Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Realpolitik

In a message dated 2/26/03 7:18:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:


> Was someone
> like this going to become limp-wristed and liberal about sparing two
> bastards, who he proclaimed bastards & may've convinced himself that
> they were bastards,in whose name the 1483 rebellion against Richard
> was raised?

There's a difference between killing off an old, mentally ill king and two
children. Would he have tolerated the murder of two boys? Wait, that's a weak
point. And I think that Henry VI had a feeling that he was going to get it
after his son was killed.
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

Do people look forward to death at any age, whether 10 or 60?

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 2/26/03 7:18:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@y... writes:
>
>
> > Was someone
> > like this going to become limp-wristed and liberal about sparing
two
> > bastards, who he proclaimed bastards & may've convinced himself
that
> > they were bastards,in whose name the 1483 rebellion against
Richard
> > was raised?
>
> There's a difference between killing off an old, mentally ill king
and two
> children. Would he have tolerated the murder of two boys? Wait,
that's a weak
> point. And I think that Henry VI had a feeling that he was going to
get it
> after his son was killed.
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>

At 06:31 PM 2/27/03 -0000, you wrote:
>Do people look forward to death at any age, whether 10 or 60?
>
No, but as I approach 60 I can face it with a whole lot more equanimity
than I could at the age of 10, when the mere thought scared me witless.

--
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

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 06:31 PM 2/27/03 -0000, you wrote:
> >Do people look forward to death at any age, whether 10 or 60?
> >
> No, but as I approach 60 I can face it with a whole lot more
equanimity
> than I could at the age of 10, when the mere thought scared me
witless.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard

But in the context of Henry VI, I doubt if he was looking forward to
having his head sliced with a sword or axe. This was expedient in a
realpolitik sense, but hardly humane to an oldish, insane, helpless
individual. And yet we are asked to believe that Richard, who
certainly didn't appear to disagree with Edward 4 about this, spared
the equally dangerous former King Edward 5.

Typo's permitting, I don't believe the Tudor propaganda machine was
perfect, because as stated, Henry 7 does not come down to us bathed in
glory. Even Shakespeare didn't write a play about him, apart from a
brief mention in Richard III. What could anyone say about a miserly
murderer of, e.g. Warwick, 1499. Even More was pleased when he
popped his clogs. I personally think Henry WAS a competent
administrator, but about as loved as an accountant. He seems boring,
dull & irritating.

We have to sift the evidence, but Richard's dark silence about the
fate of his nephews, the lack of any defence until Buck, is suggestive
that following precedent he disposed of them.

In a message dated 2/28/03 4:16:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
lblanchard@... writes:


> No, but as I approach 60 I can face it with a whole lot more equanimity
> than I could at the age of 10, when the mere thought scared me witless.
>

That's what I was thinking. Also, I have a feeling Henry VI saw his demise
coming. After Prince Edward was killed at Tewkesbury he must have known that
he was doomed.
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 2/28/03 4:16:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> lblanchard@r... writes:
>
>
> > No, but as I approach 60 I can face it with a whole lot more
equanimity
> > than I could at the age of 10, when the mere thought scared me
witless.
> >
>
> That's what I was thinking. Also, I have a feeling Henry VI saw his
demise
> coming. After Prince Edward was killed at Tewkesbury he must have
known that
> he was doomed.
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{

So, you think that makes it OK, having his head hacked with possibly a
sword, by legend, when he was at prayer? I hope someone doesn't treat
you in such a cavalier way when you reach your 50s.
>
>
>

In a message dated 2/28/03 6:31:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:


> So, you think that makes it OK, having his head hacked with possibly a
> sword, by legend, when he was at prayer? I hope someone doesn't treat
> you in such a cavalier way when you reach your 50s.

I'm not saying killing Henry VI was ok. On the contrary! I have so much pity
for the poor guy. Do I think Richard did it? The jury's still out with me,
I'm still new to this time period so I have to look into it more (although
I'm leaning towards the 'he had something to do with it' side). I'm just
saying that I think Richard had a conscience; maybe he felt that he couldn't
kill two children. After all, he had a son himself (who would unfortunately
perish soon after). Ugh I can't find the right words with this.
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

We are asked to believe so.
We are asked to believe that he murdered his nephews (taking the
opprobrium in this life and damnation in the next) and yet did not
make it clear that they were dead.
What did Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI have in common? Their
bodies were all publicly displayed so no one could doubt their death.
Why? To stop anyone pretending to be them, that's why.
Yes, Richard must have been a complete idiot, for having done this he
then buried the kids under the stairs in one of the busiest parts of
the Tower, a task which must have taken a gang of men *hours*. It
could not have been kept secret from the Tower community. Why not
just bung the bodies in the convenient River Thames? Work of minutes,
two sacks weighted down with old armour, the job's done.
(By the way the bit about velvet being unknown prior to 1400 is a bit
of Weir BS,it was known here before that. However Henry IV reigned
from 1400, and he was a magician who made several people disappear,
among them sundry members of Owain Glyn Dwr's family, including
children. Mind you he wouldn't have been daft enough to excavate a
massive stone stair either.)
Brian

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 2/28/03 6:31:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@y... writes:
>
>
> > So, you think that makes it OK, having his head hacked with
possibly a
> > sword, by legend, when he was at prayer? I hope someone doesn't
treat
> > you in such a cavalier way when you reach your 50s.
>
> I'm not saying killing Henry VI was ok. On the contrary! I have so
much pity
> for the poor guy. Do I think Richard did it? The jury's still out
with me,
> I'm still new to this time period so I have to look into it more
(although
> I'm leaning towards the 'he had something to do with it' side). I'm
just
> saying that I think Richard had a conscience; maybe he felt that he
couldn't
> kill two children. After all, he had a son himself (who would
unfortunately
> perish soon after). Ugh I can't find the right words with this.
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>

Killing Henry was unfortunately normal procedure for the times, a bit
like what Bush would like to do with Bin Laden, and Richard certainly
at least agreed with brother Edward about this. I do think in the
case of Henry who was manifestly mad that he could've been allowed to
remain in prison & expire naturally. With Bin Laden I have no such
sympathy.

I'm glad you have doubts about Henry being hacked to death. I thought
for a moment there, your hockey sticks were out of control.

Richard didn't seem to care about the opprobrium of killing Hastings &
damnation in the next. The reasoning could be that the princes were
bastards, nominal heads of a rebellion (1483) against himself who was
anointed King & therefore their execution was necessary.

Publically displaying 2 children wouldn't have been wise given that
Richard wasn't an idiot. He knew his title was shaky & that many
rebels were around. You may recall that Edward IV tried to cover up
the murder of Henry 6 by saying that he died of 'pure displeasure &
melancholy.' Given the fact that Henry's head was bleeding profusely
in his coffin this was a weak lie!!! Edward & Richard didn't seem to
worry about damnation over this. Perhaps, you think that
extermination of the old & mentally unfit is right? Imprisonment was
an alternative!

The staircase in question was enclosed by a passageway from royal
apartments & could've been sealed off for 'works.' If you have a
royal warrant this is possible. Using the Thames was public!

Have you any source to indicate that Henry 4 killed children the same
ages in the Tower?


--- In , brian_yorkist
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> We are asked to believe so.
> We are asked to believe that he murdered his nephews (taking the
> opprobrium in this life and damnation in the next) and yet did not
> make it clear that they were dead.
> What did Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI have in common? Their
> bodies were all publicly displayed so no one could doubt their
death.
> Why? To stop anyone pretending to be them, that's why.
> Yes, Richard must have been a complete idiot, for having done this
he
> then buried the kids under the stairs in one of the busiest parts of
> the Tower, a task which must have taken a gang of men *hours*. It
> could not have been kept secret from the Tower community. Why not
> just bung the bodies in the convenient River Thames? Work of
minutes,
> two sacks weighted down with old armour, the job's done.
> (By the way the bit about velvet being unknown prior to 1400 is a
bit
> of Weir BS,it was known here before that. However Henry IV reigned
> from 1400, and he was a magician who made several people disappear,
> among them sundry members of Owain Glyn Dwr's family, including
> children. Mind you he wouldn't have been daft enough to excavate a
> massive stone stair either.)
> Brian

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:

I'm > just> > saying that I think Richard had a conscience; maybe he
felt that he> couldn't> > kill two children. After all, he had a son
himself (who would> unfortunately> > perish soon after). Ugh I can't
find the right words with this.
> > Victoria
> >
> > {Loyaulte Me Lie{

But children always grow up and these two children were a deadly
threat to Richard who knew this perfectly well and precedent: Edward
2, Richard 2, Henry 6 (whose assassination Richard was partly involved
in ) dictated that the children should be got rid of: privately &
secretly, because children & nephews. But Richard would rationalise
they were bastards, a threat to his own son who was about 9 &
himself & friends. Richard showed no mercy to Grey, Edward 5's own
half brother & Hastings. It wasn't proven, there was no proper trial
or even any trial as far as we know, they'd done anything wrong, apart
from question Richard's future role in government.

Richard was a political realist about threatening enemies and may've
been deeply traumatised by the decapitation of his own Father: another
Richard, when Richard III was only 8 and I believe that More's account
of Richard unable to sleep after the murder of his own, young nephews
(who were relatively, if not potentially, innocent) rings true.
Richard had administered justly as Duke & King much of the time, was
aware of the demands of Christianity ( e.g. of love of neighbours,)
but was a realist politically. Like so many politicians, their
religion never gets in the way of the odd crime if it suits them.

In a message dated 3/1/03 6:02:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:


> I do think in the
> case of Henry who was manifestly mad that he could've been allowed to
> remain in prison & expire naturally.

That's what I think. If Henry was able to remain in prison for so long, why
couldn't the two princes? I know there's a different between two young,
healthy boys and an old sick king, but it is a thought
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

Yes, you & I believe that Henry - the old bodger - and the princes
could've remained in prison, but Richard, in the case of Henry,
went along with his brother in the execution of Henry and we can
assume he felt this necessary in the case of Edward V. Both
ex-monarchs were a focal point for rebellion, as was all too evident
to Richard in 1483 when a rebellion in the name of Edward V was
raised with a view to the destruction of Richard, his family &
friends.

Richard may've seen Edward V as a threat in much the same way that
President Bush sees Osama Bin Laden as a threat. I'm sure you
wouldn't want another 9/11 on New York where you apparently live?
Well, Richard didn't want to go the same way as his Father & teen
brother who were brutally decapitated, their heads impaled on spikes
above Micklebar in York in 1460, because of Henry 6 or Edward 5.

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/1/03 6:02:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@y... writes:
>
>
> > I do think in the
> > case of Henry who was manifestly mad that he could've been allowed
to
> > remain in prison & expire naturally.
>
> That's what I think. If Henry was able to remain in prison for so
long, why
> couldn't the two princes? I know there's a different between two
young,
> healthy boys and an old sick king, but it is a thought
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Richard didn't seem to care about the opprobrium of killing
Hastings &
> damnation in the next.

Killing adult politicians was par for the course right up until the
early 18th century. If you failed (as a politician) you were
executed. Tudor history has this sort of thing going on all the time.
There was a distinction drawn, even then, in favour of children. Even
Henry VII allowed Edward Warwick to grow up before murdering him. No
opprobrium attached.

> Publically displaying 2 children wouldn't have been wise given that
> Richard wasn't an idiot. He knew his title was shaky & that many
> rebels were around. You may recall that Edward IV tried to cover
up the murder of Henry 6 by saying that he died of 'pure displeasure
&
> melancholy.'

But he still displayed Henry's body!!! Though Henry was widely
regarded as a saint. By *not* displaying the bodies of the boys, if
he killed them, Richard was encouraging imposters. (He didn't know he
was going to die in 1485.) You don't need to believe me that these
imposters would have emerged - just read the history of Henry VII's
reign for details. It is not enough to kill a deposed king - you have
to make sure that people **know** he is dead. The evidence suggests
to me that neither Richard III, or Henry VII actually knew what had
happened. Which is very odd, except that no other explanation really
fits the facts. Even William Stanley, who was certainly in a position
to know if anyone did, believed as late as 1495 in the possibility
that Richard Duke of York was alive. Therefore he cannot have *known*
that the lad was dead, could he? He was Henry VII's Lord Chamberlain!

> The staircase in question was enclosed by a passageway from royal
> apartments & could've been sealed off for 'works.' If you have a
> royal warrant this is possible. Using the Thames was public!

In the dark it was probably about as public as the Tower stairway,
and a lot quicker. You know, I rather think people dropped stuff in
it all the time. People are like that with rivers even now, and more
so then.
>
> Have you any source to indicate that Henry 4 killed children the
same
> ages in the Tower?

I was not suggesting that the bones belonged to Henry's victims any
more than to Richard's, merely pointing out that there were other
unaccounted (presumed) deaths in the Tower.
Fact is that at least one of Owain's grandchildren went into the
Tower and never came out, *as far as we know*. A young child, but I
don't have the birth certificate I'm afraid. Of course this child,
probably a boy born circa 1403, may have survived. He may not have
been murdered at all.
This child had three siblings who died with their mother in the
Tower "of a fever" and were taken out and buried in a church. No one
ever suggested that Henry murdered them, but they were definitely
dead. We don't know whether the other child lived or died.
I'm sorry to be so long winded, but do you get my drift?
Regards
Brian

I think that whatever else happened, Richard was
necessarily incompetent. One of the better arguments
that he didn't kill the boys secretly is that he would
have had to be a complete idiot to both kill the boys
and keep it secret.

Certainly an obvious thing to do would have been to
show the boys if they WERE still alive.

Dora



--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> Richard didn't seem to care about the opprobrium of
> killing Hastings &
> damnation in the next. The reasoning could be that
> the princes were
> bastards, nominal heads of a rebellion (1483)
> against himself who was
> anointed King & therefore their execution was
> necessary.
>
> Publically displaying 2 children wouldn't have been
> wise given that
> Richard wasn't an idiot. He knew his title was
> shaky & that many
> rebels were around. You may recall that Edward IV
> tried to cover up
> the murder of Henry 6 by saying that he died of
> 'pure displeasure &
> melancholy.' Given the fact that Henry's head was
> bleeding profusely
> in his coffin this was a weak lie!!! Edward &
> Richard didn't seem to
> worry about damnation over this. Perhaps, you think
> that
> extermination of the old & mentally unfit is right?
> Imprisonment was
> an alternative!
>
> The staircase in question was enclosed by a
> passageway from royal
> apartments & could've been sealed off for 'works.'
> If you have a
> royal warrant this is possible. Using the Thames
> was public!
>
> Have you any source to indicate that Henry 4 killed
> children the same
> ages in the Tower?
>
>
> --- In ,
> brian_yorkist
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > We are asked to believe so.
> > We are asked to believe that he murdered his
> nephews (taking the
> > opprobrium in this life and damnation in the next)
> and yet did not
> > make it clear that they were dead.
> > What did Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI have
> in common? Their
> > bodies were all publicly displayed so no one could
> doubt their
> death.
> > Why? To stop anyone pretending to be them, that's
> why.
> > Yes, Richard must have been a complete idiot, for
> having done this
> he
> > then buried the kids under the stairs in one of
> the busiest parts of
> > the Tower, a task which must have taken a gang of
> men *hours*. It
> > could not have been kept secret from the Tower
> community. Why not
> > just bung the bodies in the convenient River
> Thames? Work of
> minutes,
> > two sacks weighted down with old armour, the job's
> done.
> > (By the way the bit about velvet being unknown
> prior to 1400 is a
> bit
> > of Weir BS,it was known here before that. However
> Henry IV reigned
> > from 1400, and he was a magician who made several
> people disappear,
> > among them sundry members of Owain Glyn Dwr's
> family, including
> > children. Mind you he wouldn't have been daft
> enough to excavate a
> > massive stone stair either.)
> > Brian
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

At 09:09 AM 3/1/03 EST, you wrote:

>That's what I think. If Henry was able to remain in prison for so long, why
>couldn't the two princes? I know there's a different between two young,
>healthy boys and an old sick king, but it is a thought
>Victoria
>

Or he could have done with the boys what Henry VII did with Clarence's son
-- wait till he wasn't a boy anymore, then off with his head.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
(any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

--- In , brian_yorkist
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Richard didn't seem to care about the opprobrium of killing
> Hastings &
> > damnation in the next.
>
> Killing adult politicians was par for the course right up until the
> early 18th century. If you failed (as a politician) you were
> executed. Tudor history has this sort of thing going on all the
time. > There was a distinction drawn, even then, in favour of
children.
Even > Henry VII allowed Edward Warwick to grow up before murdering
him. No > opprobrium attached.

Murder of children or adults can from a religious viewpoint bring
damnation.
>
> > Publically displaying 2 children wouldn't have been wise given
that > > Richard wasn't an idiot. He knew his title was shaky & that
many > > rebels were around. You may recall that Edward IV tried to
cover > up the murder of Henry 6 by saying that he died of 'pure
displeasure
> & > > melancholy.'
>
> But he still displayed Henry's body!!! Though Henry was widely
> regarded as a saint. By *not* displaying the bodies of the boys, if
> he killed them, Richard was encouraging imposters. (He didn't know
he
> was going to die in 1485.) You don't need to believe me that these
> imposters would have emerged - just read the history of Henry VII's
> reign for details. It is not enough to kill a deposed king - you
have
> to make sure that people **know** he is dead. The evidence suggests
> to me that neither Richard III, or Henry VII actually knew what had
> happened. Which is very odd, except that no other explanation really
> fits the facts. Even William Stanley, who was certainly in a
position
> to know if anyone did, believed as late as 1495 in the possibility
> that Richard Duke of York was alive. Therefore he cannot have
*known*
> that the lad was dead, could he? He was Henry VII's Lord
Chamberlain!

It's possible that the Stanleys were kept out of the know as they had
a long track record of coat turning, which Richard knew.

Surely there was a difficulty in displaying the bodies of two dead
children when most people with any sense would think Richard the
murderer as was the case with Edward 4 who was seen as responsible for
the murder of Henry 6. Croyland vaguely does state that it was 'GIVEN
OUT' that the boys were dead in 1483. That's why Buckingham switched
from supporting them to Tudor, we are told. It's possible that
Richard let people KNOW they were dead to stop the
speculation/imposters you mention, but was quesy abouyt displaying the
bodies of 2 children, which fits in with the More view that Richard
was uneasy about HAVING to kill them, as very serious threats THEN to
himself! Richard could not with the 1483 rebellion going on afford
the luxury of letting them grow up as Henry 7 did with Warwick.
>
> > The staircase in question was enclosed by a passageway from
royal> > apartments & could've been sealed off for 'works.' If you
have a > > royal warrant this is possible. Using the Thames was
public!
>
> In the dark it was probably about as public as the Tower stairway,
> and a lot quicker. You know, I rather think people dropped stuff in
> it all the time. People are like that with rivers even now, and more
> so then.

Well, I'm sure all sorts of things went into the Thames, but we are
still stuck with the fact that the 1674 bones were of boys aged about
9 & 12, the right ages for the princes, the dental evidence suggested
consanquinity: a family link, the velvet suggest post 1400 of high
class & they were concealed in a dodgy location for a proper burial!
Carbon dating would prove if the bones belong to 1483.
> >
> > Have you any source to indicate that Henry 4 killed children the
> same > > ages in the Tower?
>
> I was not suggesting that the bones belonged to Henry's victims any
> more than to Richard's, merely pointing out that there were other
> unaccounted (presumed) deaths in the Tower.> Fact is that at least
one of Owain's grandchildren went into the
> Tower and never came out, *as far as we know*. A young child, but I
> don't have the birth certificate I'm afraid. Of course this child,
> probably a boy born circa 1403, may have survived. He may not have
> been murdered at all.
> This child had three siblings who died with their mother in the
> Tower "of a fever" and were taken out and buried in a church. No one
> ever suggested that Henry murdered them, but they were definitely
> dead. We don't know whether the other child lived or died.
> I'm sorry to be so long winded, but do you get my drift?
> Regards
> Brian

Good try Brian, but not very convincing evidence which might stand up
in court.

Regards,

David

The boys were the focal point of a deadly rebellion against Richard in
1483 & it was 'given out'that the boys WERE dead, according to
Croyland. Richard NEVER subsequently denied they were dead. To have
displayed the bodies of two children, his nephews, who by all accounts
were fair & lovely, would've been idiotic in that it would've inflamed
public opinion against Richard with his already dubious claim to the
crown. If Richard said they were dead he removed them as a focal
point of rebellion, but created a guessing game as to whether he was
the murderer, which is quite clever if you think about it...

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> I think that whatever else happened, Richard was
> necessarily incompetent. One of the better arguments
> that he didn't kill the boys secretly is that he would
> have had to be a complete idiot to both kill the boys
> and keep it secret.
>
> Certainly an obvious thing to do would have been to
> show the boys if they WERE still alive.
>
> Dora
>
>
>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Richard didn't seem to care about the opprobrium of
> > killing Hastings &
> > damnation in the next. The reasoning could be that
> > the princes were
> > bastards, nominal heads of a rebellion (1483)
> > against himself who was
> > anointed King & therefore their execution was
> > necessary.
> >
> > Publically displaying 2 children wouldn't have been
> > wise given that
> > Richard wasn't an idiot. He knew his title was
> > shaky & that many
> > rebels were around. You may recall that Edward IV
> > tried to cover up
> > the murder of Henry 6 by saying that he died of
> > 'pure displeasure &
> > melancholy.' Given the fact that Henry's head was
> > bleeding profusely
> > in his coffin this was a weak lie!!! Edward &
> > Richard didn't seem to
> > worry about damnation over this. Perhaps, you think
> > that
> > extermination of the old & mentally unfit is right?
> > Imprisonment was
> > an alternative!
> >
> > The staircase in question was enclosed by a
> > passageway from royal
> > apartments & could've been sealed off for 'works.'
> > If you have a
> > royal warrant this is possible. Using the Thames
> > was public!
> >
> > Have you any source to indicate that Henry 4 killed
> > children the same
> > ages in the Tower?
> >
> >
> > --- In ,
> > brian_yorkist
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > We are asked to believe so.
> > > We are asked to believe that he murdered his
> > nephews (taking the
> > > opprobrium in this life and damnation in the next)
> > and yet did not
> > > make it clear that they were dead.
> > > What did Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI have
> > in common? Their
> > > bodies were all publicly displayed so no one could
> > doubt their
> > death.
> > > Why? To stop anyone pretending to be them, that's
> > why.
> > > Yes, Richard must have been a complete idiot, for
> > having done this
> > he
> > > then buried the kids under the stairs in one of
> > the busiest parts of
> > > the Tower, a task which must have taken a gang of
> > men *hours*. It
> > > could not have been kept secret from the Tower
> > community. Why not
> > > just bung the bodies in the convenient River
> > Thames? Work of
> > minutes,
> > > two sacks weighted down with old armour, the job's
> > done.
> > > (By the way the bit about velvet being unknown
> > prior to 1400 is a
> > bit
> > > of Weir BS,it was known here before that. However
> > Henry IV reigned
> > > from 1400, and he was a magician who made several
> > people disappear,
> > > among them sundry members of Owain Glyn Dwr's
> > family, including
> > > children. Mind you he wouldn't have been daft
> > enough to excavate a
> > > massive stone stair either.)
> > > Brian
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 09:09 AM 3/1/03 EST, you wrote:
>
> >That's what I think. If Henry was able to remain in prison for so
long, why
> >couldn't the two princes? I know there's a different between two
young,
> >healthy boys and an old sick king, but it is a thought
> >Victoria
> >
>
> Or he could have done with the boys what Henry VII did with
Clarence's son
> -- wait till he wasn't a boy anymore, then off with his head.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard


It's also possible that Richard with his experience of violence
inflicted on family members around him was feeling paranoid with a
large scale rebellion raging around him in the first year of his
reign, his dubious claim to the crown (which he must've known,) & the
desertion of his erstwhile bosom pal Buckingham. Richard may not have
felt that he had the luxury of waiting. In any case, there's no
evidence that Warwick was as popular as Edward V & he may've been seen
as a simpleton incapable of taking the crown. His Father Clarence
didn't inspire confidence & Richard never used Warwick as heir!

It's nice to hear you give Henry VII some thoughtfulness in letting
the boy grow up. Henry perhaps wasn't such a bad old stick. He saw
himself as Arthurian at the start of his reign, became disillusioned
with the treachery around, e.g. William 'can I stab you in the back?'
Stanley again and spent the rest of his reign happily married until
Elizabeth died, raising a large family and beating off rebellions. He
did use best practice from the Yorkist Kings & create quite a stable
dynasty. His financial miserly image was due to the fact that he
didn't want to be in crippling debt like Henry 6, who wouldn't be
employed as a lavatory attendant now! Henry VII's biggest crime was
that he comes over as rather ordinary, stable, but ultimately boring &
mean. That's why More rejoiced when he died & Shakespeare passed him
over for a play. A dull day in the life of a very boring accountant
would not have packed them in at the Globe...

David

In a message dated 3/1/03 9:21:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:


> Well, Richard didn't want to go the same way as his Father & teen
> brother who were brutally decapitated, their heads impaled on spikes
> above Micklebar in York in 1460, because of Henry 6 or Edward 5.
>

So you're basically saying that he did it because he saw them as a threat...a
feasible and legitimite theory. I really have to read into all this more.
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

In a message dated 3/1/03 3:59:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tiggernut24@... writes:


> Certainly an obvious thing to do would have been to
> show the boys if they WERE still alive.
>
>

well as my history teacher tells us all the time, "hindsight is always
20/20". Richard should have done something like that, shown them dead or
alive.
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

Yep, I'd say the seasoned politician took precedence over human/moral
questions, whereas More was more interested in the latter.

Richard was probably worried about things happening to him, like being
skewered by various weapons, stripped naked & generally derided Oh,
that's WHAT did happen to him at Bosworth!

Richard probably did what was politically/legally correct: got rid of
Edward 5 as he'd agreed to the death of Henry 6 in 1471, but
conscience, according to More, probably did affect him. Why else
would More report this, who is very critical of Richard in other ways,
unless true?

In human/religious terms, Edward 5 was a relatively innocent boy &
Henry 6 an oldish, religious maniac, who could not face the nightmare
political world around him, but in realistic political terms both were
heads of extremely deadly political parties out to do Richard in.

Richard was no idiot or monkish type like Henry 6 or like the monkish
inclination of More & with his track record of using extreme violence
against enemies, I believe acted accordingly.

.
--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/1/03 9:21:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@y... writes:
>
>
> > Well, Richard didn't want to go the same way as his Father & teen
> > brother who were brutally decapitated, their heads impaled on
spikes
> > above Micklebar in York in 1460, because of Henry 6 or Edward 5.
> >
>
> So you're basically saying that he did it because he saw them as a
threat...a
> feasible and legitimite theory. I really have to read into all this
more.
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>

At 02:46 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:
>Yep, I'd say the seasoned politician took precedence over human/moral
>questions, whereas More was more interested in the latter.
>
>

You think so? I suggest you read up on More's shameful involvement in the
Thomas Hunne affair.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
(any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

I wouldn't say that More was 'without sin.' I've never met ANYONE
like that. I know that More believed in burning heretics - Lutherans
like yourself - and of course this is not conventional NOW, but in
More's day, Catholics and schismatics/heretics were BOTH at each
other's throats. Burning at the stake for instance was seen as a way
of burning away sin, but was probably also a sadistic pleasure for
some perpetrators, especially if a young woman's clothes were being
burnt away, as I've read.

More certainly had a strong otherwordly view. He almost became a
monk, but for fleshly lusts. And his putting HIS view of God first
before the tyrant Henry 8 should be considered along side the
considerable weight of his other works.

Incidentally, although Catholic educated, I've a considerable respect
for Luther's view and think Catholic indulgences of the time were
extremely corrupt. The Church needed a kick up the backside!


.--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 02:46 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:
> >Yep, I'd say the seasoned politician took precedence over
human/moral
> >questions, whereas More was more interested in the latter.
> >
> >
>
> You think so? I suggest you read up on More's shameful involvement
in the
> Thomas Hunne affair.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblanchard@r... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
> (any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily
reflect
> those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

I think Laura meant to say the "Richard" Hunne affair - ironic
that "Richard"

But I am amazed that David can grant that Thomas More could be
excused on the basis of what was "conventional" in his time, but
Richard III doen't get the benefit of that doubt.

Janet


--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> I wouldn't say that More was 'without sin.' I've never met ANYONE
> like that. I know that More believed in burning heretics -
Lutherans
> like yourself - and of course this is not conventional NOW, but in
> More's day, Catholics and schismatics/heretics were BOTH at each
> other's throats. Burning at the stake for instance was seen as a
way
> of burning away sin, but was probably also a sadistic pleasure for
> some perpetrators, especially if a young woman's clothes were
being
> burnt away, as I've read.
>
> More certainly had a strong otherwordly view. He almost became a
> monk, but for fleshly lusts. And his putting HIS view of God
first
> before the tyrant Henry 8 should be considered along side the
> considerable weight of his other works.
>
> Incidentally, although Catholic educated, I've a considerable
respect
> for Luther's view and think Catholic indulgences of the time were
> extremely corrupt. The Church needed a kick up the backside!
>
>
> .--- In , Laura Blanchard
> <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> > At 02:46 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:
> > >Yep, I'd say the seasoned politician took precedence over
> human/moral
> > >questions, whereas More was more interested in the latter.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You think so? I suggest you read up on More's shameful
involvement
> in the
> > Thomas Hunne affair.
> >
> > --
> > Laura Blanchard
> > lblanchard@r... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> > http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
> > (any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily
> reflect
> > those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

> Incidentally, although Catholic educated, I've a considerable respect
> for Luther's view and think Catholic indulgences of the time were
> extremely corrupt. The Church needed a kick up the backside!
>
Hi David,

Did you by any chance see that programme on (I think) BBC2 about Luther the
other evening?

Jessica

If we accept that Richard III removed (KILLED) the princes, which WAS
conventional, I've never said that I do condemn him.

If Osama Bin Laden happened to be a 12 year old boy no one in
Bush's administration would care a jot about his death. Children
were killed 'conventionally' in the 15th century, e.g. in
starvation in the town seiges levied by Henry 5 in France. The
fact that Edward 5 happened to be 12 didn't make him any less
dangerous to Richard. His age happened to be the tumble of the
dice: that in 1483 he was that age. Hardly, a massive
consideration from Richard's viewpoint in that this 'boy' was the
leader of a party which would've done some very nasty things to
Richard had they the chance.

--- In , "Janet <forevere@c...>"
<forevere@c...> wrote:
> I think Laura meant to say the "Richard" Hunne affair - ironic
> that "Richard"
>
> But I am amazed that David can grant that Thomas More could be
> excused on the basis of what was "conventional" in his time, but
> Richard III doen't get the benefit of that doubt.
>
> Janet
>
>
> --- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > I wouldn't say that More was 'without sin.' I've never met ANYONE
> > like that. I know that More believed in burning heretics -
> Lutherans
> > like yourself - and of course this is not conventional NOW, but in
> > More's day, Catholics and schismatics/heretics were BOTH at each
> > other's throats. Burning at the stake for instance was seen as a
> way
> > of burning away sin, but was probably also a sadistic pleasure for
> > some perpetrators, especially if a young woman's clothes were
> being
> > burnt away, as I've read.
> >
> > More certainly had a strong otherwordly view. He almost became a
> > monk, but for fleshly lusts. And his putting HIS view of God
> first
> > before the tyrant Henry 8 should be considered along side the
> > considerable weight of his other works.
> >
> > Incidentally, although Catholic educated, I've a considerable
> respect
> > for Luther's view and think Catholic indulgences of the time were
> > extremely corrupt. The Church needed a kick up the backside!
> >
> >
> > .--- In , Laura Blanchard
> > <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> > > At 02:46 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:
> > > >Yep, I'd say the seasoned politician took precedence over
> > human/moral
> > > >questions, whereas More was more interested in the latter.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > You think so? I suggest you read up on More's shameful
> involvement
> > in the
> > > Thomas Hunne affair.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Laura Blanchard
> > > lblanchard@r... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> > > http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
> > > (any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily
> > reflect
> > > those of any organization of which I am an employee or
volunteer)

--- In , "Jessica Rydill"
<la@l...> wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, although Catholic educated, I've a considerable
respect
> > for Luther's view and think Catholic indulgences of the time were
> > extremely corrupt. The Church needed a kick up the backside!
> >
> Hi David,
>
> Did you by any chance see that programme on (I think) BBC2 about
Luther the
> other evening?
>
> Jessica

Yep, but I've read up on Luther before. A religious genius for his
day! I should point out that I've no particular brief for More. He
was what he was: a man for his times, but above average. I've not
elevated him to sainthood. Willison isn't a pseudonym for the Pope.

> --- In , "Jessica Rydill"
> <la@l...> wrote:
> >
> > > Incidentally, although Catholic educated, I've a considerable
> respect
> > > for Luther's view and think Catholic indulgences of the time were
> > > extremely corrupt. The Church needed a kick up the backside!
> > >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Did you by any chance see that programme on (I think) BBC2 about
> Luther the
> > other evening?
> >
> > Jessica
>
> Yep, but I've read up on Luther before. A religious genius for his
> day! I should point out that I've no particular brief for More. He
> was what he was: a man for his times, but above average. I've not
> elevated him to sainthood. Willison isn't a pseudonym for the Pope.
>
That's rather a relief! LOL

I missed the programme unfortunately, I should have liked to see it as I am
interested in Luther and the other reformers. I know that More was a friend
of Erasmus, so he clearly distinguished between humanist critics of the
Church from within and people such as Tyndale who were "beyond the pale".

Please could someone enlighten me as to the Richard Hunne affair?

Jessica

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> >
> Murder of children or adults can from a religious viewpoint bring
> damnation.

Agreed. Although it's apparently OK if you are subsequently genuinely
contrite. According to Lord Longford, anyway. However I would draw a
distinction between murdering children (not socially acceptable in
the 15th century) and executing adult "traitors". Noting of course
that one king's traitor is another king's loyal subject. The latter
(e.g. the case of Hastings, but there are dozens more to choose from,
only a small percentage down to Richard) did not really seem to have
struck people as that reprehensible, far as one can tell.


> Surely there was a difficulty in displaying the bodies of two dead
> children when most people with any sense would think Richard the
> murderer as was the case with Edward 4 who was seen as responsible
for
> the murder of Henry 6.

But you seem to believe that it was generally believed that Richard
killed the boys anyway. If it was - and it's a big if - then Richard
would have lost nothing and gained much by proving they were actually
dead. They were either a threat to him or they weren't. If they were,
and the solution was to kill them, then it was plain daft and
illogical to hide the truth because of the possibility of pretenders
emerging. Remember they could have "caught a fever". He didn't have
to show them off with damned big knives sticking out of them.

BTW I wonder why, on your analysis, Richard did not murder Edward
Warwick, whose claim to the throne was at least arguably better than
his own? (Let us forget the various lassies for a moment and assume
they could not possibly be a threat. Though the Salic Law didn't
apply here you know.)

>
> Well, I'm sure all sorts of things went into the Thames, but we are
> still stuck with the fact that the 1674 bones were of boys aged
about
> 9 & 12, the right ages for the princes, the dental evidence
suggested
> consanquinity: a family link, the velvet suggest post 1400 of high
> class & they were concealed in a dodgy location for a proper
burial!

I think you find that velvet was found here pre 1400 if you read
something authoritative on costume, as opposed to Ms Weir. I also
very much doubt that the remains were excavated by a 17th century
Time Team dig - rather by clumsy workmen who could have contaminated
the evidence in all sorts of ways. As for the alleged consanguinity
evidence, I do not find it persuasive, and as far as I know there is
no firm proof that the skeletons were even male!!

>
> Good try Brian, but not very convincing evidence which might stand
up
> in court.

On the standard of what would stand up in court there is zero
evidence against Richard III, and I doubt a judge would even allow
the jury to consider a verdict. Unfortunately some folk not only want
to believe Richard is guilty of everything from poisoning his wife to
pushing Billy Joe McAllister off the Tacahana Bridge and just will
not accept that the nearest you can get on the evidence is "not
proven".

Regards
Brian

More & Erasmus wanted to reform the Church from within rather than
cause another split and terrible religious wars. Some people like to
rush to war, while others like to use war as last resort. Sounds like
current Iraq diplomacy.

Hunne, a merchant, was reputedly murdered as a heretic & his wealth
confiscated by the ecclesiastical party, e.g. More.

More did have a low opinion of heretics as they threatened to
destabilise Christendom. The Greek & Roman churches had split; More
didn't want more trouble. So, More had a go at his enemies? Fairly
normal for most people.

As with Richard, More was a mixture. People can bear contradictions.
Richard was conventionally pious, a good administrator, brave warrior,
but wasn't beyond hypocrisy and doing his enemies down, much like
More.

Incidentally, I'm fairly sure when Croyland said that it was 'given
out' the princes were dead (to scotch their support,) it was Richard
'giving it out,' as Governments 'give out' information. Buckingham
wasn't the government, he was a turncoat.

Human nature is seldom humane when enemies clash.

Henry VI seemed like a saint, but most people thought he was mad!!!
Should we try to elevate Richard or Thomas More to an unreal
saintliness, which they didn't expect nor deserve?


--- In , "Jessica Rydill"
<la@l...> wrote:
>
> > --- In , "Jessica Rydill"
> > <la@l...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Incidentally, although Catholic educated, I've a considerable
> > respect
> > > > for Luther's view and think Catholic indulgences of the time
were
> > > > extremely corrupt. The Church needed a kick up the backside!
> > > >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > Did you by any chance see that programme on (I think) BBC2 about
> > Luther the
> > > other evening?
> > >
> > > Jessica
> >
> > Yep, but I've read up on Luther before. A religious genius for
his
> > day! I should point out that I've no particular brief for More.
He
> > was what he was: a man for his times, but above average. I've not
> > elevated him to sainthood. Willison isn't a pseudonym for the
Pope.
> >
> That's rather a relief! LOL
>
> I missed the programme unfortunately, I should have liked to see it
as I am
> interested in Luther and the other reformers. I know that More was
a friend
> of Erasmus, so he clearly distinguished between humanist critics of
the
> Church from within and people such as Tyndale who were "beyond the
pale".
>
> Please could someone enlighten me as to the Richard Hunne affair?
>
> Jessica

At 04:02 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:
>I think Laura meant to say the "Richard" Hunne affair - ironic
>that "Richard"
>

I certainly did --slip of the fingers and the brain, since I'm currently
engrossed in 19th-20th-21st century Philadelphia troubles right now -- see
http://www.southofsouth.org/ for the latest on the U.S. Naval Asylum /
Naval Home troubles. (I hope all will forgive me the off-topic reference here)


--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
(any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

At 04:38 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:

>
>Please could someone enlighten me as to the Richard Hunne affair?
>

The short form is that Hunne was feuding with the church, imprisoned, and
just before a trial that would have seriously embarrassed the church was
found hanged in his cell. Unfortunately, the physical evidence suggested
that he managed to hang himself while already dead. Enter Thomas More,
whose jeering at the physical evidence of murder in support of the
"suicide" argument was eerily like the way he jeered at the precontract
evidence in his History of Richard III. This has always, to me, argued that
More was perfectly happy to dissemble and employ an arsenal of rhetorical
dirty tricks when it suited him.

I may be erring in some of the details here, but anyone interested is
cordially invited to read the relevant chapters in the late Richard Marius'
biography of Sir Thomas More. I once asked Marius how he could buy the
Richard III argument but not the Richard Hunne argument and he changed the
subject. Since Marius was in all other respects a charming man and a gifted
scholar, one whom I was proud to count a friend, I've always been happy to
agree to disagree with him. I wish he were still with us; his death was a
great loss to the community of reformation historians.

But as to Thomas More and the Richard Hunne affair: can we spell "cover-up"?

--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
(any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

At 06:08 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:

>
>Incidentally, I'm fairly sure when Croyland said that it was 'given
>out' the princes were dead (to scotch their support,) it was Richard
>'giving it out,' as Governments 'give out' information. Buckingham
>wasn't the government, he was a turncoat.
>

You can't be serious! Where do you get this "giving out," anyhow? There was
a rebellion in support of Edward V; Buckingham joins it and according to
Crowland (Pronay and Cox edition), "public proclamation ahving been made
that Henry, duke of Buckingham, then living in Brecknock in Wales, being
repentant of what had been done [i.e., the usurpation; see context] would
be captain-in-chief of this affair, a rumor arose that King Edward' sons,
by some unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate."

So Buckingham shows up, after spending a couple months with his
so-entertaining houseguest, John Morton, and now there's a "rumor". Then,
on the advice of that same entertaining houseguest, Buckingham invites
Henry Tudor to come over and be king.

Doesn't sound like any official "giving out" to me. Sounds like a rumor
from Brecknock.





--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
(any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

To Brian,
Personally, I put Longford in the Henry VI category: dotty in
a nice, religious way. His support for Brady & Hindley was as soft as
soft can be. Not my cup of tea!

Bias is always a factor in politics. Richard really can't be blamed
for having a go at arrogant Dorset, who doesn't seem to have done a
worthy thing in his life ( he who did unspeakable things with Jane
Shore,) who claimed priority over Richard and the subsequent domino
effect on Rivers, Hastings & the rest. I don't think that children
can be exempt from being killed if they are a deadly threat. Edward V
WAS to Richard.

Proving that the princes were dead was unnecessary, because I believe
that it was Richard who 'gave out' (Croyland) they were dead &
everyone knew that Richard had imprisoned them & had the means, motive
& track record to dispose of them. Displaying the bodies of his 2
young nephews, who were apparently lovely in appearance, was too
emotive & provocative & NOT good propaganda. Richard was a clever
propagandist. That's why he used 'morality' as a counter balance
against them who said that he was immoral, e.g. his hypocritical, but
propagandaly wise use of attacking bastardy & lechery. Most men
'notice' other women. For Richard to go on & on about lechery WAS
hypocritical, as he'd had several elicit affairs & bastards.

Richard's reign was cut short: 6th July, 1483 to 22nd August, 1485?
What he was planning to do with Warwick, who may've been an imbecile,
we don't know. Richard's only heir died in April, 1484, but Richard
didn't rate brother Clarence's son enough to raise him. Richard
probably wanted to re-marry & perhaps Warwick would've disappeared.
Did anyone really care?

I think Richard's attitude to women: his nieces, stands to his credit.
Unlike psychopathic Henry 8, he didn't routinely treat them with
violence. He was a soldier & didn't see women usually taking to the
Field. Perhaps, he'd forgotten Margaret of Anjou. His 'bastard'
nieces could've been married off or sent to a convent - one went there
anyway - & once Richard's dynasty had been established they could've
been forgotten or maybe...it's a big maybe, killed by Richard or a
future heir! Politics is a nasty busy!

Well, when do YOU say velvet arrived in this country? Whether 1400 as
Weir says or a bit before, it was a high class commodity & befitting
princes!

I'm afraid medical opinion disagrees with you about alleged
consanguinity evidence. One expert I read suggests maleness from the
bone density.

Even if the princes, which could be established with DNA comparison
with sister Elizabeth also buried at Westminster & carbon dating,
people will still argue WHO killed them. Richard & Buckingham would
be candidates. Someone once suggested that they could've been
overcome by an infestation of voles...! Plague which killed thousands
is more plausible & less silly.

Some would say there is a weight of circumstancial evidence against
Richard: motive, means & record, but I dare say people will still be
arguing the toss, as with who killed Kennedy or Lennon when we are
dust.

I never said Richard killed his wife, but if she was like mine I think
it possible!

Billy Joe McAllister? There's a thought. Perhaps, we should start a
Who killed Billy Joe McAllister Society?

Regards

Well, perhaps, we should disagree about this interpretation of the
Croyland 'giving out' of the rumour that the princes had been killed.
We can't even agree on how to spell 'Croyland.' 'Crowland.'

It was in Richard's interest to 'give out' that they, nominal leaders
of the rebellion against him, had 'joined the angels' & what did he do
to scotch rumours that he was their killer? Nothing! Perhaps, he
didn't care? Perhaps, he didn't like them. Would you in his place?
He may've felt that he'd enough military strength to win through,
regardless of what the rest of the World thought, a bit like Bush over
Iraq!!!!

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 06:08 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:
>
> >
> >Incidentally, I'm fairly sure when Croyland said that it was 'given
> >out' the princes were dead (to scotch their support,) it was
Richard
> >'giving it out,' as Governments 'give out' information.
Buckingham
> >wasn't the government, he was a turncoat.
> >
>
> You can't be serious! Where do you get this "giving out," anyhow?
There was
> a rebellion in support of Edward V; Buckingham joins it and
according to
> Crowland (Pronay and Cox edition), "public proclamation ahving been
made
> that Henry, duke of Buckingham, then living in Brecknock in Wales,
being
> repentant of what had been done [i.e., the usurpation; see context]
would
> be captain-in-chief of this affair, a rumor arose that King Edward'
sons,
> by some unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate."
>
> So Buckingham shows up, after spending a couple months with his
> so-entertaining houseguest, John Morton, and now there's a "rumor".
Then,
> on the advice of that same entertaining houseguest, Buckingham
invites
> Henry Tudor to come over and be king.
>
> Doesn't sound like any official "giving out" to me. Sounds like a
rumor
> from Brecknock.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblanchard@r... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
> (any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily
reflect
> those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

In a message dated 3/2/03 10:58:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:


> More certainly had a strong otherwordly view. He almost became a
> monk, but for fleshly lusts. And his putting HIS view of God first
> before the tyrant Henry 8 should be considered along side the
> considerable weight of his other works.
>
> Incidentally, although Catholic educated, I've a considerable respect
> for Luther's view and think Catholic indulgences of the time were
> extremely corrupt. The Church needed a kick up the backside!

I'm the same way. I defend Thomas More to the (no pun intended) death
sometimes, but the church was messed up at the time and I don't agree with
More's repetitive insults of Luther where he called him an arse and a
pestilent little friar and more vulgar things in latin. Erasmus had the right
idea going on lol. Burning heretics is wrong by today's standards but 500
years ago More believed he was doing the right thing.
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

> >
> >Please could someone enlighten me as to the Richard Hunne affair?
> >
>
> The short form is that Hunne was feuding with the church, imprisoned, and
> just before a trial that would have seriously embarrassed the church was
> found hanged in his cell. Unfortunately, the physical evidence suggested
> that he managed to hang himself while already dead. Enter Thomas More,
> whose jeering at the physical evidence of murder in support of the
> "suicide" argument was eerily like the way he jeered at the precontract
> evidence in his History of Richard III. This has always, to me, argued
that
> More was perfectly happy to dissemble and employ an arsenal of rhetorical
> dirty tricks when it suited him.
>
That's very interesting, Laura. So More was acting as a lawyer in that
case - presumably for the Church? I think the word I am after is casuistry.
Using language to produce the meaning that you want.

I still think More's "History" is a humanistic joke.

Jessica

At 07:44 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:

>That's very interesting, Laura. So More was acting as a lawyer in that
>case - presumably for the Church? I think the word I am after is casuistry.
>Using language to produce the meaning that you want.
>

I don't think so. I think he was he was a commentator.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
(any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

At 07:11 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:
>Well, perhaps, we should disagree about this interpretation of the
>Croyland 'giving out' of the rumour that the princes had been killed.
> We can't even agree on how to spell 'Croyland.' 'Crowland.'
>
Except that the words "give out", "giving out", or "gave out" don't appear
in that passage, either in the Pronay & Cox Crowland or the Riley Croyland.
This being the case, i submit that your entire argument rests on a false
premise. Both texts say "a rumor was spread." Anyone can spread a rumor.


--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
(any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
>
> I'm the same way. I defend Thomas More to the (no pun intended)
death
> sometimes, but the church was messed up at the time and I don't
agree with
> More's repetitive insults of Luther where he called him an arse and
a
> pestilent little friar and more vulgar things in latin. Erasmus had
the right
> idea going on lol. Burning heretics is wrong by today's standards
but 500
> years ago More believed he was doing the right thing.
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{

More of course called Luther an 'interfering arsehole' because he
wanted to defend the Catholic faith & church. More had written the
tract which got Henry 8 the 'Defender of the Faith' title & could
hardly then or later renage on a view he's been brought up with. More
probably did not want the terrible religious wars, which still go on &
destruction of so many beautiful buildings. What really got up More's
nose about Luther was his attack on the entire Church hierarchy. The
protestant churches were to have their own hierarchy members who were
corrupt: Matthew Hopkins who used his witchfinder position to sexually
abuse women. The Catholic church had educated and produced some
wonderful members: St. Francis, More & Luther themselves & St. Teresa
of Avila, later! You support Richard III who was of course a good
Catholic. What would he have thought of Luther's vicious political
attack on the church as opposed to his valid theological objections?
More wanted to reform the church from within, not use German armies to
rape & sack Rome, as happened in 1525.

What really got up More's
> nose about Luther was his attack on the entire Church hierarchy. The
> protestant churches were to have their own hierarchy members who were
> corrupt: Matthew Hopkins who used his witchfinder position to sexually
> abuse women. The Catholic church had educated and produced some
> wonderful members: St. Francis, More & Luther themselves & St. Teresa
> of Avila, later!

Correct me if I'm wrong but surely the whole Church hierarchy WAS corrupt at
that point? Luther got mad about Tetzel rushing round selling indulgences.
I can't remember which Pope was on the throne at the time but the Church did
desperately need reform.
I tend to feel that both Protestants and Catholics managed to produce some
horrors. The persecution and extirpation of heretics during the Middle Ages
was pretty ghastly. One only has to cite, for instance, the Albigensian
Crusade and the role of the Dominicans as prosecutors for the Holy Office.
I think Matthew Hopkins is a rather odd example of a dodgy Protestant since
he was more interested in witchcraft than theological differences.

You support Richard III who was of course a good
> Catholic. What would he have thought of Luther's vicious political
> attack on the church as opposed to his valid theological objections?

Presumably Richard would have condemned Luther as a heretic. He did however
have an English translation of the Bible, something which (at least in part)
got More chasing after William Tyndale. I don't imagine there was much
active heresy in England in Richard's time, though I do seem to recall
somebody being burnt for heresy during the reign of Edward IV.

> More wanted to reform the church from within, not use German armies to
> rape & sack Rome, as happened in 1525.
>
Wasn't that done under the aegis of the Emperor Charles V, who therefore
came to be sitting on the Vatican inconveniently just when Henry VIII wanted
his papal dispensation to divorce Catherine (Charles's aunt)? Charles was
certainly not a Lutheran.

Jessica

I haven't the time to check every book I've read & it's possible
that this was a secondary source's interpretation of 'rumor spread,'
but equally it could be that the rumor was spread by Richard!

I know that Buckingham could've killed the princes & saddled
Richard with the crime or could've spread the rumor as a lie. But
why didn't Richard produce the boys to scotch such damaging rumors
or 'gentle' Brackenbury to accuse Buckingham. Brackenbury, as
constable of the Tower, must've associated Buckingham's appearance
in the Tower, if that was the case, & the subsequent deaths or
disappearance of the princes! Richard showed no such qualms about
pointing out trivial faults, such as Hastings going to bed with
Jane Shore, even though Richard had had mistresses himself, so why
not mention the greater fault of Buckingham?

It may be that Richard & Brackenbury took a hard-nosed, realistic
view of the princes: that they were too dangerous to survive (like
Henry 6, not because of them as individuals, but because of what
they symbolised.) All of the twaddle about Richard's soiled
reputation & how 'angelic' the princes allegedly were didn't really
take off until Shakespeare in the 1590s so brilliantly dramatised the
period. Edward 4 had weathered any worries about damage to his
reputation over the slaying of 'saintly' Henry 6, so why not Richard
over the disposal over what may have been 'brattish' Edward V?

Vergil, not exactly a pal to Richard, says that Richard may've lost
men's hearts at Bosworth. That's why he & Norfolk did poorly, but
perhaps Richard, not having a crystal ball, hadn't calculated that in
1483?

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 07:11 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:
> >Well, perhaps, we should disagree about this interpretation of the
> >Croyland 'giving out' of the rumour that the princes had been
killed.
> > We can't even agree on how to spell 'Croyland.' 'Crowland.'
> >
> Except that the words "give out", "giving out", or "gave out" don't
appear
> in that passage, either in the Pronay & Cox Crowland or the Riley
Croyland.
> This being the case, i submit that your entire argument rests on a
false
> premise. Both texts say "a rumor was spread." Anyone can spread a
rumor.
>
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblanchard@r... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
> (any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily
reflect
> those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

Does anyone seriously think that More with his Catholic
credentials was going to defend a heretic? Heretics were thought at
that time as destined for one of the Dantesque lower rungs of Hell!

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 07:44 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:
>
> >That's very interesting, Laura. So More was acting as a lawyer in
that
> >case - presumably for the Church? I think the word I am after is
casuistry.
> >Using language to produce the meaning that you want.
> >
>
> I don't think so. I think he was he was a commentator.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblanchard@r... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
> (any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily
reflect
> those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

I agree that there was much corruption in the Catholic Church.
Pope Leo X was behind the indulgences: one way of filching money for
pardons in the next world, while he reputedly went in for naked orgies
in the Vatican.

However, Erasmus & More sort to refurbish the House of the Church from
within, as St. Francis had sort to do in the 14th century, not use a
bulldozer to demolish the lot.

The Lutheran split on theology was hijacked by German & English
politicians to loot, kill & rape around Europe for centuries to come.

--- In , "Jessica Rydill"
<la@l...> wrote:
> What really got up More's
> > nose about Luther was his attack on the entire Church hierarchy.
The
> > protestant churches were to have their own hierarchy members who
were
> > corrupt: Matthew Hopkins who used his witchfinder position to
sexually
> > abuse women. The Catholic church had educated and produced some
> > wonderful members: St. Francis, More & Luther themselves & St.
Teresa
> > of Avila, later!
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but surely the whole Church hierarchy WAS
corrupt at
> that point? Luther got mad about Tetzel rushing round selling
indulgences.
> I can't remember which Pope was on the throne at the time but the
Church did
> desperately need reform.
> I tend to feel that both Protestants and Catholics managed to
produce some
> horrors. The persecution and extirpation of heretics during the
Middle Ages
> was pretty ghastly. One only has to cite, for instance, the
Albigensian
> Crusade and the role of the Dominicans as prosecutors for the Holy
Office.
> I think Matthew Hopkins is a rather odd example of a dodgy
Protestant since
> he was more interested in witchcraft than theological differences.
>
> You support Richard III who was of course a good
> > Catholic. What would he have thought of Luther's vicious
political
> > attack on the church as opposed to his valid theological
objections?
>
> Presumably Richard would have condemned Luther as a heretic. He did
however
> have an English translation of the Bible, something which (at least
in part)
> got More chasing after William Tyndale. I don't imagine there was
much
> active heresy in England in Richard's time, though I do seem to
recall
> somebody being burnt for heresy during the reign of Edward IV.
>
> > More wanted to reform the church from within, not use German
armies to
> > rape & sack Rome, as happened in 1525.
> >
> Wasn't that done under the aegis of the Emperor Charles V, who
therefore
> came to be sitting on the Vatican inconveniently just when Henry
VIII wanted
> his papal dispensation to divorce Catherine (Charles's aunt)?
Charles was
> certainly not a Lutheran.
>
> Jessica

In a message dated 3/2/03 6:32:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
la@... writes:


> I don't imagine there was much
> active heresy in England in Richard's time, though I do seem to recall
> somebody being burnt for heresy during the reign of Edward IV.
>
>

What about all the Lollards? Or did the three Lancastrian Henrys put them in
check...
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

No, actually it would have been idiotic to have not
displayed them if they were dead, and claimed they
died of natural causes.

Killing them and having noone know they were dead
provided Richard with little advantage. Competition
for the throne never simply disappeared, they always
died suspiciously but "naturally".

Also, even if people thought the princes were really
murdered, displaying the bodies and claiming they died
of a natural cause would have placed Richard in a much
better position - which is the other part of why such
killings were handled that way.

Dora

Dora


--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> The boys were the focal point of a deadly rebellion
> against Richard in
> 1483 & it was 'given out'that the boys WERE dead,
> according to
> Croyland. Richard NEVER subsequently denied they
> were dead. To have
> displayed the bodies of two children, his nephews,
> who by all accounts
> were fair & lovely, would've been idiotic in that it
> would've inflamed
> public opinion against Richard with his already
> dubious claim to the
> crown. If Richard said they were dead he removed
> them as a focal
> point of rebellion, but created a guessing game as
> to whether he was
> the murderer, which is quite clever if you think
> about it...
>
> --- In , Dora
> Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > I think that whatever else happened, Richard was
> > necessarily incompetent. One of the better
> arguments
> > that he didn't kill the boys secretly is that he
> would
> > have had to be a complete idiot to both kill the
> boys
> > and keep it secret.
> >
> > Certainly an obvious thing to do would have been
> to
> > show the boys if they WERE still alive.
> >
> > Dora
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Richard didn't seem to care about the opprobrium
> of
> > > killing Hastings &
> > > damnation in the next. The reasoning could be
> that
> > > the princes were
> > > bastards, nominal heads of a rebellion (1483)
> > > against himself who was
> > > anointed King & therefore their execution was
> > > necessary.
> > >
> > > Publically displaying 2 children wouldn't have
> been
> > > wise given that
> > > Richard wasn't an idiot. He knew his title was
> > > shaky & that many
> > > rebels were around. You may recall that Edward
> IV
> > > tried to cover up
> > > the murder of Henry 6 by saying that he died of
> > > 'pure displeasure &
> > > melancholy.' Given the fact that Henry's head
> was
> > > bleeding profusely
> > > in his coffin this was a weak lie!!! Edward &
> > > Richard didn't seem to
> > > worry about damnation over this. Perhaps, you
> think
> > > that
> > > extermination of the old & mentally unfit is
> right?
> > > Imprisonment was
> > > an alternative!
> > >
> > > The staircase in question was enclosed by a
> > > passageway from royal
> > > apartments & could've been sealed off for
> 'works.'
> > > If you have a
> > > royal warrant this is possible. Using the
> Thames
> > > was public!
> > >
> > > Have you any source to indicate that Henry 4
> killed
> > > children the same
> > > ages in the Tower?
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In ,
> > > brian_yorkist
> > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > We are asked to believe so.
> > > > We are asked to believe that he murdered his
> > > nephews (taking the
> > > > opprobrium in this life and damnation in the
> next)
> > > and yet did not
> > > > make it clear that they were dead.
> > > > What did Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI
> have
> > > in common? Their
> > > > bodies were all publicly displayed so no one
> could
> > > doubt their
> > > death.
> > > > Why? To stop anyone pretending to be them,
> that's
> > > why.
> > > > Yes, Richard must have been a complete idiot,
> for
> > > having done this
> > > he
> > > > then buried the kids under the stairs in one
> of
> > > the busiest parts of
> > > > the Tower, a task which must have taken a gang
> of
> > > men *hours*. It
> > > > could not have been kept secret from the Tower
> > > community. Why not
> > > > just bung the bodies in the convenient River
> > > Thames? Work of
> > > minutes,
> > > > two sacks weighted down with old armour, the
> job's
> > > done.
> > > > (By the way the bit about velvet being unknown
> > > prior to 1400 is a
> > > bit
> > > > of Weir BS,it was known here before that.
> However
> > > Henry IV reigned
> > > > from 1400, and he was a magician who made
> several
> > > people disappear,
> > > > among them sundry members of Owain Glyn Dwr's
> > > family, including
> > > > children. Mind you he wouldn't have been daft
> > > enough to excavate a
> > > > massive stone stair either.)
> > > > Brian
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

> In a message dated 3/2/03 6:32:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> la@... writes:
>
>
> > I don't imagine there was much
> > active heresy in England in Richard's time, though I do seem to recall
> > somebody being burnt for heresy during the reign of Edward IV.
> >
> >
>
> What about all the Lollards? Or did the three Lancastrian Henrys put them
in
> check...
> Victoria

I'm not sure, Victoria. I think the Lollards may still have been around.
William Tyndale can't have come out of nowhere. What I don't know is to
what extent they were active during the Yorkist period. Richard's English
Bible was technically forbidden, though I don't think anyone is suggesting
HE was a Lollard. But Luther irrupted onto the scene in 1517, and Richard
left it in 1485. Thus the problems to which David was referring - a corrupt
papacy, sale of indulgences, perhaps some deterioration in the quality of
religious houses - would have been visible in Richard's time.

In fact Chaucer checks out a lot of similar problems in the Canterbury
Tales - the Pardoner is a seller of indulgences and there is every
indication that his relics are fake.

(Have you ever read "1066 and all That"?)

Jessica

In a message dated 3/2/03 7:32:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
la@... writes:


> (Have you ever read "1066 and all That"?)

No I never did :(...I have so much catching up to do, reading-wise lol
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

But bodies, as was the case with Edward 4, were usually displayed
naked apart from a loin cloth, a modesty which Edward often didn't
show in his life with mistresses.

If the princes had been murdered, any bruising on face or neck or cuts
would've shown. This would NOT have done Richard any propaganda
favours. They were his young nephews & originally had been in his
care as protector.

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> No, actually it would have been idiotic to have not
> displayed them if they were dead, and claimed they
> died of natural causes.
>
> Killing them and having noone know they were dead
> provided Richard with little advantage. Competition
> for the throne never simply disappeared, they always
> died suspiciously but "naturally".
>
> Also, even if people thought the princes were really
> murdered, displaying the bodies and claiming they died
> of a natural cause would have placed Richard in a much
> better position - which is the other part of why such
> killings were handled that way.
>
> Dora
>
> Dora
>
>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > The boys were the focal point of a deadly rebellion
> > against Richard in
> > 1483 & it was 'given out'that the boys WERE dead,
> > according to
> > Croyland. Richard NEVER subsequently denied they
> > were dead. To have
> > displayed the bodies of two children, his nephews,
> > who by all accounts
> > were fair & lovely, would've been idiotic in that it
> > would've inflamed
> > public opinion against Richard with his already
> > dubious claim to the
> > crown. If Richard said they were dead he removed
> > them as a focal
> > point of rebellion, but created a guessing game as
> > to whether he was
> > the murderer, which is quite clever if you think
> > about it...
> >
> > --- In , Dora
> > Smith
> > <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > I think that whatever else happened, Richard was
> > > necessarily incompetent. One of the better
> > arguments
> > > that he didn't kill the boys secretly is that he
> > would
> > > have had to be a complete idiot to both kill the
> > boys
> > > and keep it secret.
> > >
> > > Certainly an obvious thing to do would have been
> > to
> > > show the boys if they WERE still alive.
> > >
> > > Dora
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > Richard didn't seem to care about the opprobrium
> > of
> > > > killing Hastings &
> > > > damnation in the next. The reasoning could be
> > that
> > > > the princes were
> > > > bastards, nominal heads of a rebellion (1483)
> > > > against himself who was
> > > > anointed King & therefore their execution was
> > > > necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Publically displaying 2 children wouldn't have
> > been
> > > > wise given that
> > > > Richard wasn't an idiot. He knew his title was
> > > > shaky & that many
> > > > rebels were around. You may recall that Edward
> > IV
> > > > tried to cover up
> > > > the murder of Henry 6 by saying that he died of
> > > > 'pure displeasure &
> > > > melancholy.' Given the fact that Henry's head
> > was
> > > > bleeding profusely
> > > > in his coffin this was a weak lie!!! Edward &
> > > > Richard didn't seem to
> > > > worry about damnation over this. Perhaps, you
> > think
> > > > that
> > > > extermination of the old & mentally unfit is
> > right?
> > > > Imprisonment was
> > > > an alternative!
> > > >
> > > > The staircase in question was enclosed by a
> > > > passageway from royal
> > > > apartments & could've been sealed off for
> > 'works.'
> > > > If you have a
> > > > royal warrant this is possible. Using the
> > Thames
> > > > was public!
> > > >
> > > > Have you any source to indicate that Henry 4
> > killed
> > > > children the same
> > > > ages in the Tower?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In ,
> > > > brian_yorkist
> > > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > > We are asked to believe so.
> > > > > We are asked to believe that he murdered his
> > > > nephews (taking the
> > > > > opprobrium in this life and damnation in the
> > next)
> > > > and yet did not
> > > > > make it clear that they were dead.
> > > > > What did Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI
> > have
> > > > in common? Their
> > > > > bodies were all publicly displayed so no one
> > could
> > > > doubt their
> > > > death.
> > > > > Why? To stop anyone pretending to be them,
> > that's
> > > > why.
> > > > > Yes, Richard must have been a complete idiot,
> > for
> > > > having done this
> > > > he
> > > > > then buried the kids under the stairs in one
> > of
> > > > the busiest parts of
> > > > > the Tower, a task which must have taken a gang
> > of
> > > > men *hours*. It
> > > > > could not have been kept secret from the Tower
> > > > community. Why not
> > > > > just bung the bodies in the convenient River
> > > > Thames? Work of
> > > > minutes,
> > > > > two sacks weighted down with old armour, the
> > job's
> > > > done.
> > > > > (By the way the bit about velvet being unknown
> > > > prior to 1400 is a
> > > > bit
> > > > > of Weir BS,it was known here before that.
> > However
> > > > Henry IV reigned
> > > > > from 1400, and he was a magician who made
> > several
> > > > people disappear,
> > > > > among them sundry members of Owain Glyn Dwr's
> > > > family, including
> > > > > children. Mind you he wouldn't have been daft
> > > > enough to excavate a
> > > > > massive stone stair either.)
> > > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

> In a message dated 3/2/03 7:32:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> la@... writes:
>
>
> > (Have you ever read "1066 and all That"?)
>
> No I never did :(...I have so much catching up to do, reading-wise lol
> Victoria
>
I do recommend it. They are hugely funny and amongst other things call the
Lollards the Dullards (because they couldn't understand Latin). They also
have a lovely piece about Morton's Fork.

Required reading!

Jessica

Excuse me!!!
>
> The Lutheran split on theology was hijacked by German & English
> politicians to loot, kill & rape around Europe for centuries to come.
>

Well I suppose you've never heard of a little something called the birth of
reformed protestantism or Calvinism, or another little something called the
Counter Reformation. And St Bartholomew's Eve was all the result of nasty
Protestants who deserved what they got I suppose. Are you sure you aren't
the Duke of Guise? <g>.

Let's be realistic German and English Politicians hardly spent the next
centuries looting killing or raping around Europe over religion. Largely
most English involvement in the European Wars of the late 16th, 17th and
18th Centuries was to do with politics.

Actually you should rather admire Europe's tiny Protestant States of the
16th Century - England, the Scandinavian countries, the Dutch seekers of
independance, the small German and Baltic States - they faced the armed
Catholic might of one of the largest Continental Empires that Europe has
seen since Charlemagne - Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Spain, and Catholic
Germany financed by the looted gold of the America's and they survived.

I wouldn't deny the larger picture. I was simply giving a few
examples. Certainly, mainly German Lutherans were responsible for
the sack of Rome, 1525 and there was certainly a lot of murder,
rape & looting then.

Of course the English under Drake never did such things, he said
with tongue in cheek!

The point I was making was that it was understandable that More was
more than a little vexed with Luther who appeared to underleash such a
cauldron. The 30 years war of the 17th century was truly horrendous!
Surely, for those who prefer peace to war, an internal reformation of
the Catholic Church would've been preferable, as More & Erasmus wanted
and as the Counter-Reformation eventually brought about.


--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> Excuse me!!!
> >
> > The Lutheran split on theology was hijacked by German & English
> > politicians to loot, kill & rape around Europe for centuries to
come.
> >
>
> Well I suppose you've never heard of a little something called the
birth of
> reformed protestantism or Calvinism, or another little something
called the
> Counter Reformation. And St Bartholomew's Eve was all the result
of nasty
> Protestants who deserved what they got I suppose. Are you sure you
aren't
> the Duke of Guise? <g>.
>
> Let's be realistic German and English Politicians hardly spent the
next
> centuries looting killing or raping around Europe over religion.
Largely
> most English involvement in the European Wars of the late 16th, 17th
and
> 18th Centuries was to do with politics.
>
> Actually you should rather admire Europe's tiny Protestant States of
the
> 16th Century - England, the Scandinavian countries, the Dutch
seekers of
> independance, the small German and Baltic States - they faced the
armed
> Catholic might of one of the largest Continental Empires that Europe
has
> seen since Charlemagne - Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Spain, and
Catholic
> Germany financed by the looted gold of the America's and they
survived.

At 11:38 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:
>I haven't the time to check every book I've read

Then you have no business propounding a theory based on paticular wording.

Frankly, I think you're really straining to make the case that it was
Richard's rumor, when Crowland mentions it in the same breath as Buckingham
having joined the rebellion. Until Buckingham showed up it was a rebellion
in support of the princes. Sure sounds to me like Buckingham was spreading
the rumors...


--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
(any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

At 02:24 AM 3/3/03 -0000, you wrote:
>I wouldn't deny the larger picture. I was simply giving a few
>examples. Certainly, mainly German Lutherans were responsible for
>the sack of Rome, 1525

Don't be silly. The sack of Rome was Tetzel's fault.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
(any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

Then, IF it was Buckingham's rumour why didn't Richard nail a lie? He
was pretty forthright usually in giving his views of others!

I'm not straining to make the case. I did say that equally Richard,
equal to Buckingham, could've spread the rumour.

You are right in that Buckingham is under discussion, but the rumour
POSSIBLY from Richard may've been included here simply to explain why
Buckingham switched his support from the princes to Tudor, who
planned to marry their sister.

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 11:38 PM 3/2/03 -0000, you wrote:
> >I haven't the time to check every book I've read
>
> Then you have no business propounding a theory based on paticular
wording.
>
> Frankly, I think you're really straining to make the case that it
was
> Richard's rumor, when Crowland mentions it in the same breath as
Buckingham
> having joined the rebellion. Until Buckingham showed up it was a
rebellion
> in support of the princes. Sure sounds to me like Buckingham was
spreading
> the rumors...
>
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblanchard@r... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
> (any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily
reflect
> those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

I've a book purely on this & according to this, Lutheran mercenaries
were heavily used!

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 02:24 AM 3/3/03 -0000, you wrote:
> >I wouldn't deny the larger picture. I was simply giving a few
> >examples. Certainly, mainly German Lutherans were responsible for
> >the sack of Rome, 1525
>
> Don't be silly. The sack of Rome was Tetzel's fault.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblanchard@r... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
> (any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily
reflect
> those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

Hi David & Laura

< Then, IF it was Buckingham's rumour why didn't Richard nail a lie? >

Maybe it just wasn't that widespread? The Croyland Chronicler was
writing after Richard was dead and could pretty well place whatever
complexion he wanted on this. I don't think it was necessary for
Richard to leap up and refute every rumour that must have been
kicking about that summer. And lets not forget that he was busy
being on the move, visiting universities and attending civic
receptions (ie, his time in the debating chamber of Oxford, and the
presentations at York). Who knows, but he may have been saying at
these on a daily basis summat along the lines of:

"You may have heard rumours in the Willison Tymes or from Tymbhoe the
Town Crier regarding me and my nepews, but let me reassure you they
are alive and well in Burgundy - that's why I can't show you them,
even though both rascals would have loved to have joined me here
tonight.

However, as a result of my recent elevation to the throne,my good
friend Jim Tyrrel can now arrange special discounted bote trypps
across the see to Flaunders if any of you are so bothered that you
want proof that they are stukken-as-in-'hidden', as opposed to
stukken-as-in stuffed...

Thank You, Goodnight People. You've Been Marvellous...".

<He was pretty forthright usually in giving his views of others!>

Well, actually he wasn't. He was remarkably discreet about what he
thought of Clarence, Elizabeth Wydeville, Warwick and Johnny
Neville's volte face. In fact, he didn't pass comment on anybody
much at all until the situation warranted it.

For instance, we didn't hear a peep out of him about the Wydevilles
or the licentiousness of his brother's court until mid-1483. Titulus
Regius did indeed mention the Wydevilles, but was drafted by Bishop
Russell, the Chancellor, not Richard, altho' no doubt Richard was
aware of the contents. I think it is Sutton who points out that
dissing the previous regime was pretty much par for the course for
the time, even amongst brothers. It was part of the 'King is dead,
long live the King' ethos and apparently was a perfectly
reasonable 'distancing' tool, despite what we may think about it now.
Folk simply wouldn't have thought it was hypocritical.

As for other situations where we hear something of his opinions about
specific people - it would have been pretty strange if Richard did
not allow himself to criticise the rebels, such as Dorset, who had
joined Tudor's campaign for the throne. The proclamation was meant
to deter others from joining that bunch of traitors, after all.

In arresting Rivers et al, he merely declared they were traitors. He
did NOT express any personal comments about them (it was Buckingham
who made a jibe about the Queen to E5). He didn't even mention that
their mother/sister was a witch at the time. Which rather supports
the notion that it was Russell's opinion in Titulus Regius, not his.

More describes Richard attributing his supposed withered arm to
the 'witchcraft' of Ms Shore and Ew et al in his account, but since
this is one of those dialogue passages, this could just have easily
used such a device as a literary flourish, rather than taken it
from life.

Similarly, the penance that was meted out to Jane Shore came not from
Richard, but from the Bishop of London. Again, Richard may have
known this was a likely penalty and supported it, but then, she may
well have been privy to a conspiracy - it's not beyond the bounds of
probability.

In fact, although R3 confesses to some bemusement when he finds out
his solicitor wants to marry Ms Shore, he doesn't burst into a tirade
about her in the surviving corrspondence, but even agrees that the
marriage can go ahead, if the Bishop is satisfied, once he gets back
into London, and even suggests she be given into the custody of her
*Dad*. In other words, he does and says as much as he can for the
blissful couple, while not exactly enclosing a £100-worth of vouchers
for 'Brides R Us'.

As for wanting to scotch rumours about the Princess Elizabeth and
other seditious talk that he *did* get wind of (cf. the letter to the
good bughers of York), well, why shouldn't he? If *my* spouse was
freshly dead and someone wanted to imply I was making sheep's eyes at
my good-looking nephew a few weeks afterwards, I would want to rip
their liver out!

In the past when I've listed what Richard ACTUALLY SAID, as opposed
to what contemporaneous and later commentators IMPLY he said, and
what my list colleagues often ASSUME he said, I think he behaves with
admirable restraint. When he does let rip, it's usually in
situations that he'd have to be other than human not to.

Lorraine

Hi David & Laura

< Then, IF it was Buckingham's rumour why didn't Richard nail a lie? >

Maybe it just wasn't that widespread? The Croyland Chronicler was
writing after Richard was dead and could pretty well place whatever
complexion he wanted on this. I don't think it was necessary for
Richard to leap up and refute every rumour that must have been
kicking about that summer. And lets not forget that he was busy
being on the move, visiting universities and attending civic
receptions (ie, his time in the debating chamber of Oxford, and the
presentations at York). Who knows, but he may have been saying at
these on a daily basis summat along the lines of:

"You may have heard rumours in the Willison Tymes or from Tymbhoe the
Town Crier regarding me and my nepews, but let me reassure you they
are alive and well in Burgundy - that's why I can't show you them,
even though both rascals would have loved to have joined me here
tonight.

However, as a result of my recent elevation to the throne,my good
friend Jim Tyrrel can now arrange special discounted bote trypps
across the see to Flaunders if any of you are so bothered that you
want proof that they are stukken-as-in-'hidden', as opposed to
stukken-as-in stuffed...

Thank You, Goodnight People. You've Been Marvellous...".

<He was pretty forthright usually in giving his views of others!>

Well, actually he wasn't. He was remarkably discreet about what he
thought of Clarence, Elizabeth Wydeville, Warwick and Johnny
Neville's volte face. In fact, he didn't pass comment on anybody
much at all until the situation warranted it.

For instance, we didn't hear a peep out of him about the Wydevilles
or the licentiousness of his brother's court until mid-1483. Titulus
Regius did indeed mention the Wydevilles, but was drafted by Bishop
Russell, the Chancellor, not Richard, altho' no doubt Richard was
aware of the contents. I think it is Sutton who points out that
dissing the previous regime was pretty much par for the course for
the time, even amongst brothers. It was part of the 'King is dead,
long live the King' ethos and apparently was a perfectly
reasonable 'distancing' tool, despite what we may think about it now.
Folk simply wouldn't have thought it was hypocritical.

As for other situations where we hear something of his opinions about
specific people - it would have been pretty strange if Richard did
not allow himself to criticise the rebels, such as Dorset, who had
joined Tudor's campaign for the throne. The proclamation was meant
to deter others from joining that bunch of traitors, after all.

In arresting Rivers et al, he merely declared they were traitors. He
did NOT express any personal comments about them (it was Buckingham
who made a jibe about the Queen to E5). He didn't even mention that
their mother/sister was a witch at the time. Which rather supports
the notion that it was Russell's opinion in Titulus Regius, not his.

More describes Richard attributing his supposed withered arm to
the 'witchcraft' of Ms Shore and Ew et al in his account, but since
this is one of those dialogue passages, this could just have easily
used such a device as a literary flourish, rather than taken it
from life.

Similarly, the penance that was meted out to Jane Shore came not from
Richard, but from the Bishop of London. Again, Richard may have
known this was a likely penalty and supported it, but then, she may
well have been privy to a conspiracy - it's not beyond the bounds of
probability.

In fact, although R3 confesses to some bemusement when he finds out
his solicitor wants to marry Ms Shore, he doesn't burst into a tirade
about her in the surviving corrspondence, but even agrees that the
marriage can go ahead, if the Bishop is satisfied, once he gets back
into London, and even suggests she be given into the custody of her
*Dad*. In other words, he does and says as much as he can for the
blissful couple, while not exactly enclosing a £100-worth of vouchers
for 'Brides R Us'.

As for wanting to scotch rumours about the Princess Elizabeth and
other seditious talk that he *did* get wind of (cf. the letter to the
good bughers of York), well, why shouldn't he? If *my* spouse was
freshly dead and someone wanted to imply I was making sheep's eyes at
my good-looking nephew a few weeks afterwards, I would want to rip
their liver out!

In the past when I've listed what Richard ACTUALLY SAID, as opposed
to what contemporaneous and later commentators IMPLY he said, and
what my list colleagues often ASSUME he said, I think he behaves with
admirable restraint. When he does let rip, it's usually in
situations that he'd have to be other than human not to.

Lorraine

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Richard's reign was cut short: 6th July, 1483 to 22nd August,
1485?
> What he was planning to do with Warwick, who may've been an
imbecile,
> we don't know. Richard's only heir died in April, 1484, but
Richard
> didn't rate brother Clarence's son enough to raise him. Richard
> probably wanted to re-marry & perhaps Warwick would've
disappeared.
> Did anyone really care?

Well if they cared about the "princes" the jolly well ought to have
cared about Warwick too, as he was a little boy just like them.
However severe his learning difficulties were they didn't stop Henry
VII from killing him, in 1499, when Henry was far more established on
his throne than Richard *ever* was. I find it hard to understand how
Warwick was not a threat if Edward V and bro were. The more so in
fact if the other two were dead!


>
> Well, when do YOU say velvet arrived in this country? Whether 1400
as
> Weir says or a bit before, it was a high class commodity &
befitting
> princes!

Not *ME*. According to "The Medieval Tailor's Assistant" by Sarah
Thursfield velvet was perfected by the Italian weavers in the late
13th century and first appeared in English royal accounts in the
1330s. Sarah adds that in medieval England it was principally a
furnishing fabric. A good book that, by the way. I have had the
honour of meeting Sarah and if *anyone* knows more about medieval
English clothing I long to meet them so I can ask them why they
haven't written a book about it. In the interim Sarah's book will do
me and I'd recommend it to anyone with even the vaguest interest in
these matters.

>
> I'm afraid medical opinion disagrees with you about alleged
> consanguinity evidence. One expert I read suggests maleness from
the
> bone density.

Well being in happy possession of a life, I am NOT rereading all
those tedious medical articles again but I HAVE read them and I do
recall that there was great disagreement about whether or not the sex
or age of the children could be firmly determined. So I will leave it
thus... I am absolutely convinced for every expert you could put up
to say the bones were definitely the princes I could put up at least
1, likely 2 or 3, to say that they weren't, or that we couldn't know.
So the evidence arising from the bones actually adds up to squat
diddly. More so when you realise that the odd human bone has been
found in the Tower over the years, and not surprisingly in view of
the various people who found the gateway to heaven there.


> Even if the princes, which could be established with DNA comparison
> with sister Elizabeth also buried at Westminster & carbon dating,
> people will still argue WHO killed them. Richard & Buckingham
would
> be candidates. Someone once suggested that they could've been
> overcome by an infestation of voles...! Plague which killed
thousands
> is more plausible & less silly.

I can agree with that, which is why I can never understand why people
spend so much time arguing over the blessed bones in the first place.
If we could prove they were the boys, the most interesting outcome
would be to prove that Perkin Warbeck was an imposter.

Regards
Brian

Hi Victoria

<Do I think Richard did it? The jury's still out with me,
I'm still new to this time period so I have to look into it more
(although I'm leaning towards the 'he had something to do with it'
side).>

I know this is getting boring, now, but the official receipts really
do put Richard and H6 miles away from one another in the relevant
time frame. Will someone, anyone, please check these out, before I
explode with pure melancholy and displeasure! :)

Oh - speaking of which: another poster on another list whose
expertise area seems to be bones/dead bodies and the like, pointed
out the rather pertinent fact that it was likely to have been
embalming liquid that seeped all over the St Paul's steps, and not
H6's blood.

Just thought I'd mention that...

Lorraine

I've an attack of 'pure displeasure & melancholy' overwhelming me.

Trust in times particularly for this period is very doubtful.
People argue the toss about the day of Hasting's execution, so the
exact time of Richard's location (Was he at a particular Burger King
or not?) seems very dubious.

As I've said, I think he would've accepted Edward's decision on
Henry as Richard was Edward's right hand man at the time. I don't
know what Edward would've thought of Richard after his Death and the
way Richard behaved?

So, enbalming fluid is being blamed now? When Henry was exhumed
they found blood still matted in his hair!!!

I must go & have a lie down now to get over the above!

--- In , "lpickering2
<lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi Victoria
>
> <Do I think Richard did it? The jury's still out with me,
> I'm still new to this time period so I have to look into it more
> (although I'm leaning towards the 'he had something to do with it'
> side).>
>
> I know this is getting boring, now, but the official receipts really
> do put Richard and H6 miles away from one another in the relevant
> time frame. Will someone, anyone, please check these out, before I
> explode with pure melancholy and displeasure! :)
>
> Oh - speaking of which: another poster on another list whose
> expertise area seems to be bones/dead bodies and the like, pointed
> out the rather pertinent fact that it was likely to have been
> embalming liquid that seeped all over the St Paul's steps, and not
> H6's blood.
>
> Just thought I'd mention that...
>
> Lorraine

< Trust in times particularly for this period is very doubtful.
> People argue the toss about the day of Hasting's execution, so the
> exact time of Richard's location (Was he at a particular Burger
King or not?) seems very dubious.>

Well, not surpringingly, you've rather missed my point. People can
confuse time and place in the 15thC, I agree, but, believe me, after
close attention to contemporary records in all sorts of places, they
don't tend to have any such confusion where *money* is concerned! :)

Cf. the City of York's quibbling about how many days wages the
Bosworth soldiers should receive. The same argument arising earlier
in the period when they set off for Barnet or somewhere. See also
the swift downing of tools at Hastings property in the Midlands when
word of his downfall got out. There's other examples, I'm sure, but
you get my drift...

And money most definitely was concerned when it came to H6's keep,
and the Sandwich troops' "per diems"!

< So, enbalming fluid is being blamed now? >

No. I didn't say that, nor, to be fair, did the original expert I was
on about. IIRC he merely pointed out that embalming fluid may have
leaked from the body. And I don't know enough about the medieval
embalming process to comment further.

<When Henry was exhumed they found blood still matted in his hair!!!>.

Yep - so they alleged at the time!

--- In , "lpickering2
<lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> < Trust in times particularly for this period is very doubtful.
> > People argue the toss about the day of Hasting's execution, so
the
> > exact time of Richard's location (Was he at a particular Burger
> King or not?) seems very dubious.>
>
> Well, not surpringingly, you've rather missed my point. People can
> confuse time and place in the 15thC, I agree, but, believe me,
after
> close attention to contemporary records in all sorts of places,
they
> don't tend to have any such confusion where *money* is
concerned! :)
>
> Cf. the City of York's quibbling about how many days wages the
> Bosworth soldiers should receive. The same argument arising
earlier
> in the period when they set off for Barnet or somewhere. See also
> the swift downing of tools at Hastings property in the Midlands
when
> word of his downfall got out. There's other examples, I'm sure,
but
> you get my drift...
>
> And money most definitely was concerned when it came to H6's keep,
> and the Sandwich troops' "per diems"!
>
> < So, enbalming fluid is being blamed now? >
>
> No. I didn't say that, nor, to be fair, did the original expert I
was
> on about. IIRC he merely pointed out that embalming fluid may have
> leaked from the body. And I don't know enough about the medieval
> embalming process to comment further.
>
> <When Henry was exhumed they found blood still matted in his hair!!!
>.
>
> Yep - so they alleged at the time!

--- In , "lpickering2
<lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> < Trust in times particularly for this period is very doubtful.
> > People argue the toss about the day of Hasting's execution, so
the
> > exact time of Richard's location (Was he at a particular Burger
> King or not?) seems very dubious.>
>
> Well, not surpringingly, you've rather missed my point. People can
> confuse time and place in the 15thC, I agree, but, believe me,
after
> close attention to contemporary records in all sorts of places,
they
> don't tend to have any such confusion where *money* is
concerned! :)
>
> Cf. the City of York's quibbling about how many days wages the
> Bosworth soldiers should receive. The same argument arising
earlier
> in the period when they set off for Barnet or somewhere. See also
> the swift downing of tools at Hastings property in the Midlands
when
> word of his downfall got out. There's other examples, I'm sure,
but
> you get my drift...
>
> And money most definitely was concerned when it came to H6's keep,
> and the Sandwich troops' "per diems"!
>
> < So, enbalming fluid is being blamed now? >
>
> No. I didn't say that, nor, to be fair, did the original expert I
was
> on about. IIRC he merely pointed out that embalming fluid may have
> leaked from the body. And I don't know enough about the medieval
> embalming process to comment further.
>
> <When Henry was exhumed they found blood still matted in his hair!!!
>.
>
> Yep - so they alleged at the time!

Sorry, last message blank. Can anyone with medical knowledge tell us
whether a dead body would be bleeding anyway? If not, then it would
have to be something else people saw.

marie

In a message dated 3/4/03 11:29:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
lpickering2@... writes:


> I know this is getting boring, now, but the official receipts really
> do put Richard and H6 miles away from one another in the relevant
> time frame. Will someone, anyone, please check these out, before I
> explode with pure melancholy and displeasure! :)
>
> Oh - speaking of which: another poster on another list whose
> expertise area seems to be bones/dead bodies and the like, pointed
> out the rather pertinent fact that it was likely to have been
> embalming liquid that seeped all over the St Paul's steps, and not
> H6's blood.

Oh that thing about Henry starting to bleed again when he was already dead?
I'm no expert in the medical field, but isn't that medically impossible? I
know when Henry VIII died and his coffin was resting for the night in a
church, the lead coffin burst open since Henry was so heavy and embalming
fluid seeped out. A dog was later seen licking it up (ewwwww) and it was
connected a prophesy made by the Nun of Kent that when he died a dog would
lick his blood. Maybe it was just a confusion between the fluid and blood.
I'll come back with my verdict on RIchard and Henry VI eventually lol
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

If Henry's head was bleeding so profusely it suggests a severance
of an artery, not a fall down the steps. I think the people who
exhumed Henry could distinquish between blood & enbalming fluid! Pity
they didn't check the type of indentation in the skull.

Over the other point about accuracy of 15th century accounts where
money was concerned. These may've been accurate or maybe they
weren't. We may never know. But in PRINCIPLE I doubt if Richard was
against the execution of Henry 6. Edward, George & Richard all seemed
fairly ruthless & self-serving, perhaps, upset about the dreadful way
their Father & teen brother were treated.

As with trying to prove that Edward 4 WAS a bastard, presumably to
vindicate Richard's claim, what's the aim of all this? SAINT Richard
III?

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/4/03 11:29:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> lpickering2@y... writes:
>
>
> > I know this is getting boring, now, but the official receipts
really
> > do put Richard and H6 miles away from one another in the relevant
> > time frame. Will someone, anyone, please check these out, before
I
> > explode with pure melancholy and displeasure! :)
> >
> > Oh - speaking of which: another poster on another list whose
> > expertise area seems to be bones/dead bodies and the like, pointed
> > out the rather pertinent fact that it was likely to have been
> > embalming liquid that seeped all over the St Paul's steps, and not
> > H6's blood.
>
> Oh that thing about Henry starting to bleed again when he was
already dead?
> I'm no expert in the medical field, but isn't that medically
impossible? I
> know when Henry VIII died and his coffin was resting for the night
in a
> church, the lead coffin burst open since Henry was so heavy and
embalming
> fluid seeped out. A dog was later seen licking it up (ewwwww) and it
was
> connected a prophesy made by the Nun of Kent that when he died a dog
would
> lick his blood. Maybe it was just a confusion between the fluid and
blood.
> I'll come back with my verdict on RIchard and Henry VI eventually
lol
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>

With a severance of arteries in the head this would allow the heart
to keep beating to expel most of the blood, which was commonly
observed with the beheading during Guilloting.

It was even proved that the brain did not lose consciousness until 3
minutes after the decapitation, while protein & oxygen still
circulated in the brain. Death & drainage of blood were NOT
instantaneous and the heart operated separately until all blood was
exhausted.

Hope I haven't spoilt anyone's meal with that?

--- In , "mariewalsh2003
<marie@r...>" <marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "lpickering2
> <lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > < Trust in times particularly for this period is very doubtful.
> > > People argue the toss about the day of Hasting's execution, so
> the
> > > exact time of Richard's location (Was he at a particular Burger
> > King or not?) seems very dubious.>
> >
> > Well, not surpringingly, you've rather missed my point. People
can
> > confuse time and place in the 15thC, I agree, but, believe me,
> after
> > close attention to contemporary records in all sorts of places,
> they
> > don't tend to have any such confusion where *money* is
> concerned! :)
> >
> > Cf. the City of York's quibbling about how many days wages the
> > Bosworth soldiers should receive. The same argument arising
> earlier
> > in the period when they set off for Barnet or somewhere. See also
> > the swift downing of tools at Hastings property in the Midlands
> when
> > word of his downfall got out. There's other examples, I'm sure,
> but
> > you get my drift...
> >
> > And money most definitely was concerned when it came to H6's keep,
> > and the Sandwich troops' "per diems"!
> >
> > < So, enbalming fluid is being blamed now? >
> >
> > No. I didn't say that, nor, to be fair, did the original expert I
> was
> > on about. IIRC he merely pointed out that embalming fluid may have
> > leaked from the body. And I don't know enough about the medieval
> > embalming process to comment further.
> >
> > <When Henry was exhumed they found blood still matted in his
hair!!!
> >.
> >
> > Yep - so they alleged at the time!
>
> Sorry, last message blank. Can anyone with medical knowledge tell us
> whether a dead body would be bleeding anyway? If not, then it would
> have to be something else people saw.
>
> marie

In a message dated 3/4/03 6:31:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:


> If Henry's head was bleeding so profusely it suggests a severance
> of an artery, not a fall down the steps. I think the people who
> exhumed Henry could distinquish between blood & enbalming fluid! Pity
> they didn't check the type of indentation in the skull.
>

That's why I think Henry needs an appointment with an x-ray machine. When
King Tutankhamun's skull was x-rayed in 1968 they found something that didn't
show up when they just observed his skull that provided a new theory as to
how he died.

>>As with trying to prove that Edward 4 WAS a bastard, presumably to
vindicate Richard's claim, what's the aim of all this? SAINT Richard
III?
Ugh I don't feel like answering this one anymore...
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

I too would like a full medical investigation of Henry, but alas
would the Queen be pleased about her ancestors being dug up &
scrutinised? I can think of Henry 6, Henry 8, Edward 4 at Windsor
alone who would bear autopsy, without moving onto Westminster
Abbey: what remains of the princes, Elizabeth York DNA comparison &
carbon dating for the 1674 bones... The list could go on & on...

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/4/03 6:31:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@y... writes:
>
>
> > If Henry's head was bleeding so profusely it suggests a severance
> > of an artery, not a fall down the steps. I think the people who
> > exhumed Henry could distinquish between blood & enbalming fluid!
Pity
> > they didn't check the type of indentation in the skull.
> >
>
> That's why I think Henry needs an appointment with an x-ray machine.
When
> King Tutankhamun's skull was x-rayed in 1968 they found something
that didn't
> show up when they just observed his skull that provided a new theory
as to
> how he died.
>
> >>As with trying to prove that Edward 4 WAS a bastard, presumably to
> vindicate Richard's claim, what's the aim of all this? SAINT
Richard
> III?
> Ugh I don't feel like answering this one anymore...
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>

I too would like a full medical investigation of Henry, but alas
would the Queen be pleased about her ancestors being dug up &
scrutinised? I can think of Henry 6, Henry 8, Edward 4 at Windsor
alone who would bear autopsy, without moving onto Westminster
Abbey: what remains of the princes, Elizabeth York DNA comparison &
carbon dating for the 1674 bones... The list could go on & on...

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/4/03 6:31:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@y... writes:
>
>
> > If Henry's head was bleeding so profusely it suggests a severance
> > of an artery, not a fall down the steps. I think the people who
> > exhumed Henry could distinquish between blood & enbalming fluid!
Pity
> > they didn't check the type of indentation in the skull.
> >
>
> That's why I think Henry needs an appointment with an x-ray machine.
When
> King Tutankhamun's skull was x-rayed in 1968 they found something
that didn't
> show up when they just observed his skull that provided a new theory
as to
> how he died.
>
> >>As with trying to prove that Edward 4 WAS a bastard, presumably to
> vindicate Richard's claim, what's the aim of all this? SAINT
Richard
> III?
> Ugh I don't feel like answering this one anymore...
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>

--- In , "willison2001"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> I too would like a full medical investigation of Henry, but alas
> would the Queen be pleased about her ancestors being dug up &
> scrutinised? I can think of Henry 6, Henry 8, Edward 4 at Windsor
> alone who would bear autopsy, without moving onto Westminster
> Abbey: what remains of the princes, Elizabeth York DNA comparison &
> carbon dating for the 1674 bones... The list could go on & on...


No, I bet she wouldn't. I would hate it if they were my ancestors.
However, some of these bodies have been exhumed in the past in the
course of restoration work, etc, and may well be again. That, I
think, would be the proper time for autopsies. DNA analysis would be
wonderful, though I understand that the chances of DNA surviving in
such old remains are extremely small.

By the by, if a severed artery were the cause of death, how long
would it take for the body to drain of blood? Severed arteries do
bleed pretty fast.

Marie
>
> --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote:
> > In a message dated 3/4/03 6:31:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > willison2001@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > If Henry's head was bleeding so profusely it suggests a
severance
> > > of an artery, not a fall down the steps. I think the people
who
> > > exhumed Henry could distinquish between blood & enbalming
fluid!
> Pity
> > > they didn't check the type of indentation in the skull.
> > >
> >
> > That's why I think Henry needs an appointment with an x-ray
machine.
> When
> > King Tutankhamun's skull was x-rayed in 1968 they found something
> that didn't
> > show up when they just observed his skull that provided a new
theory
> as to
> > how he died.
> >
> > >>As with trying to prove that Edward 4 WAS a bastard, presumably
to
> > vindicate Richard's claim, what's the aim of all this? SAINT
> Richard
> > III?
> > Ugh I don't feel like answering this one anymore...
> > Victoria
> >
> > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> >
> >
> >

David

< If Henry's head was bleeding so profusely it suggests a severance
> of an artery, not a fall down the steps. >

Except the account didn't disclose from whereabouts on the body the
'blood' was seeping...

<I think the people who exhumed Henry could distinquish between blood
& enbalming fluid!>

Maybe they could - however, they weren't there at St Paul's when he
was making a mess on the steps..!

< Over the other point about accuracy of 15th century accounts where
> money was concerned. These may've been accurate or maybe they
> weren't. We may never know. >

Well, there's a cop-out. Let's agree to differ. I was getting bored
with repeating myself and you clearly don't want to accept that the
official receipts just might be correct. I'll just close this line by
saying I believe the receipt book more than I believe Warkworth's
dates and times.

<But in PRINCIPLE I doubt if Richard was against the execution of
Henry 6. >

So do I. My point was that people say he DID it when even OFFICIAL
EVIDENCE suggests he DIDN'T.

< As with trying to prove that Edward 4 WAS a bastard, presumably to
vindicate Richard's claim, what's the aim of all this? SAINT Richard
III?>

Actually I don't really give a toss if E4 was a bastard. See my reply
to Victoria Hockeygirl for my take on all the claims and counter-claims.

Unless Cecily was hauled up before a Church Court in the summer of
1483 and we have no record that she was, I can't see why it should
ever have cropped up as a plank of Richard's claim to the throne. The
precontract/Stillington revelations, tested, as even Thos.More says in
his original version, before various proctors, and the subsequent
acclamation by the rump of the 3 Estates, is more than good enough for me.

The fact that Mancini (?) mentions it at all means that it is a
legitimate topic for discussion, just like your own speculative
thoughts on Buckingham and young Elizabeth.

And quite where colleagues' discussion about the bastardy report turns
into 'trying to prove' E4's bastardy, which, according to you in turn
equates with trying to turn Richard into a 'saint' is lost on me!

You really do have a highly individual way of interpreting the Forum's
messages at times, David...! :(

Lorraine

I mentioned this elsewhere. When people were being guillotined in
their thousands, experiments were performed. For instance, a pin
was jabbed into a decapitated head over time periods and the face
responded in spasmodic grimaces indicating consciousness/awareness of
the specific pain from the jab, usually in the tongue.. The longest
period this persisted for was 3 minutes. The body with the heart
still pumping would be marginally quicker because of the velocity of
the heart spurting the blood out, until drained...

There goes people's meals again possibly having read that...

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "willison2001"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > I too would like a full medical investigation of Henry, but alas
> > would the Queen be pleased about her ancestors being dug up &
> > scrutinised? I can think of Henry 6, Henry 8, Edward 4 at Windsor
> > alone who would bear autopsy, without moving onto Westminster
> > Abbey: what remains of the princes, Elizabeth York DNA comparison
&
> > carbon dating for the 1674 bones... The list could go on & on...
>
>
> No, I bet she wouldn't. I would hate it if they were my ancestors.
> However, some of these bodies have been exhumed in the past in the
> course of restoration work, etc, and may well be again. That, I
> think, would be the proper time for autopsies. DNA analysis would
be
> wonderful, though I understand that the chances of DNA surviving in
> such old remains are extremely small.
>
> By the by, if a severed artery were the cause of death, how long
> would it take for the body to drain of blood? Severed arteries do
> bleed pretty fast.
>
> Marie
> >
> > --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> > wrote:
> > > In a message dated 3/4/03 6:31:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > > willison2001@y... writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > If Henry's head was bleeding so profusely it suggests a
> severance
> > > > of an artery, not a fall down the steps. I think the people
> who
> > > > exhumed Henry could distinquish between blood & enbalming
> fluid!
> > Pity
> > > > they didn't check the type of indentation in the skull.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's why I think Henry needs an appointment with an x-ray
> machine.
> > When
> > > King Tutankhamun's skull was x-rayed in 1968 they found
something
> > that didn't
> > > show up when they just observed his skull that provided a new
> theory
> > as to
> > > how he died.
> > >
> > > >>As with trying to prove that Edward 4 WAS a bastard,
presumably
> to
> > > vindicate Richard's claim, what's the aim of all this? SAINT
> > Richard
> > > III?
> > > Ugh I don't feel like answering this one anymore...
> > > Victoria
> > >
> > > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> > >
> > >
> > >

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> David
>
> < If Henry's head was bleeding so profusely it suggests a severance
> > of an artery, not a fall down the steps. >
>
> Except the account didn't disclose from whereabouts on the body the
> 'blood' was seeping...

The 'Arrivall' says that his face was exposed, so we may deduce that
his head was bleeding. Blood was matted in his hair...remember?
...when the body was exhumed.
>
. My point was that people say he DID it when even OFFICIAL
> EVIDENCE suggests he DIDN'T.

I've never suggested that Richard or Edward would personally execute
Henry. The order would come from Edward, Richard MAY'VE supervised,
but someone more lowly would surely do the cutting?
>

The> precontract/Stillington revelations, tested, as even Thos.More
says in> his original version, before various proctors, and the
subsequent> acclamation by the rump of the 3 Estates, is more than
good enough for me.

And Richard's large army & ability to use it was probably good enough
for them. I think it's a shame if Richard felt he had to cook up a
claim to the crown, because he was probably, in terms of merit, the
best candidate for King, he had been provoked by a fairly pointless,
arrogant loudmouth like Dorset & he was stuck with the appalling
hereditary system which could allow a complete idiot like Henry 6 to
sit on the throne for arguably 50 years!!!
>
I do think that if it can be established that Edward 4 was a bastard,
which Richard himself circulated or allowed to be circulated when he
was claiming the crown, this would fit in with the avowed aim of some
Ricardians to 'whiten' Richard's 'black' image. He was right all
along! I do think that trying to change a devil into a saint
reputation seems to be the aim of some Ricardians - which I pointed
out - whereas I think Richard was a mixture of things, partly a
creator & partly a victim of circumstance.

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> David
>
> < If Henry's head was bleeding so profusely it suggests a severance
> > of an artery, not a fall down the steps. >
>
> Except the account didn't disclose from whereabouts on the body the
> 'blood' was seeping...
>
> <I think the people who exhumed Henry could distinquish between
blood
> & enbalming fluid!>
>
> Maybe they could - however, they weren't there at St Paul's when he
> was making a mess on the steps..!
>
> < Over the other point about accuracy of 15th century accounts
where
> > money was concerned. These may've been accurate or maybe they
> > weren't. We may never know. >
>
> Well, there's a cop-out. Let's agree to differ. I was getting
bored
> with repeating myself and you clearly don't want to accept that the
> official receipts just might be correct. I'll just close this line
by
> saying I believe the receipt book more than I believe Warkworth's
> dates and times.
>
> <But in PRINCIPLE I doubt if Richard was against the execution of
> Henry 6. >
>
> So do I. My point was that people say he DID it when even OFFICIAL
> EVIDENCE suggests he DIDN'T.
>
> < As with trying to prove that Edward 4 WAS a bastard, presumably
to
> vindicate Richard's claim, what's the aim of all this? SAINT
Richard
> III?>
>
> Actually I don't really give a toss if E4 was a bastard. See my
reply
> to Victoria Hockeygirl for my take on all the claims and counter-
claims.
>
> Unless Cecily was hauled up before a Church Court in the summer of
> 1483 and we have no record that she was, I can't see why it should
> ever have cropped up as a plank of Richard's claim to the throne.
The
> precontract/Stillington revelations, tested, as even Thos.More says
in
> his original version, before various proctors, and the subsequent
> acclamation by the rump of the 3 Estates, is more than good enough
for me.
>
> The fact that Mancini (?) mentions it at all means that it is a
> legitimate topic for discussion, just like your own speculative
> thoughts on Buckingham and young Elizabeth.
>
> And quite where colleagues' discussion about the bastardy report
turns
> into 'trying to prove' E4's bastardy, which, according to you in
turn
> equates with trying to turn Richard into a 'saint' is lost on me!
>
> You really do have a highly individual way of interpreting the
Forum's
> messages at times, David...! :(
>
> Lorraine

Agreed. My interest in the subject of Edward's bastardy, as I said at
the outset, stems from my having noticed the dates issue when doing
my own bit of research many years ago. I was not inclined to go with
it at that time (partly as it seemed unfair to cast aspersions on the
dead without proof, and partly because I guessed the reaction it
wouild get - seems I was right). The interpretation I used in the
novel (fortunately never published!) was that Cecily did develop a
rather innocent intimacy with Blayburn (he surely must have existed -
if the name had been made up it would have been either a common
English surname Burgundy would have known, eg Smith!, or a totally
made-up one. An unusual but bona fide surname from the part of the
country from where York would have drawn many of his troops does have
the air of authenticity about it), and unfortunately happened to fall
pregnant by her husband immediately he returned, then giving birth a
little earlier than expected. But I was never entirely convinced. I
suppose I'd better declare my sympathies as a more or
less 'Ricardian', but I couldn't have been thinking less about
Richard at the time. What Michael Jones' book does which I never did
is to work through the later implications of Blayburn's being the
father. It's more the 'Yes, I knew it!' factor that excites me than
any desire to prove richard III to be a saint (which I don't believe
he was).

Anyway, I differ from Jones in that I am actually not convinced that
York had any suspicions about Edward's paternity, at least not until
pretty late on. Whatever suspicions folk might have had in Rouen,
they would not have had proof (I'm sure a couple in this situation
would have done their best, given the limits on privacy in those
days, to be discreet) though given the limits of privacy they would
have had their suspicions. And, anyway, York is as likely to have
turned on the 'informant' as on his wife. York's negoatiating for the
hand of a French princess for Edward both at the time of Henry's
marriage to Margaret of Anjou and in the early 1450s, his bringing
him to London & sitting him at council meetings when he was 12, all
point to me to a father who was proud of his heir. The low-key
christening for Edward compared with Edmund may rather have to do
with the fact that he was not the heir at that time. Perhaps by the
time Edmund was born little Henry had passed on, and York had learned
the lesson that a big christening doesn't hurt - you never know which
son will succeed you in the end. I sense a strain in York & Edward's
relationship during Edward's later teens (I am not quite convinced
that the 11 months' age difference between himself & Edmund totally
accounts for the different treatment). Of course, teenagers don't
always get on with their parents.

However, it is after York's death that things become more interesting
in my opinion. Some time during the mid 1460s, to be precise, when
Clarence and Warwick turn against him. And it could all be to do with
the Woodville marriage. It has been suggested that Clarence died
because he knew of the precontract. But there is no contemporary
suggestion that he made any such accusation, only that he revived his
claim that Edward himself was illegitimate. A lot of historians
dismiss the records which claim that before Richard claimed the
throne Shaa proclaimed Edward's bastardy from Paul's Cross - arguing
that Richard couldn't have got away with this whilst living in his
mother's house. But according to the records this is precisely what
did happen.

Also, having spent a lot of time with the Duke of York (so to speak)
whilst writing that book, and another novel I never finished, I feel
I got to know him pretty well. Certainly he doesn't seem to have had
anything like Edward's height & good looks, and I can't see a single
point of similarity in their characters (based on their actions).
Now, I can see similarities between York and Richard III, and by all
accounts there was a striking physical resemblance. Admittedly, none
of this is proof, but it all adds up and, for me, can't be just
dismissed.

Similarly with the 'accuracy of fifteenth century accounts'. Dare I
remind David that it was the medievals who invented double-entry book-
keeping? Accounts are kept as one goes along, money matters, and for
both these reasons accounts and such are a very reliable source for
dating events. Many chronicles were written up by people who weren't
there many years after the events they describe. I've read Warkworth,
and tried to use him - impossible. He's a silly man who puts events
in the wrong year, never mind on the wrong day, wildly inaccurate and
completely obsessed with miraculous occurrences. Giant cocks crowing
out in the sea, that sort of thing.

By the by, another conception issue I noted when researching book 2
was that of Edward of Lanceaster. Again, the point has since been
made in print, but the time he was probably conceived was one of the
occasions when Henry and Margaret were living in the same palace (as
I remember it, Henry was staying at Margaret's palace of Greenwich
for the Christmas season). This means he could well have been Henry's
son. However, it doesn't prove it. Couples of that status had
separate apartments. If, after 8 years of barren marriage, with her
husband's position looking shaky, Margaret had decided she had to get
an heir by hook or by crook, she would have been too clever to get
pregnant when Henry was miles away. So on that one too the jury must
remain out.

Marie

I'm glad you don't think that Richard III was a saint. I don't
think even Thomas More deserved to be called one, but he was!

I'm prepared to accept that Warkworth may've been loopy, but he
may've had lucid moments in his work and the book keepers in those
days of extreme illiteracy may've made the odd mistake.

Interesting about Margaret of Anjou not using Henry 6 to father
Edward her son. I doubt if Henry could even tell the time of day.
Hold on, you've just created an excuse for another triple exhumation
for DNA comparison: (g) Margaret, Henry & Edward. I can see the
bodies stacking up in the coroner's office!


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "lpickering2"
> <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > David
> >
> > < If Henry's head was bleeding so profusely it suggests a
severance
> > > of an artery, not a fall down the steps. >
> >
> > Except the account didn't disclose from whereabouts on the body
the
> > 'blood' was seeping...
> >
> > <I think the people who exhumed Henry could distinquish between
> blood
> > & enbalming fluid!>
> >
> > Maybe they could - however, they weren't there at St Paul's when
he
> > was making a mess on the steps..!
> >
> > < Over the other point about accuracy of 15th century accounts
> where
> > > money was concerned. These may've been accurate or maybe they
> > > weren't. We may never know. >
> >
> > Well, there's a cop-out. Let's agree to differ. I was getting
> bored
> > with repeating myself and you clearly don't want to accept that
the
> > official receipts just might be correct. I'll just close this
line
> by
> > saying I believe the receipt book more than I believe Warkworth's
> > dates and times.
> >
> > <But in PRINCIPLE I doubt if Richard was against the execution of
> > Henry 6. >
> >
> > So do I. My point was that people say he DID it when even
OFFICIAL
> > EVIDENCE suggests he DIDN'T.
> >
> > < As with trying to prove that Edward 4 WAS a bastard, presumably
> to
> > vindicate Richard's claim, what's the aim of all this? SAINT
> Richard
> > III?>
> >
> > Actually I don't really give a toss if E4 was a bastard. See my
> reply
> > to Victoria Hockeygirl for my take on all the claims and counter-
> claims.
> >
> > Unless Cecily was hauled up before a Church Court in the summer of
> > 1483 and we have no record that she was, I can't see why it should
> > ever have cropped up as a plank of Richard's claim to the throne.

> The
> > precontract/Stillington revelations, tested, as even Thos.More
says
> in
> > his original version, before various proctors, and the subsequent
> > acclamation by the rump of the 3 Estates, is more than good enough
> for me.
> >
> > The fact that Mancini (?) mentions it at all means that it is a
> > legitimate topic for discussion, just like your own speculative
> > thoughts on Buckingham and young Elizabeth.
> >
> > And quite where colleagues' discussion about the bastardy report
> turns
> > into 'trying to prove' E4's bastardy, which, according to you in
> turn
> > equates with trying to turn Richard into a 'saint' is lost on me!

> >
> > You really do have a highly individual way of interpreting the
> Forum's
> > messages at times, David...! :(
> >
> > Lorraine
>
> Agreed. My interest in the subject of Edward's bastardy, as I said
at
> the outset, stems from my having noticed the dates issue when doing
> my own bit of research many years ago. I was not inclined to go with
> it at that time (partly as it seemed unfair to cast aspersions on
the
> dead without proof, and partly because I guessed the reaction it
> wouild get - seems I was right). The interpretation I used in the
> novel (fortunately never published!) was that Cecily did develop a
> rather innocent intimacy with Blayburn (he surely must have existed
-
> if the name had been made up it would have been either a common
> English surname Burgundy would have known, eg Smith!, or a totally
> made-up one. An unusual but bona fide surname from the part of the
> country from where York would have drawn many of his troops does
have
> the air of authenticity about it), and unfortunately happened to
fall
> pregnant by her husband immediately he returned, then giving birth a
> little earlier than expected. But I was never entirely convinced. I
> suppose I'd better declare my sympathies as a more or
> less 'Ricardian', but I couldn't have been thinking less about
> Richard at the time. What Michael Jones' book does which I never did
> is to work through the later implications of Blayburn's being the
> father. It's more the 'Yes, I knew it!' factor that excites me than
> any desire to prove richard III to be a saint (which I don't believe
> he was).
>
> Anyway, I differ from Jones in that I am actually not convinced that
> York had any suspicions about Edward's paternity, at least not until
> pretty late on. Whatever suspicions folk might have had in Rouen,
> they would not have had proof (I'm sure a couple in this situation
> would have done their best, given the limits on privacy in those
> days, to be discreet) though given the limits of privacy they would
> have had their suspicions. And, anyway, York is as likely to have
> turned on the 'informant' as on his wife. York's negoatiating for
the
> hand of a French princess for Edward both at the time of Henry's
> marriage to Margaret of Anjou and in the early 1450s, his bringing
> him to London & sitting him at council meetings when he was 12, all
> point to me to a father who was proud of his heir. The low-key
> christening for Edward compared with Edmund may rather have to do
> with the fact that he was not the heir at that time. Perhaps by the
> time Edmund was born little Henry had passed on, and York had
learned
> the lesson that a big christening doesn't hurt - you never know
which
> son will succeed you in the end. I sense a strain in York & Edward's
> relationship during Edward's later teens (I am not quite convinced
> that the 11 months' age difference between himself & Edmund totally
> accounts for the different treatment). Of course, teenagers don't
> always get on with their parents.
>
> However, it is after York's death that things become more
interesting
> in my opinion. Some time during the mid 1460s, to be precise, when
> Clarence and Warwick turn against him. And it could all be to do
with
> the Woodville marriage. It has been suggested that Clarence died
> because he knew of the precontract. But there is no contemporary
> suggestion that he made any such accusation, only that he revived
his
> claim that Edward himself was illegitimate. A lot of historians
> dismiss the records which claim that before Richard claimed the
> throne Shaa proclaimed Edward's bastardy from Paul's Cross - arguing
> that Richard couldn't have got away with this whilst living in his
> mother's house. But according to the records this is precisely what
> did happen.
>
> Also, having spent a lot of time with the Duke of York (so to speak)
> whilst writing that book, and another novel I never finished, I feel
> I got to know him pretty well. Certainly he doesn't seem to have had
> anything like Edward's height & good looks, and I can't see a single
> point of similarity in their characters (based on their actions).
> Now, I can see similarities between York and Richard III, and by all
> accounts there was a striking physical resemblance. Admittedly, none
> of this is proof, but it all adds up and, for me, can't be just
> dismissed.
>
> Similarly with the 'accuracy of fifteenth century accounts'. Dare I
> remind David that it was the medievals who invented double-entry
book-
> keeping? Accounts are kept as one goes along, money matters, and for
> both these reasons accounts and such are a very reliable source for
> dating events. Many chronicles were written up by people who weren't
> there many years after the events they describe. I've read
Warkworth,
> and tried to use him - impossible. He's a silly man who puts events
> in the wrong year, never mind on the wrong day, wildly inaccurate
and
> completely obsessed with miraculous occurrences. Giant cocks crowing
> out in the sea, that sort of thing.
>
> By the by, another conception issue I noted when researching book 2
> was that of Edward of Lanceaster. Again, the point has since been
> made in print, but the time he was probably conceived was one of the
> occasions when Henry and Margaret were living in the same palace (as
> I remember it, Henry was staying at Margaret's palace of Greenwich
> for the Christmas season). This means he could well have been
Henry's
> son. However, it doesn't prove it. Couples of that status had
> separate apartments. If, after 8 years of barren marriage, with her
> husband's position looking shaky, Margaret had decided she had to
get
> an heir by hook or by crook, she would have been too clever to get
> pregnant when Henry was miles away. So on that one too the jury must
> remain out.
>
> Marie

--- In , "willison2001"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> I'm glad you don't think that Richard III was a saint. I don't
> think even Thomas More deserved to be called one, but he was!
>
> I'm prepared to accept that Warkworth may've been loopy, but he
> may've had lucid moments in his work and the book keepers in those
> days of extreme illiteracy may've made the odd mistake.

Oh, come on, admit when you're beat. These book keepers were not
illiterate even if, possibly, 70% of the population was. They were
professionals, numerate in roman numerals (just try that), and
literate in both English and Latin (complete with shorthand symbols);
and, like any modern book keeper, they were working aily updating the
books. And the royal household from Edward IV's time was a tightly-
run ship, having to keep its finances afloat without normal recourse
to taxes. To write them off as useless just because they lived in the
Middle Ages is actually to write off Warwkworth as well.
Warkworth I dismiss because he is provably unreliable. He may have
had his lucid moments (or he may not), but given a choice between him
and genuine solid contemporary accounts there can be no rational
contest. The only attraction of Warkworth would seem to be if he
happened to back up one's preconceived opinion on something. We all
fall into that temptation now and again.

Marie>
> Interesting about Margaret of Anjou not using Henry 6 to father
> Edward her son. I doubt if Henry could even tell the time of day.
> Hold on, you've just created an excuse for another triple
exhumation
> for DNA comparison: (g) Margaret, Henry & Edward. I can see the
> bodies stacking up in the coroner's office!
>

Well, not exactly news. He was widely believed to be the son of one
of the Queen's favourites, either Somerset or Wiltshire. Possibly
only because Henry wasn't thought up to the job. One of the Pastons
reported in a letter that when Henry recovered his sanity early in
1454 and was shown the baby he held up his hands and declared it must
be the son of the Holy Ghost. And maybe he did and maybe he didn't.
Yes, there'd be lots of DNA testing one would like to do, but it's
probably never going to be possible.

Marie
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "lpickering2"
> > <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > > David
> > >
> > > < If Henry's head was bleeding so profusely it suggests a
> severance
> > > > of an artery, not a fall down the steps. >
> > >
> > > Except the account didn't disclose from whereabouts on the body
> the
> > > 'blood' was seeping...
> > >
> > > <I think the people who exhumed Henry could distinquish between
> > blood
> > > & enbalming fluid!>
> > >
> > > Maybe they could - however, they weren't there at St Paul's
when
> he
> > > was making a mess on the steps..!
> > >
> > > < Over the other point about accuracy of 15th century accounts
> > where
> > > > money was concerned. These may've been accurate or maybe
they
> > > > weren't. We may never know. >
> > >
> > > Well, there's a cop-out. Let's agree to differ. I was getting
> > bored
> > > with repeating myself and you clearly don't want to accept that
> the
> > > official receipts just might be correct. I'll just close this
> line
> > by
> > > saying I believe the receipt book more than I believe
Warkworth's
> > > dates and times.
> > >
> > > <But in PRINCIPLE I doubt if Richard was against the execution
of
> > > Henry 6. >
> > >
> > > So do I. My point was that people say he DID it when even
> OFFICIAL
> > > EVIDENCE suggests he DIDN'T.
> > >
> > > < As with trying to prove that Edward 4 WAS a bastard,
presumably
> > to
> > > vindicate Richard's claim, what's the aim of all this? SAINT
> > Richard
> > > III?>
> > >
> > > Actually I don't really give a toss if E4 was a bastard. See
my
> > reply
> > > to Victoria Hockeygirl for my take on all the claims and
counter-
> > claims.
> > >
> > > Unless Cecily was hauled up before a Church Court in the summer
of
> > > 1483 and we have no record that she was, I can't see why it
should
> > > ever have cropped up as a plank of Richard's claim to the
throne.
>
> > The
> > > precontract/Stillington revelations, tested, as even Thos.More
> says
> > in
> > > his original version, before various proctors, and the
subsequent
> > > acclamation by the rump of the 3 Estates, is more than good
enough
> > for me.
> > >
> > > The fact that Mancini (?) mentions it at all means that it is a
> > > legitimate topic for discussion, just like your own speculative
> > > thoughts on Buckingham and young Elizabeth.
> > >
> > > And quite where colleagues' discussion about the bastardy
report
> > turns
> > > into 'trying to prove' E4's bastardy, which, according to you
in
> > turn
> > > equates with trying to turn Richard into a 'saint' is lost on
me!
>
> > >
> > > You really do have a highly individual way of interpreting the
> > Forum's
> > > messages at times, David...! :(
> > >
> > > Lorraine
> >
> > Agreed. My interest in the subject of Edward's bastardy, as I
said
> at
> > the outset, stems from my having noticed the dates issue when
doing
> > my own bit of research many years ago. I was not inclined to go
with
> > it at that time (partly as it seemed unfair to cast aspersions on
> the
> > dead without proof, and partly because I guessed the reaction it
> > wouild get - seems I was right). The interpretation I used in the
> > novel (fortunately never published!) was that Cecily did develop
a
> > rather innocent intimacy with Blayburn (he surely must have
existed
> -
> > if the name had been made up it would have been either a common
> > English surname Burgundy would have known, eg Smith!, or a
totally
> > made-up one. An unusual but bona fide surname from the part of
the
> > country from where York would have drawn many of his troops does
> have
> > the air of authenticity about it), and unfortunately happened to
> fall
> > pregnant by her husband immediately he returned, then giving
birth a
> > little earlier than expected. But I was never entirely convinced.
I
> > suppose I'd better declare my sympathies as a more or
> > less 'Ricardian', but I couldn't have been thinking less about
> > Richard at the time. What Michael Jones' book does which I never
did
> > is to work through the later implications of Blayburn's being the
> > father. It's more the 'Yes, I knew it!' factor that excites me
than
> > any desire to prove richard III to be a saint (which I don't
believe
> > he was).
> >
> > Anyway, I differ from Jones in that I am actually not convinced
that
> > York had any suspicions about Edward's paternity, at least not
until
> > pretty late on. Whatever suspicions folk might have had in Rouen,
> > they would not have had proof (I'm sure a couple in this
situation
> > would have done their best, given the limits on privacy in those
> > days, to be discreet) though given the limits of privacy they
would
> > have had their suspicions. And, anyway, York is as likely to have
> > turned on the 'informant' as on his wife. York's negoatiating for
> the
> > hand of a French princess for Edward both at the time of Henry's
> > marriage to Margaret of Anjou and in the early 1450s, his
bringing
> > him to London & sitting him at council meetings when he was 12,
all
> > point to me to a father who was proud of his heir. The low-key
> > christening for Edward compared with Edmund may rather have to do
> > with the fact that he was not the heir at that time. Perhaps by
the
> > time Edmund was born little Henry had passed on, and York had
> learned
> > the lesson that a big christening doesn't hurt - you never know
> which
> > son will succeed you in the end. I sense a strain in York &
Edward's
> > relationship during Edward's later teens (I am not quite
convinced
> > that the 11 months' age difference between himself & Edmund
totally
> > accounts for the different treatment). Of course, teenagers don't
> > always get on with their parents.
> >
> > However, it is after York's death that things become more
> interesting
> > in my opinion. Some time during the mid 1460s, to be precise,
when
> > Clarence and Warwick turn against him. And it could all be to do
> with
> > the Woodville marriage. It has been suggested that Clarence died
> > because he knew of the precontract. But there is no contemporary
> > suggestion that he made any such accusation, only that he revived
> his
> > claim that Edward himself was illegitimate. A lot of historians
> > dismiss the records which claim that before Richard claimed the
> > throne Shaa proclaimed Edward's bastardy from Paul's Cross -
arguing
> > that Richard couldn't have got away with this whilst living in
his
> > mother's house. But according to the records this is precisely
what
> > did happen.
> >
> > Also, having spent a lot of time with the Duke of York (so to
speak)
> > whilst writing that book, and another novel I never finished, I
feel
> > I got to know him pretty well. Certainly he doesn't seem to have
had
> > anything like Edward's height & good looks, and I can't see a
single
> > point of similarity in their characters (based on their actions).
> > Now, I can see similarities between York and Richard III, and by
all
> > accounts there was a striking physical resemblance. Admittedly,
none
> > of this is proof, but it all adds up and, for me, can't be just
> > dismissed.
> >
> > Similarly with the 'accuracy of fifteenth century accounts'. Dare
I
> > remind David that it was the medievals who invented double-entry
> book-
> > keeping? Accounts are kept as one goes along, money matters, and
for
> > both these reasons accounts and such are a very reliable source
for
> > dating events. Many chronicles were written up by people who
weren't
> > there many years after the events they describe. I've read
> Warkworth,
> > and tried to use him - impossible. He's a silly man who puts
events
> > in the wrong year, never mind on the wrong day, wildly inaccurate
> and
> > completely obsessed with miraculous occurrences. Giant cocks
crowing
> > out in the sea, that sort of thing.
> >
> > By the by, another conception issue I noted when researching book
2
> > was that of Edward of Lanceaster. Again, the point has since been
> > made in print, but the time he was probably conceived was one of
the
> > occasions when Henry and Margaret were living in the same palace
(as
> > I remember it, Henry was staying at Margaret's palace of
Greenwich
> > for the Christmas season). This means he could well have been
> Henry's
> > son. However, it doesn't prove it. Couples of that status had
> > separate apartments. If, after 8 years of barren marriage, with
her
> > husband's position looking shaky, Margaret had decided she had to
> get
> > an heir by hook or by crook, she would have been too clever to
get
> > pregnant when Henry was miles away. So on that one too the jury
must
> > remain out.
> >
> > Marie

--- In , brian_yorkist
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Richard didn't seem to care about the opprobrium of killing
> Hastings &
> > damnation in the next.
>
> Killing adult politicians was par for the course right up until the
> early 18th century. If you failed (as a politician) you were
> executed. Tudor history has this sort of thing going on all the
time.
> There was a distinction drawn, even then, in favour of children.
Even
> Henry VII allowed Edward Warwick to grow up before murdering him.
No
> opprobrium attached.
>
> > Publically displaying 2 children wouldn't have been wise given
that
> > Richard wasn't an idiot. He knew his title was shaky & that many
> > rebels were around. You may recall that Edward IV tried to cover
> up the murder of Henry 6 by saying that he died of 'pure
displeasure
> &
> > melancholy.'
>
> But he still displayed Henry's body!!! Though Henry was widely
> regarded as a saint. By *not* displaying the bodies of the boys, if
> he killed them, Richard was encouraging imposters. (He didn't know
he
> was going to die in 1485.) You don't need to believe me that these
> imposters would have emerged - just read the history of Henry VII's
> reign for details. It is not enough to kill a deposed king - you
have
> to make sure that people **know** he is dead. The evidence suggests
> to me that neither Richard III, or Henry VII actually knew what had
> happened. Which is very odd, except that no other explanation
really
> fits the facts. Even William Stanley, who was certainly in a
position
> to know if anyone did, believed as late as 1495 in the possibility
> that Richard Duke of York was alive. Therefore he cannot have
*known*
> that the lad was dead, could he? He was Henry VII's Lord
Chamberlain!
>
> > The staircase in question was enclosed by a passageway from
royal
> > apartments & could've been sealed off for 'works.' If you have a
> > royal warrant this is possible. Using the Thames was public!
>
> In the dark it was probably about as public as the Tower stairway,
> and a lot quicker. You know, I rather think people dropped stuff in
> it all the time. People are like that with rivers even now, and
more
> so then.
> >
> > Have you any source to indicate that Henry 4 killed children the
> same
> > ages in the Tower?
>
> I was not suggesting that the bones belonged to Henry's victims any
> more than to Richard's, merely pointing out that there were other
> unaccounted (presumed) deaths in the Tower.
> Fact is that at least one of Owain's grandchildren went into the
> Tower and never came out, *as far as we know*. A young child, but I
> don't have the birth certificate I'm afraid. Of course this child,
> probably a boy born circa 1403, may have survived. He may not have
> been murdered at all.
> This child had three siblings who died with their mother in the
> Tower "of a fever" and were taken out and buried in a church. No
one
> ever suggested that Henry murdered them, but they were definitely
> dead. We don't know whether the other child lived or died.
> I'm sorry to be so long winded, but do you get my drift?
> Regards
> Brian

Yes, this was Lionel Mortimer, the son of Edmund Mortimer and Owain
Glyndwr's daughter Catrin. Edmund Mortimer was Richard Duke of York's
great-uncle. He sided with Glyndwr in his attempt to bid for the
English throne, and married his daughter. Edmund died, apparently
from starvation, during the siege of Harlech, and when the castle
fell his widow and children were captured and taken to the Tower of
London. Sources are silent on them after that. Records of the burials
of Catrin and her (two?) daughters about 18 months later have been
discovered in the registers of a nearby London church, but there is
no evidence at all as to what became of Edmund's little male heir.

Marie

willison200105/03/2003 17:27willison2001@...

> I too would like a full medical investigation of Henry, but alas
> would the Queen be pleased about her ancestors being dug up &
> scrutinised? I can think of Henry 6, Henry 8, Edward 4 at Windsor
> alone who would bear autopsy, without moving onto Westminster
> Abbey: what remains of the princes, Elizabeth York DNA comparison &
> carbon dating for the 1674 bones...
I note how you slip in your conviction that the mess of pigs bones, others
and detritus found in the Tower in the 17th century belong to what the urn
says are "the princes". Of course they aren't, but you have to have your
blessed More be correct, and won't give up on his factional account....