Did Richard cock things up at Bosworth?

Vergil states that Richard's men were faint to fight for him at
Bosworth, because of the immoral & illegal way he came to the crown &
the suspicion that Richard had followed precedence by bumping off his
nephews. Vergil was a tadge biased of course.

This may be why things went so pear shaped for Richard. But his
general strategy seems unwise. The records perhaps leave a lot to be
desired. But, as I've said before, why didn't Richard let Tudor join
Stanley which would've smoked the 2 faced Lord out into the open,
then, Richard could've rallied the dead Norfolk's troops, taken rein
of Northumberland's force and with his own, confronted the combined
Tudor, Oxford & Stanley army? Richard's strategy seems weak.
Attacking Tudor with his rear unguarded from Stanley, who he seems to
have suspected of duplicity, suggests that Richard was no great
general. Edward had won Barnet & Tewkesbury & Richard's solo
enterprise in Scotland maybe, as Croyland observed, was 'much ado
about nothing.' I think Berwick was the only long term gain and,
according to Croyland, expensive to maintain...

It was Richard who ended up dead after all...

And to be fair to Tudor, it was he who fined private armies out of
existence to prevent overmighty subjects like Warwick in the 1460s &
70s & Richard in 1483 from causing mayhem with the legal system.

There is a different view on the battle of Bosworth. Michael Hicks has written a book called Bosworth 1485 and in his book he has put the idea forward that Richard111's charge towards Tudor was planned and not a spur of the moment thing, you can read about it on this website: http://www.richard111.com, go to the battle of bosworth page, scroll down and click on the link "Looking for Bosworth". I only come accross it today while looking around this site. As soon as I can afford to do so I may well buy this book. I am a new member to this forum and have been reading all the messages over the last few days with some interest and this is my first contribution. Another site worth looking at is Michael Marshall's site, he is a Yorkshireman and a descendant of the Nevill family, this is the link: http://www.merlinventor.com

willison2001 <willison2001@...> wrote:Vergil states that Richard's men were faint to fight for him at
Bosworth, because of the immoral & illegal way he came to the crown &
the suspicion that Richard had followed precedence by bumping off his
nephews. Vergil was a tadge biased of course.

This may be why things went so pear shaped for Richard. But his
general strategy seems unwise. The records perhaps leave a lot to be
desired. But, as I've said before, why didn't Richard let Tudor join
Stanley which would've smoked the 2 faced Lord out into the open,
then, Richard could've rallied the dead Norfolk's troops, taken rein
of Northumberland's force and with his own, confronted the combined
Tudor, Oxford & Stanley army? Richard's strategy seems weak.
Attacking Tudor with his rear unguarded from Stanley, who he seems to
have suspected of duplicity, suggests that Richard was no great
general. Edward had won Barnet & Tewkesbury & Richard's solo
enterprise in Scotland maybe, as Croyland observed, was 'much ado
about nothing.' I think Berwick was the only long term gain and,
according to Croyland, expensive to maintain...

It was Richard who ended up dead after all...

And to be fair to Tudor, it was he who fined private armies out of
existence to prevent overmighty subjects like Warwick in the 1460s &
70s & Richard in 1483 from causing mayhem with the legal system.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs

Hi Gill

<There is a different view on the battle of Bosworth. Michael Hicks
has written a book called Bosworth 1485 and in his book he has put
the idea forward that Richard111's charge towards Tudor was planned
and not a spur of the moment thing, you can read about it on this
website: http://www.richard111.com, go to the battle of bosworth
page, scroll down and click on the link "Looking for Bosworth". I
only come accross it today while looking around this site. >

Different Michaels. Michael *Jones* is the Bosworth bloke, if memory
serves. Michael *Hicks* OTOH tends to confine himself to thinking
everything in Richard's life was part of some grand and sustained PR
campaign...

<Another site worth looking at is Michael Marshall's site, he is a
Yorkshireman and a descendant of the Nevill family, this is the link:
http://www.merlinventor.com>

AFAIK I've not been there - I'll check it out.

Thanks - and welcome to the Forum.

Lorraine

--- In , "willison2001"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Vergil states that Richard's men were faint to fight for him at
> Bosworth, because of the immoral & illegal way he came to the crown
&
> the suspicion that Richard had followed precedence by bumping off
his
> nephews. Vergil was a tadge biased of course.
>
> This may be why things went so pear shaped for Richard. But his
> general strategy seems unwise. The records perhaps leave a lot to
be
> desired. But, as I've said before, why didn't Richard let Tudor
join
> Stanley which would've smoked the 2 faced Lord out into the open,
> then, Richard could've rallied the dead Norfolk's troops, taken
rein
> of Northumberland's force and with his own, confronted the combined
> Tudor, Oxford & Stanley army? Richard's strategy seems weak.
> Attacking Tudor with his rear unguarded from Stanley, who he seems
to
> have suspected of duplicity, suggests that Richard was no great
> general. Edward had won Barnet & Tewkesbury & Richard's solo
> enterprise in Scotland maybe, as Croyland observed, was 'much ado
> about nothing.' I think Berwick was the only long term gain and,
> according to Croyland, expensive to maintain...

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he, being (evidently) a southerner
and not likely to benefit from the security Berwick gave the English
borders against Scots incursions.
Marie
>
> It was Richard who ended up dead after all...
>
> And to be fair to Tudor, it was he who fined private armies out of
> existence to prevent overmighty subjects like Warwick in the 1460s
&
> 70s & Richard in 1483 from causing mayhem with the legal system.

Thanks, I have only just discovered these sites myself and as to regards to books, there are so many and they are so expensive. I try to get mine from the local libraries but I do like to have some of my own.

Gill

lpickering2 <lpickering2@...> wrote:Hi Gill

<There is a different view on the battle of Bosworth. Michael Hicks
has written a book called Bosworth 1485 and in his book he has put
the idea forward that Richard111's charge towards Tudor was planned
and not a spur of the moment thing, you can read about it on this
website: http://www.richard111.com, go to the battle of bosworth
page, scroll down and click on the link "Looking for Bosworth". I
only come accross it today while looking around this site. >

Different Michaels. Michael *Jones* is the Bosworth bloke, if memory
serves. Michael *Hicks* OTOH tends to confine himself to thinking
everything in Richard's life was part of some grand and sustained PR
campaign...

<Another site worth looking at is Michael Marshall's site, he is a
Yorkshireman and a descendant of the Nevill family, this is the link:
http://www.merlinventor.com>

AFAIK I've not been there - I'll check it out.

Thanks - and welcome to the Forum.

Lorraine



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs

No offense, but King Richard letting Tudor and Stanley join forces does not make sense
First of all Stanley was not ready to join either side and the only possible way Richard could "force" Stanley to join with Tudor would have been to leave the field all together and see what happens
Tudor was moving his army forward, so the only way to allow the two forces to join would be to retreat 'not an option
Also Northumberland was not a "sure thing" as was proven later and if the two forces had joined he probaly would have come in on Tudors side
I guess Richards skill as a general can be debated but there is no denying that among his peers he Was regarded as a great captain
This is my opinion
Welcome to the group
----- Original Message -----
From: Gill
To:
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Did Richard cock things up at Bosworth?



There is a different view on the battle of Bosworth. Michael Hicks has written a book called Bosworth 1485 and in his book he has put the idea forward that Richard111's charge towards Tudor was planned and not a spur of the moment thing, you can read about it on this website: http://www.richard111.com, go to the battle of bosworth page, scroll down and click on the link "Looking for Bosworth". I only come accross it today while looking around this site. As soon as I can afford to do so I may well buy this book. I am a new member to this forum and have been reading all the messages over the last few days with some interest and this is my first contribution. Another site worth looking at is Michael Marshall's site, he is a Yorkshireman and a descendant of the Nevill family, this is the link: http://www.merlinventor.com

willison2001 <willison2001@...> wrote:Vergil states that Richard's men were faint to fight for him at
Bosworth, because of the immoral & illegal way he came to the crown &
the suspicion that Richard had followed precedence by bumping off his
nephews. Vergil was a tadge biased of course.

This may be why things went so pear shaped for Richard. But his
general strategy seems unwise. The records perhaps leave a lot to be
desired. But, as I've said before, why didn't Richard let Tudor join
Stanley which would've smoked the 2 faced Lord out into the open,
then, Richard could've rallied the dead Norfolk's troops, taken rein
of Northumberland's force and with his own, confronted the combined
Tudor, Oxford & Stanley army? Richard's strategy seems weak.
Attacking Tudor with his rear unguarded from Stanley, who he seems to
have suspected of duplicity, suggests that Richard was no great
general. Edward had won Barnet & Tewkesbury & Richard's solo
enterprise in Scotland maybe, as Croyland observed, was 'much ado
about nothing.' I think Berwick was the only long term gain and,
according to Croyland, expensive to maintain...

It was Richard who ended up dead after all...

And to be fair to Tudor, it was he who fined private armies out of
existence to prevent overmighty subjects like Warwick in the 1460s &
70s & Richard in 1483 from causing mayhem with the legal system.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

No offense taken. But if Tudor had joined Stanley - he was on the way
to him - then if Stanley, as a supposedly loyal supporter of Richard,
had not arrested Tudor, then, logically he must've been a traitor.
So, Richard would've known where he stood. As it was Richard
atttacked Tudor, being unsure of Stanley & as we should all know, he
caught it in the rear!!!

I don't see why Richard needed to leave the Field, unless as a
strategic retreat.

Surely, Richard didn't suspect Northumberland as a traitor. They'd
just marched out of Leicester together & Northumberland had
supported Richard's campaign against Buckingham. It may be that
Northumberland was surprised by Richard's rash charge against Tudor
en route to Stanley and was forced to support the winning side
after Richard's death.

Who called Richard a 'great captain?'

--- In , "Hewlett Byrd"
<hewbyrd@m...> wrote:
> No offense, but King Richard letting Tudor and Stanley join forces
does not make sense
> First of all Stanley was not ready to join either side and the only
possible way Richard could "force" Stanley to join with Tudor would
have been to leave the field all together and see what happens
> Tudor was moving his army forward, so the only way to allow the two
forces to join would be to retreat 'not an option
> Also Northumberland was not a "sure thing" as was proven later and
if the two forces had joined he probaly would have come in on Tudors
side
> I guess Richards skill as a general can be debated but there is no
denying that among his peers he Was regarded as a great captain
> This is my opinion
> Welcome to the group
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gill
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Did Richard cock things
up at Bosworth?
>
>
>
> There is a different view on the battle of Bosworth. Michael Hicks
has written a book called Bosworth 1485 and in his book he has put the
idea forward that Richard111's charge towards Tudor was planned and
not a spur of the moment thing, you can read about it on this website:
http://www.richard111.com, go to the battle of bosworth page, scroll
down and click on the link "Looking for Bosworth". I only come accross
it today while looking around this site. As soon as I can afford to do
so I may well buy this book. I am a new member to this forum and have
been reading all the messages over the last few days with some
interest and this is my first contribution. Another site worth looking
at is Michael Marshall's site, he is a Yorkshireman and a descendant
of the Nevill family, this is the link: http://www.merlinventor.com
>
> willison2001 <willison2001@y...> wrote:Vergil states that
Richard's men were faint to fight for him at
> Bosworth, because of the immoral & illegal way he came to the
crown &
> the suspicion that Richard had followed precedence by bumping off
his
> nephews. Vergil was a tadge biased of course.
>
> This may be why things went so pear shaped for Richard. But his
> general strategy seems unwise. The records perhaps leave a lot to
be
> desired. But, as I've said before, why didn't Richard let Tudor
join
> Stanley which would've smoked the 2 faced Lord out into the open,
> then, Richard could've rallied the dead Norfolk's troops, taken
rein
> of Northumberland's force and with his own, confronted the
combined
> Tudor, Oxford & Stanley army? Richard's strategy seems weak.
> Attacking Tudor with his rear unguarded from Stanley, who he seems
to
> have suspected of duplicity, suggests that Richard was no great
> general. Edward had won Barnet & Tewkesbury & Richard's solo
> enterprise in Scotland maybe, as Croyland observed, was 'much ado
> about nothing.' I think Berwick was the only long term gain and,
> according to Croyland, expensive to maintain...
>
> It was Richard who ended up dead after all...
>
> And to be fair to Tudor, it was he who fined private armies out of
> existence to prevent overmighty subjects like Warwick in the 1460s
&
> 70s & Richard in 1483 from causing mayhem with the legal system.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size
that fits your needs
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>

You're welcome, Gill.

Libraries of various sorts have been my lifeline during my years of
study about Richard. Those, and an understanding husband, plus good
friends! ;)

Lorraine

< Thanks, I have only just discovered these sites myself and as to
regards to books, there are so many and they are so expensive.>

< Also Northumberland was not a "sure thing" as was proven later and
if the two forces had joined he probaly would have come in on Tudors
side>

Or maybe not. I find the York accounts at the time of Bosworth quite
interesting. Firstly, no 'treachery' by Northumberland is mentioned,
though they do say that 'Northfolk' was responsible for some. No
City of York Clerk would have referred to Northumberland, someone all
the Council bods knew very well as their alternative 'good lord'
as 'Northfolk', so it presumably can be assumed that 'Norfolk' was
who they meant, and this clearly was an error (or a red herring), as
Norfolk died leading the van, and no other commentator suggests Jack
Howard had a brainstorm on the field and acted against Richard.

I'm inclined to give Northumberland the benefit of the doubt and say
his troops couldn't see or couldn't tell what was going on, and Percy
didn't engage because of confusion, rather than out of malice or
intent. We know from the record somewhere that the northern
contingent had arrived later than expected, and that many more troops
were still on the road when the battle took place. I am guessing
that the gungho thing to do would have been to pitch in blindly and
support the king, but even taking a very real sense of self-
preservation into consideration, there could have been topography or
other barriers to preventing the rear charge. Men with long memories
may have remembered other battles when it was hard to make out
specific liveries, etc. The fact that we don't know where the battle
took place is also a factor here.

The York Minutes were not the place - ordinarily - to apportion blame
for events, or state overt political opinion, yet to some extent
that's EXACTLY what happens in the famous 'Death Entry': Norfolk is
castigated publicly (or some high-up noblebloke is, at any rate,
which itself is unprecented), and King Richard is unequivocally noted
for the record as being 'piteously slain and murdered'. Murdered,
mark you, not just 'bought it at Bosworth in the normal course of
battle'. This is strong stuff.

And what is the very next entry after the regretful news of R3's
murder?

Why, a letter to the Duke of Northumberland wondering what happens
now (I parphrase).

This particular note is also interesting as clearly John Sponor, or
whoever else was the York Council's informant, had obviously detached
from Northumberland's contingent and returned home ASAP to report to
the Council, presumably without being aware that Northumberland was
subsequently arrested.

This arrest itself suggests that Tudor didn't actually see
Northumberland's 'masterly inactivity' at Bosworth as anything other
than, at best, 'you took your bloody time coming to my aid' and was
quite narked about it. Again, this would suggest to me that this had
never been some pre-arranged plan of Northumberland's in order to
hinder Richard and advance Tudor's bid for supremacy.

Of Course the good burghers of York would have to play the loyal
subject bit eventually, and it could be argued that they knew full
well that Percy had dropped Richard in it, but poor Dickon was dead,
and Percy was very much alive and their best hope of gaining all the
remissions and kudos they'd gotten under R3 - the old 'Good Lord is
Dead, Long Live the Good Lord' bit that the City clearly indulged in,
even when Richard was alive (studies of the Minutes show the City
thought nothing of playing off Percy and Richard against each other).

But - the whole tone of the entries at that time, and what could have
happened, plus what we know did actually happen at Bosworth and
afterwards, suggests that Percy wasn't known *at the time* to be at
least partly responsible for Richard's death, by the very men who you
would expect to have had some idea about events that day.

Of course, Percy's subsequent lynching and one of the reasons given
for it suggests otherwise, but then I suppose we have to be careful
about intepreting what 'men say' - after all, it's a bloke from York
who claimed Richard was a 'crouchback', according to the same Minutes!

Sorry - waffling on a bit, I know - when I'm supposed to be at a
lecture in 2 minutes! Bye!

Lorraine

Waffle on if you like I don't expect anybody minds....ha ha.....anyway about the battle of Bosworth, I just try to read as much as I can where ever I can find it, and just try to gain an understanding of things, being female and not having a military mind and having no idea on startegy etc I know I won't work it out for sure but, I do like to read about it and these times generally, it is so fascinating but that is what I am here for mainly, to gain an understanding of these times generally. I find the people (not just Richard) in this whole saga fascinating.
Gill
lpickering2 <lpickering2@...> wrote:< Also Northumberland was not a "sure thing" as was proven later and
if the two forces had joined he probaly would have come in on Tudors
side>

Or maybe not. I find the York accounts at the time of Bosworth quite
interesting. Firstly, no 'treachery' by Northumberland is mentioned,
though they do say that 'Northfolk' was responsible for some. No
City of York Clerk would have referred to Northumberland, someone all
the Council bods knew very well as their alternative 'good lord'
as 'Northfolk', so it presumably can be assumed that 'Norfolk' was
who they meant, and this clearly was an error (or a red herring), as
Norfolk died leading the van, and no other commentator suggests Jack
Howard had a brainstorm on the field and acted against Richard.

I'm inclined to give Northumberland the benefit of the doubt and say
his troops couldn't see or couldn't tell what was going on, and Percy
didn't engage because of confusion, rather than out of malice or
intent. We know from the record somewhere that the northern
contingent had arrived later than expected, and that many more troops
were still on the road when the battle took place. I am guessing
that the gungho thing to do would have been to pitch in blindly and
support the king, but even taking a very real sense of self-
preservation into consideration, there could have been topography or
other barriers to preventing the rear charge. Men with long memories
may have remembered other battles when it was hard to make out
specific liveries, etc. The fact that we don't know where the battle
took place is also a factor here.

The York Minutes were not the place - ordinarily - to apportion blame
for events, or state overt political opinion, yet to some extent
that's EXACTLY what happens in the famous 'Death Entry': Norfolk is
castigated publicly (or some high-up noblebloke is, at any rate,
which itself is unprecented), and King Richard is unequivocally noted
for the record as being 'piteously slain and murdered'. Murdered,
mark you, not just 'bought it at Bosworth in the normal course of
battle'. This is strong stuff.

And what is the very next entry after the regretful news of R3's
murder?

Why, a letter to the Duke of Northumberland wondering what happens
now (I parphrase).

This particular note is also interesting as clearly John Sponor, or
whoever else was the York Council's informant, had obviously detached
from Northumberland's contingent and returned home ASAP to report to
the Council, presumably without being aware that Northumberland was
subsequently arrested.

This arrest itself suggests that Tudor didn't actually see
Northumberland's 'masterly inactivity' at Bosworth as anything other
than, at best, 'you took your bloody time coming to my aid' and was
quite narked about it. Again, this would suggest to me that this had
never been some pre-arranged plan of Northumberland's in order to
hinder Richard and advance Tudor's bid for supremacy.

Of Course the good burghers of York would have to play the loyal
subject bit eventually, and it could be argued that they knew full
well that Percy had dropped Richard in it, but poor Dickon was dead,
and Percy was very much alive and their best hope of gaining all the
remissions and kudos they'd gotten under R3 - the old 'Good Lord is
Dead, Long Live the Good Lord' bit that the City clearly indulged in,
even when Richard was alive (studies of the Minutes show the City
thought nothing of playing off Percy and Richard against each other).

But - the whole tone of the entries at that time, and what could have
happened, plus what we know did actually happen at Bosworth and
afterwards, suggests that Percy wasn't known *at the time* to be at
least partly responsible for Richard's death, by the very men who you
would expect to have had some idea about events that day.

Of course, Percy's subsequent lynching and one of the reasons given
for it suggests otherwise, but then I suppose we have to be careful
about intepreting what 'men say' - after all, it's a bloke from York
who claimed Richard was a 'crouchback', according to the same Minutes!

Sorry - waffling on a bit, I know - when I'm supposed to be at a
lecture in 2 minutes! Bye!

Lorraine



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs

You're lucky with your friends then, most of my friends, that is the ones I see from day to day have no interest in Richard or his times at all, in fact most think Im weird, so sad to say here is the only place I know of people who are interested, my husband is tolerant of my hobby though, anyway getting back to the subject, I have read about the Princes from so many angles, did Richard or did he not murder them, was it the Duke of Buckingham, was it Tudor, were they in fact murdered. I wonder if the truth will ever be discovered.
Gill
lpickering2 <lpickering2@...> wrote:You're welcome, Gill.

Libraries of various sorts have been my lifeline during my years of
study about Richard. Those, and an understanding husband, plus good
friends! ;)

Lorraine

< Thanks, I have only just discovered these sites myself and as to
regards to books, there are so many and they are so expensive.>


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs

In a message dated 3/11/03 12:08:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
medievalgirluk@... writes:


> You're lucky with your friends then, most of my friends, that is the ones I
> see from day to day have no interest in Richard or his times at all, in
> fact most think Im weird, so sad to say here is the only place I know of
> people who are interested

Same here. My family thinks I'm weird, my friends do too. I do have one
Tudorite friend who followed me on my trek to the Metropolitan Museum of Art
to look for Holbein's miniature of Margaret Roper (which was in storage
ARGH). It's her and me alone lol.
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

--- In , "willison2001"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> No offense taken. But if Tudor had joined Stanley - he was on the
way
> to him - then if Stanley, as a supposedly loyal supporter of
Richard,
> had not arrested Tudor, then, logically he must've been a traitor.
> So, Richard would've known where he stood. As it was Richard
> atttacked Tudor, being unsure of Stanley & as we should all know,
he
> caught it in the rear!!!
>
> I don't see why Richard needed to leave the Field, unless as a
> strategic retreat.
>
> Surely, Richard didn't suspect Northumberland as a traitor. They'd
> just marched out of Leicester together & Northumberland had
> supported Richard's campaign against Buckingham. It may be that
> Northumberland was surprised by Richard's rash charge against Tudor
> en route to Stanley and was forced to support the winning side
> after Richard's death.
>
> Who called Richard a 'great captain?'

Ignoring your quotation marks, Mancini amongst others. Richard had
commanded divisions at Barnet & Tewkesbury, and had extensive
(successful) experience against the Scots. Many a successful leader
in the Wars of the Roses went from a string of victories to complete
fiasco.
I tend to be of the opinion that Stanley had no intention of
being 'joined' by Tudor until he was sure he was going to win
(besides, Richard apparently had his son as a hostage). And I'm not
sure how anyone is supposed to "arrest" the leader of an enemy army.
Is it likely that he would have walked into the Stanley camp
unprotected?? Jones argues that to Richard the Stanleys siding with
Tudor looked a very remote possibility. As it seems to me, had
Stanley, based in Cheshire & South Lancs, really wanted to join Tudor
in advance of battle, he would have taken his men down the road now
known as the A49, running south from Chester through the Severn
towns - Shrewsbury, Hereford, Gloucester, and joiined the rebel army
as it emerged from Wales, well away from Richard. Jones
comments: "The ambiguous placement of the Stanley forces in
Atherstone, mid-way between the two armes, created uncertainty and
tension, but the fact that they had not joined Tudor showed they did
not rate his chances highly. If Richard moved decisively, they were
likely to remain uninvolved."
Jones estimates that Richard's charge would have been calculated by
him as pretty likely to be successful. He has reaearched continental
battles of the period and the capatins of Henry's mercenaries, and
argues that what went wrong is that these mercenaries were drilled in
new Swiss techniques, which involved a pike formation creating an
impenetrable spiked barrier that would have made mincemeat of any
cavalry charge.
Marie
>
> --- In , "Hewlett Byrd"
> <hewbyrd@m...> wrote:
> > No offense, but King Richard letting Tudor and Stanley join
forces
> does not make sense
> > First of all Stanley was not ready to join either side and the
only
> possible way Richard could "force" Stanley to join with Tudor would
> have been to leave the field all together and see what happens
> > Tudor was moving his army forward, so the only way to allow the
two
> forces to join would be to retreat 'not an option
> > Also Northumberland was not a "sure thing" as was proven later
and
> if the two forces had joined he probaly would have come in on
Tudors
> side
> > I guess Richards skill as a general can be debated but there is
no
> denying that among his peers he Was regarded as a great captain
> > This is my opinion
> > Welcome to the group
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gill
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: Did Richard cock
things
> up at Bosworth?
> >
> >
> >
> > There is a different view on the battle of Bosworth. Michael
Hicks
> has written a book called Bosworth 1485 and in his book he has put
the
> idea forward that Richard111's charge towards Tudor was planned and
> not a spur of the moment thing, you can read about it on this
website:
> http://www.richard111.com, go to the battle of bosworth page,
scroll
> down and click on the link "Looking for Bosworth". I only come
accross
> it today while looking around this site. As soon as I can afford to
do
> so I may well buy this book. I am a new member to this forum and
have
> been reading all the messages over the last few days with some
> interest and this is my first contribution. Another site worth
looking
> at is Michael Marshall's site, he is a Yorkshireman and a
descendant
> of the Nevill family, this is the link: http://www.merlinventor.com
> >
> > willison2001 <willison2001@y...> wrote:Vergil states that
> Richard's men were faint to fight for him at
> > Bosworth, because of the immoral & illegal way he came to the
> crown &
> > the suspicion that Richard had followed precedence by bumping
off
> his
> > nephews. Vergil was a tadge biased of course.
> >
> > This may be why things went so pear shaped for Richard. But
his
> > general strategy seems unwise. The records perhaps leave a lot
to
> be
> > desired. But, as I've said before, why didn't Richard let
Tudor
> join
> > Stanley which would've smoked the 2 faced Lord out into the
open,
> > then, Richard could've rallied the dead Norfolk's troops, taken
> rein
> > of Northumberland's force and with his own, confronted the
> combined
> > Tudor, Oxford & Stanley army? Richard's strategy seems weak.
> > Attacking Tudor with his rear unguarded from Stanley, who he
seems
> to
> > have suspected of duplicity, suggests that Richard was no great
> > general. Edward had won Barnet & Tewkesbury & Richard's solo
> > enterprise in Scotland maybe, as Croyland observed, was 'much
ado
> > about nothing.' I think Berwick was the only long term gain
and,
> > according to Croyland, expensive to maintain...
> >
> > It was Richard who ended up dead after all...
> >
> > And to be fair to Tudor, it was he who fined private armies out
of
> > existence to prevent overmighty subjects like Warwick in the
1460s
> &
> > 70s & Richard in 1483 from causing mayhem with the legal
system.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size
> that fits your needs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >

> Same here. My family thinks I'm weird, my friends do too.

And me. I first got interested in Richard and joined the Society in 1973,
when I was 13. So everyone else was hooked on Donny Osmond, the Bay City
Rollers and David Cassidy (yuck) while I was trotting along to the Richard
III exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery and attending a lecture by
Dr Pamela Tudor-Craig.

<sigh>

Jessica

--- In , "willison2001"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> No offense taken. But if Tudor had joined Stanley - he was on the
way
> to him - then if Stanley, as a supposedly loyal supporter of
Richard,
> had not arrested Tudor, then, logically he must've been a traitor.
> So, Richard would've known where he stood. As it was Richard
> atttacked Tudor, being unsure of Stanley & as we should all know,
he
> caught it in the rear!!!
>
> I don't see why Richard needed to leave the Field, unless as a
> strategic retreat.
>
> Surely, Richard didn't suspect Northumberland as a traitor. They'd
> just marched out of Leicester together & Northumberland had
> supported Richard's campaign against Buckingham. It may be that
> Northumberland was surprised by Richard's rash charge against Tudor
> en route to Stanley and was forced to support the winning side
> after Richard's death.
>
> Who called Richard a 'great captain?'

Ignoring your quotation marks, Mancini amongst others.

I don't believe that Stanley had any intention of letting himself
be 'joined' by Tudor until he was sure he was going to win. Had he
wanted to he would have brought his forces from Cheshire straight
down the road now known as the A4, from Chester south through the
Severn towns, and joined Tudor at Shrewsbury, well away from
Richard's control.
Also, I don't suppose the wary Henry Tudor would have been trusting
enough to walk into ghe Stanley camp unprotected and allow himself to
be arrested.
Jones argues that Richard probably didn't think Stanley would be a
problem except in the unlikely event that Henry appeared to be
winning anyway. In which case, I suppose, it wouldn't matter much. He
has made a study of continental warfare of the period and the
captains of Henry's mercenaries and argues that Richard could have
expected his charge to be successful, that it only failed because
those mercenaries were drilled in a new Swiss technique consisting of
a pike formation forming an impenetrable barrier of spikes that would
have made mincemeat of any cavalry charge.
Marie
>
> --- In , "Hewlett Byrd"
> <hewbyrd@m...> wrote:
> > No offense, but King Richard letting Tudor and Stanley join
forces
> does not make sense
> > First of all Stanley was not ready to join either side and the
only
> possible way Richard could "force" Stanley to join with Tudor would
> have been to leave the field all together and see what happens
> > Tudor was moving his army forward, so the only way to allow the
two
> forces to join would be to retreat 'not an option
> > Also Northumberland was not a "sure thing" as was proven later
and
> if the two forces had joined he probaly would have come in on
Tudors
> side
> > I guess Richards skill as a general can be debated but there is
no
> denying that among his peers he Was regarded as a great captain
> > This is my opinion
> > Welcome to the group
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gill
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: Did Richard cock
things
> up at Bosworth?
> >
> >
> >
> > There is a different view on the battle of Bosworth. Michael
Hicks
> has written a book called Bosworth 1485 and in his book he has put
the
> idea forward that Richard111's charge towards Tudor was planned and
> not a spur of the moment thing, you can read about it on this
website:
> http://www.richard111.com, go to the battle of bosworth page,
scroll
> down and click on the link "Looking for Bosworth". I only come
accross
> it today while looking around this site. As soon as I can afford to
do
> so I may well buy this book. I am a new member to this forum and
have
> been reading all the messages over the last few days with some
> interest and this is my first contribution. Another site worth
looking
> at is Michael Marshall's site, he is a Yorkshireman and a
descendant
> of the Nevill family, this is the link: http://www.merlinventor.com
> >
> > willison2001 <willison2001@y...> wrote:Vergil states that
> Richard's men were faint to fight for him at
> > Bosworth, because of the immoral & illegal way he came to the
> crown &
> > the suspicion that Richard had followed precedence by bumping
off
> his
> > nephews. Vergil was a tadge biased of course.
> >
> > This may be why things went so pear shaped for Richard. But
his
> > general strategy seems unwise. The records perhaps leave a lot
to
> be
> > desired. But, as I've said before, why didn't Richard let
Tudor
> join
> > Stanley which would've smoked the 2 faced Lord out into the
open,
> > then, Richard could've rallied the dead Norfolk's troops, taken
> rein
> > of Northumberland's force and with his own, confronted the
> combined
> > Tudor, Oxford & Stanley army? Richard's strategy seems weak.
> > Attacking Tudor with his rear unguarded from Stanley, who he
seems
> to
> > have suspected of duplicity, suggests that Richard was no great
> > general. Edward had won Barnet & Tewkesbury & Richard's solo
> > enterprise in Scotland maybe, as Croyland observed, was 'much
ado
> > about nothing.' I think Berwick was the only long term gain
and,
> > according to Croyland, expensive to maintain...
> >
> > It was Richard who ended up dead after all...
> >
> > And to be fair to Tudor, it was he who fined private armies out
of
> > existence to prevent overmighty subjects like Warwick in the
1460s
> &
> > 70s & Richard in 1483 from causing mayhem with the legal
system.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size
> that fits your needs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >

--- In , "Jessica Rydill"
<la@l...> wrote:
> > Same here. My family thinks I'm weird, my friends do too.
>
> And me. I first got interested in Richard and joined the Society
in 1973,
> when I was 13. So everyone else was hooked on Donny Osmond, the
Bay City
> Rollers and David Cassidy (yuck) while I was trotting along to the
Richard
> III exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery and attending a
lecture by
> Dr Pamela Tudor-Craig.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Jessica

Yes, I suppose we're all a bit 'sad'. I was 15 and read 'Daughter of
time', and believed every word of it. And wasn't I excited when I
started researching my family tree and found Pamela Tudor Craig's
ancestor had christened my great-grandfather! (A few more dodgy
Ricardian links have cropped up since, but don't start me or I'll
never finish.)
Marie

> Yes, I suppose we're all a bit 'sad'. I was 15 and read 'Daughter of
> time', and believed every word of it.

It was Daughter of Time that got me started too. I started collecting books
about Richard and haven't looked back since! But the book that really did
it for me in those days was "We Speak no Treason" by Rosemary Hawley Jarman.
Utterly over the top, but great fun!

I went through a recidivist period after reading Alison Hanham (Richard III
and his early historians)? But became fascinated again a few years back. I
rejoined the Society and went to a few things such as the first requiem mass
for Anne Neville. But I found it a bit problematic - I have never hooked up
with my local branch as it covers a large area and they seem to expect one
to pop up to Cheltenham. Also I have to say I found the religious stuff a
bit...erm...difficult...as I'm half Jewish and although fairly familiar with
the liturgy of the Church of England, it isn't quite my cup of tea!

I'm not a member of the society at the moment but keep meaning to rejoin...I
need to find my membership form and print it off!

I have to say, Marie, I'd be tickled pink if Pamela Tudor-Craig's ancestor
had christened my great-grandfather too! She remains a hero of mine.

My sole dodgy Ricardian link was meeting (with my father) one of his old
school teachers at the lecture in 1973 - a very elderly man even then!

When last in Yorkshire, I dragged my friends (groaning and complaining) to
Middleham. There isn't much of a Ricardian nature in the West Country. One
of our late neighbours, Bill, a former padré in the British Army, was a
proud Welshman and fan of Henry Tudor. Luckily we didn't have Bosworth II
outside the garage!

Excuse me rambling on...I am off to York at the end of May so will probably
indulge in the usual Yorkist pleasures: wandering round the walls, going
into the Minster, hopefully visiting Barley Hall (which had only just opened
when we were last there!).

All best

Jessica

I wonder if Donny Osmond, the Bay City Rollers and David Cassidy will
be discussed in over 500 years time?

the--- In , "Jessica Rydill"
<la@l...> wrote:
> > Same here. My family thinks I'm weird, my friends do too.
>
> And me. I first got interested in Richard and joined the Society in
1973,
> when I was 13. So everyone else was hooked on Donny Osmond, the Bay
City
> Rollers and David Cassidy (yuck) while I was trotting along to the
Richard
> III exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery and attending a
lecture by
> Dr Pamela Tudor-Craig.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Jessica

Another example of non-indifference, as mentioned previously,
must be Margaret More (1505–1544,) Wife of William Roper, whose
relationship with her Father: Sir Thomas More appears to have been
devotion on her part and reciprocal on his.

--- In , "Jessica Rydill"
<la@l...> wrote:
> > Yes, I suppose we're all a bit 'sad'. I was 15 and read 'Daughter
of
> > time', and believed every word of it.
>
> It was Daughter of Time that got me started too. I started
collecting books
> about Richard and haven't looked back since! But the book that
really did
> it for me in those days was "We Speak no Treason" by Rosemary
Hawley Jarman.
> Utterly over the top, but great fun!
>
> I went through a recidivist period after reading Alison Hanham
(Richard III
> and his early historians)? But became fascinated again a few years
back. I
> rejoined the Society and went to a few things such as the first
requiem mass
> for Anne Neville. But I found it a bit problematic - I have never
hooked up
> with my local branch as it covers a large area and they seem to
expect one
> to pop up to Cheltenham. Also I have to say I found the religious
stuff a
> bit...erm...difficult...as I'm half Jewish and although fairly
familiar with
> the liturgy of the Church of England, it isn't quite my cup of tea!
>
> I'm not a member of the society at the moment but keep meaning to
rejoin...I
> need to find my membership form and print it off!
>
> I have to say, Marie, I'd be tickled pink if Pamela Tudor-Craig's
ancestor
> had christened my great-grandfather too! She remains a hero of
mine.
>
> My sole dodgy Ricardian link was meeting (with my father) one of
his old
> school teachers at the lecture in 1973 - a very elderly man even
then!
>
> When last in Yorkshire, I dragged my friends (groaning and
complaining) to
> Middleham. There isn't much of a Ricardian nature in the West
Country. One
> of our late neighbours, Bill, a former padré in the British Army,
was a
> proud Welshman and fan of Henry Tudor. Luckily we didn't have
Bosworth II
> outside the garage!
>
> Excuse me rambling on...I am off to York at the end of May so will
probably
> indulge in the usual Yorkist pleasures: wandering round the walls,
going
> into the Minster, hopefully visiting Barley Hall (which had only
just opened
> when we were last there!).
>
> All best
>
> Jessica

Snap! I'll be in York for a weekend late June on the Society annual
research weekend. Highly recommended. Banquet in Barley Hall as well.
Yes, I also have a bit of a problem with the C of E services. I'm
what they call a lapsed Catholic (probably more of a gnostic than an
agnostic) and not familiar with the C of E services, but also wonder
what Richard and Anne would have made of them.

Alison Hanham was very convincing, but asI recall her 'discoveries'
turned out to be mostly faerie glamour.

Just for the record, other family lnks I've found are
1) Apparent direct descend from the O'Donnell of Richard's time
(Hugh, ruler of what is now Donegal), with whom, as it appears from
Harley 433, Richard had been in communication. He was also apparently
the man responsible for putting James IV of Scotland on to Perkin
Warbeck
2) A gt-gt-grandfather who was forester at Chirk Castle, which
Richard owned until he swapped it with Lord Stanley for Skipton in
1476!
3) A gt-gt-gt-grandfather who was gamekeeper at Mooor Park,
Rickmansworth (Archbishop Neville's Manor of the More).
4) Ancestors who lived in Burley in the New Forest, the home of Simon
de Burleigh, Richard II's favourite executed by Henry IV.
5) And really stretching it - I was born on 8th Feb, and the only
famous historical event I have come across that took place on that
date was the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, which took place at
Fotheringhay, which is where Richard was born....

So perhaps my interest is all part of some cosmic plot??? Answers on
a postcard, please....
Marie

Yes, I read Daughter Of Time and We speak No Treason and The Sunne In Splendor was a good book to. All these novels got me interested in Richard III so I decided to read some non-fiction ones as well, but I wouldn't go as far as to say I believed every word they said, the interest came because they offered an alternative view from the one I was taught at school and I wanted to find out more, gain an understanding if you like. It appears that Richards reign showed much promise but as to wether or not he murdered his nephews, I prefer to keep an open mind, all we know for definite is that they disappeared during his reign, everything else is speculation. There is not enough evidence to convict anyone in a court of law so if I was on a jury I would have to give my verdict as innocent, until proven guilty, and that goes for all suspects.
Gill
Jessica Rydill <la@...> wrote:> Yes, I suppose we're all a bit 'sad'. I was 15 and read 'Daughter of
> time', and believed every word of it.

It was Daughter of Time that got me started too. I started collecting books
about Richard and haven't looked back since! But the book that really did
it for me in those days was "We Speak no Treason" by Rosemary Hawley Jarman.
Utterly over the top, but great fun!

I went through a recidivist period after reading Alison Hanham (Richard III
and his early historians)? But became fascinated again a few years back. I
rejoined the Society and went to a few things such as the first requiem mass
for Anne Neville. But I found it a bit problematic - I have never hooked up
with my local branch as it covers a large area and they seem to expect one
to pop up to Cheltenham. Also I have to say I found the religious stuff a
bit...erm...difficult...as I'm half Jewish and although fairly familiar with
the liturgy of the Church of England, it isn't quite my cup of tea!

I'm not a member of the society at the moment but keep meaning to rejoin...I
need to find my membership form and print it off!

I have to say, Marie, I'd be tickled pink if Pamela Tudor-Craig's ancestor
had christened my great-grandfather too! She remains a hero of mine.

My sole dodgy Ricardian link was meeting (with my father) one of his old
school teachers at the lecture in 1973 - a very elderly man even then!

When last in Yorkshire, I dragged my friends (groaning and complaining) to
Middleham. There isn't much of a Ricardian nature in the West Country. One
of our late neighbours, Bill, a former padré in the British Army, was a
proud Welshman and fan of Henry Tudor. Luckily we didn't have Bosworth II
outside the garage!

Excuse me rambling on...I am off to York at the end of May so will probably
indulge in the usual Yorkist pleasures: wandering round the walls, going
into the Minster, hopefully visiting Barley Hall (which had only just opened
when we were last there!).

All best

Jessica



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs

Back to Richard at Bosworth.

He didn't deal very effectively with the Oxford strategem (close
formation, not moving,) allowing Norfolk to get himself killed. The
ride of Tudor to Stanley would've produced some evidence of Stanley's
attitude, because if Tudor & Stanley lined up or Stanley had not made
a move against Tudor, Richard would've known what was what there.

Richard seems to have rushed impetuously at Tudor & got himself
killed disregarding the threat from Stanley (whom he clearly had
reason to mistrust,) just as his Father did at Wakefield. Richard
didn't harness Northumberland's force or wait for all of his troops to
arrive. Edward IV was prepared to retreat, but not Richard! This
doesn't suggest a great captain.

In fact, Richard, without Edward in charge, seems to have acted
impetuously time & again: against Rivers, the sudden execution of
Hastings, the trust in the untried Buckingham...

Was this emotional over-reaction due to the trauma when he was 8: the
death of his Father & teen brother?


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "Jessica Rydill"
> <la@l...> wrote:
> > > Yes, I suppose we're all a bit 'sad'. I was 15 and read
'Daughter
> of
> > > time', and believed every word of it.
> >
> > It was Daughter of Time that got me started too. I started
> collecting books
> > about Richard and haven't looked back since! But the book that
> really did
> > it for me in those days was "We Speak no Treason" by Rosemary
> Hawley Jarman.
> > Utterly over the top, but great fun!
> >
> > I went through a recidivist period after reading Alison Hanham
> (Richard III
> > and his early historians)? But became fascinated again a few years
> back. I
> > rejoined the Society and went to a few things such as the first
> requiem mass
> > for Anne Neville. But I found it a bit problematic - I have never
> hooked up
> > with my local branch as it covers a large area and they seem to
> expect one
> > to pop up to Cheltenham. Also I have to say I found the religious
> stuff a
> > bit...erm...difficult...as I'm half Jewish and although fairly
> familiar with
> > the liturgy of the Church of England, it isn't quite my cup of
tea!
> >
> > I'm not a member of the society at the moment but keep meaning to
> rejoin...I
> > need to find my membership form and print it off!
> >
> > I have to say, Marie, I'd be tickled pink if Pamela Tudor-Craig's
> ancestor
> > had christened my great-grandfather too! She remains a hero of
> mine.
> >
> > My sole dodgy Ricardian link was meeting (with my father) one of
> his old
> > school teachers at the lecture in 1973 - a very elderly man even
> then!
> >
> > When last in Yorkshire, I dragged my friends (groaning and
> complaining) to
> > Middleham. There isn't much of a Ricardian nature in the West
> Country. One
> > of our late neighbours, Bill, a former padré in the British Army,
> was a
> > proud Welshman and fan of Henry Tudor. Luckily we didn't have
> Bosworth II
> > outside the garage!
> >
> > Excuse me rambling on...I am off to York at the end of May so will
> probably
> > indulge in the usual Yorkist pleasures: wandering round the walls,
> going
> > into the Minster, hopefully visiting Barley Hall (which had only
> just opened
> > when we were last there!).
> >
> > All best
> >
> > Jessica
>
> Snap! I'll be in York for a weekend late June on the Society annual
> research weekend. Highly recommended. Banquet in Barley Hall as
well.
> Yes, I also have a bit of a problem with the C of E services. I'm
> what they call a lapsed Catholic (probably more of a gnostic than an
> agnostic) and not familiar with the C of E services, but also wonder
> what Richard and Anne would have made of them.
>
> Alison Hanham was very convincing, but asI recall her 'discoveries'
> turned out to be mostly faerie glamour.
>
> Just for the record, other family lnks I've found are
> 1) Apparent direct descend from the O'Donnell of Richard's time
> (Hugh, ruler of what is now Donegal), with whom, as it appears from
> Harley 433, Richard had been in communication. He was also
apparently
> the man responsible for putting James IV of Scotland on to Perkin
> Warbeck
> 2) A gt-gt-grandfather who was forester at Chirk Castle, which
> Richard owned until he swapped it with Lord Stanley for Skipton in
> 1476!
> 3) A gt-gt-gt-grandfather who was gamekeeper at Mooor Park,
> Rickmansworth (Archbishop Neville's Manor of the More).
> 4) Ancestors who lived in Burley in the New Forest, the home of
Simon
> de Burleigh, Richard II's favourite executed by Henry IV.
> 5) And really stretching it - I was born on 8th Feb, and the only
> famous historical event I have come across that took place on that
> date was the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, which took place at
> Fotheringhay, which is where Richard was born....
>
> So perhaps my interest is all part of some cosmic plot??? Answers on
> a postcard, please....
> Marie

Yes, I also have a bit of a problem with the C of E services. I'm
what they call a lapsed Catholic (probably more of a gnostic than an
agnostic) and not familiar with the C of E services, but also wonder
what Richard and Anne would have made of them.

J - Good Lord! Yes, I'm not sure what they would have made of the
vernacular. OT, I find gnosticism fascinating...several of my grandparents
were lapsed Catholics...

What wonderful family - and synchronicitous! - connections. My only one is
that my erstwhile boyfriend was born on 2nd October, as was another friend.

I would love to "do" the Society research weekend...I really had better
rejoin! Is there a link on the UK Society web-site?

Jessica

Hello David

< He didn't deal very effectively with the Oxford strategem (close
> formation, not moving,) allowing Norfolk to get himself killed.>

Well, in that case, *Norfolk* didn't deal very effectively with it
either - I doubt he (Howard) wanted to commit suicide, so one must
assume he felt he had a pretty good chance of coming through
successfully when he led the van at that particular time! Remind me
someone - had Howard and Oxford fought each other before Bosworth, at
Barnet or Towton, say? I know Hastings and Oxford had been in battle
together, but Howard was a sailor as well as soldier, and I'm not sure
which battles he fought at. I would have thought that Richard would
have been told of Oxford's usual fighting strategies if he didn't know
of these from personal experience.

Someone on another list is of the opinion that Richard *saw* something
that precipitated that final charge and I'm inclined to agree, since I
don't see him as the headstrong, impetuous Plantagenet that some see
him as.

For a start, Richard didn't move against Rivers impetuously - it was a
carefully planned fait accompli that just took a short time to
implement, that's all. He had dinner with the bloke then carefully
laid plans for the arrests early next day.

The subsequent executions took place nearly 2 months later!

And according to reasonably contemporaneous reports, Hastings' loyalty
was checked before any move was made against him - which hardly
implies impetuousness to me. The Cely snipper and St Albans
observations corroborates evidence that there was a plot and Hastings
was implicated.

Swift action was therefore clearly called for, even if you believe
Hastings' subsequent execution was wrong or illegal or whatever.

<Richard didn't harness Northumberland's force or wait for all of his
troops to arrive. Edward IV was prepared to retreat, but not Richard!
This doesn't suggest a great captain.>

As Marie mentioned earlier, most of Richard's contemporaneous
detractors allow he was a brave soldier, and don't denigrate his
military abilities, and to be blunt, I'd trust *their* judgement, as
they're judging him by the mores of his own age or shortly after, over
the judgement of some armchair pundit of the 21stC, even if that
pundit has seen active service themselves.

I don't know or care enough about battle strategies to comment on what
makes a great captain. Some people just have a certain something that
people respect and look up to.

We know from surviving correspondence concerning the Spaniard captain
Salazar that Richard was urged to retreat and his response was along
the lines of 'This day I shall live or die a King!'.

But I assume that Richard, like Howard, wasn't intending to commit
suicide that morning. I'm assuming he thought he was in with a chance
of cutting Tudor down. After all, he very nearly succeeded.
He toppled a huge bodyguard and cut down Tudor's standard bearer -
that's pretty bloomin' close to his quarry, that is. And by all
accounts, he didn't die without putting up a huge fight first -
'manfully, alone, in the middle of his enemies'.

And this is after many chose not to slope off back up the hill when
the Stanleys moved in - but who chose instead to stay and fight with
and for Richard - as Salazar did.

No great captain, eh? Salazar doesn't criticise the decision (and
remember he didn't even need to be there since R3 wasn't *his* Lord).
Salazar survived Bosworth. It was *that* close.

<Was this emotional over-reaction due to the trauma when he was 8: the
death of his Father & teen brother?>

No of course it wasn't. None of it was 'emotional over-reaction' at
anyway. Acting decisively is whole world of difference away from
acting impetuously, or - by implication - unthinkingly.

And even if it was - so what? What are you implying? That he was a
flake because his Dad was killed when he was young?

My husband's best friend's parents both died horribly when he was 7
years of age and he was farmed out to various relatives until he was
old enough to join the forces. The Army subsequently housetrained him
and got him fighting fit, and he later left to pursue a brilliant
career in Welfare Rights. His appeals on behalf of the disadvantaged
have successfully overturned existing case law in this area numerous
times and he now leads the what has been officially designated the
best Welfare Rights Unit in the UK. He is also one of the most
grounded people I know and I would trust him with my life. His early
experiences *inform* some of his actions today - they don't *rule* them.

Bearing in mind that 500 years separate them, maybe Richard's response
to his own family tragedy was similar?

Lorraine

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Back to Richard at Bosworth.
>
> He didn't deal very effectively with the Oxford strategem (close
> formation, not moving,) allowing Norfolk to get himself killed.
The
> ride of Tudor to Stanley would've produced some evidence of
Stanley's
> attitude, because if Tudor & Stanley lined up or Stanley had not
made
> a move against Tudor, Richard would've known what was what there.
>
> Richard seems to have rushed impetuously at Tudor & got himself
> killed disregarding the threat from Stanley (whom he clearly had
> reason to mistrust,) just as his Father did at Wakefield. Richard
> didn't harness Northumberland's force or wait for all of his troops
to
> arrive. Edward IV was prepared to retreat, but not Richard! This
> doesn't suggest a great captain.
>
> In fact, Richard, without Edward in charge, seems to have acted
> impetuously time & again: against Rivers, the sudden execution of
> Hastings, the trust in the untried Buckingham...

Edward wasn't in charge on the Scottish border. Nor, effectively,
would he have been 'in charge' during the confusion of Barnet. And
whether you believe Richard acted impetuously against Rivers &
Hastings rather depends on what you believe the intentions of these
folks actually were. It does seem to be agreed that when Richard and
Buckingham got to Stony Stratford Edward V and his entourage were on
the point of riding out. Surely if the Woodvilles' own intentions
were innocent they would have waited for Rivers to come up with
Gloucester. Certainly, Richard doesn't seem to have acted with any
degree of impetuosity when he first heard of Edward's death. The
theory that the Woodvilles did indeed have hostile intentions, that
they believed that on Edward's death Richard would pose the same
threat to the succession that Clarence had done, in my view needs to
be taken seriously. And yet Richard had had - quite unnecessarily -
crippled his own chances of claiming the throne by administering to
his followers and supporters in York an oath of fealty to Edward V.
Oaths were serious business in those days. Far from the problem being
of Richard's own making, as Tim suggests, is it not possible that it
was impetuous decisions of the Woodvilles, prompted by their own
insecurities, that propelled Richard on to the course he took?
Actually, I do agree that Richard's charge at Bosworth was probably a
bit rash, and that it certainly compares with his father's action at
Wakefield. But, since we are playing the psychology card, we must
bear in mind that since the summer of 1483 he had lost both his wife
and his son. It seems hardly fair to rubbish his whole career because
he lost his last battle at such a difficult time.
Marie
>
> Was this emotional over-reaction due to the trauma when he was 8:
the
> death of his Father & teen brother?
>
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "Jessica Rydill"
> > <la@l...> wrote:
> > > > Yes, I suppose we're all a bit 'sad'. I was 15 and read
> 'Daughter
> > of
> > > > time', and believed every word of it.
> > >
> > > It was Daughter of Time that got me started too. I started
> > collecting books
> > > about Richard and haven't looked back since! But the book that
> > really did
> > > it for me in those days was "We Speak no Treason" by Rosemary
> > Hawley Jarman.
> > > Utterly over the top, but great fun!
> > >
> > > I went through a recidivist period after reading Alison Hanham
> > (Richard III
> > > and his early historians)? But became fascinated again a few
years
> > back. I
> > > rejoined the Society and went to a few things such as the first
> > requiem mass
> > > for Anne Neville. But I found it a bit problematic - I have
never
> > hooked up
> > > with my local branch as it covers a large area and they seem to
> > expect one
> > > to pop up to Cheltenham. Also I have to say I found the
religious
> > stuff a
> > > bit...erm...difficult...as I'm half Jewish and although fairly
> > familiar with
> > > the liturgy of the Church of England, it isn't quite my cup of
> tea!
> > >
> > > I'm not a member of the society at the moment but keep meaning
to
> > rejoin...I
> > > need to find my membership form and print it off!
> > >
> > > I have to say, Marie, I'd be tickled pink if Pamela Tudor-
Craig's
> > ancestor
> > > had christened my great-grandfather too! She remains a hero of
> > mine.
> > >
> > > My sole dodgy Ricardian link was meeting (with my father) one
of
> > his old
> > > school teachers at the lecture in 1973 - a very elderly man
even
> > then!
> > >
> > > When last in Yorkshire, I dragged my friends (groaning and
> > complaining) to
> > > Middleham. There isn't much of a Ricardian nature in the West
> > Country. One
> > > of our late neighbours, Bill, a former padré in the British
Army,
> > was a
> > > proud Welshman and fan of Henry Tudor. Luckily we didn't have
> > Bosworth II
> > > outside the garage!
> > >
> > > Excuse me rambling on...I am off to York at the end of May so
will
> > probably
> > > indulge in the usual Yorkist pleasures: wandering round the
walls,
> > going
> > > into the Minster, hopefully visiting Barley Hall (which had
only
> > just opened
> > > when we were last there!).
> > >
> > > All best
> > >
> > > Jessica
> >
> > Snap! I'll be in York for a weekend late June on the Society
annual
> > research weekend. Highly recommended. Banquet in Barley Hall as
> well.
> > Yes, I also have a bit of a problem with the C of E services. I'm
> > what they call a lapsed Catholic (probably more of a gnostic than
an
> > agnostic) and not familiar with the C of E services, but also
wonder
> > what Richard and Anne would have made of them.
> >
> > Alison Hanham was very convincing, but asI recall
her 'discoveries'
> > turned out to be mostly faerie glamour.
> >
> > Just for the record, other family lnks I've found are
> > 1) Apparent direct descend from the O'Donnell of Richard's time
> > (Hugh, ruler of what is now Donegal), with whom, as it appears
from
> > Harley 433, Richard had been in communication. He was also
> apparently
> > the man responsible for putting James IV of Scotland on to Perkin
> > Warbeck
> > 2) A gt-gt-grandfather who was forester at Chirk Castle, which
> > Richard owned until he swapped it with Lord Stanley for Skipton
in
> > 1476!
> > 3) A gt-gt-gt-grandfather who was gamekeeper at Mooor Park,
> > Rickmansworth (Archbishop Neville's Manor of the More).
> > 4) Ancestors who lived in Burley in the New Forest, the home of
> Simon
> > de Burleigh, Richard II's favourite executed by Henry IV.
> > 5) And really stretching it - I was born on 8th Feb, and the only
> > famous historical event I have come across that took place on
that
> > date was the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, which took place
at
> > Fotheringhay, which is where Richard was born....
> >
> > So perhaps my interest is all part of some cosmic plot??? Answers
on
> > a postcard, please....
> > Marie

HiLorraine,
'I would have thought that Richard would> have been told of
Oxford's usual fighting strategies if he didn't know> of these from
personal experience.

Seems remiss, unless the the stratagem was new.
>
> Someone on another list is of the opinion that Richard *saw*
something> that precipitated that final charge and I'm inclined to
agree, since I> don't see him as the headstrong, impetuous Plantagenet
that some see> him as.

But what did he see?
>
> For a start, Richard didn't move against Rivers impetuously - it was
a> carefully planned fait accompli that just took a short time to
> implement, that's all. He had dinner with the bloke then carefully
> laid plans for the arrests early next day.> > The subsequent
executions took place nearly 2 months later!

The River's arrest started the ball rolling for Richard to become
King, but was it necessary to arrest him? What was Rivers planning to
do to Richard? Rivers, not in an aggressive mode, had rode back to
greet Richard, they'd enjoyed a chat & meal and next day Rivers is
suddenly arrested & was on the way to the block. Rivers wrote a poem
during his imprisonment in which he sounds bewildered. I'm not
surprised. Was this a case of Richard over-reacting?
>
> And according to reasonably contemporaneous reports, Hastings'
loyalty> was checked before any move was made against him - which
hardly> implies impetuousness to me. The Cely snipper and St Albans
> observations corroborates evidence that there was a plot and
Hastings> was implicated.

The plot may've been that Hastings didn't want Richard to take the
crown from Edward V, who many thought was rightful king. More records
that Richard appeared amiable at the Council meeting & then exploded.
Another indication of a temper tantrum? Is there any other evidence
of this tendency? Richard's letter to his Chancellor about
Buckingham: 'The most untrue creature that EVER lived!' 'NEVER was
falser traitor better purveyed for...' The hyperbole indicates the
fury and anger.... The Chancellor already knew that Buckingham was
untrue & a traitor, did Richard have to explode again or was this
another typical temper tantrum?

> Swift action was therefore clearly called for, even if you believe
> Hastings' subsequent execution was wrong or illegal or whatever.

Richard was known for his 'celerity' swiftness of action, but was he
driven by emotional impulse? He doesn't seem to be a cool planner.
>
> <Richard didn't harness Northumberland's force or wait for all of
his> troops to arrive. Edward IV was prepared to retreat, but not
Richard!> This doesn't suggest a great captain.>
>
> As Marie mentioned earlier, most of Richard's contemporaneous
> detractors allow he was a brave soldier, and don't denigrate his
> military abilities, and to be blunt, I'd trust *their* judgement, as
> they're judging him by the mores of his own age or shortly after,
over> the judgement of some armchair pundit of the 21stC, even if that
> pundit has seen active service themselves.

Bravery is one thing, good strategy another.
>
> I don't know or care enough about battle strategies to comment on
what> makes a great captain. Some people just have a certain
something that> people respect and look up to.
>
> We know from surviving correspondence concerning the Spaniard
captain> Salazar that Richard was urged to retreat and his response
wasalong the lines of 'This day I shall live or die a King!'.

This sounds like More putting words into peoples' mouths. I doubt if
Richard contemplated death against Tudor who had run away in 1483.
>
> But I assume that Richard, like Howard, wasn't intending to commit
> suicide that morning. I'm assuming he thought he was in with a
chance> of cutting Tudor down. After all, he very nearly succeeded.
> He toppled a huge bodyguard and cut down Tudor's standard bearer -
> that's pretty bloomin' close to his quarry, that is. And by all
> accounts, he didn't die without putting up a huge fight first -
> 'manfully, alone, in the middle of his enemies'.

I really admire Richard for his courage. His fighting to the last was
indeed admirable. His wisdom & sense of strategy not so ace, I'm
afraid. However, courage is something. Edward IV probably would've
retreated, as he did to Burgundy, 1469, Henry VI would've sat there in
a trance to be imprisoned & Henry V... Well, there was a 'great
captain' who never lost a battle. His strategy on the day would've
been a bit more rounded than Richard's I would suggest.
>
> And this is after many chose not to slope off back up the hill when
> the Stanleys moved in - but who chose instead to stay and fight with
> and for Richard - as Salazar did.
>
> No great captain, eh? Salazar doesn't criticise the decision (and
> remember he didn't even need to be there since R3 wasn't *his*
Lord).> Salazar survived Bosworth. It was *that* close.

I hope this Salazar wasn't a Don Quixote type? The fact is that
Richard attacked Tudor en route to Stanley and left his right flank
exposed. When Stanley made his charge, Northumberland would not have
known if he was attacking Richard or Tudor, because the position of
Stanley, which was doubtful, had not been clarified. Richard
obviously miscalculated & didn't think his move through.

None of it was 'emotional over-reaction' at> anyway. Acting
decisively is whole world of difference away from
> acting impetuously, or - by implication - unthinkingly.>
> And even if it was - so what? What are you implying? That he was a
> flake because his Dad was killed when he was young?

Richard may've been overly anxious from his trauma aged eight. Being
decisive is alright if the decision was in his favour, but, alas, it
wasn't!!!

> My husband's best friend's parents both died horribly when he was 7
> years of age and he was farmed out to various relatives until he was
> old enough to join the forces. The Army subsequently housetrained
him> and got him fighting fit, and he later left to pursue a brilliant
> career in Welfare Rights. His appeals on behalf of the
disadvantaged> have successfully overturned existing case law in this
area numerous> times and he now leads the what has been officially
designated the> best Welfare Rights Unit in the UK. He is also one of
the most> grounded people I know and I would trust him with my life.
His early> experiences *inform* some of his actions today - they don't
*rule* them.> Bearing in mind that 500 years separate them, maybe
Richard's response> to his own family tragedy was similar?
>
> Lorraine

But of course we get a variety of responses from children exposed to
trauma & Richard's trauma may've been different in that he was more
sensitive & the nature of the trauma may've seemed more horrible, as
indeed it may've been. Someone dying in a car crash is different from
someone beheaded & ridiculed with the head stuck on a pole! Some
children become schizophrenic, some like your friend breeze through.
What I'm suggesting is that in the case of Richard he may've been left
as someone subject to anxiety reactions as I've tried to evidence.
This deserves pity, not criticism.

I agree that the loss of his son, then his wife, would've deeply upset
Richard who may've been an anxious type. He appears nervous in
expression in the NPG portrait.

The fact that Edward V had chosen to move on to London was surely
up to him as King? Does it imply some desire to do Richard down?
I've no doubt that the Woodville clan would not have wanted a
Richard who was too powerful, but whether they at that stage had
planned another butt of Malmsey for him, where is the evidence &
therefore, why did Richard act in such a precipitous way? Was it a
case of Richard hearing that Dorset was jockeying for position and
Richard anxiously over-reacting by arresting Rivers because Richard
ASSUMED a deeper plot?

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "David"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Back to Richard at Bosworth.
> >
> > He didn't deal very effectively with the Oxford strategem (close
> > formation, not moving,) allowing Norfolk to get himself killed.
> The
> > ride of Tudor to Stanley would've produced some evidence of
> Stanley's
> > attitude, because if Tudor & Stanley lined up or Stanley had not
> made
> > a move against Tudor, Richard would've known what was what there.
> >
> > Richard seems to have rushed impetuously at Tudor & got himself
> > killed disregarding the threat from Stanley (whom he clearly had
> > reason to mistrust,) just as his Father did at Wakefield. Richard
> > didn't harness Northumberland's force or wait for all of his
troops
> to
> > arrive. Edward IV was prepared to retreat, but not Richard! This
> > doesn't suggest a great captain.
> >
> > In fact, Richard, without Edward in charge, seems to have acted
> > impetuously time & again: against Rivers, the sudden execution of
> > Hastings, the trust in the untried Buckingham...
>
> Edward wasn't in charge on the Scottish border. Nor, effectively,
> would he have been 'in charge' during the confusion of Barnet. And
> whether you believe Richard acted impetuously against Rivers &
> Hastings rather depends on what you believe the intentions of these
> folks actually were. It does seem to be agreed that when Richard and
> Buckingham got to Stony Stratford Edward V and his entourage were on
> the point of riding out. Surely if the Woodvilles' own intentions
> were innocent they would have waited for Rivers to come up with
> Gloucester. Certainly, Richard doesn't seem to have acted with any
> degree of impetuosity when he first heard of Edward's death. The
> theory that the Woodvilles did indeed have hostile intentions, that
> they believed that on Edward's death Richard would pose the same
> threat to the succession that Clarence had done, in my view needs to
> be taken seriously. And yet Richard had had - quite unnecessarily -
> crippled his own chances of claiming the throne by administering to
> his followers and supporters in York an oath of fealty to Edward V.
> Oaths were serious business in those days. Far from the problem
being
> of Richard's own making, as Tim suggests, is it not possible that it
> was impetuous decisions of the Woodvilles, prompted by their own
> insecurities, that propelled Richard on to the course he took?
> Actually, I do agree that Richard's charge at Bosworth was probably
a
> bit rash, and that it certainly compares with his father's action at
> Wakefield. But, since we are playing the psychology card, we must
> bear in mind that since the summer of 1483 he had lost both his wife
> and his son. It seems hardly fair to rubbish his whole career
because
> he lost his last battle at such a difficult time.
> Marie
> >
> > Was this emotional over-reaction due to the trauma when he was 8:
> the
> > death of his Father & teen brother?
> >
> >
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > --- In , "Jessica Rydill"
> > > <la@l...> wrote:
> > > > > Yes, I suppose we're all a bit 'sad'. I was 15 and read
> > 'Daughter
> > > of
> > > > > time', and believed every word of it.
> > > >
> > > > It was Daughter of Time that got me started too. I started
> > > collecting books
> > > > about Richard and haven't looked back since! But the book
that
> > > really did
> > > > it for me in those days was "We Speak no Treason" by Rosemary
> > > Hawley Jarman.
> > > > Utterly over the top, but great fun!
> > > >
> > > > I went through a recidivist period after reading Alison Hanham
> > > (Richard III
> > > > and his early historians)? But became fascinated again a few
> years
> > > back. I
> > > > rejoined the Society and went to a few things such as the
first
> > > requiem mass
> > > > for Anne Neville. But I found it a bit problematic - I have
> never
> > > hooked up
> > > > with my local branch as it covers a large area and they seem
to
> > > expect one
> > > > to pop up to Cheltenham. Also I have to say I found the
> religious
> > > stuff a
> > > > bit...erm...difficult...as I'm half Jewish and although fairly
> > > familiar with
> > > > the liturgy of the Church of England, it isn't quite my cup of
> > tea!
> > > >
> > > > I'm not a member of the society at the moment but keep meaning
> to
> > > rejoin...I
> > > > need to find my membership form and print it off!
> > > >
> > > > I have to say, Marie, I'd be tickled pink if Pamela Tudor-
> Craig's
> > > ancestor
> > > > had christened my great-grandfather too! She remains a hero
of
> > > mine.
> > > >
> > > > My sole dodgy Ricardian link was meeting (with my father) one
> of
> > > his old
> > > > school teachers at the lecture in 1973 - a very elderly man
> even
> > > then!
> > > >
> > > > When last in Yorkshire, I dragged my friends (groaning and
> > > complaining) to
> > > > Middleham. There isn't much of a Ricardian nature in the West
> > > Country. One
> > > > of our late neighbours, Bill, a former padré in the British
> Army,
> > > was a
> > > > proud Welshman and fan of Henry Tudor. Luckily we didn't have
> > > Bosworth II
> > > > outside the garage!
> > > >
> > > > Excuse me rambling on...I am off to York at the end of May so
> will
> > > probably
> > > > indulge in the usual Yorkist pleasures: wandering round the
> walls,
> > > going
> > > > into the Minster, hopefully visiting Barley Hall (which had
> only
> > > just opened
> > > > when we were last there!).
> > > >
> > > > All best
> > > >
> > > > Jessica
> > >
> > > Snap! I'll be in York for a weekend late June on the Society
> annual
> > > research weekend. Highly recommended. Banquet in Barley Hall as
> > well.
> > > Yes, I also have a bit of a problem with the C of E services.
I'm
> > > what they call a lapsed Catholic (probably more of a gnostic
than
> an
> > > agnostic) and not familiar with the C of E services, but also
> wonder
> > > what Richard and Anne would have made of them.
> > >
> > > Alison Hanham was very convincing, but asI recall
> her 'discoveries'
> > > turned out to be mostly faerie glamour.
> > >
> > > Just for the record, other family lnks I've found are
> > > 1) Apparent direct descend from the O'Donnell of Richard's time
> > > (Hugh, ruler of what is now Donegal), with whom, as it appears
> from
> > > Harley 433, Richard had been in communication. He was also
> > apparently
> > > the man responsible for putting James IV of Scotland on to
Perkin
> > > Warbeck
> > > 2) A gt-gt-grandfather who was forester at Chirk Castle, which
> > > Richard owned until he swapped it with Lord Stanley for Skipton
> in
> > > 1476!
> > > 3) A gt-gt-gt-grandfather who was gamekeeper at Mooor Park,
> > > Rickmansworth (Archbishop Neville's Manor of the More).
> > > 4) Ancestors who lived in Burley in the New Forest, the home of
> > Simon
> > > de Burleigh, Richard II's favourite executed by Henry IV.
> > > 5) And really stretching it - I was born on 8th Feb, and the
only
> > > famous historical event I have come across that took place on
> that
> > > date was the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, which took place
> at
> > > Fotheringhay, which is where Richard was born....
> > >
> > > So perhaps my interest is all part of some cosmic plot???
Answers
> on
> > > a postcard, please....
> > > Marie

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> I agree that the loss of his son, then his wife, would've deeply
upset
> Richard who may've been an anxious type. He appears nervous in
> expression in the NPG portrait.
>
> The fact that Edward V had chosen to move on to London was surely
> up to him as King?

Well, no it wasn't. He was too young. The decision would have been
made for him. And, yes, it was odd. Rude, at the very least, and
therefore has to be faced.
You ask where is the evidence the Woodvilles planned to eliminate
Richard. Well, there is evidence something was going on, eg the
trouble over them to limit the King's 'escort' to 2,000 men. This was
still virtually the wing of an army. You ASSUME they were completely
innocent, in order to prove Richard MUST have been impetuous. Both
parties perhaps can't be innocent in this, but to be fair we need to
look at the possibilities from all angles.
We have also gone from nervous to impetuous. Whatever fits the
argument in hand. Actually, I don't believe early losses likely to
made a person impetuous - rather the reverse.
I come back to the need to really consider the possibility of
Edward's bastardy rather than dismissing it out of hand. It would
certainly explain nervous over-reaction by both sides, which is what
I see when I look at the events of 1483.
Marie


Does it imply some desire to do Richard down?
> I've no doubt that the Woodville clan would not have wanted a
> Richard who was too powerful, but whether they at that stage had
> planned another butt of Malmsey for him, where is the evidence &
> therefore, why did Richard act in such a precipitous way? Was it a
> case of Richard hearing that Dorset was jockeying for position and
> Richard anxiously over-reacting by arresting Rivers because Richard
> ASSUMED a deeper plot?
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "David"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Back to Richard at Bosworth.
> > >
> > > He didn't deal very effectively with the Oxford strategem
(close
> > > formation, not moving,) allowing Norfolk to get himself
killed.
> > The
> > > ride of Tudor to Stanley would've produced some evidence of
> > Stanley's
> > > attitude, because if Tudor & Stanley lined up or Stanley had
not
> > made
> > > a move against Tudor, Richard would've known what was what
there.
> > >
> > > Richard seems to have rushed impetuously at Tudor & got himself
> > > killed disregarding the threat from Stanley (whom he clearly
had
> > > reason to mistrust,) just as his Father did at Wakefield.
Richard
> > > didn't harness Northumberland's force or wait for all of his
> troops
> > to
> > > arrive. Edward IV was prepared to retreat, but not Richard!
This
> > > doesn't suggest a great captain.
> > >
> > > In fact, Richard, without Edward in charge, seems to have acted
> > > impetuously time & again: against Rivers, the sudden execution
of
> > > Hastings, the trust in the untried Buckingham...
> >
> > Edward wasn't in charge on the Scottish border. Nor, effectively,
> > would he have been 'in charge' during the confusion of Barnet.
And
> > whether you believe Richard acted impetuously against Rivers &
> > Hastings rather depends on what you believe the intentions of
these
> > folks actually were. It does seem to be agreed that when Richard
and
> > Buckingham got to Stony Stratford Edward V and his entourage were
on
> > the point of riding out. Surely if the Woodvilles' own intentions
> > were innocent they would have waited for Rivers to come up with
> > Gloucester. Certainly, Richard doesn't seem to have acted with
any
> > degree of impetuosity when he first heard of Edward's death. The
> > theory that the Woodvilles did indeed have hostile intentions,
that
> > they believed that on Edward's death Richard would pose the same
> > threat to the succession that Clarence had done, in my view needs
to
> > be taken seriously. And yet Richard had had - quite
unnecessarily -
> > crippled his own chances of claiming the throne by administering
to
> > his followers and supporters in York an oath of fealty to Edward
V.
> > Oaths were serious business in those days. Far from the problem
> being
> > of Richard's own making, as Tim suggests, is it not possible that
it
> > was impetuous decisions of the Woodvilles, prompted by their own
> > insecurities, that propelled Richard on to the course he took?
> > Actually, I do agree that Richard's charge at Bosworth was
probably
> a
> > bit rash, and that it certainly compares with his father's action
at
> > Wakefield. But, since we are playing the psychology card, we must
> > bear in mind that since the summer of 1483 he had lost both his
wife
> > and his son. It seems hardly fair to rubbish his whole career
> because
> > he lost his last battle at such a difficult time.
> > Marie
> > >
> > > Was this emotional over-reaction due to the trauma when he was
8:
> > the
> > > death of his Father & teen brother?
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > > --- In , "Jessica
Rydill"
> > > > <la@l...> wrote:
> > > > > > Yes, I suppose we're all a bit 'sad'. I was 15 and read
> > > 'Daughter
> > > > of
> > > > > > time', and believed every word of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was Daughter of Time that got me started too. I started
> > > > collecting books
> > > > > about Richard and haven't looked back since! But the book
> that
> > > > really did
> > > > > it for me in those days was "We Speak no Treason" by
Rosemary
> > > > Hawley Jarman.
> > > > > Utterly over the top, but great fun!
> > > > >
> > > > > I went through a recidivist period after reading Alison
Hanham
> > > > (Richard III
> > > > > and his early historians)? But became fascinated again a
few
> > years
> > > > back. I
> > > > > rejoined the Society and went to a few things such as the
> first
> > > > requiem mass
> > > > > for Anne Neville. But I found it a bit problematic - I
have
> > never
> > > > hooked up
> > > > > with my local branch as it covers a large area and they
seem
> to
> > > > expect one
> > > > > to pop up to Cheltenham. Also I have to say I found the
> > religious
> > > > stuff a
> > > > > bit...erm...difficult...as I'm half Jewish and although
fairly
> > > > familiar with
> > > > > the liturgy of the Church of England, it isn't quite my cup
of
> > > tea!
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not a member of the society at the moment but keep
meaning
> > to
> > > > rejoin...I
> > > > > need to find my membership form and print it off!
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to say, Marie, I'd be tickled pink if Pamela Tudor-
> > Craig's
> > > > ancestor
> > > > > had christened my great-grandfather too! She remains a
hero
> of
> > > > mine.
> > > > >
> > > > > My sole dodgy Ricardian link was meeting (with my father)
one
> > of
> > > > his old
> > > > > school teachers at the lecture in 1973 - a very elderly man
> > even
> > > > then!
> > > > >
> > > > > When last in Yorkshire, I dragged my friends (groaning and
> > > > complaining) to
> > > > > Middleham. There isn't much of a Ricardian nature in the
West
> > > > Country. One
> > > > > of our late neighbours, Bill, a former padré in the British
> > Army,
> > > > was a
> > > > > proud Welshman and fan of Henry Tudor. Luckily we didn't
have
> > > > Bosworth II
> > > > > outside the garage!
> > > > >
> > > > > Excuse me rambling on...I am off to York at the end of May
so
> > will
> > > > probably
> > > > > indulge in the usual Yorkist pleasures: wandering round the
> > walls,
> > > > going
> > > > > into the Minster, hopefully visiting Barley Hall (which had
> > only
> > > > just opened
> > > > > when we were last there!).
> > > > >
> > > > > All best
> > > > >
> > > > > Jessica
> > > >
> > > > Snap! I'll be in York for a weekend late June on the Society
> > annual
> > > > research weekend. Highly recommended. Banquet in Barley Hall
as
> > > well.
> > > > Yes, I also have a bit of a problem with the C of E services.
> I'm
> > > > what they call a lapsed Catholic (probably more of a gnostic
> than
> > an
> > > > agnostic) and not familiar with the C of E services, but also
> > wonder
> > > > what Richard and Anne would have made of them.
> > > >
> > > > Alison Hanham was very convincing, but asI recall
> > her 'discoveries'
> > > > turned out to be mostly faerie glamour.
> > > >
> > > > Just for the record, other family lnks I've found are
> > > > 1) Apparent direct descend from the O'Donnell of Richard's
time
> > > > (Hugh, ruler of what is now Donegal), with whom, as it
appears
> > from
> > > > Harley 433, Richard had been in communication. He was also
> > > apparently
> > > > the man responsible for putting James IV of Scotland on to
> Perkin
> > > > Warbeck
> > > > 2) A gt-gt-grandfather who was forester at Chirk Castle,
which
> > > > Richard owned until he swapped it with Lord Stanley for
Skipton
> > in
> > > > 1476!
> > > > 3) A gt-gt-gt-grandfather who was gamekeeper at Mooor Park,
> > > > Rickmansworth (Archbishop Neville's Manor of the More).
> > > > 4) Ancestors who lived in Burley in the New Forest, the home
of
> > > Simon
> > > > de Burleigh, Richard II's favourite executed by Henry IV.
> > > > 5) And really stretching it - I was born on 8th Feb, and the
> only
> > > > famous historical event I have come across that took place on
> > that
> > > > date was the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, which took
place
> > at
> > > > Fotheringhay, which is where Richard was born....
> > > >
> > > > So perhaps my interest is all part of some cosmic plot???
> Answers
> > on
> > > > a postcard, please....
> > > > Marie

Hi David

Lots to go at, this morning! ;)

Firstly Oxford's MO:

You remarked:

<Seems remiss, unless the the stratagem was new.>

I agree, though the strategem may have been new. Certainly Jones
suggests other strategies on the Tudor side were new.

< But what did he see? >

I don't know, and can't remember if my colleague put forward any
suggestions of their own. They just made a good case that something
may have led Richard to just go flat out for it - Tudor being left
alone for a second, a wavering from his closest aides, Stanley
sticking his tongue out at him....who knows....

< The River's arrest started the ball rolling for Richard to become
King, but was it necessary to arrest him? What was Rivers planning
to do to Richard?>

Well, as I've mentioned before on this list, I'm, disquieted about
certain aspects on the Stoney Stratford episode. I think Richard was
right to arrest Rivers, however, whether this should have been
followed by his execution, I'm not so sure about. I certainly don't
think Rivers should have been thinking more of his stomach and social
niceties than of his King. He really shouldn't have left the Royal
entourage.

< Rivers wrote a poem during his imprisonment in which he sounds
bewildered. >

That's open to interpretation. To me, and some other writers, the
content of Rivers' final poem is described as 'fatalistic', rather
than bewildered, as does his last Will. Read it again, David, maybe
you've just read the shortened version, which may be misleading.
It's about 'Fortune's Wheel, a concept that was popular in medieval
times, and which would have had a 'what goes around, comes around'
premise that would not have 'bewildered' your literary medieval
nobleman.

< The plot may've been that Hastings didn't want Richard to take the
> crown from Edward V, who many thought was rightful king. More
records that Richard appeared amiable at the Council meeting & then
exploded. >

Well actually, the story goes he appears amiable, then LEAVES, only
to return some time later somewhat different.

<Another indication of a temper tantrum? >

Not to me. But perfectly in line of hearing something that could
very well have spoiled his morning and put him off his strawberries.

<Is there any other evidence of this tendency? >

Not really.

Lorraine

David wrote:
>He appears nervous in
> expression in the NPG portrait.>

I have to laugh at the credence given to the NPG portrait. It
was painted well after Richard's lifetime and is a copy of another
painting. How can anyone believe it is an absolute likeness?
All these surmises of his character and "feelings" based on the
portraits are baseless. We don't know if he looked like that at all.
Not to mention how much relies on a particular artit's skill.
Trying to deduce his character from those portraits are a real
stretch. It made a great novel for Josephine Tey but has no place
in a serious discussion of Richard III.

L.M.L.,
Janet





- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> I agree that the loss of his son, then his wife, would've deeply
upset
> Richard who may've been an anxious type. He appears nervous in
> expression in the NPG portrait.
>
> The fact that Edward V had chosen to move on to London was surely
> up to him as King? Does it imply some desire to do Richard down?
> I've no doubt that the Woodville clan would not have wanted a
> Richard who was too powerful, but whether they at that stage had
> planned another butt of Malmsey for him, where is the evidence &
> therefore, why did Richard act in such a precipitous way? Was it
a
> case of Richard hearing that Dorset was jockeying for position and
> Richard anxiously over-reacting by arresting Rivers because
Richard
> ASSUMED a deeper plot?
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "David"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Back to Richard at Bosworth.
> > >
> > > He didn't deal very effectively with the Oxford strategem
(close
> > > formation, not moving,) allowing Norfolk to get himself
killed.
> > The
> > > ride of Tudor to Stanley would've produced some evidence of
> > Stanley's
> > > attitude, because if Tudor & Stanley lined up or Stanley had
not
> > made
> > > a move against Tudor, Richard would've known what was what
there.
> > >
> > > Richard seems to have rushed impetuously at Tudor & got
himself
> > > killed disregarding the threat from Stanley (whom he clearly
had
> > > reason to mistrust,) just as his Father did at Wakefield.
Richard
> > > didn't harness Northumberland's force or wait for all of his
> troops
> > to
> > > arrive. Edward IV was prepared to retreat, but not Richard!
This
> > > doesn't suggest a great captain.
> > >
> > > In fact, Richard, without Edward in charge, seems to have
acted
> > > impetuously time & again: against Rivers, the sudden
execution of
> > > Hastings, the trust in the untried Buckingham...
> >
> > Edward wasn't in charge on the Scottish border. Nor,
effectively,
> > would he have been 'in charge' during the confusion of Barnet.
And
> > whether you believe Richard acted impetuously against Rivers &
> > Hastings rather depends on what you believe the intentions of
these
> > folks actually were. It does seem to be agreed that when Richard
and
> > Buckingham got to Stony Stratford Edward V and his entourage
were on
> > the point of riding out. Surely if the Woodvilles' own
intentions
> > were innocent they would have waited for Rivers to come up with
> > Gloucester. Certainly, Richard doesn't seem to have acted with
any
> > degree of impetuosity when he first heard of Edward's death. The
> > theory that the Woodvilles did indeed have hostile intentions,
that
> > they believed that on Edward's death Richard would pose the same
> > threat to the succession that Clarence had done, in my view
needs to
> > be taken seriously. And yet Richard had had - quite
unnecessarily -
> > crippled his own chances of claiming the throne by administering
to
> > his followers and supporters in York an oath of fealty to Edward
V.
> > Oaths were serious business in those days. Far from the problem
> being
> > of Richard's own making, as Tim suggests, is it not possible
that it
> > was impetuous decisions of the Woodvilles, prompted by their own
> > insecurities, that propelled Richard on to the course he took?
> > Actually, I do agree that Richard's charge at Bosworth was
probably
> a
> > bit rash, and that it certainly compares with his father's
action at
> > Wakefield. But, since we are playing the psychology card, we
must
> > bear in mind that since the summer of 1483 he had lost both his
wife
> > and his son. It seems hardly fair to rubbish his whole career
> because
> > he lost his last battle at such a difficult time.
> > Marie
> > >
> > > Was this emotional over-reaction due to the trauma when he was
8:
> > the
> > > death of his Father & teen brother?
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
, "mariewalsh2003"
> > > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > > --- In , "Jessica
Rydill"
> > > > <la@l...> wrote:
> > > > > > Yes, I suppose we're all a bit 'sad'. I was 15 and read
> > > 'Daughter
> > > > of
> > > > > > time', and believed every word of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was Daughter of Time that got me started too. I
started
> > > > collecting books
> > > > > about Richard and haven't looked back since! But the book
> that
> > > > really did
> > > > > it for me in those days was "We Speak no Treason" by
Rosemary
> > > > Hawley Jarman.
> > > > > Utterly over the top, but great fun!
> > > > >
> > > > > I went through a recidivist period after reading Alison
Hanham
> > > > (Richard III
> > > > > and his early historians)? But became fascinated again a
few
> > years
> > > > back. I
> > > > > rejoined the Society and went to a few things such as the
> first
> > > > requiem mass
> > > > > for Anne Neville. But I found it a bit problematic - I
have
> > never
> > > > hooked up
> > > > > with my local branch as it covers a large area and they
seem
> to
> > > > expect one
> > > > > to pop up to Cheltenham. Also I have to say I found the
> > religious
> > > > stuff a
> > > > > bit...erm...difficult...as I'm half Jewish and although
fairly
> > > > familiar with
> > > > > the liturgy of the Church of England, it isn't quite my
cup of
> > > tea!
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not a member of the society at the moment but keep
meaning
> > to
> > > > rejoin...I
> > > > > need to find my membership form and print it off!
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to say, Marie, I'd be tickled pink if Pamela Tudor-
> > Craig's
> > > > ancestor
> > > > > had christened my great-grandfather too! She remains a
hero
> of
> > > > mine.
> > > > >
> > > > > My sole dodgy Ricardian link was meeting (with my father)
one
> > of
> > > > his old
> > > > > school teachers at the lecture in 1973 - a very elderly
man
> > even
> > > > then!
> > > > >
> > > > > When last in Yorkshire, I dragged my friends (groaning and
> > > > complaining) to
> > > > > Middleham. There isn't much of a Ricardian nature in the
West
> > > > Country. One
> > > > > of our late neighbours, Bill, a former padré in the
British
> > Army,
> > > > was a
> > > > > proud Welshman and fan of Henry Tudor. Luckily we didn't
have
> > > > Bosworth II
> > > > > outside the garage!
> > > > >
> > > > > Excuse me rambling on...I am off to York at the end of May
so
> > will
> > > > probably
> > > > > indulge in the usual Yorkist pleasures: wandering round
the
> > walls,
> > > > going
> > > > > into the Minster, hopefully visiting Barley Hall (which
had
> > only
> > > > just opened
> > > > > when we were last there!).
> > > > >
> > > > > All best
> > > > >
> > > > > Jessica
> > > >
> > > > Snap! I'll be in York for a weekend late June on the Society
> > annual
> > > > research weekend. Highly recommended. Banquet in Barley Hall
as
> > > well.
> > > > Yes, I also have a bit of a problem with the C of E
services.
> I'm
> > > > what they call a lapsed Catholic (probably more of a gnostic
> than
> > an
> > > > agnostic) and not familiar with the C of E services, but
also
> > wonder
> > > > what Richard and Anne would have made of them.
> > > >
> > > > Alison Hanham was very convincing, but asI recall
> > her 'discoveries'
> > > > turned out to be mostly faerie glamour.
> > > >
> > > > Just for the record, other family lnks I've found are
> > > > 1) Apparent direct descend from the O'Donnell of Richard's
time
> > > > (Hugh, ruler of what is now Donegal), with whom, as it
appears
> > from
> > > > Harley 433, Richard had been in communication. He was also
> > > apparently
> > > > the man responsible for putting James IV of Scotland on to
> Perkin
> > > > Warbeck
> > > > 2) A gt-gt-grandfather who was forester at Chirk Castle,
which
> > > > Richard owned until he swapped it with Lord Stanley for
Skipton
> > in
> > > > 1476!
> > > > 3) A gt-gt-gt-grandfather who was gamekeeper at Mooor Park,
> > > > Rickmansworth (Archbishop Neville's Manor of the More).
> > > > 4) Ancestors who lived in Burley in the New Forest, the home
of
> > > Simon
> > > > de Burleigh, Richard II's favourite executed by Henry IV.
> > > > 5) And really stretching it - I was born on 8th Feb, and the
> only
> > > > famous historical event I have come across that took place
on
> > that
> > > > date was the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, which took
place
> > at
> > > > Fotheringhay, which is where Richard was born....
> > > >
> > > > So perhaps my interest is all part of some cosmic plot???
> Answers
> > on
> > > > a postcard, please....
> > > > Marie

Hello Again David - the Univ computer chucked me off in the middle of
my last reply, so I'll carry on where I left off:

< The hyperbole indicates the fury and anger.... The Chancellor
already knew that Buckingham was untrue & a traitor, did Richard have
to explode again or was this another typical temper tantrum?>

Well, if you read the letter again, there's actually very little in
it to suggest that the Chancellor was on top of the whole situation -
Richard's note is an urgent one, suggesting he's only just realised
Buckingham is involved in the rebellions that *were* known to him
much earlier in the Autumn. Therefore I don't think we *can* say for
certain that Richard knew his Chancellor knew what was going on. But
again, I also say to your observation on this matter, so what? Even
today people often refer to things in a note that each party knows
about. It's partly 'on the record' archiving of events, partly
letting off steam, and partly just the way we human communicate. in
the TV comedy classic 'Fawlty Towers', Basil Fawlty's remark about
wife Sybil's specialist subject being the 'bleeding obvious' is
amusing because the viewer is meant to recognise the trait...

< He doesn't seem to be a cool planner.>

I think Stoney Stratford showed considerable cool, myself.
t
<Richard was urged to retreat and his response
> wasalong the lines of 'This day I shall live or die a King!'.
>
> This sounds like More putting words into peoples' mouths.>

Eh? You've lost me. More doesn't mention Salazar. A chap called De
Valera did, if memory seves. He was writing to the rulers of Spain
about their 'little vassal' Salazar, and reports what was said. But
whether it is an exact quote or not is not the point, is it? What
*is* relevant about the episode is the confirmation that it was
suggested on the day that Richard retreat, Richard refuses, gives a
fair enough reason why, and that no-one involved in this posthumously
blames Richard for choosing to carry on - not Salazar, not de Valera
(himself very experiences), nor the rulers of Spain. Or any of the
other 'Tudor' commentators.

Lord - David. you're like my mother. She'd argue with a stick if
there wasn't anybody or anything else to argue with! ;)

< I hope this Salazar wasn't a Don Quixote type? >

As far as I know he never tilted at a windmill in his career. A
Belgium source lists his full biographical details, but I gather he
was an experienced captain. IIRC Jones calls him a 'mercenary',
however the Belgium source would indicate this was not the case.
I'll have to read up on him again, I guess.

<Richard may've been overly anxious from his trauma aged eight.>

Fair enough - if you happen to think he shows signs of being over-
anxious throughout his life, and he clearly doesn't.

< But of course we get a variety of responses from children exposed
to trauma & Richard's trauma may've been different in that he was
more sensitive & the nature of the trauma may've seemed more
horrible, as indeed it may've been. Someone dying in a car crash is
different from someone beheaded & ridiculed with the head stuck on a
pole! >

Well, I didn't say how my friend's parents died - and it wasn't a car
crash. I also have a friend who was 6 or 7 during the Biafran War,
who was attacked with a machete and whose birth mother was raped and
hacked to death in front of her, and whose twin brother was killed in
the same attack. And again she's coped well. In fact, the racism
she encountered upon her arrival in Britain was more traumatic she
recons than the death of her mother and brother. I think she's
tremendously brave, but she thinks I am, for handling some of the
things that I've handled in my life. I think my point is we can't
generalise and extrapolate a given from a small sample. We maybe
should agree to disagree on this point?.

<some like your friend breeze through.>

And just by the by - he didn't 'breeze through' - but he did get over
it and got by! ;)

Lorraine

--- In , "Jessica Rydill"
<la@l...> wrote:
> Yes, I also have a bit of a problem with the C of E services. I'm
> what they call a lapsed Catholic (probably more of a gnostic than an
> agnostic) and not familiar with the C of E services, but also wonder
> what Richard and Anne would have made of them.
>
> J - Good Lord! Yes, I'm not sure what they would have made of the
> vernacular. OT, I find gnosticism fascinating...several of my
grandparents
> were lapsed Catholics...
>
> What wonderful family - and synchronicitous! - connections. My
only one is
> that my erstwhile boyfriend was born on 2nd October, as was another
friend.
>
> I would love to "do" the Society research weekend...I really had
better
> rejoin! Is there a link on the UK Society web-site?
>
> Jessica

Yes, I just found it under 'Sitemap' > 'Contact Us' > 'Membership'.

Marie

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> HiLorraine,
> 'I would have thought that Richard would> have been told
of
> Oxford's usual fighting strategies if he didn't know> of these from
> personal experience.
>
> Seems remiss, unless the the stratagem was new.
> >
> > Someone on another list is of the opinion that Richard *saw*
> something> that precipitated that final charge and I'm inclined to
> agree, since I> don't see him as the headstrong, impetuous
Plantagenet
> that some see> him as.
>
> But what did he see?
> >
> > For a start, Richard didn't move against Rivers impetuously - it
was
> a> carefully planned fait accompli that just took a short time to
> > implement, that's all. He had dinner with the bloke then
carefully
> > laid plans for the arrests early next day.> > The subsequent
> executions took place nearly 2 months later!
>
> The River's arrest started the ball rolling for Richard to become
> King, but was it necessary to arrest him? What was Rivers planning
to
> do to Richard? Rivers, not in an aggressive mode, had rode back to
> greet Richard, they'd enjoyed a chat & meal and next day Rivers is
> suddenly arrested & was on the way to the block. Rivers wrote a
poem
> during his imprisonment in which he sounds bewildered. I'm not
> surprised. Was this a case of Richard over-reacting?
> >
> > And according to reasonably contemporaneous reports, Hastings'
> loyalty> was checked before any move was made against him - which
> hardly> implies impetuousness to me. The Cely snipper and St Albans
> > observations corroborates evidence that there was a plot and
> Hastings> was implicated.
>
> The plot may've been that Hastings didn't want Richard to take the
> crown from Edward V, who many thought was rightful king. More
records
> that Richard appeared amiable at the Council meeting & then
exploded.
> Another indication of a temper tantrum? Is there any other
evidence
> of this tendency? Richard's letter to his Chancellor about
> Buckingham: 'The most untrue creature that EVER lived!' 'NEVER was
> falser traitor better purveyed for...' The hyperbole indicates the
> fury and anger.... The Chancellor already knew that Buckingham was
> untrue & a traitor, did Richard have to explode again or was this
> another typical temper tantrum?
>
> > Swift action was therefore clearly called for, even if you believe
> > Hastings' subsequent execution was wrong or illegal or whatever.
>
> Richard was known for his 'celerity' swiftness of action, but was
he
> driven by emotional impulse? He doesn't seem to be a cool planner.
> >
> > <Richard didn't harness Northumberland's force or wait for all of
> his> troops to arrive. Edward IV was prepared to retreat, but not
> Richard!> This doesn't suggest a great captain.>
> >
> > As Marie mentioned earlier, most of Richard's contemporaneous
> > detractors allow he was a brave soldier, and don't denigrate his
> > military abilities, and to be blunt, I'd trust *their* judgement,
as
> > they're judging him by the mores of his own age or shortly after,
> over> the judgement of some armchair pundit of the 21stC, even if
that
> > pundit has seen active service themselves.
>
> Bravery is one thing, good strategy another.
> >
> > I don't know or care enough about battle strategies to comment on
> what> makes a great captain. Some people just have a certain
> something that> people respect and look up to.
> >
> > We know from surviving correspondence concerning the Spaniard
> captain> Salazar that Richard was urged to retreat and his
response
> wasalong the lines of 'This day I shall live or die a King!'.
>
> This sounds like More putting words into peoples' mouths. I doubt
if
> Richard contemplated death against Tudor who had run away in 1483.
> >
> > But I assume that Richard, like Howard, wasn't intending to commit
> > suicide that morning. I'm assuming he thought he was in with a
> chance> of cutting Tudor down. After all, he very nearly
succeeded.
> > He toppled a huge bodyguard and cut down Tudor's standard bearer -
> > that's pretty bloomin' close to his quarry, that is. And by all
> > accounts, he didn't die without putting up a huge fight first -
> > 'manfully, alone, in the middle of his enemies'.
>
> I really admire Richard for his courage. His fighting to the last
was
> indeed admirable. His wisdom & sense of strategy not so ace, I'm
> afraid. However, courage is something. Edward IV probably
would've
> retreated, as he did to Burgundy, 1469, Henry VI would've sat there
in
> a trance to be imprisoned & Henry V... Well, there was a 'great
> captain' who never lost a battle. His strategy on the day would've
> been a bit more rounded than Richard's I would suggest.
> >
> > And this is after many chose not to slope off back up the hill
when
> > the Stanleys moved in - but who chose instead to stay and fight
with
> > and for Richard - as Salazar did.
> >
> > No great captain, eh? Salazar doesn't criticise the decision (and
> > remember he didn't even need to be there since R3 wasn't *his*
> Lord).> Salazar survived Bosworth. It was *that* close.
>
> I hope this Salazar wasn't a Don Quixote type? The fact is that
> Richard attacked Tudor en route to Stanley and left his right flank
> exposed. When Stanley made his charge, Northumberland would not
have
> known if he was attacking Richard or Tudor, because the position of
> Stanley, which was doubtful, had not been clarified. Richard
> obviously miscalculated & didn't think his move through.
>
> None of it was 'emotional over-reaction' at> anyway. Acting
> decisively is whole world of difference away from
> > acting impetuously, or - by implication - unthinkingly.>
> > And even if it was - so what? What are you implying? That he
was a
> > flake because his Dad was killed when he was young?
>
> Richard may've been overly anxious from his trauma aged eight.
Being
> decisive is alright if the decision was in his favour, but, alas,
it
> wasn't!!!
>
> > My husband's best friend's parents both died horribly when he was
7
> > years of age and he was farmed out to various relatives until he
was
> > old enough to join the forces. The Army subsequently
housetrained
> him> and got him fighting fit, and he later left to pursue a
brilliant
> > career in Welfare Rights. His appeals on behalf of the
> disadvantaged> have successfully overturned existing case law in
this
> area numerous> times and he now leads the what has been officially
> designated the> best Welfare Rights Unit in the UK. He is also one
of
> the most> grounded people I know and I would trust him with my
life.
> His early> experiences *inform* some of his actions today - they
don't
> *rule* them.> Bearing in mind that 500 years separate them, maybe
> Richard's response> to his own family tragedy was similar?
> >
> > Lorraine
>
> But of course we get a variety of responses from children exposed
to
> trauma & Richard's trauma may've been different in that he was more
> sensitive & the nature of the trauma may've seemed more horrible,
as
> indeed it may've been. Someone dying in a car crash is different
from
> someone beheaded & ridiculed with the head stuck on a pole! Some
> children become schizophrenic, some like your friend breeze
through.
> What I'm suggesting is that in the case of Richard he may've been
left
> as someone subject to anxiety reactions as I've tried to evidence.
> This deserves pity, not criticism.

David, I don't think what we have at Bosworth is
mere 'impetuousness', but it may be an even worse reaction to trauma
(especially that of the previous two years). As Lorraine points out,
we know Richard was determined to win or die at Bosworth. That has
nothing to do with his abilities as a captain, but it surely has a
lot to say about his state of mind at that time (he was, for
instance, quite happy to retreat from putting Albany on the Scottish
throne).
But I think we should beware of starting with a blanket assumption of
a particular psychological problem through life, and then imposing
that interpretation on the evidence. I do feel the only way to
approach things is to weigh up the evidence on its own merits and see
where it takes you.
Marie

Hi Marie

< But I think we should beware of starting with a blanket assumption
of a particular psychological problem through life, and then imposing
that interpretation on the evidence. I do feel the only way to
approach things is to weigh up the evidence on its own merits and see
where it takes you. >

Hear, hear. It reminds me of the 'Was Richard Bi-polar?' thread, or
the character analysis based on Richard's birth sign and NPG portrait
threads. All dodgy ways of analysing the bloke, to me. I've been
studying Richard for years and I still can't say for definite what
kind of fellow he was. indeed, the more I know, the less specific he
becomes.

But it's interesting to see how we run of with certain notions after
reading messages on the Forum.

A recent response to an earlier post of mine seemed to have led the
poster to assume my friends' parents 'horrible deaths' occurred as a
result of a car accident, which was not in fact what happened to
them. When they then went on to say that a car smash wasn't quite the
same as a beheading and mockery, it's not only an arguable point,
anyway, but is a response based on something I'd not even said. The
underlying valid points the poster was making was certainly in danger
of being buried because of the wrong assumption on which he'd based
his argument.

And while I don't mind deconstructing any argument, it is a major
distraction, at best, to argue on a point that wasn't even made.

Does that make any sense at all?

Lorraine

Hmmm..I'm having a computer problem, too.

The assumption about a car crash for your friend was simply to point
out possible different outcomes psychologically…

<Richard was urged to retreat and his response
> was along the lines of 'This day I shall live or die
a King!'.
>
> This sounds like More putting words into peoples'
mouths.>

Eh? You've lost me. More doesn't mention Salazar. A
chap called De
Valera did, if memory serves

I'm saying that De Valera is putting words into Richard's mouth the
way More did & therefore fiction may've crept in

I think it's OK to speculate about Richard's psychology, after all,
Shakespeare's version is a psychological type: a psychopath, but that
may be false…


--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi Marie
>
> < But I think we should beware of starting with a blanket assumption
> of a particular psychological problem through life, and then
imposing
> that interpretation on the evidence. I do feel the only way to
> approach things is to weigh up the evidence on its own merits and
see
> where it takes you. >
>
> Hear, hear. It reminds me of the 'Was Richard Bi-polar?' thread, or
> the character analysis based on Richard's birth sign and NPG
portrait
> threads. All dodgy ways of analysing the bloke, to me. I've been
> studying Richard for years and I still can't say for definite what
> kind of fellow he was. indeed, the more I know, the less specific
he
> becomes.
>
> But it's interesting to see how we run of with certain notions after
> reading messages on the Forum.
>
> A recent response to an earlier post of mine seemed to have led the
> poster to assume my friends' parents 'horrible deaths' occurred as a
> result of a car accident, which was not in fact what happened to
> them. When they then went on to say that a car smash wasn't quite
the
> same as a beheading and mockery, it's not only an arguable point,
> anyway, but is a response based on something I'd not even said. The
> underlying valid points the poster was making was certainly in
danger
> of being buried because of the wrong assumption on which he'd based
> his argument.
>
> And while I don't mind deconstructing any argument, it is a major
> distraction, at best, to argue on a point that wasn't even made.
>
> Does that make any sense at all?
>
> Lorraine

> Yes, I just found it under 'Sitemap' > 'Contact Us' > 'Membership'.
>
Thanks, Marie. I have faxed my form off to RIMMS and am rather hoping they
will send me a Festschrift - it looks utterly fascinating!

I am still haunted by a number of unread books...but I did find Michael
Jones completely unput-downable and love his theories about relocating
Bosworth and the putative bastardy of Edward IV!

Jessica