Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Lies, damned lies & political p

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


Tut tut Lorraine <g>
You point out the surviving evidence that says that the Council authorised
the executions of Grey etc then chuck!

You and I both know that there is no evidence that Grey, Rivers and Vaughan
executions received the blessing of the Council - and of all the candidates
only Rous (hardly Mr Reliable) suggests somekind of trial even that
resembles battlefield justice or a kangaroo court rather than the trial to
which they would have been legally entitled to. Incidentally what was the
charge then?

The progression of events for that week in June suggests that Richard had
already decided to make some kind of move with out any great debate over why
which we've been over time and again - 16th June Richard of York surrendered
by the Queen, 17th June - writs cancelling the summer parliament are
despatched, coronation preparations for Edward V suddenly fade away,
dispatch of writs northwards presumably authorising the removal of Rivers
etc, 22nd June Ralph Shaw preaches at St Pauls Cross, 24th June Buckingham's
speech, 25th June Rivers etc die at Pontefract,

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> >
> > Gone into loads of times before: Richard didn't execute these
> > people, altho' no doubt he was happy with the decision of the
> > *Council*, who must take collective responsibility for this
> > outcome. An earlier poster wondered if there had been a trial for
> > Rivers & Co - well, according to Rous there was, and
Northumberland
> > presided at it. Rous is quite clear on this point.
>
>
> Tut tut Lorraine <g>
> You point out the surviving evidence that says that the Council
authorised
> the executions of Grey etc then chuck!
>
> You and I both know that there is no evidence that Grey, Rivers and
Vaughan
> executions received the blessing of the Council - and of all the
candidates
> only Rous (hardly Mr Reliable) suggests somekind of trial even that
> resembles battlefield justice or a kangaroo court rather than the
trial to
> which they would have been legally entitled to. Incidentally what
was the
> charge then?
>
> The progression of events for that week in June suggests that
Richard had
> already decided to make some kind of move with out any great debate
over why
> which we've been over time and again - 16th June Richard of York
surrendered
> by the Queen, 17th June - writs cancelling the summer parliament are
> despatched, coronation preparations for Edward V suddenly fade away,
> dispatch of writs northwards presumably authorising the removal of
Rivers
> etc, 22nd June Ralph Shaw preaches at St Pauls Cross, 24th June
Buckingham's
> speech, 25th June Rivers etc die at Pontefract,

Couldn't agree with you more. This is the historical evidence, but we
are told by Ricardians that the written record is 'bollocks' if it
doesn't suit THEIR version. It's like trying to get a fox to
agree with chickens in a chicken pen. All I can see is a fluttering
of feathers.

<Couldn't agree with you more. This is the historical evidence, but
we are told by Ricardians that the written record is 'bollocks' if it
doesn't suit THEIR version. It's like trying to get a fox to
agree with chickens in a chicken pen. All I can see is a fluttering
of feathers.>

What a fowl accusation!

Lorraine

Hiya Timbo

<You and I both know that there is no evidence that Grey, Rivers and
Vaughan executions received the blessing of the Council>

Actually, there's some evidence in Harley that Edward V was fairly
pragmatic about his late uncle. You should read it sometime <g>.

<only Rous (hardly Mr Reliable) suggests somekind of trial>

Er - yes. Only UnReliable Rous...So what? Most of what we debate
about only has one source.

<even that resembles battlefield justice or a kangaroo court rather
than the trial to which they would have been legally entitled to. >

Oh, you're just winging it now! Have you got Rous' account handy?
No. Thought not.

<Incidentally what was the charge then?>

Dunno. 'Writing Bad Poetry' for Rivers and 'Not Having a Proper Job'
for Grey, I suppose. Or Gross Idiocy While in Charge of a King.

Regards - Lorraine

lpickering2 <lpickering2@...>02/03/2003 3:56lpickering2@...

> <Incidentally what was the charge then?>
>
> Dunno. 'Writing Bad Poetry' for Rivers and 'Not Having a Proper Job'
> for Grey, I suppose. Or Gross Idiocy While in Charge of a King.
Thanks Lorraine for making me smile on an otherwise grim day!
Paul