Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Henry VII - was he all that bad?

Can we set some of this in context please! Trying to control livery and
maintenance (the method under which the nobility maintained their own
retinue which in troubled times could be rapidly enlarged to create a
"private army") was something English monarchs had been attempting to do for
decades . Maintaining servants, estate officers, and men of law as well as
household soldiers was common, accepted and vital for the crown via the
nobility via the gentry to control the countryside. Its called feudalism
(or at least the bastard version of it). Henry VII's only statute is
virtually a repetition of the one introduced by Edward IV (both being
designed to prevent nobles circumventing the law and rules to create larger
than necessary "private army") in 1468 and Henry's act didn't go on the book
until 1504. Like Edward's it forbade retaining without a licence signed by
the King except for household officers and servants etc. There was only one
person ever prosecuted under the statute...and retaining continued well into
the reign of Elizabeth I (though by then only crown officers tended to get
licences to keep men).

Maintaining was actually important given that unlike many European Countries
England did not have a standing army.

Henry's real triumph (if you can call it that) was a) his reluctance to
create new peers (thus limiting the size of the nobility), and b) keeping
the nobility impoverished (they ended up paying Henry fees for "their good
behaviour", fees for offices, fees for Henry to settle disputes in their
favour etc etc). Whilst it created an aristocracy in constant financial
fear of the crown it also kept them far too worried to over indulge in
plotting.

Henry's reign is much on a par with that of Edward IV - similar constraints
domestically though Henry was loathe to get involved in foreign adventures.
Though both faced the perennial problems of the Medieval English Monarchy
which were poverty (poor exploitation of feudal dues, poor exploitation of
crown lands, difficulties in raising and then collecting taxation),
difficulties in enforcing rule from the centre and haphazard application of
the law (how ever well meaning it was when it was placed on the statute
book). Like Edward IV Henry certainly took justice seriously passing
numerous attempts in Parliament to improve it and prevent corruption (though
Henry doesn't seem to have been that worried about its enforcement any more
than his predecessors apart from when it came into contact with Royal
Interests) - the only area where he did toughen up was regarding the Royal
Household which was often the place where rebellion and trouble was based
and always had been - here he introduced quite a few draconian (to modern
thinking) rules and regulations which made it easier for the crown to punish
(under the common law) people who may not have actually done anything but
were suspect.

Overall Henry was very similar in style of government to most of his 15th
Century predecessors - and like Edward IV in the latter part of his reign
shared a reputation for "tyranny" which usually meant rigid enforcement of
control, and avariciousness (mind you that is understandable given how mean
Parliament was when it came to granting the crown any money - and after the
Breton succession crisis - where Parliament granted cash in case of war with
as many strings as twenty years earlier it had granted Edward IV cash for
his French adventure - it was quite clear that only in extremis would an
English Parliament grant a monarch cash for war or overseas adventures).

For the man and women in the street I suspect life was no better and no
worse than it had been under Henry VI, Edward IV, or Richard III...though
for the merchants life had steadily been getting better (with a few
difficult patches) since the 1460's.

Certainly few mourned Henry VII but neither was he universally loathed or
hated by the populace. A relatively successful monarch much on a par with
Edward IV - though given the nature of their accession to the throne both
did rather well to die in their beds.

It was Henry VIII who really gets the Welsh going though thanks to a little
something called the "Act of Union" <g>. Mind you calling the Tudor's Welsh
is odd to say the least seeing as Henry VII had only one Welsh great
grandparent - Owen Tudor. That would be like calling Richard III Spanish -
because his great grandmother was Isabella of Castille.

And life for the average English citizen did actually get better through
much of the 16th Century with a few dips here and there. Granted increasing
population did have a marginally bad effect but trade and access to goods
etc both grew considerably as did prices and whilst that made living costs
higher it also improved wages - and throughout the century you do see a
gradual increase in access to Education (despite the dissolution of the
monasteries).

(Religious persecution after the reformation was actually quite minimal if
you take the period from say 1530 to 1610 for most people)

The Irish Problem had been around for centuries by the time of Henry's
accession - you can hardly blame the Tudor's - though they did little to
improve the situation. If you want someone to really blame for the ills of
Ireland I suggest you look at Oliver Cromwell.

As far as reputation goes - well both Henry VIII and Elizabeth were
immensely popular with large sections of their public. Henry VIII was
regarded as "great" at his death as was his daughter Elizabeth.


> It's horses for courses, David. Of course, stopping private armies
> was something Henry did for his own safety, not thae tranquillity of
> his subjects. Also it has also been said that your Welshman and his
> dynasty were actually the worst thing that ever happened to
> Wales. . . .
>
> And I think it would be difficult to find anyone in Ireland with a
> good word to say about the Tudors. (And it was the Tudors who did for
> my O'Donnells . . . )
>
> Nor was the average English peasant anything like so well off in the
> 16th century as in the 15th.
>
> And all that religious persecution!
>
> I sometimes think what the Tudors were best at was being IMPORTANT.
> Or self-important.
>
> I bet this'll cause a stir.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
> Can we set some of this in context please! Trying to control
livery and
> maintenance (the method under which the nobility maintained their
own
> retinue which in troubled times could be rapidly enlarged to create
a
> "private army") was something English monarchs had been attempting
to do for
> decades . Maintaining servants, estate officers, and men of law as
well as
> household soldiers was common, accepted and vital for the crown via
the
> nobility via the gentry to control the countryside. Its called
feudalism
> (or at least the bastard version of it). Henry VII's only statute
is
> virtually a repetition of the one introduced by Edward IV (both
being
> designed to prevent nobles circumventing the law and rules to
create larger
> than necessary "private army") in 1468 and Henry's act didn't go on
the book
> until 1504. Like Edward's it forbade retaining without a licence
signed by
> the King except for household officers and servants etc. There was
only one
> person ever prosecuted under the statute...and retaining continued
well into
> the reign of Elizabeth I (though by then only crown officers tended
to get
> licences to keep men).
>
> Maintaining was actually important given that unlike many European
Countries
> England did not have a standing army.
>
> Henry's real triumph (if you can call it that) was a) his
reluctance to
> create new peers (thus limiting the size of the nobility), and b)
keeping
> the nobility impoverished (they ended up paying Henry fees
for "their good
> behaviour", fees for offices, fees for Henry to settle disputes in
their
> favour etc etc). Whilst it created an aristocracy in constant
financial
> fear of the crown it also kept them far too worried to over indulge
in
> plotting.
>
> Henry's reign is much on a par with that of Edward IV - similar
constraints
> domestically though Henry was loathe to get involved in foreign
adventures.
> Though both faced the perennial problems of the Medieval English
Monarchy
> which were poverty (poor exploitation of feudal dues, poor
exploitation of
> crown lands, difficulties in raising and then collecting taxation),
> difficulties in enforcing rule from the centre and haphazard
application of
> the law (how ever well meaning it was when it was placed on the
statute
> book). Like Edward IV Henry certainly took justice seriously
passing
> numerous attempts in Parliament to improve it and prevent
corruption (though
> Henry doesn't seem to have been that worried about its enforcement
any more
> than his predecessors apart from when it came into contact with
Royal
> Interests) - the only area where he did toughen up was regarding
the Royal
> Household which was often the place where rebellion and trouble was
based
> and always had been - here he introduced quite a few draconian (to
modern
> thinking) rules and regulations which made it easier for the crown
to punish
> (under the common law) people who may not have actually done
anything but
> were suspect.
>
> Overall Henry was very similar in style of government to most of
his 15th
> Century predecessors - and like Edward IV in the latter part of his
reign
> shared a reputation for "tyranny" which usually meant rigid
enforcement of
> control, and avariciousness (mind you that is understandable given
how mean
> Parliament was when it came to granting the crown any money - and
after the
> Breton succession crisis - where Parliament granted cash in case of
war with
> as many strings as twenty years earlier it had granted Edward IV
cash for
> his French adventure - it was quite clear that only in extremis
would an
> English Parliament grant a monarch cash for war or overseas
adventures).
>
> For the man and women in the street I suspect life was no better
and no
> worse than it had been under Henry VI, Edward IV, or Richard
III...though
> for the merchants life had steadily been getting better (with a few
> difficult patches) since the 1460's.
>
> Certainly few mourned Henry VII but neither was he universally
loathed or
> hated by the populace. A relatively successful monarch much on a
par with
> Edward IV - though given the nature of their accession to the
throne both
> did rather well to die in their beds.
>
> It was Henry VIII who really gets the Welsh going though thanks to
a little
> something called the "Act of Union" <g>. Mind you calling the
Tudor's Welsh
> is odd to say the least seeing as Henry VII had only one Welsh great
> grandparent - Owen Tudor. That would be like calling Richard III
Spanish -
> because his great grandmother was Isabella of Castille.

Agreed, Tim. My repatition of David's description of HT was merely
ironic.
>
> And life for the average English citizen did actually get better
through
> much of the 16th Century with a few dips here and there. Granted
increasing
> population did have a marginally bad effect but trade and access to
goods
> etc both grew considerably as did prices and whilst that made
living costs
> higher it also improved wages - and throughout the century you do
see a
> gradual increase in access to Education (despite the dissolution of
the
> monasteries).

Perhaps, though from what I understand the present consensus would
seem to be that the decline in population after the Black Death was
very good for ordinary people in the countryside, temporarily
relieving pressure on land and giving them better leverage for
negotiating terms. Even if wages did increase in the 1500s, prices
also rose considerably. The last analysis I heard suggested that the
average per capita calorific intake was higher in the 15h century
than any time since until the mid 20th century. And, no, I don't
know how they work it out. Also, a detailed study of 15th century
Westminster suggested that living space per capita deteriorated
markedly in the early 1500s. Obviously, I was winding David up a
little, though. I don't suppose any of this can be laid at the door
of the monarchy.
>
> (Religious persecution after the reformation was actually quite
minimal if
> you take the period from say 1530 to 1610 for most people)
>
> The Irish Problem had been around for centuries by the time of
Henry's
> accession - you can hardly blame the Tudor's - though they did
little to
> improve the situation. If you want someone to really blame for the
ills of
> Ireland I suggest you look at Oliver Cromwell.


Sorry, this was a family example, Tim. The Irish question had been
around for centuries, but the Tudors and their successors did much to
worsen the situation; the Reformation, of course, didn't help at all.
The far north-west, to which I was referring, had never been
colonised at all; I'm afraid it WAS the Tudors who started messing
things up in that part of the country. They were of course, amply
aided by their successors, both the Stuarts and Cromwell. But I'm not
going into the history of the O'Donnells here (we'd need a new
forum).
I hope David, after his rather offensive 'joke' about Paddys, isn't
hitting even further below the belt with his anachronistc references
to atrocities in our own day. I sincerely hope he's not one of these
muddled people who imagine anyone with any criticisms of English
policy in Ireland over the centuries must be carrying a torch for the
IRA. Or is this just his way of getting the last word?


>
> As far as reputation goes - well both Henry VIII and Elizabeth were
> immensely popular with large sections of their public. Henry VIII
was
> regarded as "great" at his death as was his daughter Elizabeth.
>
>
> > It's horses for courses, David. Of course, stopping private armies
> > was something Henry did for his own safety, not thae tranquillity
of
> > his subjects. Also it has also been said that your Welshman and
his
> > dynasty were actually the worst thing that ever happened to
> > Wales. . . .
> >
> > And I think it would be difficult to find anyone in Ireland with a
> > good word to say about the Tudors. (And it was the Tudors who did
for
> > my O'Donnells . . . )
> >
> > Nor was the average English peasant anything like so well off in
the
> > 16th century as in the 15th.
> >
> > And all that religious persecution!
> >
> > I sometimes think what the Tudors were best at was being
IMPORTANT.
> > Or self-important.
> >
> > I bet this'll cause a stir.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >

No, I wasn't suggesting you were a card carrying member of the IRA.
I don't know what you do in your private life. I know the name Walsh
was one of the English Catholic martyrs.

Henry VII had a Welsh Grandfather on the paternal side, his name is
Welsh, he was brought up in Wales in his early years, he landed in
Wales & made a thing about the red dragon of Wales flag being used,
his first son was called Arthur, a Welsh hero & Henry, in his early
years before disilliusionment set in, tried to rule in an Arthurian
way: he had a round table at Winchester. While not wishing to call
him Taffy Tudor, nevertheless, he had a good claim to be called
Welsh!!!

I think he was quite brave in the way he handled those who had private
armies. Of those who fought for him at Bosworth, Henry fined Oxford,
executed William Stanley & imprisoned Northumberland, whose
inactivity, accidental or conspired, was instrumental in Henry's
victory.

He wasn't as hotheaded as Richard who charged Tudor leaving his flank
exposed and must rank with Clarence for the temerity of his claim to
the crown.




--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Can we set some of this in context please! Trying to control
> livery and
> > maintenance (the method under which the nobility maintained their
> own
> > retinue which in troubled times could be rapidly enlarged to
create
> a
> > "private army") was something English monarchs had been attempting
> to do for
> > decades . Maintaining servants, estate officers, and men of law
as
> well as
> > household soldiers was common, accepted and vital for the crown
via
> the
> > nobility via the gentry to control the countryside. Its called
> feudalism
> > (or at least the bastard version of it). Henry VII's only
statute
> is
> > virtually a repetition of the one introduced by Edward IV (both
> being
> > designed to prevent nobles circumventing the law and rules to
> create larger
> > than necessary "private army") in 1468 and Henry's act didn't go
on
> the book
> > until 1504. Like Edward's it forbade retaining without a licence
> signed by
> > the King except for household officers and servants etc. There
was
> only one
> > person ever prosecuted under the statute...and retaining continued
> well into
> > the reign of Elizabeth I (though by then only crown officers
tended
> to get
> > licences to keep men).
> >
> > Maintaining was actually important given that unlike many European
> Countries
> > England did not have a standing army.
> >
> > Henry's real triumph (if you can call it that) was a) his
> reluctance to
> > create new peers (thus limiting the size of the nobility), and b)
> keeping
> > the nobility impoverished (they ended up paying Henry fees
> for "their good
> > behaviour", fees for offices, fees for Henry to settle disputes in
> their
> > favour etc etc). Whilst it created an aristocracy in constant
> financial
> > fear of the crown it also kept them far too worried to over
indulge
> in
> > plotting.
> >
> > Henry's reign is much on a par with that of Edward IV - similar
> constraints
> > domestically though Henry was loathe to get involved in foreign
> adventures.
> > Though both faced the perennial problems of the Medieval English
> Monarchy
> > which were poverty (poor exploitation of feudal dues, poor
> exploitation of
> > crown lands, difficulties in raising and then collecting
taxation),
> > difficulties in enforcing rule from the centre and haphazard
> application of
> > the law (how ever well meaning it was when it was placed on the
> statute
> > book). Like Edward IV Henry certainly took justice seriously
> passing
> > numerous attempts in Parliament to improve it and prevent
> corruption (though
> > Henry doesn't seem to have been that worried about its enforcement
> any more
> > than his predecessors apart from when it came into contact with
> Royal
> > Interests) - the only area where he did toughen up was regarding
> the Royal
> > Household which was often the place where rebellion and trouble
was
> based
> > and always had been - here he introduced quite a few draconian (to
> modern
> > thinking) rules and regulations which made it easier for the crown
> to punish
> > (under the common law) people who may not have actually done
> anything but
> > were suspect.
> >
> > Overall Henry was very similar in style of government to most of
> his 15th
> > Century predecessors - and like Edward IV in the latter part of
his
> reign
> > shared a reputation for "tyranny" which usually meant rigid
> enforcement of
> > control, and avariciousness (mind you that is understandable given
> how mean
> > Parliament was when it came to granting the crown any money - and
> after the
> > Breton succession crisis - where Parliament granted cash in case
of
> war with
> > as many strings as twenty years earlier it had granted Edward IV
> cash for
> > his French adventure - it was quite clear that only in extremis
> would an
> > English Parliament grant a monarch cash for war or overseas
> adventures).
> >
> > For the man and women in the street I suspect life was no better
> and no
> > worse than it had been under Henry VI, Edward IV, or Richard
> III...though
> > for the merchants life had steadily been getting better (with a
few
> > difficult patches) since the 1460's.
> >
> > Certainly few mourned Henry VII but neither was he universally
> loathed or
> > hated by the populace. A relatively successful monarch much on a
> par with
> > Edward IV - though given the nature of their accession to the
> throne both
> > did rather well to die in their beds.
> >
> > It was Henry VIII who really gets the Welsh going though thanks to
> a little
> > something called the "Act of Union" <g>. Mind you calling the
> Tudor's Welsh
> > is odd to say the least seeing as Henry VII had only one Welsh
great
> > grandparent - Owen Tudor. That would be like calling Richard III
> Spanish -
> > because his great grandmother was Isabella of Castille.
>
> Agreed, Tim. My repatition of David's description of HT was merely
> ironic.
> >
> > And life for the average English citizen did actually get better
> through
> > much of the 16th Century with a few dips here and there. Granted
> increasing
> > population did have a marginally bad effect but trade and access
to
> goods
> > etc both grew considerably as did prices and whilst that made
> living costs
> > higher it also improved wages - and throughout the century you do
> see a
> > gradual increase in access to Education (despite the dissolution
of
> the
> > monasteries).
>
> Perhaps, though from what I understand the present consensus would
> seem to be that the decline in population after the Black Death was
> very good for ordinary people in the countryside, temporarily
> relieving pressure on land and giving them better leverage for
> negotiating terms. Even if wages did increase in the 1500s, prices
> also rose considerably. The last analysis I heard suggested that the
> average per capita calorific intake was higher in the 15h century
> than any time since until the mid 20th century. And, no, I don't
> know how they work it out. Also, a detailed study of 15th century
> Westminster suggested that living space per capita deteriorated
> markedly in the early 1500s. Obviously, I was winding David up a
> little, though. I don't suppose any of this can be laid at the door
> of the monarchy.
> >
> > (Religious persecution after the reformation was actually quite
> minimal if
> > you take the period from say 1530 to 1610 for most people)
> >
> > The Irish Problem had been around for centuries by the time of
> Henry's
> > accession - you can hardly blame the Tudor's - though they did
> little to
> > improve the situation. If you want someone to really blame for
the
> ills of
> > Ireland I suggest you look at Oliver Cromwell.
>
>
> Sorry, this was a family example, Tim. The Irish question had been
> around for centuries, but the Tudors and their successors did much
to
> worsen the situation; the Reformation, of course, didn't help at
all.
> The far north-west, to which I was referring, had never been
> colonised at all; I'm afraid it WAS the Tudors who started messing
> things up in that part of the country. They were of course, amply
> aided by their successors, both the Stuarts and Cromwell. But I'm
not
> going into the history of the O'Donnells here (we'd need a new
> forum).
> I hope David, after his rather offensive 'joke' about Paddys, isn't
> hitting even further below the belt with his anachronistc references
> to atrocities in our own day. I sincerely hope he's not one of
these
> muddled people who imagine anyone with any criticisms of English
> policy in Ireland over the centuries must be carrying a torch for
the
> IRA. Or is this just his way of getting the last word?
>
>
> >
> > As far as reputation goes - well both Henry VIII and Elizabeth
were
> > immensely popular with large sections of their public. Henry VIII
> was
> > regarded as "great" at his death as was his daughter Elizabeth.
> >
> >
> > > It's horses for courses, David. Of course, stopping private
armies
> > > was something Henry did for his own safety, not thae
tranquillity
> of
> > > his subjects. Also it has also been said that your Welshman and
> his
> > > dynasty were actually the worst thing that ever happened to
> > > Wales. . . .
> > >
> > > And I think it would be difficult to find anyone in Ireland with
a
> > > good word to say about the Tudors. (And it was the Tudors who
did
> for
> > > my O'Donnells . . . )
> > >
> > > Nor was the average English peasant anything like so well off in
> the
> > > 16th century as in the 15th.
> > >
> > > And all that religious persecution!
> > >
> > > I sometimes think what the Tudors were best at was being
> IMPORTANT.
> > > Or self-important.
> > >
> > > I bet this'll cause a stir.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >

Yes, Henry took the best ideas of Edward IV, such as a lucrative
treaty with the frogs, and consolidated his dynasty, which bloomed
into probably the most successful of the English monarchs in his son
Henry and more so in his grand daughter Elizabeth.

I think Henry deserves far more praise than he is usually given.
Richard on the other hand rashly plunged the House of York into
turmoil and near destruction.

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
> Can we set some of this in context please! Trying to control livery
and
> maintenance (the method under which the nobility maintained their
own
> retinue which in troubled times could be rapidly enlarged to create
a
> "private army") was something English monarchs had been attempting
to do for
> decades . Maintaining servants, estate officers, and men of law as
well as
> household soldiers was common, accepted and vital for the crown via
the
> nobility via the gentry to control the countryside. Its called
feudalism
> (or at least the bastard version of it). Henry VII's only statute
is
> virtually a repetition of the one introduced by Edward IV (both
being
> designed to prevent nobles circumventing the law and rules to create
larger
> than necessary "private army") in 1468 and Henry's act didn't go on
the book
> until 1504. Like Edward's it forbade retaining without a licence
signed by
> the King except for household officers and servants etc. There was
only one
> person ever prosecuted under the statute...and retaining continued
well into
> the reign of Elizabeth I (though by then only crown officers tended
to get
> licences to keep men).
>
> Maintaining was actually important given that unlike many European
Countries
> England did not have a standing army.
>
> Henry's real triumph (if you can call it that) was a) his reluctance
to
> create new peers (thus limiting the size of the nobility), and b)
keeping
> the nobility impoverished (they ended up paying Henry fees for
"their good
> behaviour", fees for offices, fees for Henry to settle disputes in
their
> favour etc etc). Whilst it created an aristocracy in constant
financial
> fear of the crown it also kept them far too worried to over indulge
in
> plotting.
>
> Henry's reign is much on a par with that of Edward IV - similar
constraints
> domestically though Henry was loathe to get involved in foreign
adventures.
> Though both faced the perennial problems of the Medieval English
Monarchy
> which were poverty (poor exploitation of feudal dues, poor
exploitation of
> crown lands, difficulties in raising and then collecting taxation),
> difficulties in enforcing rule from the centre and haphazard
application of
> the law (how ever well meaning it was when it was placed on the
statute
> book). Like Edward IV Henry certainly took justice seriously
passing
> numerous attempts in Parliament to improve it and prevent corruption
(though
> Henry doesn't seem to have been that worried about its enforcement
any more
> than his predecessors apart from when it came into contact with
Royal
> Interests) - the only area where he did toughen up was regarding the
Royal
> Household which was often the place where rebellion and trouble was
based
> and always had been - here he introduced quite a few draconian (to
modern
> thinking) rules and regulations which made it easier for the crown
to punish
> (under the common law) people who may not have actually done
anything but
> were suspect.
>
> Overall Henry was very similar in style of government to most of his
15th
> Century predecessors - and like Edward IV in the latter part of his
reign
> shared a reputation for "tyranny" which usually meant rigid
enforcement of
> control, and avariciousness (mind you that is understandable given
how mean
> Parliament was when it came to granting the crown any money - and
after the
> Breton succession crisis - where Parliament granted cash in case of
war with
> as many strings as twenty years earlier it had granted Edward IV
cash for
> his French adventure - it was quite clear that only in extremis
would an
> English Parliament grant a monarch cash for war or overseas
adventures).
>
> For the man and women in the street I suspect life was no better and
no
> worse than it had been under Henry VI, Edward IV, or Richard
III...though
> for the merchants life had steadily been getting better (with a few
> difficult patches) since the 1460's.
>
> Certainly few mourned Henry VII but neither was he universally
loathed or
> hated by the populace. A relatively successful monarch much on a
par with
> Edward IV - though given the nature of their accession to the throne
both
> did rather well to die in their beds.
>
> It was Henry VIII who really gets the Welsh going though thanks to a
little
> something called the "Act of Union" <g>. Mind you calling the
Tudor's Welsh
> is odd to say the least seeing as Henry VII had only one Welsh great
> grandparent - Owen Tudor. That would be like calling Richard III
Spanish -
> because his great grandmother was Isabella of Castille.
>
> And life for the average English citizen did actually get better
through
> much of the 16th Century with a few dips here and there. Granted
increasing
> population did have a marginally bad effect but trade and access to
goods
> etc both grew considerably as did prices and whilst that made living
costs
> higher it also improved wages - and throughout the century you do
see a
> gradual increase in access to Education (despite the dissolution of
the
> monasteries).
>
> (Religious persecution after the reformation was actually quite
minimal if
> you take the period from say 1530 to 1610 for most people)
>
> The Irish Problem had been around for centuries by the time of
Henry's
> accession - you can hardly blame the Tudor's - though they did
little to
> improve the situation. If you want someone to really blame for the
ills of
> Ireland I suggest you look at Oliver Cromwell.
>
> As far as reputation goes - well both Henry VIII and Elizabeth were
> immensely popular with large sections of their public. Henry VIII
was
> regarded as "great" at his death as was his daughter Elizabeth.
>
>
> > It's horses for courses, David. Of course, stopping private armies
> > was something Henry did for his own safety, not thae tranquillity
of
> > his subjects. Also it has also been said that your Welshman and
his
> > dynasty were actually the worst thing that ever happened to
> > Wales. . . .
> >
> > And I think it would be difficult to find anyone in Ireland with a
> > good word to say about the Tudors. (And it was the Tudors who did
for
> > my O'Donnells . . . )
> >
> > Nor was the average English peasant anything like so well off in
the
> > 16th century as in the 15th.
> >
> > And all that religious persecution!
> >
> > I sometimes think what the Tudors were best at was being
IMPORTANT.
> > Or self-important.
> >
> > I bet this'll cause a stir.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> No, I wasn't suggesting you were a card carrying member of the
IRA.
> I don't know what you do in your private life. I know the name
Walsh
> was one of the English Catholic martyrs.

Yes, that's from my paternal grandfather (naturally). I've only just
discovered his father was from County Limerick. The Donegal thing is
my mum's side. My properly English bit is my maternal grandmother,
whose father was born in the New Forest.
>
> Henry VII had a Welsh Grandfather on the paternal side, his name is
> Welsh, he was brought up in Wales in his early years, he landed in
> Wales & made a thing about the red dragon of Wales flag being used,
> his first son was called Arthur, a Welsh hero & Henry, in his early
> years before disilliusionment set in, tried to rule in an Arthurian
> way: he had a round table at Winchester. While not wishing to call
> him Taffy Tudor, nevertheless, he had a good claim to be called
> Welsh!!!
>
Yes, but the Yorkists used all that symbolism too - Edward IV at any
rate. Of course, the prophesies were around that Arthur would return,
that the Red Dragon would triumph over the white, etc. York had
estates in S. Wales and the Marches, and was feted by bards as well.
The Yorkists used their descent from Gwladus Ddu, daughter of
LLewelyn the Great. Apparently Edward IV even used the Red Dragon. He
also grew up, if not in Wales, at least on the border. That book of
Jonathan Hughes I mentioned is very interesting as regards the
harnessing of the Arthurian legend.
Marie

> I think he was quite brave in the way he handled those who had
private
> armies. Of those who fought for him at Bosworth, Henry fined
Oxford,
> executed William Stanley & imprisoned Northumberland, whose
> inactivity, accidental or conspired, was instrumental in Henry's
> victory.
>
> He wasn't as hotheaded as Richard who charged Tudor leaving his
flank
> exposed and must rank with Clarence for the temerity of his claim
to
> the crown.
No he certainly wasn't hotheaded. And I agree that the self-
aggrandizement started with Edward IV. I'm beginning to wonder if all
that Arthurian stuff wasn't at the root of it.
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "tim"
<tmc_dale@y...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Can we set some of this in context please! Trying to control
> > livery and
> > > maintenance (the method under which the nobility maintained
their
> > own
> > > retinue which in troubled times could be rapidly enlarged to
> create
> > a
> > > "private army") was something English monarchs had been
attempting
> > to do for
> > > decades . Maintaining servants, estate officers, and men of
law
> as
> > well as
> > > household soldiers was common, accepted and vital for the crown
> via
> > the
> > > nobility via the gentry to control the countryside. Its called
> > feudalism
> > > (or at least the bastard version of it). Henry VII's only
> statute
> > is
> > > virtually a repetition of the one introduced by Edward IV (both
> > being
> > > designed to prevent nobles circumventing the law and rules to
> > create larger
> > > than necessary "private army") in 1468 and Henry's act didn't
go
> on
> > the book
> > > until 1504. Like Edward's it forbade retaining without a
licence
> > signed by
> > > the King except for household officers and servants etc. There
> was
> > only one
> > > person ever prosecuted under the statute...and retaining
continued
> > well into
> > > the reign of Elizabeth I (though by then only crown officers
> tended
> > to get
> > > licences to keep men).
> > >
> > > Maintaining was actually important given that unlike many
European
> > Countries
> > > England did not have a standing army.
> > >
> > > Henry's real triumph (if you can call it that) was a) his
> > reluctance to
> > > create new peers (thus limiting the size of the nobility), and
b)
> > keeping
> > > the nobility impoverished (they ended up paying Henry fees
> > for "their good
> > > behaviour", fees for offices, fees for Henry to settle disputes
in
> > their
> > > favour etc etc). Whilst it created an aristocracy in constant
> > financial
> > > fear of the crown it also kept them far too worried to over
> indulge
> > in
> > > plotting.
> > >
> > > Henry's reign is much on a par with that of Edward IV - similar
> > constraints
> > > domestically though Henry was loathe to get involved in foreign
> > adventures.
> > > Though both faced the perennial problems of the Medieval
English
> > Monarchy
> > > which were poverty (poor exploitation of feudal dues, poor
> > exploitation of
> > > crown lands, difficulties in raising and then collecting
> taxation),
> > > difficulties in enforcing rule from the centre and haphazard
> > application of
> > > the law (how ever well meaning it was when it was placed on the
> > statute
> > > book). Like Edward IV Henry certainly took justice seriously
> > passing
> > > numerous attempts in Parliament to improve it and prevent
> > corruption (though
> > > Henry doesn't seem to have been that worried about its
enforcement
> > any more
> > > than his predecessors apart from when it came into contact with
> > Royal
> > > Interests) - the only area where he did toughen up was
regarding
> > the Royal
> > > Household which was often the place where rebellion and trouble
> was
> > based
> > > and always had been - here he introduced quite a few draconian
(to
> > modern
> > > thinking) rules and regulations which made it easier for the
crown
> > to punish
> > > (under the common law) people who may not have actually done
> > anything but
> > > were suspect.
> > >
> > > Overall Henry was very similar in style of government to most
of
> > his 15th
> > > Century predecessors - and like Edward IV in the latter part of
> his
> > reign
> > > shared a reputation for "tyranny" which usually meant rigid
> > enforcement of
> > > control, and avariciousness (mind you that is understandable
given
> > how mean
> > > Parliament was when it came to granting the crown any money -
and
> > after the
> > > Breton succession crisis - where Parliament granted cash in
case
> of
> > war with
> > > as many strings as twenty years earlier it had granted Edward
IV
> > cash for
> > > his French adventure - it was quite clear that only in extremis
> > would an
> > > English Parliament grant a monarch cash for war or overseas
> > adventures).
> > >
> > > For the man and women in the street I suspect life was no
better
> > and no
> > > worse than it had been under Henry VI, Edward IV, or Richard
> > III...though
> > > for the merchants life had steadily been getting better (with a
> few
> > > difficult patches) since the 1460's.
> > >
> > > Certainly few mourned Henry VII but neither was he universally
> > loathed or
> > > hated by the populace. A relatively successful monarch much on
a
> > par with
> > > Edward IV - though given the nature of their accession to the
> > throne both
> > > did rather well to die in their beds.
> > >
> > > It was Henry VIII who really gets the Welsh going though thanks
to
> > a little
> > > something called the "Act of Union" <g>. Mind you calling the
> > Tudor's Welsh
> > > is odd to say the least seeing as Henry VII had only one Welsh
> great
> > > grandparent - Owen Tudor. That would be like calling Richard
III
> > Spanish -
> > > because his great grandmother was Isabella of Castille.
> >
> > Agreed, Tim. My repatition of David's description of HT was
merely
> > ironic.
> > >
> > > And life for the average English citizen did actually get
better
> > through
> > > much of the 16th Century with a few dips here and there.
Granted
> > increasing
> > > population did have a marginally bad effect but trade and
access
> to
> > goods
> > > etc both grew considerably as did prices and whilst that made
> > living costs
> > > higher it also improved wages - and throughout the century you
do
> > see a
> > > gradual increase in access to Education (despite the
dissolution
> of
> > the
> > > monasteries).
> >
> > Perhaps, though from what I understand the present consensus
would
> > seem to be that the decline in population after the Black Death
was
> > very good for ordinary people in the countryside, temporarily
> > relieving pressure on land and giving them better leverage for
> > negotiating terms. Even if wages did increase in the 1500s,
prices
> > also rose considerably. The last analysis I heard suggested that
the
> > average per capita calorific intake was higher in the 15h century
> > than any time since until the mid 20th century. And, no, I don't
> > know how they work it out. Also, a detailed study of 15th century
> > Westminster suggested that living space per capita deteriorated
> > markedly in the early 1500s. Obviously, I was winding David up a
> > little, though. I don't suppose any of this can be laid at the
door
> > of the monarchy.
> > >
> > > (Religious persecution after the reformation was actually quite
> > minimal if
> > > you take the period from say 1530 to 1610 for most people)
> > >
> > > The Irish Problem had been around for centuries by the time of
> > Henry's
> > > accession - you can hardly blame the Tudor's - though they did
> > little to
> > > improve the situation. If you want someone to really blame for
> the
> > ills of
> > > Ireland I suggest you look at Oliver Cromwell.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, this was a family example, Tim. The Irish question had
been
> > around for centuries, but the Tudors and their successors did
much
> to
> > worsen the situation; the Reformation, of course, didn't help at
> all.
> > The far north-west, to which I was referring, had never been
> > colonised at all; I'm afraid it WAS the Tudors who started
messing
> > things up in that part of the country. They were of course, amply
> > aided by their successors, both the Stuarts and Cromwell. But I'm
> not
> > going into the history of the O'Donnells here (we'd need a new
> > forum).
> > I hope David, after his rather offensive 'joke' about Paddys,
isn't
> > hitting even further below the belt with his anachronistc
references
> > to atrocities in our own day. I sincerely hope he's not one of
> these
> > muddled people who imagine anyone with any criticisms of English
> > policy in Ireland over the centuries must be carrying a torch for
> the
> > IRA. Or is this just his way of getting the last word?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > As far as reputation goes - well both Henry VIII and Elizabeth
> were
> > > immensely popular with large sections of their public. Henry
VIII
> > was
> > > regarded as "great" at his death as was his daughter Elizabeth.
> > >
> > >
> > > > It's horses for courses, David. Of course, stopping private
> armies
> > > > was something Henry did for his own safety, not thae
> tranquillity
> > of
> > > > his subjects. Also it has also been said that your Welshman
and
> > his
> > > > dynasty were actually the worst thing that ever happened to
> > > > Wales. . . .
> > > >
> > > > And I think it would be difficult to find anyone in Ireland
with
> a
> > > > good word to say about the Tudors. (And it was the Tudors who
> did
> > for
> > > > my O'Donnells . . . )
> > > >
> > > > Nor was the average English peasant anything like so well off
in
> > the
> > > > 16th century as in the 15th.
> > > >
> > > > And all that religious persecution!
> > > >
> > > > I sometimes think what the Tudors were best at was being
> > IMPORTANT.
> > > > Or self-important.
> > > >
> > > > I bet this'll cause a stir.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Yes, Henry took the best ideas of Edward IV, such as a lucrative
> treaty with the frogs, and consolidated his dynasty, which bloomed
> into probably the most successful of the English monarchs in his
son
> Henry and more so in his grand daughter Elizabeth.
>
> I think Henry deserves far more praise than he is usually given.
> Richard on the other hand rashly plunged the House of York into
> turmoil and near destruction.
>

So a person is to be judged merely on their level of worldly success?

I think what you've confirmed for me is that any ricardian is
battling uphill against the National Myth of the Glorious Tudors, the
Great Reformation and all our Liberties. Unlike you, I do not see
power, pomp and success as virtues. For me, power is a terrible
problem for human beings.

So to return to Richard and away from your friend the wife-hacker, is
it not possible that Richard found himself in a situation of others'
making? That perhaps he did know a terrible secret regarding Edward's
birth (rereading Jones, it looks as though York would not have
started back for Rouen until "at least" 20th August, which makes his
fathering Edward look even less likely)? That perhaps Edward, like
Charles II in a similar situation some 200 years later, did actually
make promises to he shouldn't have to a girl? That Richard did
believe the Woodvilles to have been behind Clarence's death and had
good reason to fear they would now see him off too (remember that
letter he wrote as King to the Earl of Desmond? that cannot have had
any propaganda purpose, and would seem to indicate his true beliefs
regarding his brother's execution)?
I'm not suggesting all of these things to have been true. But to
dismiss all of them out of hand, and then make a judgement on Richard
based on that ASSUMPTION, seems to me a little cavalier.
By the way, I don't see why one has to demonise one side just because
one sees good in the other. People were where they found themselves,
and had to act accordingly. This whole thing is at bottom a massive,
messy human tragedy.
If Richard had won Bosworth we would now be judging him very
differently. And if Henry VII had lost Stoke. Or perhaps you do not
believe these things possible?
Marie

> --- In , "tim"
<tmc_dale@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Can we set some of this in context please! Trying to control
livery
> and
> > maintenance (the method under which the nobility maintained their
> own
> > retinue which in troubled times could be rapidly enlarged to
create
> a
> > "private army") was something English monarchs had been
attempting
> to do for
> > decades . Maintaining servants, estate officers, and men of law
as
> well as
> > household soldiers was common, accepted and vital for the crown
via
> the
> > nobility via the gentry to control the countryside. Its called
> feudalism
> > (or at least the bastard version of it). Henry VII's only
statute
> is
> > virtually a repetition of the one introduced by Edward IV (both
> being
> > designed to prevent nobles circumventing the law and rules to
create
> larger
> > than necessary "private army") in 1468 and Henry's act didn't go
on
> the book
> > until 1504. Like Edward's it forbade retaining without a licence
> signed by
> > the King except for household officers and servants etc. There
was
> only one
> > person ever prosecuted under the statute...and retaining
continued
> well into
> > the reign of Elizabeth I (though by then only crown officers
tended
> to get
> > licences to keep men).
> >
> > Maintaining was actually important given that unlike many
European
> Countries
> > England did not have a standing army.
> >
> > Henry's real triumph (if you can call it that) was a) his
reluctance
> to
> > create new peers (thus limiting the size of the nobility), and b)
> keeping
> > the nobility impoverished (they ended up paying Henry fees for
> "their good
> > behaviour", fees for offices, fees for Henry to settle disputes
in
> their
> > favour etc etc). Whilst it created an aristocracy in constant
> financial
> > fear of the crown it also kept them far too worried to over
indulge
> in
> > plotting.
> >
> > Henry's reign is much on a par with that of Edward IV - similar
> constraints
> > domestically though Henry was loathe to get involved in foreign
> adventures.
> > Though both faced the perennial problems of the Medieval English
> Monarchy
> > which were poverty (poor exploitation of feudal dues, poor
> exploitation of
> > crown lands, difficulties in raising and then collecting
taxation),
> > difficulties in enforcing rule from the centre and haphazard
> application of
> > the law (how ever well meaning it was when it was placed on the
> statute
> > book). Like Edward IV Henry certainly took justice seriously
> passing
> > numerous attempts in Parliament to improve it and prevent
corruption
> (though
> > Henry doesn't seem to have been that worried about its
enforcement
> any more
> > than his predecessors apart from when it came into contact with
> Royal
> > Interests) - the only area where he did toughen up was regarding
the
> Royal
> > Household which was often the place where rebellion and trouble
was
> based
> > and always had been - here he introduced quite a few draconian
(to
> modern
> > thinking) rules and regulations which made it easier for the
crown
> to punish
> > (under the common law) people who may not have actually done
> anything but
> > were suspect.
> >
> > Overall Henry was very similar in style of government to most of
his
> 15th
> > Century predecessors - and like Edward IV in the latter part of
his
> reign
> > shared a reputation for "tyranny" which usually meant rigid
> enforcement of
> > control, and avariciousness (mind you that is understandable
given
> how mean
> > Parliament was when it came to granting the crown any money - and
> after the
> > Breton succession crisis - where Parliament granted cash in case
of
> war with
> > as many strings as twenty years earlier it had granted Edward IV
> cash for
> > his French adventure - it was quite clear that only in extremis
> would an
> > English Parliament grant a monarch cash for war or overseas
> adventures).
> >
> > For the man and women in the street I suspect life was no better
and
> no
> > worse than it had been under Henry VI, Edward IV, or Richard
> III...though
> > for the merchants life had steadily been getting better (with a
few
> > difficult patches) since the 1460's.
> >
> > Certainly few mourned Henry VII but neither was he universally
> loathed or
> > hated by the populace. A relatively successful monarch much on a
> par with
> > Edward IV - though given the nature of their accession to the
throne
> both
> > did rather well to die in their beds.
> >
> > It was Henry VIII who really gets the Welsh going though thanks
to a
> little
> > something called the "Act of Union" <g>. Mind you calling the
> Tudor's Welsh
> > is odd to say the least seeing as Henry VII had only one Welsh
great
> > grandparent - Owen Tudor. That would be like calling Richard III
> Spanish -
> > because his great grandmother was Isabella of Castille.
> >
> > And life for the average English citizen did actually get better
> through
> > much of the 16th Century with a few dips here and there. Granted
> increasing
> > population did have a marginally bad effect but trade and access
to
> goods
> > etc both grew considerably as did prices and whilst that made
living
> costs
> > higher it also improved wages - and throughout the century you do
> see a
> > gradual increase in access to Education (despite the dissolution
of
> the
> > monasteries).
> >
> > (Religious persecution after the reformation was actually quite
> minimal if
> > you take the period from say 1530 to 1610 for most people)
> >
> > The Irish Problem had been around for centuries by the time of
> Henry's
> > accession - you can hardly blame the Tudor's - though they did
> little to
> > improve the situation. If you want someone to really blame for
the
> ills of
> > Ireland I suggest you look at Oliver Cromwell.
> >
> > As far as reputation goes - well both Henry VIII and Elizabeth
were
> > immensely popular with large sections of their public. Henry
VIII
> was
> > regarded as "great" at his death as was his daughter Elizabeth.
> >
> >
> > > It's horses for courses, David. Of course, stopping private
armies
> > > was something Henry did for his own safety, not thae
tranquillity
> of
> > > his subjects. Also it has also been said that your Welshman and
> his
> > > dynasty were actually the worst thing that ever happened to
> > > Wales. . . .
> > >
> > > And I think it would be difficult to find anyone in Ireland
with a
> > > good word to say about the Tudors. (And it was the Tudors who
did
> for
> > > my O'Donnells . . . )
> > >
> > > Nor was the average English peasant anything like so well off
in
> the
> > > 16th century as in the 15th.
> > >
> > > And all that religious persecution!
> > >
> > > I sometimes think what the Tudors were best at was being
> IMPORTANT.
> > > Or self-important.
> > >
> > > I bet this'll cause a stir.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >

People often are judged on their level of worldly success. But there
is a moral dimension, too, which is more difficult to ascertain and,
perhaps, lies within individual consciousness.

On a moral level, Richard has been criticized for claiming the crown
in a purely selfish way against the moral & legal tenets of his
Culture and killing arbitrarily several people in the process
including his former friend & a leading figure in Edward IV's
government: Hastings, who was not permitted trial & simply dragged out
& decapitated. This wasn't a good PR exercise at the time & served to
suggest that Richard was someone driven by impetuous anxiety
reactions, as well as a pessimistic view of human nature. In that, he
was probably correct. But to suggest some moral imperative for
Richard flies in the face of the way most of his world perceived him
at the time. Sure, Sadaam Hussain sees himself as a warrior for
Islam, but many, as you know, disagree.

You deny the right of the Tudors to the glorification of power, but
presumably you would uphold the right to power of the Irish Republic?

If there was a terrible secret regarding Edward's birth, it seems
amazingly convenient that this only came to light when Richard saw a
path to the crown. But Richard had served Edward for years & Edward
had been recognized as King for years! Richard seemed happy to spread
rumours of bastardy about Edward, but Titulus Regius mainly has a go
at Edward's son's legitimacy. I do sense that Richard used this
'bastardy' ploy as a convenient political weapon against anyone who
was an enemy.

Who knows how many women have let men other than their husbands sire
children? Hen pigeons I observe allow it all the time. Some women
are the same, including Queens. Can we be sure that Ann Neville
didn't have a secret tryst?

I think you are right that Richard feared the Wydevilles, as pieces on
a chessboard where he intended to checkmate!

I don't see any evidence that Richard especially loved Clarence or
vice versa. They had a public row, in which Edward intervened, over
rights to Warwick's lands.

I'm afraid people do make assumptions in a cavalier way all of the
time, usually based upon as much evidence as they can glean.

Enemies do demonize each other, especially in politics. Sadaam
Hussain comes to mind. The first casualty in politics & war is the
truth, quite often. And morality & legality are often thrown out of
the window. If some one chops off your head or drops a cruise missile
on your wife & children, there's no time to moralize about it.

The whole thing IS at bottom a massive, messy human tragedy! But how
many times has this happened? I suppose the comet, which wiped out
the dinosaurs was a tragedy, too, but this is a very tragic universe
we live in!

You mentioned if Richard had won Bosworth and if Henry VII had lost
Stoke, but we have to stick to the evidence, not hypothesis. I don't
think Richard was EVER on a winner when he took the crown and so
offended the widely accepted moral & legal precepts of his time.
Sheer military might soon crumbles if enough people are against it, as
the Americans found out in Vietnam!

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "David"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Yes, Henry took the best ideas of Edward IV, such as a lucrative
> > treaty with the frogs, and consolidated his dynasty, which bloomed
> > into probably the most successful of the English monarchs in his
> son
> > Henry and more so in his grand daughter Elizabeth.
> >
> > I think Henry deserves far more praise than he is usually given.
> > Richard on the other hand rashly plunged the House of York into
> > turmoil and near destruction.
> >
>
> So a person is to be judged merely on their level of worldly
success?
>
> I think what you've confirmed for me is that any ricardian is
> battling uphill against the National Myth of the Glorious Tudors,
the
> Great Reformation and all our Liberties. Unlike you, I do not see
> power, pomp and success as virtues. For me, power is a terrible
> problem for human beings.
>
> So to return to Richard and away from your friend the wife-hacker,
is
> it not possible that Richard found himself in a situation of others'
> making? That perhaps he did know a terrible secret regarding
Edward's
> birth (rereading Jones, it looks as though York would not have
> started back for Rouen until "at least" 20th August, which makes his
> fathering Edward look even less likely)? That perhaps Edward, like
> Charles II in a similar situation some 200 years later, did actually
> make promises to he shouldn't have to a girl? That Richard did
> believe the Woodvilles to have been behind Clarence's death and had
> good reason to fear they would now see him off too (remember that
> letter he wrote as King to the Earl of Desmond? that cannot have had
> any propaganda purpose, and would seem to indicate his true beliefs
> regarding his brother's execution)?
> I'm not suggesting all of these things to have been true. But to
> dismiss all of them out of hand, and then make a judgement on
Richard
> based on that ASSUMPTION, seems to me a little cavalier.
> By the way, I don't see why one has to demonise one side just
because
> one sees good in the other. People were where they found themselves,
> and had to act accordingly. This whole thing is at bottom a massive,
> messy human tragedy.
> If Richard had won Bosworth we would now be judging him very
> differently. And if Henry VII had lost Stoke. Or perhaps you do not
> believe these things possible?
> Marie
>
> > --- In , "tim"
> <tmc_dale@y...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Can we set some of this in context please! Trying to control
> livery
> > and
> > > maintenance (the method under which the nobility maintained
their
> > own
> > > retinue which in troubled times could be rapidly enlarged to
> create
> > a
> > > "private army") was something English monarchs had been
> attempting
> > to do for
> > > decades . Maintaining servants, estate officers, and men of law
> as
> > well as
> > > household soldiers was common, accepted and vital for the crown
> via
> > the
> > > nobility via the gentry to control the countryside. Its called
> > feudalism
> > > (or at least the bastard version of it). Henry VII's only
> statute
> > is
> > > virtually a repetition of the one introduced by Edward IV (both
> > being
> > > designed to prevent nobles circumventing the law and rules to
> create
> > larger
> > > than necessary "private army") in 1468 and Henry's act didn't go
> on
> > the book
> > > until 1504. Like Edward's it forbade retaining without a
licence
> > signed by
> > > the King except for household officers and servants etc. There
> was
> > only one
> > > person ever prosecuted under the statute...and retaining
> continued
> > well into
> > > the reign of Elizabeth I (though by then only crown officers
> tended
> > to get
> > > licences to keep men).
> > >
> > > Maintaining was actually important given that unlike many
> European
> > Countries
> > > England did not have a standing army.
> > >
> > > Henry's real triumph (if you can call it that) was a) his
> reluctance
> > to
> > > create new peers (thus limiting the size of the nobility), and
b)
> > keeping
> > > the nobility impoverished (they ended up paying Henry fees for
> > "their good
> > > behaviour", fees for offices, fees for Henry to settle disputes
> in
> > their
> > > favour etc etc). Whilst it created an aristocracy in constant
> > financial
> > > fear of the crown it also kept them far too worried to over
> indulge
> > in
> > > plotting.
> > >
> > > Henry's reign is much on a par with that of Edward IV - similar
> > constraints
> > > domestically though Henry was loathe to get involved in foreign
> > adventures.
> > > Though both faced the perennial problems of the Medieval English
> > Monarchy
> > > which were poverty (poor exploitation of feudal dues, poor
> > exploitation of
> > > crown lands, difficulties in raising and then collecting
> taxation),
> > > difficulties in enforcing rule from the centre and haphazard
> > application of
> > > the law (how ever well meaning it was when it was placed on the
> > statute
> > > book). Like Edward IV Henry certainly took justice seriously
> > passing
> > > numerous attempts in Parliament to improve it and prevent
> corruption
> > (though
> > > Henry doesn't seem to have been that worried about its
> enforcement
> > any more
> > > than his predecessors apart from when it came into contact with
> > Royal
> > > Interests) - the only area where he did toughen up was regarding
> the
> > Royal
> > > Household which was often the place where rebellion and trouble
> was
> > based
> > > and always had been - here he introduced quite a few draconian
> (to
> > modern
> > > thinking) rules and regulations which made it easier for the
> crown
> > to punish
> > > (under the common law) people who may not have actually done
> > anything but
> > > were suspect.
> > >
> > > Overall Henry was very similar in style of government to most of
> his
> > 15th
> > > Century predecessors - and like Edward IV in the latter part of
> his
> > reign
> > > shared a reputation for "tyranny" which usually meant rigid
> > enforcement of
> > > control, and avariciousness (mind you that is understandable
> given
> > how mean
> > > Parliament was when it came to granting the crown any money -
and
> > after the
> > > Breton succession crisis - where Parliament granted cash in case
> of
> > war with
> > > as many strings as twenty years earlier it had granted Edward IV
> > cash for
> > > his French adventure - it was quite clear that only in extremis
> > would an
> > > English Parliament grant a monarch cash for war or overseas
> > adventures).
> > >
> > > For the man and women in the street I suspect life was no better
> and
> > no
> > > worse than it had been under Henry VI, Edward IV, or Richard
> > III...though
> > > for the merchants life had steadily been getting better (with a
> few
> > > difficult patches) since the 1460's.
> > >
> > > Certainly few mourned Henry VII but neither was he universally
> > loathed or
> > > hated by the populace. A relatively successful monarch much on
a
> > par with
> > > Edward IV - though given the nature of their accession to the
> throne
> > both
> > > did rather well to die in their beds.
> > >
> > > It was Henry VIII who really gets the Welsh going though thanks
> to a
> > little
> > > something called the "Act of Union" <g>. Mind you calling the
> > Tudor's Welsh
> > > is odd to say the least seeing as Henry VII had only one Welsh
> great
> > > grandparent - Owen Tudor. That would be like calling Richard
III
> > Spanish -
> > > because his great grandmother was Isabella of Castille.
> > >
> > > And life for the average English citizen did actually get better
> > through
> > > much of the 16th Century with a few dips here and there.
Granted
> > increasing
> > > population did have a marginally bad effect but trade and access
> to
> > goods
> > > etc both grew considerably as did prices and whilst that made
> living
> > costs
> > > higher it also improved wages - and throughout the century you
do
> > see a
> > > gradual increase in access to Education (despite the dissolution
> of
> > the
> > > monasteries).
> > >
> > > (Religious persecution after the reformation was actually quite
> > minimal if
> > > you take the period from say 1530 to 1610 for most people)
> > >
> > > The Irish Problem had been around for centuries by the time of
> > Henry's
> > > accession - you can hardly blame the Tudor's - though they did
> > little to
> > > improve the situation. If you want someone to really blame for
> the
> > ills of
> > > Ireland I suggest you look at Oliver Cromwell.
> > >
> > > As far as reputation goes - well both Henry VIII and Elizabeth
> were
> > > immensely popular with large sections of their public. Henry
> VIII
> > was
> > > regarded as "great" at his death as was his daughter Elizabeth.
> > >
> > >
> > > > It's horses for courses, David. Of course, stopping private
> armies
> > > > was something Henry did for his own safety, not thae
> tranquillity
> > of
> > > > his subjects. Also it has also been said that your Welshman
and
> > his
> > > > dynasty were actually the worst thing that ever happened to
> > > > Wales. . . .
> > > >
> > > > And I think it would be difficult to find anyone in Ireland
> with a
> > > > good word to say about the Tudors. (And it was the Tudors who
> did
> > for
> > > > my O'Donnells . . . )
> > > >
> > > > Nor was the average English peasant anything like so well off
> in
> > the
> > > > 16th century as in the 15th.
> > > >
> > > > And all that religious persecution!
> > > >
> > > > I sometimes think what the Tudors were best at was being
> > IMPORTANT.
> > > > Or self-important.
> > > >
> > > > I bet this'll cause a stir.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >

Firstly there is no appropriate need to condemn the Tudor Dynasty simply
because they unseated Richard III in 1485 - there are a variety of reasons
that Henry VII was the final victor at Bosworth.
Wordly success - well actually that's how they were judged by themselves and
their contemporaries including Edward IV and Richard III - its still a
reason we judge people today.
"Power" - all monarchs exercised the use of power in much the same way and
with far less recourse to the law than modern politicians exercise power in
most countries. The Tudors enjoyed the use of power as much as any of their
predecessors on the English Throne (and incidentally the later Tudor's
particularly Elizabeth found their exercise of power far more limited by a
stronger Parliament than either Edward or Richard had done).
"Pomp" the Tudors exercised the use of pomp and Royal display in much the
same way as all of their predecessors - it was an important part of
"monarchy" - Edward IV and Richard III were keenly aware of the importance
of Royal Display as a political tool and in fact the Yorkists keenly
exploited the differences between their King (Edward IV) and that poor
unkingly like man Henry VI who had previously occupied the throne. The
reason we see the pomp of the Tudor Court today and therefore tend to see it
as something new is because we have far more evidence for it - we have many
of the Royal Buildings, a large collection of portraiture for example and
far more documentary evidence. But anyone who has had a look at the
descriptions of both Edward's and Richard's courts is aware of how
impressive they where - the essential difference is that in common with much
of Europe there is between the 15th and 17th Century a significant political
change which saw the Royal Courts grow more formal and more extravagent
(though in many countries there was a number of differing reasons for it but
one common one was is by designing a more formal way of life the nobility
were gradually turned into the servants of the crown to diminish their
landed influence and its possible threat to the stability of the realm).

Use of Iconography, propoganda etc - the reason so many Ricardians accuse
the Tudors of this is by enlarge the Tudor Iconography survives intact - in
portraits, buildings and literature. But it is hardly a new development -
the House of York were extremely adept at it - in both their own buildings,
in the styles and titles they used, in the way they had their titles to the
throne published etc - anyone who has read the "Arrival" is aware of just
how important the use of the "black arts" was. I suspect that could we
still see the interior decoration of Windsor, Eltham, Sheen etc as they were
in the 1470's we would be very aware of the numerous Yorkist myths and
devices being used to illustrate the grandeur and importance of the dynasty.

Those who come to a throne by shall we say other than the conventional
methods are particularly prone to the overuse of iconography and
propoganda - that applies equally to Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII.

As to the political developments well as I have said before most of the
early Tudor reforms and developments have their roots in the reign of Edward
IV (so many of the same people were officials in all three administrations
from Edward IV, through Edward V, through Richard III and then on into the
reign of Henry VII). The domestic problems of Henry VIII lead to him making
significant political and religious changes to the face of England but in
large they made a huge contribution to the increasing power of Parliament
which saw steadily increasing importance throughout the Tudor age
(frequently to the dissatisfaction of the Monarch) - it was a fine balance
between the two organs of Government.

This isn't national myth (much of that comes from the increasing sense of
the "English State" that came out of the 16th and 17th centuries) its
national fact - that England owes a great deal of her stability and the
development of Parliamentary Democracy out the developments of the 16th
Century - now the Tudor's certainly didn't have that in mind but it was a by
product of a variety of their policies. Once you start a chain of events
that sees your throne reliant on the consent of the people and enshrined
into parliamentary law you open up a can of worms that eventually sees
Parliament able to remove a monarch. (Between 1460 and 1603 only one
English Monarch ascended the throne and was crowned without a Parliamentary
title to their throne - that was Henry VIII - all the rest relied on
Parliamentary title or confirmation of their title to rule).

The myth is really the idea that a sunny August day in 1485 saw the end of
the medieval period and the beginning of the modern world.

One final point - that Desmond letter being used as evidence for a sadness
over his late lamented brother Clarence is largely discredited if memory
serves the majority of those who have actually read it don't share Kendall's
interpretation of it. And equally discredited is the "myth" that Elizabeth
Wydeville had anything to do with the death of Desmond's father.

Tim


>
> So a person is to be judged merely on their level of worldly success?
>
> I think what you've confirmed for me is that any ricardian is
> battling uphill against the National Myth of the Glorious Tudors, the
> Great Reformation and all our Liberties. Unlike you, I do not see
> power, pomp and success as virtues. For me, power is a terrible
> problem for human beings.
>
> So to return to Richard and away from your friend the wife-hacker, is
> it not possible that Richard found himself in a situation of others'
> making? That perhaps he did know a terrible secret regarding Edward's
> birth (rereading Jones, it looks as though York would not have
> started back for Rouen until "at least" 20th August, which makes his
> fathering Edward look even less likely)? That perhaps Edward, like
> Charles II in a similar situation some 200 years later, did actually
> make promises to he shouldn't have to a girl? That Richard did
> believe the Woodvilles to have been behind Clarence's death and had
> good reason to fear they would now see him off too (remember that
> letter he wrote as King to the Earl of Desmond? that cannot have had
> any propaganda purpose, and would seem to indicate his true beliefs
> regarding his brother's execution)?
> I'm not suggesting all of these things to have been true. But to
> dismiss all of them out of hand, and then make a judgement on Richard
> based on that ASSUMPTION, seems to me a little cavalier.
> By the way, I don't see why one has to demonise one side just because
> one sees good in the other. People were where they found themselves,
> and had to act accordingly. This whole thing is at bottom a massive,
> messy human tragedy.
> If Richard had won Bosworth we would now be judging him very
> differently. And if Henry VII had lost Stoke. Or perhaps you do not
> believe these things possible?
> Marie
>
> > --- In , "tim"
> <tmc_dale@y...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Can we set some of this in context please! Trying to control
> livery
> > and
> > > maintenance (the method under which the nobility maintained their
> > own
> > > retinue which in troubled times could be rapidly enlarged to
> create
> > a
> > > "private army") was something English monarchs had been
> attempting
> > to do for
> > > decades . Maintaining servants, estate officers, and men of law
> as
> > well as
> > > household soldiers was common, accepted and vital for the crown
> via
> > the
> > > nobility via the gentry to control the countryside. Its called
> > feudalism
> > > (or at least the bastard version of it). Henry VII's only
> statute
> > is
> > > virtually a repetition of the one introduced by Edward IV (both
> > being
> > > designed to prevent nobles circumventing the law and rules to
> create
> > larger
> > > than necessary "private army") in 1468 and Henry's act didn't go
> on
> > the book
> > > until 1504. Like Edward's it forbade retaining without a licence
> > signed by
> > > the King except for household officers and servants etc. There
> was
> > only one
> > > person ever prosecuted under the statute...and retaining
> continued
> > well into
> > > the reign of Elizabeth I (though by then only crown officers
> tended
> > to get
> > > licences to keep men).
> > >
> > > Maintaining was actually important given that unlike many
> European
> > Countries
> > > England did not have a standing army.
> > >
> > > Henry's real triumph (if you can call it that) was a) his
> reluctance
> > to
> > > create new peers (thus limiting the size of the nobility), and b)
> > keeping
> > > the nobility impoverished (they ended up paying Henry fees for
> > "their good
> > > behaviour", fees for offices, fees for Henry to settle disputes
> in
> > their
> > > favour etc etc). Whilst it created an aristocracy in constant
> > financial
> > > fear of the crown it also kept them far too worried to over
> indulge
> > in
> > > plotting.
> > >
> > > Henry's reign is much on a par with that of Edward IV - similar
> > constraints
> > > domestically though Henry was loathe to get involved in foreign
> > adventures.
> > > Though both faced the perennial problems of the Medieval English
> > Monarchy
> > > which were poverty (poor exploitation of feudal dues, poor
> > exploitation of
> > > crown lands, difficulties in raising and then collecting
> taxation),
> > > difficulties in enforcing rule from the centre and haphazard
> > application of
> > > the law (how ever well meaning it was when it was placed on the
> > statute
> > > book). Like Edward IV Henry certainly took justice seriously
> > passing
> > > numerous attempts in Parliament to improve it and prevent
> corruption
> > (though
> > > Henry doesn't seem to have been that worried about its
> enforcement
> > any more
> > > than his predecessors apart from when it came into contact with
> > Royal
> > > Interests) - the only area where he did toughen up was regarding
> the
> > Royal
> > > Household which was often the place where rebellion and trouble
> was
> > based
> > > and always had been - here he introduced quite a few draconian
> (to
> > modern
> > > thinking) rules and regulations which made it easier for the
> crown
> > to punish
> > > (under the common law) people who may not have actually done
> > anything but
> > > were suspect.
> > >
> > > Overall Henry was very similar in style of government to most of
> his
> > 15th
> > > Century predecessors - and like Edward IV in the latter part of
> his
> > reign
> > > shared a reputation for "tyranny" which usually meant rigid
> > enforcement of
> > > control, and avariciousness (mind you that is understandable
> given
> > how mean
> > > Parliament was when it came to granting the crown any money - and
> > after the
> > > Breton succession crisis - where Parliament granted cash in case
> of
> > war with
> > > as many strings as twenty years earlier it had granted Edward IV
> > cash for
> > > his French adventure - it was quite clear that only in extremis
> > would an
> > > English Parliament grant a monarch cash for war or overseas
> > adventures).
> > >
> > > For the man and women in the street I suspect life was no better
> and
> > no
> > > worse than it had been under Henry VI, Edward IV, or Richard
> > III...though
> > > for the merchants life had steadily been getting better (with a
> few
> > > difficult patches) since the 1460's.
> > >
> > > Certainly few mourned Henry VII but neither was he universally
> > loathed or
> > > hated by the populace. A relatively successful monarch much on a
> > par with
> > > Edward IV - though given the nature of their accession to the
> throne
> > both
> > > did rather well to die in their beds.
> > >
> > > It was Henry VIII who really gets the Welsh going though thanks
> to a
> > little
> > > something called the "Act of Union" <g>. Mind you calling the
> > Tudor's Welsh
> > > is odd to say the least seeing as Henry VII had only one Welsh
> great
> > > grandparent - Owen Tudor. That would be like calling Richard III
> > Spanish -
> > > because his great grandmother was Isabella of Castille.
> > >
> > > And life for the average English citizen did actually get better
> > through
> > > much of the 16th Century with a few dips here and there. Granted
> > increasing
> > > population did have a marginally bad effect but trade and access
> to
> > goods
> > > etc both grew considerably as did prices and whilst that made
> living
> > costs
> > > higher it also improved wages - and throughout the century you do
> > see a
> > > gradual increase in access to Education (despite the dissolution
> of
> > the
> > > monasteries).
> > >
> > > (Religious persecution after the reformation was actually quite
> > minimal if
> > > you take the period from say 1530 to 1610 for most people)
> > >
> > > The Irish Problem had been around for centuries by the time of
> > Henry's
> > > accession - you can hardly blame the Tudor's - though they did
> > little to
> > > improve the situation. If you want someone to really blame for
> the
> > ills of
> > > Ireland I suggest you look at Oliver Cromwell.
> > >
> > > As far as reputation goes - well both Henry VIII and Elizabeth
> were
> > > immensely popular with large sections of their public. Henry
> VIII
> > was
> > > regarded as "great" at his death as was his daughter Elizabeth.
> > >
> > >
> > > > It's horses for courses, David. Of course, stopping private
> armies
> > > > was something Henry did for his own safety, not thae
> tranquillity
> > of
> > > > his subjects. Also it has also been said that your Welshman and
> > his
> > > > dynasty were actually the worst thing that ever happened to
> > > > Wales. . . .
> > > >
> > > > And I think it would be difficult to find anyone in Ireland
> with a
> > > > good word to say about the Tudors. (And it was the Tudors who
> did
> > for
> > > > my O'Donnells . . . )
> > > >
> > > > Nor was the average English peasant anything like so well off
> in
> > the
> > > > 16th century as in the 15th.
> > > >
> > > > And all that religious persecution!
> > > >
> > > > I sometimes think what the Tudors were best at was being
> > IMPORTANT.
> > > > Or self-important.
> > > >
> > > > I bet this'll cause a stir.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

-Tim,

To start, yes I know I don't need to condemn the Tudors because they
unseated Richard in 1485. That is, after all, what I just said
myself. Actually, if I'd been in Henry Tudor's position I'd have done
the same thing. I do have other problems with them, however. And here
I shpould perhaps come clean and admit that I was weaned probably on
a different view of Henry VIII from yourself. And if you'd properly
read my earlier messages you would have seen that I AGREED with David
that Tudor self-aggrandisement had its roots in the reign of Edward
IV, as did the employment of Arthurian myths and alchemical
symbolism. You may think me ignorant, but actually there is nothing
in your message that is news to me - or changes my opinions. My point
is merely that the Tudors tend to be lauded simply for having left us
an impression of power and magnificence, which I find disturbing. It
is your own assumption that I believe the Yorkists to have been
perfect. I don't.
Also, I do not think the Tudors were the first to have their titles
ratified by Parliament. . . .

As for the letter to Desmond. Tim, actually the reference to the
Earl's father is not in the letter as I suggested but in the
instructions to Richard's envoy to him, the Bishop of Anaghdown
(note - this is me proving I've actually read it). I am well aware
there is no evidence to support the story of Elizabeth's stealing the
Great Seal, nor any contemporary suggestion that Edward disapproved
of Desmond's execution. I do, however, have the full text of the
document, which is in Harley 433.
After referring to the 'murder' of the Earl's father 'by certain
persones than havyng the governaunce and Rule there', Richard claims
that "the sembable chaunce was & hapned sithin within this Royaulme
of England / aswele of his Brother the duc of Clarence As other his
nighe kynnesmen and gret Frendes"
Hicks regards this as proof that Richard was generally spreading the
rumour that the Woodvilles killed Clarence (which it isn't). Ross
believes it is tongue-in-cheek (ie who were these other kinsman &
friends, if not people he'd killed himself?). However, this is a
private message to a Norman Irish lord who had 'gone native', was no
longer in touch with the anglophone world and was of no political use
to Richard, but whose father had, nonetheless, helped his own father
in time of need. So there would be little point in his using him to
spread propaganda.On those grounds I do not find Hicks very
convincing. Ross's point is more interesting. Certainly Richard HAD
lost many kinsmen during his brother's riegn - but these were
Nevilles. Was Richard intimating that he also blamed the party
responsible for Clarence's death for Edward's estrangement from
Warwick? Surely he could only have meant either Edward or the
Woodvilles.

I said at the outset I would stir up quite a bit of heat in
criticising the Tudors (and I was being fairly tongue-in-cheek, as I
think David himself often is). For me it has been instructive, as I
now perhaps see better where you and David are coming from.

Incidentally, I get the impression that in criticising my use of the
term 'national myth' you are assuming that I mean the word 'myth' in
the rather degraded sense in which it is often now used. I didn't.

Marie



-- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
> Firstly there is no appropriate need to condemn the Tudor Dynasty
simply
> because they unseated Richard III in 1485 - there are a variety of
reasons
> that Henry VII was the final victor at Bosworth.
> Wordly success - well actually that's how they were judged by
themselves and
> their contemporaries including Edward IV and Richard III - its
still a
> reason we judge people today.
> "Power" - all monarchs exercised the use of power in much the same
way and
> with far less recourse to the law than modern politicians exercise
power in
> most countries. The Tudors enjoyed the use of power as much as any
of their
> predecessors on the English Throne (and incidentally the later
Tudor's
> particularly Elizabeth found their exercise of power far more
limited by a
> stronger Parliament than either Edward or Richard had done).
> "Pomp" the Tudors exercised the use of pomp and Royal display in
much the
> same way as all of their predecessors - it was an important part of
> "monarchy" - Edward IV and Richard III were keenly aware of the
importance
> of Royal Display as a political tool and in fact the Yorkists keenly
> exploited the differences between their King (Edward IV) and that
poor
> unkingly like man Henry VI who had previously occupied the throne.
The
> reason we see the pomp of the Tudor Court today and therefore tend
to see it
> as something new is because we have far more evidence for it - we
have many
> of the Royal Buildings, a large collection of portraiture for
example and
> far more documentary evidence. But anyone who has had a look at the
> descriptions of both Edward's and Richard's courts is aware of how
> impressive they where - the essential difference is that in common
with much
> of Europe there is between the 15th and 17th Century a significant
political
> change which saw the Royal Courts grow more formal and more
extravagent
> (though in many countries there was a number of differing reasons
for it but
> one common one was is by designing a more formal way of life the
nobility
> were gradually turned into the servants of the crown to diminish
their
> landed influence and its possible threat to the stability of the
realm).
>
> Use of Iconography, propoganda etc - the reason so many Ricardians
accuse
> the Tudors of this is by enlarge the Tudor Iconography survives
intact - in
> portraits, buildings and literature. But it is hardly a new
development -
> the House of York were extremely adept at it - in both their own
buildings,
> in the styles and titles they used, in the way they had their
titles to the
> throne published etc - anyone who has read the "Arrival" is aware
of just
> how important the use of the "black arts" was. I suspect that
could we
> still see the interior decoration of Windsor, Eltham, Sheen etc as
they were
> in the 1470's we would be very aware of the numerous Yorkist myths
and
> devices being used to illustrate the grandeur and importance of the
dynasty.
>
> Those who come to a throne by shall we say other than the
conventional
> methods are particularly prone to the overuse of iconography and
> propoganda - that applies equally to Edward IV, Richard III and
Henry VII.
>
> As to the political developments well as I have said before most of
the
> early Tudor reforms and developments have their roots in the reign
of Edward
> IV (so many of the same people were officials in all three
administrations
> from Edward IV, through Edward V, through Richard III and then on
into the
> reign of Henry VII). The domestic problems of Henry VIII lead to
him making
> significant political and religious changes to the face of England
but in
> large they made a huge contribution to the increasing power of
Parliament
> which saw steadily increasing importance throughout the Tudor age
> (frequently to the dissatisfaction of the Monarch) - it was a fine
balance
> between the two organs of Government.
>
> This isn't national myth (much of that comes from the increasing
sense of
> the "English State" that came out of the 16th and 17th centuries)
its
> national fact - that England owes a great deal of her stability and
the
> development of Parliamentary Democracy out the developments of the
16th
> Century - now the Tudor's certainly didn't have that in mind but it
was a by
> product of a variety of their policies. Once you start a chain of
events
> that sees your throne reliant on the consent of the people and
enshrined
> into parliamentary law you open up a can of worms that eventually
sees
> Parliament able to remove a monarch. (Between 1460 and 1603 only
one
> English Monarch ascended the throne and was crowned without a
Parliamentary
> title to their throne - that was Henry VIII - all the rest relied on
> Parliamentary title or confirmation of their title to rule).
>
> The myth is really the idea that a sunny August day in 1485 saw the
end of
> the medieval period and the beginning of the modern world.
>
> One final point - that Desmond letter being used as evidence for a
sadness
> over his late lamented brother Clarence is largely discredited if
memory
> serves the majority of those who have actually read it don't share
Kendall's
> interpretation of it. And equally discredited is the "myth" that
Elizabeth
> Wydeville had anything to do with the death of Desmond's father.
>
> Tim
>

>
> >
> > So a person is to be judged merely on their level of worldly
success?
> >
> > I think what you've confirmed for me is that any ricardian is
> > battling uphill against the National Myth of the Glorious Tudors,
the
> > Great Reformation and all our Liberties. Unlike you, I do not see
> > power, pomp and success as virtues. For me, power is a terrible
> > problem for human beings.
> >
> > So to return to Richard and away from your friend the wife-
hacker, is
> > it not possible that Richard found himself in a situation of
others'
> > making? That perhaps he did know a terrible secret regarding
Edward's
> > birth (rereading Jones, it looks as though York would not have
> > started back for Rouen until "at least" 20th August, which makes
his
> > fathering Edward look even less likely)? That perhaps Edward, like
> > Charles II in a similar situation some 200 years later, did
actually
> > make promises to he shouldn't have to a girl? That Richard did
> > believe the Woodvilles to have been behind Clarence's death and
had
> > good reason to fear they would now see him off too (remember that
> > letter he wrote as King to the Earl of Desmond? that cannot have
had
> > any propaganda purpose, and would seem to indicate his true
beliefs
> > regarding his brother's execution)?
> > I'm not suggesting all of these things to have been true. But to
> > dismiss all of them out of hand, and then make a judgement on
Richard
> > based on that ASSUMPTION, seems to me a little cavalier.
> > By the way, I don't see why one has to demonise one side just
because
> > one sees good in the other. People were where they found
themselves,
> > and had to act accordingly. This whole thing is at bottom a
massive,
> > messy human tragedy.
> > If Richard had won Bosworth we would now be judging him very
> > differently. And if Henry VII had lost Stoke. Or perhaps you do
not
> > believe these things possible?
> > Marie
> >
> > > --- In , "tim"
> > <tmc_dale@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Can we set some of this in context please! Trying to control
> > livery
> > > and
> > > > maintenance (the method under which the nobility maintained
their
> > > own
> > > > retinue which in troubled times could be rapidly enlarged to
> > create
> > > a
> > > > "private army") was something English monarchs had been
> > attempting
> > > to do for
> > > > decades . Maintaining servants, estate officers, and men of
law
> > as
> > > well as
> > > > household soldiers was common, accepted and vital for the
crown
> > via
> > > the
> > > > nobility via the gentry to control the countryside. Its
called
> > > feudalism
> > > > (or at least the bastard version of it). Henry VII's only
> > statute
> > > is
> > > > virtually a repetition of the one introduced by Edward IV
(both
> > > being
> > > > designed to prevent nobles circumventing the law and rules to
> > create
> > > larger
> > > > than necessary "private army") in 1468 and Henry's act didn't
go
> > on
> > > the book
> > > > until 1504. Like Edward's it forbade retaining without a
licence
> > > signed by
> > > > the King except for household officers and servants etc.
There
> > was
> > > only one
> > > > person ever prosecuted under the statute...and retaining
> > continued
> > > well into
> > > > the reign of Elizabeth I (though by then only crown officers
> > tended
> > > to get
> > > > licences to keep men).
> > > >
> > > > Maintaining was actually important given that unlike many
> > European
> > > Countries
> > > > England did not have a standing army.
> > > >
> > > > Henry's real triumph (if you can call it that) was a) his
> > reluctance
> > > to
> > > > create new peers (thus limiting the size of the nobility),
and b)
> > > keeping
> > > > the nobility impoverished (they ended up paying Henry fees for
> > > "their good
> > > > behaviour", fees for offices, fees for Henry to settle
disputes
> > in
> > > their
> > > > favour etc etc). Whilst it created an aristocracy in constant
> > > financial
> > > > fear of the crown it also kept them far too worried to over
> > indulge
> > > in
> > > > plotting.
> > > >
> > > > Henry's reign is much on a par with that of Edward IV -
similar
> > > constraints
> > > > domestically though Henry was loathe to get involved in
foreign
> > > adventures.
> > > > Though both faced the perennial problems of the Medieval
English
> > > Monarchy
> > > > which were poverty (poor exploitation of feudal dues, poor
> > > exploitation of
> > > > crown lands, difficulties in raising and then collecting
> > taxation),
> > > > difficulties in enforcing rule from the centre and haphazard
> > > application of
> > > > the law (how ever well meaning it was when it was placed on
the
> > > statute
> > > > book). Like Edward IV Henry certainly took justice seriously
> > > passing
> > > > numerous attempts in Parliament to improve it and prevent
> > corruption
> > > (though
> > > > Henry doesn't seem to have been that worried about its
> > enforcement
> > > any more
> > > > than his predecessors apart from when it came into contact
with
> > > Royal
> > > > Interests) - the only area where he did toughen up was
regarding
> > the
> > > Royal
> > > > Household which was often the place where rebellion and
trouble
> > was
> > > based
> > > > and always had been - here he introduced quite a few draconian
> > (to
> > > modern
> > > > thinking) rules and regulations which made it easier for the
> > crown
> > > to punish
> > > > (under the common law) people who may not have actually done
> > > anything but
> > > > were suspect.
> > > >
> > > > Overall Henry was very similar in style of government to most
of
> > his
> > > 15th
> > > > Century predecessors - and like Edward IV in the latter part
of
> > his
> > > reign
> > > > shared a reputation for "tyranny" which usually meant rigid
> > > enforcement of
> > > > control, and avariciousness (mind you that is understandable
> > given
> > > how mean
> > > > Parliament was when it came to granting the crown any money -
and
> > > after the
> > > > Breton succession crisis - where Parliament granted cash in
case
> > of
> > > war with
> > > > as many strings as twenty years earlier it had granted Edward
IV
> > > cash for
> > > > his French adventure - it was quite clear that only in
extremis
> > > would an
> > > > English Parliament grant a monarch cash for war or overseas
> > > adventures).
> > > >
> > > > For the man and women in the street I suspect life was no
better
> > and
> > > no
> > > > worse than it had been under Henry VI, Edward IV, or Richard
> > > III...though
> > > > for the merchants life had steadily been getting better (with
a
> > few
> > > > difficult patches) since the 1460's.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly few mourned Henry VII but neither was he universally
> > > loathed or
> > > > hated by the populace. A relatively successful monarch much
on a
> > > par with
> > > > Edward IV - though given the nature of their accession to the
> > throne
> > > both
> > > > did rather well to die in their beds.
> > > >
> > > > It was Henry VIII who really gets the Welsh going though
thanks
> > to a
> > > little
> > > > something called the "Act of Union" <g>. Mind you calling the
> > > Tudor's Welsh
> > > > is odd to say the least seeing as Henry VII had only one Welsh
> > great
> > > > grandparent - Owen Tudor. That would be like calling Richard
III
> > > Spanish -
> > > > because his great grandmother was Isabella of Castille.
> > > >
> > > > And life for the average English citizen did actually get
better
> > > through
> > > > much of the 16th Century with a few dips here and there.
Granted
> > > increasing
> > > > population did have a marginally bad effect but trade and
access
> > to
> > > goods
> > > > etc both grew considerably as did prices and whilst that made
> > living
> > > costs
> > > > higher it also improved wages - and throughout the century
you do
> > > see a
> > > > gradual increase in access to Education (despite the
dissolution
> > of
> > > the
> > > > monasteries).
> > > >
> > > > (Religious persecution after the reformation was actually
quite
> > > minimal if
> > > > you take the period from say 1530 to 1610 for most people)
> > > >
> > > > The Irish Problem had been around for centuries by the time of
> > > Henry's
> > > > accession - you can hardly blame the Tudor's - though they did
> > > little to
> > > > improve the situation. If you want someone to really blame
for
> > the
> > > ills of
> > > > Ireland I suggest you look at Oliver Cromwell.
> > > >
> > > > As far as reputation goes - well both Henry VIII and Elizabeth
> > were
> > > > immensely popular with large sections of their public. Henry
> > VIII
> > > was
> > > > regarded as "great" at his death as was his daughter
Elizabeth.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It's horses for courses, David. Of course, stopping private
> > armies
> > > > > was something Henry did for his own safety, not thae
> > tranquillity
> > > of
> > > > > his subjects. Also it has also been said that your Welshman
and
> > > his
> > > > > dynasty were actually the worst thing that ever happened to
> > > > > Wales. . . .
> > > > >
> > > > > And I think it would be difficult to find anyone in Ireland
> > with a
> > > > > good word to say about the Tudors. (And it was the Tudors
who
> > did
> > > for
> > > > > my O'Donnells . . . )
> > > > >
> > > > > Nor was the average English peasant anything like so well
off
> > in
> > > the
> > > > > 16th century as in the 15th.
> > > > >
> > > > > And all that religious persecution!
> > > > >
> > > > > I sometimes think what the Tudors were best at was being
> > > IMPORTANT.
> > > > > Or self-important.
> > > > >
> > > > > I bet this'll cause a stir.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:

'I think what you've confirmed for me is that any ricardian is
battling uphill against the National Myth of the Glorious Tudors, the
Great Reformation and all our Liberties.'


I don't think I would make any blanket statements about the Tudors.
They clearly didn't get on very well amongst themselves. Mary
strongly opposed religious changes brought about by her Father & half
brother and she clearly was deeply suspicious of her half sister
Elizabeth, daughter of the 'whore' Ann Boleyn.

It's very difficult to generalise about the period 1485-1603 in which
so much political and religious evolution took place.

I have to say that Edward IV, Henry VII, Henry VIII and Elizabeth had
a measure of success in the creation of stable situations whereas
Richard was lost from the start, but not necessarily through his own
fault…

I think, as I've said, that he was frightened of real or imagined
enemies, was ambitious and was inclined towards anxious, impetuous
actions, which didn't auger well for himself and his party! Richard's
'courage' at Bosworth was a case in point, where he was probably
surrounded, caught by Stanley, because Richard had impetuously left
his rear exposed. He fought to the bitter end, because he was
probably terrified of death, which, when he was 8, had been probably
presented to him as a gruesome thing with his presumably loved Father
& brother having their heads impaled on spikes! Not a very nice image
for ANY eight-year-old child I would suggest. Perhaps, Richard
suffered from post-traumatic syndrome?

More's accounts of Richard sleepless over the fate of his nephews and
before Bosworth suggest an overly anxious Richard prone to emotional
reactions, not an Edward IV who subsumed his passions with women, wine
and the pleasures of food or a Henry VII who delighted in control
freakery through finance.

Okay, David, I'll deal with you in the morning!
In case you're actually remotely interested what I do with my spare
time, I sleep and send messages on this forum.

I have ME/CFS.

A bit better now, and trying to get back into things.
See ya,

Marie

In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> 'I think what you've confirmed for me is that any ricardian is
> battling uphill against the National Myth of the Glorious Tudors,
the
> Great Reformation and all our Liberties.'
>
>
> I don't think I would make any blanket statements about the
Tudors.
> They clearly didn't get on very well amongst themselves. Mary
> strongly opposed religious changes brought about by her Father &
half
> brother and she clearly was deeply suspicious of her half sister
> Elizabeth, daughter of the 'whore' Ann Boleyn.
>
> It's very difficult to generalise about the period 1485-1603 in
which
> so much political and religious evolution took place.
>
> I have to say that Edward IV, Henry VII, Henry VIII and Elizabeth
had
> a measure of success in the creation of stable situations whereas
> Richard was lost from the start, but not necessarily through his
own
> fault…
>
> I think, as I've said, that he was frightened of real or imagined
> enemies, was ambitious and was inclined towards anxious, impetuous
> actions, which didn't auger well for himself and his party!
Richard's
> 'courage' at Bosworth was a case in point, where he was probably
> surrounded, caught by Stanley, because Richard had impetuously left
> his rear exposed. He fought to the bitter end, because he was
> probably terrified of death, which, when he was 8, had been
probably
> presented to him as a gruesome thing with his presumably loved
Father
> & brother having their heads impaled on spikes! Not a very nice
image
> for ANY eight-year-old child I would suggest. Perhaps, Richard
> suffered from post-traumatic syndrome?
>
> More's accounts of Richard sleepless over the fate of his nephews
and
> before Bosworth suggest an overly anxious Richard prone to
emotional
> reactions, not an Edward IV who subsumed his passions with women,
wine
> and the pleasures of food or a Henry VII who delighted in control
> freakery through finance.

I'm sorry about your problems. Of course I care about everyone,
within 'certain mirrored perspectives.'

We do share a Catholic background and don't worry about controversy.
I don't!

David

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> Okay, David, I'll deal with you in the morning!
> In case you're actually remotely interested what I do with my spare
> time, I sleep and send messages on this forum.
>
> I have ME/CFS.
>
> A bit better now, and trying to get back into things.
> See ya,
>
> Marie
>
> In , "David"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> > 'I think what you've confirmed for me is that any ricardian is
> > battling uphill against the National Myth of the Glorious Tudors,
> the
> > Great Reformation and all our Liberties.'
> >
> >
> > I don't think I would make any blanket statements about the
> Tudors.
> > They clearly didn't get on very well amongst themselves. Mary
> > strongly opposed religious changes brought about by her Father &
> half
> > brother and she clearly was deeply suspicious of her half sister
> > Elizabeth, daughter of the 'whore' Ann Boleyn.
> >
> > It's very difficult to generalise about the period 1485-1603 in
> which
> > so much political and religious evolution took place.
> >
> > I have to say that Edward IV, Henry VII, Henry VIII and Elizabeth
> had
> > a measure of success in the creation of stable situations whereas
> > Richard was lost from the start, but not necessarily through his
> own
> > fault…
> >
> > I think, as I've said, that he was frightened of real or imagined
> > enemies, was ambitious and was inclined towards anxious, impetuous
> > actions, which didn't auger well for himself and his party!
> Richard's
> > 'courage' at Bosworth was a case in point, where he was probably
> > surrounded, caught by Stanley, because Richard had impetuously
left
> > his rear exposed. He fought to the bitter end, because he was
> > probably terrified of death, which, when he was 8, had been
> probably
> > presented to him as a gruesome thing with his presumably loved
> Father
> > & brother having their heads impaled on spikes! Not a very nice
> image
> > for ANY eight-year-old child I would suggest. Perhaps, Richard
> > suffered from post-traumatic syndrome?
> >
> > More's accounts of Richard sleepless over the fate of his nephews
> and
> > before Bosworth suggest an overly anxious Richard prone to
> emotional
> > reactions, not an Edward IV who subsumed his passions with women,
> wine
> > and the pleasures of food or a Henry VII who delighted in control
> > freakery through finance.

In a message dated 3/22/03 6:35:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:


> And what did Richard III contribute to History? He illegally took the
> crown and got himself killed & humiliated after about a mere 2 years!

He was the last English king to die in battle. That is, if he did exist ;).
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:

>
> He was the last English king to die in battle. That is, if he did
exist ;).
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{

So, you think that getting yourself killed in battle is a contribution
to History? I should point out that Marie claims that she believes in
fairies, so her idea that Richard was imaginary is suspect.

How can you be sure any Kings existed? Perhaps, Richard had a double
at the Battle of Bosworth, like Sadaam? Perhaps, he finished his days
as a bricklayer? Perhaps, some 'brutal dictators who use weapons of
mass destruction,' whether swords or cruise missiles, are elected by
different means everywhere &, perhaps, Richard was one of them?
Perhaps, green mice control the Universe? Can you prove that they
don't?

In a message dated 3/24/03 1:40:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:


> So, you think that getting yourself killed in battle is a contribution
> to History? I should point out that Marie claims that she believes in
> fairies, so her idea that Richard was imaginary is suspect.
>
> How can you be sure any Kings existed? Perhaps, Richard had a double
> at the Battle of Bosworth, like Sadaam? Perhaps, he finished his days
> as a bricklayer? Perhaps, some 'brutal dictators who use weapons of
> mass destruction,' whether swords or cruise missiles, are elected by
> different means everywhere &, perhaps, Richard was one of them?
> Perhaps, green mice control the Universe? Can you prove that they
> don't?

Well it isn't a contribution but that's how he's remembered. Well, he's more
remembered for being the subject of Shakespeare's play which was really
interesting but not all fact. And if we're saying Richard never existed, what
about all the other kings prior to him? Were they just figments of someone's
imagination too? That would be rather weird if they were
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> 'I think what you've confirmed for me is that any ricardian is
> battling uphill against the National Myth of the Glorious Tudors,
the
> Great Reformation and all our Liberties.'
>
>
> I don't think I would make any blanket statements about the
Tudors.
> They clearly didn't get on very well amongst themselves. Mary
> strongly opposed religious changes brought about by her Father &
half
> brother and she clearly was deeply suspicious of her half sister
> Elizabeth, daughter of the 'whore' Ann Boleyn.
>
> It's very difficult to generalise about the period 1485-1603 in
which
> so much political and religious evolution took place.
>
> I have to say that Edward IV, Henry VII, Henry VIII and Elizabeth
had
> a measure of success in the creation of stable situations whereas
> Richard was lost from the start, but not necessarily through his
own
> fault…
>
> I think, as I've said, that he was frightened of real or imagined
> enemies, was ambitious and was inclined towards anxious, impetuous
> actions, which didn't auger well for himself and his party!
Richard's
> 'courage' at Bosworth was a case in point, where he was probably
> surrounded, caught by Stanley, because Richard had impetuously left
> his rear exposed. He fought to the bitter end, because he was
> probably terrified of death, which, when he was 8, had been
probably
> presented to him as a gruesome thing with his presumably loved
Father
> & brother having their heads impaled on spikes! Not a very nice
image
> for ANY eight-year-old child I would suggest. Perhaps, Richard
> suffered from post-traumatic syndrome?
>
> More's accounts of Richard sleepless over the fate of his nephews
and
> before Bosworth suggest an overly anxious Richard prone to
emotional
> reactions, not an Edward IV who subsumed his passions with women,
wine
> and the pleasures of food or a Henry VII who delighted in control
> freakery through finance.

My own view is that Edward's creation of a stable situation was
largely an illusion. He had, after all, lost his throne on one
occasion. My reading of the events of 1483 is that EVERYONE was
feeling intensely insecure. I do think we need to be realistic and
look for reasons why that might have been.
We also need to bear in mind that reaction to Richard after his
defeat at Bosworth would have been coloured not only by 'Tudor
propaganda', but by the contemporary belief that God intervened in
human affairs to give the victory to the righteous. So, when Richard,
with his great military reputation (deserved or otherwise) and the
resources of the state behind him, so unexpectedly lost the battle to
an obscure adventurer whose forces immediately bring a new and deadly
sickness into the capital, people are likely to have reacted not as
we would today, with "get lost HT and take your disease-ridden
foreign soldiers with you", but: "Oh, this is obviously God's
judgement on Gloucester for taking the throne from his poor little
nephews. He MUST have murdered them, then. And judgement on us for
accepting him."
In other words, success in those days was seen as a sign of virtue in
an even deeper way than it evidently still is today.,W a fact we need
to be aware of when studying the sources.
I wouldn't give you tuppence for More, personally. He took the names
of his murderers from household documents, choosing them purely for
effect. I don't believe for a minute the old beggarwoman he describes
as being Mistress Shore was really Edward's former mistress. She had
married Thomas Lynham, who died very comfortably, and she had also
benefited from her father's will (and More had his identity wrong
too). And I'm not even sure I believe in his Elizabeth Lucy; Buck
says she was the daughter of one "Wayte of Southampton" married to a
Mr Lucy, but Buck is hardly reliable. Might she not just be Mistress
Shore again - her maiden name, Elizabeth Lambert, being not
dissimilar? Or does anyone know differently?
There's so much simply made up about Bosworth in Tudor times to fit a
pattern. For instance, it has been demonstrated that the story of
Richard's not hearing Mass was a common folk motif dredged up in
these situations of doomed leaders. The same tale for instance is
told of Charles of Burgundy before Nancy.
So whether or not Richard had bad dreams before Bosworth is an
unknown. And if he was so scared of death, why didn't he flee rather
than charge?

And, yes, I can see that Elizabeth had a lot of good things going for
her. I supppose we need to sort out our judgements of these people on
to two levels - one political and the other personal. Often what
makes a person successful politically - and enables them to give
their country stability - is a sort of cool-headed ruthlessness.
Noboday in particular in mind here, honest!
Marie

<Perhaps, he finished his days as a bricklayer?>

Whilst this thread is all getting a bit silly now, it's funny you
should mention the above snippet, David - for in fact R3's building
commissions do tend to err on the sensible, practical side (bigger
windows at Middleham, the brick 'Tile' tower at Carlisle which housed
the castle's weapons, for instance) etc., as befits a workmanlike and
empathetic approach, whereas his brother generally went in for a bit
more 'show' on his buildings.

And wasn't the mysterious Richard of Eastwell supposed to be a
builder type personage?

Lorraine

It is getting a bit silly. I won't blame anyone, will I, Marie?

One of Richard's bastard son's was reputedly a brickie! Unless, it
WAS Richard? After all, the real Richard may've guessed he wasn't too
popular with all those desertions and it would explain why the battle
strategy was naff.

Planting a double with wig and crown and promising him money if he won
or everlasting glory in the afterlife would've been an astute move,
all silliness aside. (g.)



--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> <Perhaps, he finished his days as a bricklayer?>
>
> Whilst this thread is all getting a bit silly now, it's funny you
> should mention the above snippet, David - for in fact R3's building
> commissions do tend to err on the sensible, practical side (bigger
> windows at Middleham, the brick 'Tile' tower at Carlisle which
housed
> the castle's weapons, for instance) etc., as befits a workmanlike
and
> empathetic approach, whereas his brother generally went in for a bit
> more 'show' on his buildings.
>
> And wasn't the mysterious Richard of Eastwell supposed to be a
> builder type personage?
>
> Lorraine

Not surprisingly, I agree with much of what was said in your post,
Marie, but on this:

< And I'm not even sure I believe in his Elizabeth Lucy; Buck
says she was the daughter of one "Wayte of Southampton" married to a
Mr Lucy, but Buck is hardly reliable. Might she not just be Mistress
> Shore again - her maiden name, Elizabeth Lambert, being not
> dissimilar? Or does anyone know differently?>

I'm still at Teesside, so away from my records, however I'm pretty
certain that there is mention of the Wayte family - and of Elizabeth
Lucy -in the records somewhere other than in Buck's History (I can't
actually recall Buck mentioning her as it's been a while since I read
him, I must admit). So I'm pretty sure that she was a different
person altogether to Jane Shore, but right now I have no idea why I
think that <g>!. I'll get back...

Regards - Lorraine