't say I'll never use it if I get provoked in the
> > > future by David's more 'out there' premises, but I'll try. ;)
> > >
> > > Regards - Lorraine

But what, pray, if the poor monks reflect upon your title: 'The
Land of B.......' and think their own lives are there...?

I think you should say three Hail Mary's, on the internet!!!


--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> < These messages may be the only contact with the outside World for
> Cistercian monks and imagine them being confronted, after Vespers,
> with Lorraine's Subject title!!!>
>
> Harumph! After all the messages in their Inbox concerning baldness
> and impotence and financial scams, I should imagine my scholarly -
> and accurate! - headers will come as a great relief to most of
> them! ;)
>
> Lorraine
>
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , "willison2001"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > So, it was really my 'out there' comments which caused offence
to
> > > arise?
> > >
> > > I think anyone could say that! (g)
> > >
> > > David--- In ,
"lpickering2"
> > > <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > > > Hi Paul
> > > >
> > > > Sorry - it was me that recently introduced the concept of
> > 'bollocks'
> > > > to the Forum - a word David has been having fun with ever
since,
> > > > I see.
> > > >
> > > > I prefer the Sex Pistols' lawyer's definition of the
> > > > word as not being particularly rude, and definitely
historical,
> > > > (a definition which, incidentally, was subsequently upheld by
> the
> > > > judge in the famous obscenity case in the 70s), but in light
of
> > your
> > > > post, I felt I should apologise to those who are offended.
> > > >
> > > > Can't say I'll never use it if I get provoked in the
> > > > future by David's more 'out there' premises, but I'll try. ;)
> > > >
> > > > Regards - Lorraine