Richard was playing possum!

A possum pretends that it's dead if under threat by a predator.
Richard was like this politically under Edward IV. He must've
buttered him up to get such a strong position in power. But the truth
came out - didn't it? - when Edward died. Richard savaged his wife -
'a witch,' his children - 'bastards.' Does anyone seriously think
that Richard would have questioned Edward's legitimacy, his wife's
morality & the legitimacy of his children had Edward lived? If some
dark secret existed about Edward's paternity or the legitimacy of
Edward's marriage, Richard didn't show any courage of his convictions
until Edward was safely tucked into his coffin!

I suspect Richard took a large leaf out of Clarence's book for
duplicity - Richard no doubt learned from his elder brother's blunders
- and added a few pages! His resentment against Edward became all too
apparent when Edward was conveniently out of the way, whom he
obviously despised and may well have seen as a fat, overbearing sex
maniac.

I think this is where Richard's reputation for deceit and hypocrisy
comes from.

Hi David

< Richard was like this politically under Edward IV. He must've
> buttered him up to get such a strong position in power. >

Richard didn't need to 'butter him up'.

I think if you look at the CPR etc. that a lot of Richard's honours
were handed to him by Bro' Eddie long before he ever raised a sword
in battle.

And at the time of the Warwick Inheritance dispute there's plenty of
evidence to suggest that Edward had left Richard and Clarence to slug
it out themselves. The King was pretty late in coming to a final
solution - in Richard's facour - that was eventually enshrined in the
Rolls somewhere. No indication in the records as to who of the two
brothers (if any) 'buttered him up', therefore it's equally likely
that he made his own mind up as to the outcome - the disinheritance
of the Countess of Warwick sounds very much like E4's own idea, to
me. It is also possible that his Queen swayed his decision - some
commentator suggests she favoured Richard's petition regarding the
Inheritance over Clarence's, which was definitely self-interested in
that he sought not only to disinherit all the other claimants, but
his own sister-in-law!

As for the other land and power Richard gained under Edward later in
the reign, - again, I put it to you that most of this was given to
Richard without any sort of solicitation being necessary.

Don't lose sight of the fact that Richard's governance of the north
was actually convenient for the southern-based Edward, and in fact it
kept both Percy and Richard in check at the same time - no bad thing,
really, when Kings were still relying on the resources of 'over-
mighty subjects' for maintaining some kind of order. On Richard's
Cumberland Palatinate: again this was as a reward for military
services rendered on the Scottish borders. One could argue about the
actual merits of this border war outcome, and I do know all about
Edward's grumbles about the expense of maintaining Berwick, but lest
we forget, grumble later he may have done, but when Edward first
found about Richard's retaking of Berwick, he was so thrilled he
couldn't praise Richard enough when writing to the Pope!

<Does anyone seriously think
that Richard would have questioned Edward's legitimacy, his wife's
morality & the legitimacy of his children had Edward lived?>

Had Edward lived, there would have been no need to, of course. It
was because he didn't live that Stillington told Richard the tale he
did - a tale More claims was put to various proctors (church
officials) *at the time*. If you want to blame someone for dreaming
up the Precontract Story, I say blame Stillington - and More, for
letting such an important piece of corroborative evidence remain in
his draft copy <g>.

<If some dark secret existed about Edward's paternity or the
legitimacy of Edward's marriage, Richard didn't show any courage of
his convictions until Edward was safely tucked into his coffin!>

Actually public doubts about Edward's paternity had been raised just
after Edward's marriage, when Richard was just a boy, by no less a
personage that Edward's Mam! A fact already reported on this Forum
just a few weeks ago.

Indeed, we don't actually know whether he ever commented on it
personally, anyhow, seeing's Titulus Regious was drafted by Russell,
the key sermon at St Paul's Cross was preached by Shaa and the
Guildhall thing was orchestrated by Buckingham...

R3's relationship with his mother remained convivial. He was
stopping in her London home when offered the throne, of course, and
he wrote to her once crowned. He also visited her at Berkhamstead
prior to setting off for his final stay at Nottingham in the summer
of 1485.

<His resentment against Edward became all too
> apparent when Edward was conveniently out of the way, whom he
> obviously despised and may well have seen as a fat, overbearing sex
> maniac. >

On what basis do you make the assumption he 'obviously despised'
Edward, David? His criticisms of the reign as laid out in Titulus
Regius follow an age-old convention, and in fact, the Harley stuff
doesn't supply us with much evidence at all that he criticised his
brother's reign, beyond that.

In fact, when Richard disagreed wifth Edward on matters personal and
political, he usually made his feelings very clear, c/f. the French
Expedition of 75 and during the negotiations for the Scottish Truce.
(And Clarence!).

<I think this is where Richard's reputation for deceit and hypocrisy
comes from.>

And I think it comes from the Fairies, meself...

Lorraine

Hi Lorraine,
Well, Hockeygirl thinks that being killed in battle is a
positive addition to History. I wouldn't like to play in one of her
Hockey games!

I wouldn't dispute your knowledge of the period. But there was a
dramatic volte face from Richard, Duke Of Gloucester the loyal
supporter of Edward IV, who came to be Lord of the North, not without
Edward's approval and Richard the Usurper who savaged Edward: attacked
Edward's legitimacy - as Marie confirms - his children as bastards and
his wife as a witch, all of which is evident in Titulus Regius. Was
Richard not saying something to Edward, which he could've known while
alive?

So you think t Stillington told Richard the pre-contract story only
when Edward died. But if Edward's children were bastards this was
important had Edward lived. Many think the pre-contract tale was an
excuse to take the crown, as you know. There is also the fact that
Richard recognized Edward's children as legitimate and swore fealty to
Edward V as King, which could be seen as a legitimization act. I know
the Law depends upon the powers that be: like is the USA legally
correct to attack countries without UN approval or is might right?
However, as was pointed out, the woman involved in the pre-contract
story died before the birth of Edward V, only Elizabeth would've been
born illegitimate and, if there was any question of illegitimacy,
Edward, not naïve, easily could've solemnized his marriage to
Elizabeth Wydeville. However, most people think this was a Richard
contrivance, which you can choose to believe or not like the
propaganda flying over Iraq currently.

Of course the marriage wasn't approved of by Edward's Mom. It was
probably felt that handsome Edward, the apple of his Mother's eye,
could've done better than a Lancastrian widow, with children.

But Clarence and Richard's sniping at Elizabeth was not really over
moral and legal reasons, but over economic and power matters. I need
not dwell upon the duplicity of Clarence, which has become a byword.
But Richard was as bad...he makes a big thing about the precontract
story which paves the way to the crown, but nicely ignores legal
procedure - a trial - when disposing of his erstwhile friend & leading
light of Edward's government: Hastings!

Richard was Edward's right hand man and BROTHER, while Edward lived
and slagged him off, through authorization of Titulus Regius and other
acts, when the poor man had died!

Richard then, more deceit & hypocrisy, feigned reluctance to take the
crown having contrived the foregoing!!!

Richard in Titulus Regius does spell out the general moral decline of
Edward, which Edward would've taken personally, if Richard didn't
think it was!

Richard may've expressed reservations about the French Expedition of
75, the Scottish Truce and Clarence, but he carefully avoided falling
out with Edward over these issues! How would Edward have felt about
Titulus Regius?

The evidence suggests that Richard was a timeserver. Maybe, the
fairies should decide? What does Marie think? She probably gets CFS
from reading these postings!

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi David
>
> < Richard was like this politically under Edward IV. He must've
> > buttered him up to get such a strong position in power. >
>
> Richard didn't need to 'butter him up'.
>
> I think if you look at the CPR etc. that a lot of Richard's honours
> were handed to him by Bro' Eddie long before he ever raised a sword
> in battle.
>
> And at the time of the Warwick Inheritance dispute there's plenty of
> evidence to suggest that Edward had left Richard and Clarence to
slug
> it out themselves. The King was pretty late in coming to a final
> solution - in Richard's facour - that was eventually enshrined in
the
> Rolls somewhere. No indication in the records as to who of the two
> brothers (if any) 'buttered him up', therefore it's equally likely
> that he made his own mind up as to the outcome - the disinheritance
> of the Countess of Warwick sounds very much like E4's own idea, to
> me. It is also possible that his Queen swayed his decision - some
> commentator suggests she favoured Richard's petition regarding the
> Inheritance over Clarence's, which was definitely self-interested in
> that he sought not only to disinherit all the other claimants, but
> his own sister-in-law!
>
> As for the other land and power Richard gained under Edward later in
> the reign, - again, I put it to you that most of this was given to
> Richard without any sort of solicitation being necessary.
>
> Don't lose sight of the fact that Richard's governance of the north
> was actually convenient for the southern-based Edward, and in fact
it
> kept both Percy and Richard in check at the same time - no bad
thing,
> really, when Kings were still relying on the resources of 'over-
> mighty subjects' for maintaining some kind of order. On Richard's
> Cumberland Palatinate: again this was as a reward for military
> services rendered on the Scottish borders. One could argue about
the
> actual merits of this border war outcome, and I do know all about
> Edward's grumbles about the expense of maintaining Berwick, but lest
> we forget, grumble later he may have done, but when Edward first
> found about Richard's retaking of Berwick, he was so thrilled he
> couldn't praise Richard enough when writing to the Pope!
>
> <Does anyone seriously think
> that Richard would have questioned Edward's legitimacy, his wife's
> morality & the legitimacy of his children had Edward lived?>
>
> Had Edward lived, there would have been no need to, of course. It
> was because he didn't live that Stillington told Richard the tale he
> did - a tale More claims was put to various proctors (church
> officials) *at the time*. If you want to blame someone for dreaming
> up the Precontract Story, I say blame Stillington - and More, for
> letting such an important piece of corroborative evidence remain in
> his draft copy <g>.
>
> <If some dark secret existed about Edward's paternity or the
> legitimacy of Edward's marriage, Richard didn't show any courage of
> his convictions until Edward was safely tucked into his coffin!>
>
> Actually public doubts about Edward's paternity had been raised just
> after Edward's marriage, when Richard was just a boy, by no less a
> personage that Edward's Mam! A fact already reported on this Forum
> just a few weeks ago.
>
> Indeed, we don't actually know whether he ever commented on it
> personally, anyhow, seeing's Titulus Regious was drafted by Russell,
> the key sermon at St Paul's Cross was preached by Shaa and the
> Guildhall thing was orchestrated by Buckingham...
>
> R3's relationship with his mother remained convivial. He was
> stopping in her London home when offered the throne, of course, and
> he wrote to her once crowned. He also visited her at Berkhamstead
> prior to setting off for his final stay at Nottingham in the summer
> of 1485.
>
> <His resentment against Edward became all too
> > apparent when Edward was conveniently out of the way, whom he
> > obviously despised and may well have seen as a fat, overbearing
sex
> > maniac. >
>
> On what basis do you make the assumption he 'obviously despised'
> Edward, David? His criticisms of the reign as laid out in Titulus
> Regius follow an age-old convention, and in fact, the Harley stuff
> doesn't supply us with much evidence at all that he criticised his
> brother's reign, beyond that.
>
> In fact, when Richard disagreed wifth Edward on matters personal and
> political, he usually made his feelings very clear, c/f. the French
> Expedition of 75 and during the negotiations for the Scottish Truce.
> (And Clarence!).
>
> <I think this is where Richard's reputation for deceit and hypocrisy
> comes from.>
>
> And I think it comes from the Fairies, meself...
>
> Lorraine

hi david

Just a few points as I skip through your long post. I have ignored
the modern references, partly because they don't really add anything
to the discussion and partly out of deference to the wider Forum at
this time...

<I wouldn't dispute your knowledge of the period. But there was a
> dramatic volte face from Richard, Duke Of Gloucester the loyal
> supporter of Edward IV, who came to be Lord of the North, not
without
> Edward's approval and Richard the Usurper who savaged Edward: >


First of all, I wouldn't class it as an about face myself, but maybe
that's just me. For one thing, the contentious (to us 21stC types)
language was actually standard practice at the time, and the Record
Offices here and abroad are full of examples of such carry on.
Slagging off the old regime was a way of marking the fact that there
was a new regime underway. Family feeling didn't prevent this sort
of thing, and as I've explained numerous times, the official
documents were drafted by other people. Presumably Richard approved
the final draft - by convention he virtually had to. What we don't
know is how many drafts he rejected as not setting the appropriate
tone...

I think I tried to pint out last time that this 'savaging' of Edward
wasn't very extreme or very common, either. Just the standard
stuff. It is worth pointing out that under E4 the crime rate in the
country had increased dramatically and that there was stirrings of
unrest in the final months, if not years, of the reign. Even Charles
Ross admits that, and he's no fan of Richard. Piracy was also on the
increase under E4, but Colin Richmond - no Ricardian - was apparently
quite surprised when he researched this area and found that piracy
dropped dramatically under R3 (see Richmond's article on this topic
in one of the historical journals, either the EHR or BIHR some years
back). While we're on about what R3 contributed to History, I have
to say he was responsible for some of the basic principles of the
modern justice system - namely the bail system, non-sequestration of
goods before trial, trial by one's peers, jury protection schemes, to
name just a few. One leading Journalist trade mag published a
brilliant article some years back claiming that as well as all the
individual freedoms enshrined in R3's only Parliament, were statutes
that once extrapolated to modern times fundamentally protected the
Freedom of the Press! You may have a jaded view of the Press, I
don't know, but as someone who often has to work closely with The
Meeja, and who numbers reporters and journalists amongst my friends,
I think Press freedom is very important, and was delighted to be sent
this article.

<all of which is evident in Titulus Regius.>

Which, as already has ben mentioned, was not written by Richard.

<Was Richard not saying something to Edward, which he could've known
while alive?>

Witchcraft accusations are probably more common than dissing the
justice record of the previous incumbent. Whilst I can't remember
specif accusations of witchcraft against Elizabeth prior to 83, the
family did claim to be descended from sea serpenty beings, so perhaps
they only had themselves to blame. Jacquetta was not only accused of
witchcraft but very nearly tried for it, IIRC. If anything the 83
pronouncements are merely rehashes of old stories anyway - common
enough practice when there's a power vacuum.

You have no more idea than I what Richard actually discussed with
Edward. If Desmond's 'grey mare' thing can be laughed off, who knows
what else Edward heard about his wife, his in-laws and himself...

< So you think t Stillington told Richard the pre-contract story only
when Edward died. >

I didn't say what I thought. I merely put it to you that Richard
might not have known any different - he was only a boy when Edward
married. I don't even think he was there, was he (Clarence - and
Warwick! - was). Although writing in Tudor times, Chapuys is pretty
definite that Stillington was responsible for revealing the
precontract story. He clearly believes the story and refers to it
more than once. Commines also mentions it, and supplies a possible
motive (in that Stillington wished his bastard son to marry young
Elizabeth!) and then of course, your friend and mine, Thos More, not
only mentions Stillington's involvement but confirms that various
bills and 'instruments' (in the legal sense) was shown to 'divers'
people, including church officials. How much more evidence do we
need. None of them particularly *emphasise* Richard's part in the
telling of the tale, even if some of us nowadays think it's all a tad
convenient. Stranger things have happened. Many people keep
secrets, and many reveal them - often on the slimmest pretext.

Got a lecture - will post this and get back to the rest later...

Lorraine

Continuing with a response to yr post, David:

<So you think t Stillington told Richard the pre-contract story only
> when Edward died. >

Still w. Stillington, it's interesting that one of the commentators
bring up Stliington's bastard son being put forward as a possible
match for the King's daughter. Why on earth did the commentator
treat this seriously, why did Stillers think his plan had an earthly
chance of succeeding? He did apparently have a bastard son - he is
reported to have died abroad and penniless - in Paris, IIRC. If this
audacious plan is true - and remember we cannot possibly blame
Richard for this one, as he was dead by the time Commines and the
others were writing their memoirs - doesn't it suggest he knew
something pretty important about E4, that he at least thought he had
some sort of hold over him, enough to propose his bastard son for
what most assumed to be E4's legitimate daughter, someone from birth
expected to marry nothing less than Royalty herself? Doesn't it make
a partial sense of the twice Stillington was imprisoned on the
vaguest of charges, that of uttering words 'prejudicial' to the king
(both in E4's time, and in H7's? Doesn't it make sense of Clarence's
behaviour? Doesn't it also fit Grande Dame' Cecily's hissy fit (tho'
admittedly marrying beneath him even for the first time could just
have easily ruffled *that* one's feathers, I agree <g>. I think
there's a lot to be said for the precontract story. I wish more was
actually known about it, but with just the few bits of evidence we
have, I think there's enough to suggest that it wasn't Richard making
the whole thing up, and enough to suggest it may even have been
true. We could also introduce the reactions of Eleanor Butler's
sister Elizabeth Mowbray here. She was given a huge sum of money
(£20) from E4 just to accompany his sister margaret to Burgundy for
her marriage to Charles the Bold. Later Elizabeth Mowbray and a
handful of her servants were imprisoned - like Stillington, on the
vaguest of charges. Reading about the incident, it smacked to me at
the time of E4 issuing a warning. But what about? She'd just been
given a fortune a scant few weeks previously! Her daughter
subseqently gets to marry E4's youngest son - obviously Anne
Mowbray's inheritance was a major factor from E4's POV - but was
there more to it? Of themselves perhaps not very much, but all the
same, food for thought...

<But if Edward's children were bastards this was
important had Edward lived. >

Yes, it was important, if one was going to stick to the truth of the
situation, but who actually knew? It's possible that not even Eliz
Wydeville knew, or Hastings, for that matter.

<Many think the pre-contract tale was an
excuse to take the crown, as you know. >

I know, but many think that Richard was a humpty backed child
murdering despot, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I try to
let it all wash over me, myself <g>.

<There is also the fact that Richard recognized Edward's children as
legitimate and swore fealty to Edward V as King, which could be seen
as a legitimization act. >

Er - no it couldn't. Men can't be bound by oaths they made in good
faith if these subsequently prove to be unfounded. See Prof richard
Helmholtz's articles on this very point in various old Ricardians and
in his own works on the subject. The Borthwick Institute in York is
full of similar volumes by other writers who all say the same. This
is precisely why one of the first things R3 does is write to Calais
releasing the blokes there from their oath of fealty to E5 - and IIRC
he even makes the point that their oaths had been made in good faith
but had subsequently been found to be in error for the reasons given
in the attached sheet (now no longer extant, but thought to be a
variation of Titulus Regius, since it makes the point pretty well,
and sums up the new situation Richard himself and everyone else had
found themselves in).

< However, as was pointed out, the woman involved in the pre-contract
story died before the birth of Edward V, only Elizabeth would've been
born illegitimate and, if there was any question of illegitimacy,
Edward, not naïve, easily could've solemnized his marriage to
Elizabeth Wydeville. >

I can't remember the whys and wherefores of Helmholz's assessment of
the canonical argument now, and he is one the leading experts in the
field, but I don't think it was as simple as that. He could have
solemized his marriage later on. we don't think he did so as there
is no record of it. He was definitely daft to marry in secret and
one wonders why he did so, anyway, if he was young, free and single.
He could have done so and told Warwick to go hang - as he had to do 6
months later anyhow, nd be prepared for the subsequent fall-out.
maybe he was just a giddy goat madly in love and desperate to bed a
lady that wouldn't give in any other way. I really don't know why
Edward married Elizabeth the way he did. It suggests that he may
have done similar before ever meeting EW, though I'm not one of those
who think that just because someone is caught out doing something
stupid they must have a built-in predilication for it. I hate the
precontract. It makes my head spin. I firmly believe Richard
believed it to be true *precisely* because the whole story sounds so
ridiculous! If Richard had the time to come up with the precontract
merely as a 'connivance', then I'd argue that he had the time to come
up with something better and more plausible. The fact that he didn't,
leads me to accept that he himself must have been convinced by
Stillington's revelations and 'proofs' that were later shown to those
in a position of canonical authority.

< But Richard was as bad...he makes a big thing about the precontract
> story which paves the way to the crown, >

No he doesn't - it is others that 'makes the big thing'! Let's see,
the rump of the 3 Estaes present in London in 1483, Buckingham,
Stillington, those proctors he consulted and Russell. Richard
accepts the story, yes, but it's entirely wrong to say he makes a big
thing out of it. He responds to others' reactions to it. That's
what he does, and it is proffered as reason in his official title to
the Crown in front of Parliament. As documents go, this is a more
detailed description to his Right than the one proffered by Tudor,
that wittered on in vague terms. At least no-one in R3's time was
left in any doubt as to why he was where he was, however bewildering
that may have been for some. Tudor just fudged his claim, basically,
and, furthermore, sought to stamp out R3's Right by ordering copies
of it to be destroyed. at least Richard dealt with the issue head on.

<but nicely ignores legal procedure - a trial - when disposing of his
erstwhile friend & leading light of Edward's government: Hastings!>

Well, quite apart from trying to compare apples and oranges, there's
no proof that Hastings and Richard were 'friends'. In fact there's
more evidence that he was friendlier with Jack Howard.

So Richard didn't always follow accepted procedure? So what? Nor did
E4, nor did Tudor. No-one's saying he was a nice lad all the time.
None of them were exactly consistent. But I do think R3 tried to do
the right thing most of the time, rather than just on the odd
occasion when it suited, and the local records are where this is
borne out, as I have found outduring my research for the Work in
Progress. As whoever it was said (Thos Cromwell? Francis Bacon?);
though he was a bad un, in his time 'many good Actes were made' (I
paraphrase).

<Richard was Edward's right hand man and BROTHER, while Edward lived
and slagged him off, through authorization of Titulus Regius and
other acts, when the poor man had died!>

Well, as I mentioned earlier, this was standard practice. I don't
know how many more times I can say this and how may times you'll just
ignore it, but there it is. we can't alter the MO of the age. As I
said, family and previous relationships didn't count when the point
being made was to emphasise the new regime and set a distance from
the old. Richard wasn't the first to do it, he wasn't the last.

<Richard in Titulus Regius does spell out the general moral decline
of Edward, which Edward would've taken personally, if Richard didn't
think it was!>

He could take it as personally as any dead man could, I suppose, but
the fact remains that *Titulus Regius* spells it out, Russell spells
it out, and it was TRUE. What Richard thought about it is
irrelevant, really as roughly similar drafts would have been written
had E5 ascended the throne!

<Richard may've expressed reservations about the French Expedition of
75, the Scottish Truce and Clarence, but he carefully avoided falling
> out with Edward over these issues! >

Actually, no he didn't. And I see you don't mention the Scottish
Truce incident which I also mentioned, leading me to think you don't
know about that. well, let me tell you, he fell out big style with
E4 over that one. Pollard mentions the incident in his book on the
Princes. Apparently Richard's behaviour nearly scuppered the
Scottish Truce. The Scots complained to Edward who reprimanded
Richard most severely - and Richard IGNORED him, and continued
harrying the Scots vessels that sailed too close to Richard's base at
Scarborough. This was massive defiance at a very delicate stage of
the negotiations. Edward was actually livid. So was Richard.

No hypocrisy there at all. Just straightforward falling out between
brothers.

<The evidence suggests that Richard was a timeserver. >

Bollocks!

(Apols to the delicate, but I did warn I might not be able to
refrain...).

Regards - Lorraine

Continuing with a response to yr post, David:

<So you think t Stillington told Richard the pre-contract story only
> when Edward died. >

Still w. Stillington, it's interesting that one of the commentators
bring up Stliington's bastard son being put forward as a possible
match for the King's daughter. Why on earth did the commentator
treat this seriously, why did Stillers think his plan had an earthly
chance of succeeding? He did apparently have a bastard son - he is
reported to have died abroad and penniless - in Paris, IIRC. If this
audacious plan is true - and remember we cannot possibly blame
Richard for this one, as he was dead by the time Commines and the
others were writing their memoirs - doesn't it suggest he knew
something pretty important about E4, that he at least thought he had
some sort of hold over him, enough to propose his bastard son for
what most assumed to be E4's legitimate daughter, someone from birth
expected to marry nothing less than Royalty herself? Doesn't it make
a partial sense of the twice Stillington was imprisoned on the
vaguest of charges, that of uttering words 'prejudicial' to the king
(both in E4's time, and in H7's? Doesn't it make sense of Clarence's
behaviour? Doesn't it also fit Grande Dame' Cecily's hissy fit (tho'
admittedly marrying beneath him even for the first time could just
have easily ruffled *that* one's feathers, I agree <g>. I think
there's a lot to be said for the precontract story. I wish more was
actually known about it, but with just the few bits of evidence we
have, I think there's enough to suggest that it wasn't Richard making
the whole thing up, and enough to suggest it may even have been
true. We could also introduce the reactions of Eleanor Butler's
sister Elizabeth Mowbray here. She was given a huge sum of money
(£20) from E4 just to accompany his sister margaret to Burgundy for
her marriage to Charles the Bold. Later Elizabeth Mowbray and a
handful of her servants were imprisoned - like Stillington, on the
vaguest of charges. Reading about the incident, it smacked to me at
the time of E4 issuing a warning. But what about? She'd just been
given a fortune a scant few weeks previously! Her daughter
subseqently gets to marry E4's youngest son - obviously Anne
Mowbray's inheritance was a major factor from E4's POV - but was
there more to it? Of themselves perhaps not very much, but all the
same, food for thought...

<But if Edward's children were bastards this was
important had Edward lived. >

Yes, it was important, if one was going to stick to the truth of the
situation, but who actually knew? It's possible that not even Eliz
Wydeville knew, or Hastings, for that matter.

<Many think the pre-contract tale was an
excuse to take the crown, as you know. >

I know, but many think that Richard was a humpty backed child
murdering despot, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I try to
let it all wash over me, myself <g>.

<There is also the fact that Richard recognized Edward's children as
legitimate and swore fealty to Edward V as King, which could be seen
as a legitimization act. >

Er - no it couldn't. Men can't be bound by oaths they made in good
faith if these subsequently prove to be unfounded. See Prof richard
Helmholtz's articles on this very point in various old Ricardians and
in his own works on the subject. The Borthwick Institute in York is
full of similar volumes by other writers who all say the same. This
is precisely why one of the first things R3 does is write to Calais
releasing the blokes there from their oath of fealty to E5 - and IIRC
he even makes the point that their oaths had been made in good faith
but had subsequently been found to be in error for the reasons given
in the attached sheet (now no longer extant, but thought to be a
variation of Titulus Regius, since it makes the point pretty well,
and sums up the new situation Richard himself and everyone else had
found themselves in).

< However, as was pointed out, the woman involved in the pre-contract
story died before the birth of Edward V, only Elizabeth would've been
born illegitimate and, if there was any question of illegitimacy,
Edward, not naïve, easily could've solemnized his marriage to
Elizabeth Wydeville. >

I can't remember the whys and wherefores of Helmholz's assessment of
the canonical argument now, and he is one the leading experts in the
field, but I don't think it was as simple as that. He could have
solemized his marriage later on. we don't think he did so as there
is no record of it. He was definitely daft to marry in secret and
one wonders why he did so, anyway, if he was young, free and single.
He could have done so and told Warwick to go hang - as he had to do 6
months later anyhow, nd be prepared for the subsequent fall-out.
maybe he was just a giddy goat madly in love and desperate to bed a
lady that wouldn't give in any other way. I really don't know why
Edward married Elizabeth the way he did. It suggests that he may
have done similar before ever meeting EW, though I'm not one of those
who think that just because someone is caught out doing something
stupid they must have a built-in predilication for it. I hate the
precontract. It makes my head spin. I firmly believe Richard
believed it to be true *precisely* because the whole story sounds so
ridiculous! If Richard had the time to come up with the precontract
merely as a 'connivance', then I'd argue that he had the time to come
up with something better and more plausible. The fact that he didn't,
leads me to accept that he himself must have been convinced by
Stillington's revelations and 'proofs' that were later shown to those
in a position of canonical authority.

< But Richard was as bad...he makes a big thing about the precontract
> story which paves the way to the crown, >

No he doesn't - it is others that 'makes the big thing'! Let's see,
the rump of the 3 Estaes present in London in 1483, Buckingham,
Stillington, those proctors he consulted and Russell. Richard
accepts the story, yes, but it's entirely wrong to say he makes a big
thing out of it. He responds to others' reactions to it. That's
what he does, and it is proffered as reason in his official title to
the Crown in front of Parliament. As documents go, this is a more
detailed description to his Right than the one proffered by Tudor,
that wittered on in vague terms. At least no-one in R3's time was
left in any doubt as to why he was where he was, however bewildering
that may have been for some. Tudor just fudged his claim, basically,
and, furthermore, sought to stamp out R3's Right by ordering copies
of it to be destroyed. at least Richard dealt with the issue head on.

<but nicely ignores legal procedure - a trial - when disposing of his
erstwhile friend & leading light of Edward's government: Hastings!>

Well, quite apart from trying to compare apples and oranges, there's
no proof that Hastings and Richard were 'friends'. In fact there's
more evidence that he was friendlier with Jack Howard.

So Richard didn't always follow accepted procedure? So what? Nor did
E4, nor did Tudor. No-one's saying he was a nice lad all the time.
None of them were exactly consistent. But I do think R3 tried to do
the right thing most of the time, rather than just on the odd
occasion when it suited, and the local records are where this is
borne out, as I have found outduring my research for the Work in
Progress. As whoever it was said (Thos Cromwell? Francis Bacon?);
though he was a bad un, in his time 'many good Actes were made' (I
paraphrase).

<Richard was Edward's right hand man and BROTHER, while Edward lived
and slagged him off, through authorization of Titulus Regius and
other acts, when the poor man had died!>

Well, as I mentioned earlier, this was standard practice. I don't
know how many more times I can say this and how may times you'll just
ignore it, but there it is. we can't alter the MO of the age. As I
said, family and previous relationships didn't count when the point
being made was to emphasise the new regime and set a distance from
the old. Richard wasn't the first to do it, he wasn't the last.

<Richard in Titulus Regius does spell out the general moral decline
of Edward, which Edward would've taken personally, if Richard didn't
think it was!>

He could take it as personally as any dead man could, I suppose, but
the fact remains that *Titulus Regius* spells it out, Russell spells
it out, and it was TRUE. What Richard thought about it is
irrelevant, really as roughly similar drafts would have been written
had E5 ascended the throne!

<Richard may've expressed reservations about the French Expedition of
75, the Scottish Truce and Clarence, but he carefully avoided falling
> out with Edward over these issues! >

Actually, no he didn't. And I see you don't mention the Scottish
Truce incident which I also mentioned, leading me to think you don't
know about that. well, let me tell you, he fell out big style with
E4 over that one. Pollard mentions the incident in his book on the
Princes. Apparently Richard's behaviour nearly scuppered the
Scottish Truce. The Scots complained to Edward who reprimanded
Richard most severely - and Richard IGNORED him, and continued
harrying the Scots vessels that sailed too close to Richard's base at
Scarborough. This was massive defiance at a very delicate stage of
the negotiations. Edward was actually livid. So was Richard.

No hypocrisy there at all. Just straightforward falling out between
brothers.

<The evidence suggests that Richard was a timeserver. >

Bollocks!

(Apols to the delicate, but I did warn I might not be able to
refrain...).

Regards - Lorraine

You'll be upsetting Paul again with the use of bad language.

I wonder how upset Edward was over the Scottish incident? Richard
didn't go down the Clarence route over it.

There were developments during Richard's reign: legal changes. But by
your own admission, these may've come from others in his government,
as with Titulus Regius. I say this tongue in cheek because I'm sure
he authorised anything like this. You could've mentioned the College
of Arms, interesting for those enthusiastic about heraldic devices.

The difference between you and I is the analysis of where Richard was
coming from. Titulus Regius and the high moral tone of Richard's
communications would have us believe that he was predominantly a moral
philosopher or monk like theologian and politician second. But his
experience through much of his life was as a political figure of very
considerable power and someone interested in accumulating wealth,
which is the stock in trade for members of the Royal Family of that
period.

There are different perceptions of Richard, but, based on what he did
in life, as opposed to what he said, I'd say he was mainly interested
in the retention of power and wealth and the moral/legal position was
crass propaganda. I don't find anything admirable in this, no more
than I do in British Prime Ministers who claim to be Christian, which
carries views like 'Love you enemy' & 'turn the other cheek' and,
then, ignoring International law, they sanction the invasion of other
sovereign powers with massive loss of life, probably for economic
gain.

I do think that Richard was a clever and astute politician and able
administrator and moderately able military commander who was very much
into the survival game, but Richard of course had learned from his
Father and brothers Clarence & E4 that politics is a dirty ruthless
game and I see and I think his path to the crown was legal bullshite,
about as moral as the Nuremberg laws against Jews!


--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Continuing with a response to yr post, David:
>
> <So you think t Stillington told Richard the pre-contract story only
> > when Edward died. >
>
> Still w. Stillington, it's interesting that one of the commentators
> bring up Stliington's bastard son being put forward as a possible
> match for the King's daughter. Why on earth did the commentator
> treat this seriously, why did Stillers think his plan had an earthly
> chance of succeeding? He did apparently have a bastard son - he is
> reported to have died abroad and penniless - in Paris, IIRC. If
this
> audacious plan is true - and remember we cannot possibly blame
> Richard for this one, as he was dead by the time Commines and the
> others were writing their memoirs - doesn't it suggest he knew
> something pretty important about E4, that he at least thought he had
> some sort of hold over him, enough to propose his bastard son for
> what most assumed to be E4's legitimate daughter, someone from birth
> expected to marry nothing less than Royalty herself? Doesn't it
make
> a partial sense of the twice Stillington was imprisoned on the
> vaguest of charges, that of uttering words 'prejudicial' to the king
> (both in E4's time, and in H7's? Doesn't it make sense of
Clarence's
> behaviour? Doesn't it also fit Grande Dame' Cecily's hissy fit
(tho'
> admittedly marrying beneath him even for the first time could just
> have easily ruffled *that* one's feathers, I agree <g>. I think
> there's a lot to be said for the precontract story. I wish more was
> actually known about it, but with just the few bits of evidence we
> have, I think there's enough to suggest that it wasn't Richard
making
> the whole thing up, and enough to suggest it may even have been
> true. We could also introduce the reactions of Eleanor Butler's
> sister Elizabeth Mowbray here. She was given a huge sum of money
> (£20) from E4 just to accompany his sister margaret to Burgundy for
> her marriage to Charles the Bold. Later Elizabeth Mowbray and a
> handful of her servants were imprisoned - like Stillington, on the
> vaguest of charges. Reading about the incident, it smacked to me at
> the time of E4 issuing a warning. But what about? She'd just been
> given a fortune a scant few weeks previously! Her daughter
> subseqently gets to marry E4's youngest son - obviously Anne
> Mowbray's inheritance was a major factor from E4's POV - but was
> there more to it? Of themselves perhaps not very much, but all the
> same, food for thought...
>
> <But if Edward's children were bastards this was
> important had Edward lived. >
>
> Yes, it was important, if one was going to stick to the truth of the
> situation, but who actually knew? It's possible that not even Eliz
> Wydeville knew, or Hastings, for that matter.
>
> <Many think the pre-contract tale was an
> excuse to take the crown, as you know. >
>
> I know, but many think that Richard was a humpty backed child
> murdering despot, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I try
to
> let it all wash over me, myself <g>.
>
> <There is also the fact that Richard recognized Edward's children as
> legitimate and swore fealty to Edward V as King, which could be seen
> as a legitimization act. >
>
> Er - no it couldn't. Men can't be bound by oaths they made in good
> faith if these subsequently prove to be unfounded. See Prof richard
> Helmholtz's articles on this very point in various old Ricardians
and
> in his own works on the subject. The Borthwick Institute in York is
> full of similar volumes by other writers who all say the same. This
> is precisely why one of the first things R3 does is write to Calais
> releasing the blokes there from their oath of fealty to E5 - and
IIRC
> he even makes the point that their oaths had been made in good faith
> but had subsequently been found to be in error for the reasons given
> in the attached sheet (now no longer extant, but thought to be a
> variation of Titulus Regius, since it makes the point pretty well,
> and sums up the new situation Richard himself and everyone else had
> found themselves in).
>
> < However, as was pointed out, the woman involved in the
pre-contract
> story died before the birth of Edward V, only Elizabeth would've
been
> born illegitimate and, if there was any question of illegitimacy,
> Edward, not naïve, easily could've solemnized his marriage to
> Elizabeth Wydeville. >
>
> I can't remember the whys and wherefores of Helmholz's assessment of
> the canonical argument now, and he is one the leading experts in the
> field, but I don't think it was as simple as that. He could have
> solemized his marriage later on. we don't think he did so as there
> is no record of it. He was definitely daft to marry in secret and
> one wonders why he did so, anyway, if he was young, free and single.

> He could have done so and told Warwick to go hang - as he had to do
6
> months later anyhow, nd be prepared for the subsequent fall-out.
> maybe he was just a giddy goat madly in love and desperate to bed a
> lady that wouldn't give in any other way. I really don't know why
> Edward married Elizabeth the way he did. It suggests that he may
> have done similar before ever meeting EW, though I'm not one of
those
> who think that just because someone is caught out doing something
> stupid they must have a built-in predilication for it. I hate the
> precontract. It makes my head spin. I firmly believe Richard
> believed it to be true *precisely* because the whole story sounds so
> ridiculous! If Richard had the time to come up with the precontract
> merely as a 'connivance', then I'd argue that he had the time to
come
> up with something better and more plausible. The fact that he
didn't,
> leads me to accept that he himself must have been convinced by
> Stillington's revelations and 'proofs' that were later shown to
those
> in a position of canonical authority.
>
> < But Richard was as bad...he makes a big thing about the
precontract
> > story which paves the way to the crown, >
>
> No he doesn't - it is others that 'makes the big thing'! Let's see,
> the rump of the 3 Estaes present in London in 1483, Buckingham,
> Stillington, those proctors he consulted and Russell. Richard
> accepts the story, yes, but it's entirely wrong to say he makes a
big
> thing out of it. He responds to others' reactions to it. That's
> what he does, and it is proffered as reason in his official title to
> the Crown in front of Parliament. As documents go, this is a more
> detailed description to his Right than the one proffered by Tudor,
> that wittered on in vague terms. At least no-one in R3's time was
> left in any doubt as to why he was where he was, however bewildering
> that may have been for some. Tudor just fudged his claim,
basically,
> and, furthermore, sought to stamp out R3's Right by ordering copies
> of it to be destroyed. at least Richard dealt with the issue head
on.
>
> <but nicely ignores legal procedure - a trial - when disposing of
his
> erstwhile friend & leading light of Edward's government: Hastings!>
>
> Well, quite apart from trying to compare apples and oranges, there's
> no proof that Hastings and Richard were 'friends'. In fact there's
> more evidence that he was friendlier with Jack Howard.
>
> So Richard didn't always follow accepted procedure? So what? Nor
did
> E4, nor did Tudor. No-one's saying he was a nice lad all the time.

> None of them were exactly consistent. But I do think R3 tried to
do
> the right thing most of the time, rather than just on the odd
> occasion when it suited, and the local records are where this is
> borne out, as I have found outduring my research for the Work in
> Progress. As whoever it was said (Thos Cromwell? Francis Bacon?);
> though he was a bad un, in his time 'many good Actes were made' (I
> paraphrase).
>
> <Richard was Edward's right hand man and BROTHER, while Edward lived
> and slagged him off, through authorization of Titulus Regius and
> other acts, when the poor man had died!>
>
> Well, as I mentioned earlier, this was standard practice. I don't
> know how many more times I can say this and how may times you'll
just
> ignore it, but there it is. we can't alter the MO of the age. As I
> said, family and previous relationships didn't count when the point
> being made was to emphasise the new regime and set a distance from
> the old. Richard wasn't the first to do it, he wasn't the last.
>
> <Richard in Titulus Regius does spell out the general moral decline
> of Edward, which Edward would've taken personally, if Richard
didn't
> think it was!>
>
> He could take it as personally as any dead man could, I suppose, but
> the fact remains that *Titulus Regius* spells it out, Russell spells
> it out, and it was TRUE. What Richard thought about it is
> irrelevant, really as roughly similar drafts would have been written
> had E5 ascended the throne!
>
> <Richard may've expressed reservations about the French Expedition
of
> 75, the Scottish Truce and Clarence, but he carefully avoided
falling
> > out with Edward over these issues! >
>
> Actually, no he didn't. And I see you don't mention the Scottish
> Truce incident which I also mentioned, leading me to think you don't
> know about that. well, let me tell you, he fell out big style with
> E4 over that one. Pollard mentions the incident in his book on the
> Princes. Apparently Richard's behaviour nearly scuppered the
> Scottish Truce. The Scots complained to Edward who reprimanded
> Richard most severely - and Richard IGNORED him, and continued
> harrying the Scots vessels that sailed too close to Richard's base
at
> Scarborough. This was massive defiance at a very delicate stage of
> the negotiations. Edward was actually livid. So was Richard.
>
> No hypocrisy there at all. Just straightforward falling out between
> brothers.
>
> <The evidence suggests that Richard was a timeserver. >
>
> Bollocks!
>
> (Apols to the delicate, but I did warn I might not be able to
> refrain...).
>
> Regards - Lorraine

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> You'll be upsetting Paul again with the use of bad language.
>
> I wonder how upset Edward was over the Scottish incident? Richard
> didn't go down the Clarence route over it.

What do you mean ny the 'Scottish incident'? That the English had
always thought Berwick important can be seen by the fact that,
although on the north side of Tweed, they had held it for so long -
only losing it when Margaret of Anjou gave it away in return for
military aid. It was crucial to the defence of the East Marches, as
well as being a prosperous port. Any study of English Border history
will tell you that. Prior to Richard's campaign, James III had been
launching raids into English territory, no doubt using Berwick as a
base. Richard securedBerwick and Croyland was no expert onthe
problems of the northern borders and probably didn't care much.

It wasn't a great outcome for an expensive war, and in my view
Richard's restraint was probably rewarded in the long term only by
the enmity of the humiliated James III .Hwever, given the
circumstances it is difficult to see what else he could have
done,other than pillage Edinburgh before he left in order to recoup
some of the financial loss, but this would have caused even more ill
feeling in the long term, as well as inevitably leading to the death
of innocent women and children, a point Edward IV made in his letter
to the Pope responding to James III's complaint to him about
England's behaviour.


> There were developments during Richard's reign: legal changes. But
by
> your own admission, these may've come from others in his
government,
> as with Titulus Regius. I say this tongue in cheek because I'm
sure
> he authorised anything like this. You could've mentioned the
College
> of Arms, interesting for those enthusiastic about heraldic devices.

Quite a good list for such a short reign, I think. I don't think you
wil find a comparable achievement for the first two years of any
other reign of the period.
>
> The difference between you and I is the analysis of where Richard
was
> coming from. Titulus Regius and the high moral tone of Richard's
> communications would have us believe that he was predominantly a
moral
> philosopher or monk like theologian and politician second. But his
> experience through much of his life was as a political figure of
very
> considerable power and someone interested in accumulating wealth,
> which is the stock in trade for members of the Royal Family of that
> period.
>
> There are different perceptions of Richard, but, based on what he
did
> in life, as opposed to what he said, I'd say he was mainly
interested
> in the retention of power and wealth and the moral/legal position
was
> crass propaganda.

Well, we've just established he did rather a lot that was good. So
much so that anti-Ricardians have traditionally fallen back on the
excuse of hypocrisy. I find it amusing that, of the seven monarchs
from Henry IV to Henry VII, no less than three were 'usurpers' (ie
Henry IV, Edward IV and Richard III) in that they took the throne
from an existing monarch. Yet it is only Richard III who is ever
utterly condemned on this account. In fact, his position was better
than those of Henry IV and Henry VII in that Edward V had not been
crowned and anointed. As to legalities, there were different strands
of thought and tradition surrounding the succession - something
combining hereditary and elective principles was the established
reality on the ground. Of course, they did not hold elections such as
we would understand it, but the acclamation of the people on the spot
(ie the Londoners) was generally regarded as doing the job. Richard
put forward an hereditary claim, which you can accept or dismiss, but
there is no doubt that his claim was, at least AT THE TIME, accepted
by the people in London. People in the North, of course, very clearly
supported him to the end.
I contend that Richard's realy crime was far as history is concerned
is that, unlike the Tudors, he was not sufficiently ruthless in
holding on to power. It was his death at Bosworth by a man dependent
on the claims of Edward IV's that made the destruction of his
reputation inevitable.

I don't find anything admirable in this, no more
> than I do in British Prime Ministers who claim to be Christian,
which
> carries views like 'Love you enemy' & 'turn the other cheek' and,
> then, ignoring International law, they sanction the invasion of
other
> sovereign powers with massive loss of life, probably for economic
> gain.
>
> I do think that Richard was a clever and astute politician and able
> administrator and moderately able military commander who was very
much
> into the survival game, but Richard of course had learned from his
> Father and brothers Clarence & E4 that politics is a dirty ruthless
> game and I see and I think his path to the crown was legal
bullshite,
> about as moral as the Nuremberg laws against Jews!

Now, David, that's just ridiculous.
Marie
>
>
> --- In , "lpickering2"
> <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > Continuing with a response to yr post, David:
> >
> > <So you think t Stillington told Richard the pre-contract story
only
> > > when Edward died. >
> >
> > Still w. Stillington, it's interesting that one of the
commentators
> > bring up Stliington's bastard son being put forward as a possible
> > match for the King's daughter. Why on earth did the commentator
> > treat this seriously, why did Stillers think his plan had an
earthly
> > chance of succeeding? He did apparently have a bastard son - he
is
> > reported to have died abroad and penniless - in Paris, IIRC. If
> this
> > audacious plan is true - and remember we cannot possibly blame
> > Richard for this one, as he was dead by the time Commines and the
> > others were writing their memoirs - doesn't it suggest he knew
> > something pretty important about E4, that he at least thought he
had
> > some sort of hold over him, enough to propose his bastard son for
> > what most assumed to be E4's legitimate daughter, someone from
birth
> > expected to marry nothing less than Royalty herself? Doesn't it
> make
> > a partial sense of the twice Stillington was imprisoned on the
> > vaguest of charges, that of uttering words 'prejudicial' to the
king
> > (both in E4's time, and in H7's? Doesn't it make sense of
> Clarence's
> > behaviour? Doesn't it also fit Grande Dame' Cecily's hissy fit
> (tho'
> > admittedly marrying beneath him even for the first time could
just
> > have easily ruffled *that* one's feathers, I agree <g>. I think
> > there's a lot to be said for the precontract story. I wish more
was
> > actually known about it, but with just the few bits of evidence
we
> > have, I think there's enough to suggest that it wasn't Richard
> making
> > the whole thing up, and enough to suggest it may even have been
> > true. We could also introduce the reactions of Eleanor Butler's
> > sister Elizabeth Mowbray here. She was given a huge sum of money
> > (£20) from E4 just to accompany his sister margaret to Burgundy
for
> > her marriage to Charles the Bold. Later Elizabeth Mowbray and a
> > handful of her servants were imprisoned - like Stillington, on
the
> > vaguest of charges. Reading about the incident, it smacked to me
at
> > the time of E4 issuing a warning. But what about? She'd just
been
> > given a fortune a scant few weeks previously! Her daughter
> > subseqently gets to marry E4's youngest son - obviously Anne
> > Mowbray's inheritance was a major factor from E4's POV - but was
> > there more to it? Of themselves perhaps not very much, but all
the
> > same, food for thought...
> >
> > <But if Edward's children were bastards this was
> > important had Edward lived. >
> >
> > Yes, it was important, if one was going to stick to the truth of
the
> > situation, but who actually knew? It's possible that not even
Eliz
> > Wydeville knew, or Hastings, for that matter.
> >
> > <Many think the pre-contract tale was an
> > excuse to take the crown, as you know. >
> >
> > I know, but many think that Richard was a humpty backed child
> > murdering despot, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I
try
> to
> > let it all wash over me, myself <g>.
> >
> > <There is also the fact that Richard recognized Edward's children
as
> > legitimate and swore fealty to Edward V as King, which could be
seen
> > as a legitimization act. >
> >
> > Er - no it couldn't. Men can't be bound by oaths they made in
good
> > faith if these subsequently prove to be unfounded. See Prof
richard
> > Helmholtz's articles on this very point in various old Ricardians
> and
> > in his own works on the subject. The Borthwick Institute in York
is
> > full of similar volumes by other writers who all say the same.
This
> > is precisely why one of the first things R3 does is write to
Calais
> > releasing the blokes there from their oath of fealty to E5 - and
> IIRC
> > he even makes the point that their oaths had been made in good
faith
> > but had subsequently been found to be in error for the reasons
given
> > in the attached sheet (now no longer extant, but thought to be a
> > variation of Titulus Regius, since it makes the point pretty
well,
> > and sums up the new situation Richard himself and everyone else
had
> > found themselves in).
> >
> > < However, as was pointed out, the woman involved in the
> pre-contract
> > story died before the birth of Edward V, only Elizabeth would've
> been
> > born illegitimate and, if there was any question of illegitimacy,
> > Edward, not naïve, easily could've solemnized his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Wydeville. >
> >
> > I can't remember the whys and wherefores of Helmholz's assessment
of
> > the canonical argument now, and he is one the leading experts in
the
> > field, but I don't think it was as simple as that. He could have
> > solemized his marriage later on. we don't think he did so as
there
> > is no record of it. He was definitely daft to marry in secret
and
> > one wonders why he did so, anyway, if he was young, free and
single.
>
> > He could have done so and told Warwick to go hang - as he had to
do
> 6
> > months later anyhow, nd be prepared for the subsequent fall-out.
> > maybe he was just a giddy goat madly in love and desperate to bed
a
> > lady that wouldn't give in any other way. I really don't know
why
> > Edward married Elizabeth the way he did. It suggests that he may
> > have done similar before ever meeting EW, though I'm not one of
> those
> > who think that just because someone is caught out doing something
> > stupid they must have a built-in predilication for it. I hate
the
> > precontract. It makes my head spin. I firmly believe Richard
> > believed it to be true *precisely* because the whole story sounds
so
> > ridiculous! If Richard had the time to come up with the
precontract
> > merely as a 'connivance', then I'd argue that he had the time to
> come
> > up with something better and more plausible. The fact that he
> didn't,
> > leads me to accept that he himself must have been convinced by
> > Stillington's revelations and 'proofs' that were later shown to
> those
> > in a position of canonical authority.
> >
> > < But Richard was as bad...he makes a big thing about the
> precontract
> > > story which paves the way to the crown, >
> >
> > No he doesn't - it is others that 'makes the big thing'! Let's
see,
> > the rump of the 3 Estaes present in London in 1483, Buckingham,
> > Stillington, those proctors he consulted and Russell. Richard
> > accepts the story, yes, but it's entirely wrong to say he makes a
> big
> > thing out of it. He responds to others' reactions to it. That's
> > what he does, and it is proffered as reason in his official title
to
> > the Crown in front of Parliament. As documents go, this is a
more
> > detailed description to his Right than the one proffered by
Tudor,
> > that wittered on in vague terms. At least no-one in R3's time
was
> > left in any doubt as to why he was where he was, however
bewildering
> > that may have been for some. Tudor just fudged his claim,
> basically,
> > and, furthermore, sought to stamp out R3's Right by ordering
copies
> > of it to be destroyed. at least Richard dealt with the issue
head
> on.
> >
> > <but nicely ignores legal procedure - a trial - when disposing of
> his
> > erstwhile friend & leading light of Edward's government: Hastings!
>
> >
> > Well, quite apart from trying to compare apples and oranges,
there's
> > no proof that Hastings and Richard were 'friends'. In fact
there's
> > more evidence that he was friendlier with Jack Howard.
> >
> > So Richard didn't always follow accepted procedure? So what? Nor
> did
> > E4, nor did Tudor. No-one's saying he was a nice lad all the
time.
>
> > None of them were exactly consistent. But I do think R3 tried
to
> do
> > the right thing most of the time, rather than just on the odd
> > occasion when it suited, and the local records are where this is
> > borne out, as I have found outduring my research for the Work in
> > Progress. As whoever it was said (Thos Cromwell? Francis
Bacon?);
> > though he was a bad un, in his time 'many good Actes were made'
(I
> > paraphrase).
> >
> > <Richard was Edward's right hand man and BROTHER, while Edward
lived
> > and slagged him off, through authorization of Titulus Regius and
> > other acts, when the poor man had died!>
> >
> > Well, as I mentioned earlier, this was standard practice. I
don't
> > know how many more times I can say this and how may times you'll
> just
> > ignore it, but there it is. we can't alter the MO of the age.
As I
> > said, family and previous relationships didn't count when the
point
> > being made was to emphasise the new regime and set a distance
from
> > the old. Richard wasn't the first to do it, he wasn't the last.
> >
> > <Richard in Titulus Regius does spell out the general moral
decline
> > of Edward, which Edward would've taken personally, if Richard
> didn't
> > think it was!>
> >
> > He could take it as personally as any dead man could, I suppose,
but
> > the fact remains that *Titulus Regius* spells it out, Russell
spells
> > it out, and it was TRUE. What Richard thought about it is
> > irrelevant, really as roughly similar drafts would have been
written
> > had E5 ascended the throne!
> >
> > <Richard may've expressed reservations about the French
Expedition
> of
> > 75, the Scottish Truce and Clarence, but he carefully avoided
> falling
> > > out with Edward over these issues! >
> >
> > Actually, no he didn't. And I see you don't mention the Scottish
> > Truce incident which I also mentioned, leading me to think you
don't
> > know about that. well, let me tell you, he fell out big style
with
> > E4 over that one. Pollard mentions the incident in his book on
the
> > Princes. Apparently Richard's behaviour nearly scuppered the
> > Scottish Truce. The Scots complained to Edward who reprimanded
> > Richard most severely - and Richard IGNORED him, and continued
> > harrying the Scots vessels that sailed too close to Richard's
base
> at
> > Scarborough. This was massive defiance at a very delicate stage
of
> > the negotiations. Edward was actually livid. So was Richard.
> >
> > No hypocrisy there at all. Just straightforward falling out
between
> > brothers.
> >
> > <The evidence suggests that Richard was a timeserver. >
> >
> > Bollocks!
> >
> > (Apols to the delicate, but I did warn I might not be able to
> > refrain...).
> >
> > Regards - Lorraine

Lorraine explained the Scottish incident, which seems to have been a
minor altercation about military tactics with Edward acting as a
backseat military commander. Perhaps, he'd just finished vomiting
from the use of emetics or had spent the night three to a bed with
himself, Jane Shore & Lord Hastings? And wasn't at his best. I doubt
if Richard's refusal to comply with his brother who was possibly hung
over was quite on the scale of Clarence's fallouts with Edward, as
Lorraine implies.

You point out that there were many usurpers, i.e. brutal dictators.
True. But what irritates me is the premise that somehow they were
acting morally & legally when it was fairly obvious that they were
acting out of self interest for power & greed, whether for lands or
oil!!!

Richard was elected, but with military power to back him up.
He'd been fairly ruthless with Hastings, Rivers & Edward V, was with
Buckingham and would've been with Tudor!

Lorraine, possibly joking, found Richard sexually attractive as a
reason for her interest. As I'm not into male on male relationships,
I can't share that view, but do feel a general disdain for ego maniac,
power grabbing, greedy politicians who pretend some type of
moral/legal superiority, like those who accuse others of being brutal
dictators & then use virtually every weapon in their arsenal to do
exactly the same! The only monarch who had a religious bent was Henry
VI & look what happened to him? He was generally seen as insane &
probably murdered.

You may see Richard as a fluffy, pretty possum, but I see him as a
self centred rogue & he may've been both!

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "David"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > You'll be upsetting Paul again with the use of bad language.
> >
> > I wonder how upset Edward was over the Scottish incident? Richard
> > didn't go down the Clarence route over it.
>
> What do you mean ny the 'Scottish incident'? That the English had
> always thought Berwick important can be seen by the fact that,
> although on the north side of Tweed, they had held it for so long -
> only losing it when Margaret of Anjou gave it away in return for
> military aid. It was crucial to the defence of the East Marches, as
> well as being a prosperous port. Any study of English Border history
> will tell you that. Prior to Richard's campaign, James III had been
> launching raids into English territory, no doubt using Berwick as a
> base. Richard securedBerwick and Croyland was no expert onthe
> problems of the northern borders and probably didn't care much.
>
> It wasn't a great outcome for an expensive war, and in my view
> Richard's restraint was probably rewarded in the long term only by
> the enmity of the humiliated James III .Hwever, given the
> circumstances it is difficult to see what else he could have
> done,other than pillage Edinburgh before he left in order to recoup
> some of the financial loss, but this would have caused even more ill
> feeling in the long term, as well as inevitably leading to the death
> of innocent women and children, a point Edward IV made in his letter
> to the Pope responding to James III's complaint to him about
> England's behaviour.
>
>
> > There were developments during Richard's reign: legal changes.
But
> by
> > your own admission, these may've come from others in his
> government,
> > as with Titulus Regius. I say this tongue in cheek because I'm
> sure
> > he authorised anything like this. You could've mentioned the
> College
> > of Arms, interesting for those enthusiastic about heraldic
devices.
>
> Quite a good list for such a short reign, I think. I don't think you
> wil find a comparable achievement for the first two years of any
> other reign of the period.
> >
> > The difference between you and I is the analysis of where Richard
> was
> > coming from. Titulus Regius and the high moral tone of Richard's
> > communications would have us believe that he was predominantly a
> moral
> > philosopher or monk like theologian and politician second. But
his
> > experience through much of his life was as a political figure of
> very
> > considerable power and someone interested in accumulating wealth,
> > which is the stock in trade for members of the Royal Family of
that
> > period.
> >
> > There are different perceptions of Richard, but, based on what he
> did
> > in life, as opposed to what he said, I'd say he was mainly
> interested
> > in the retention of power and wealth and the moral/legal position
> was
> > crass propaganda.
>
> Well, we've just established he did rather a lot that was good. So
> much so that anti-Ricardians have traditionally fallen back on the
> excuse of hypocrisy. I find it amusing that, of the seven monarchs
> from Henry IV to Henry VII, no less than three were 'usurpers' (ie
> Henry IV, Edward IV and Richard III) in that they took the throne
> from an existing monarch. Yet it is only Richard III who is ever
> utterly condemned on this account. In fact, his position was better
> than those of Henry IV and Henry VII in that Edward V had not been
> crowned and anointed. As to legalities, there were different strands
> of thought and tradition surrounding the succession - something
> combining hereditary and elective principles was the established
> reality on the ground. Of course, they did not hold elections such
as
> we would understand it, but the acclamation of the people on the
spot
> (ie the Londoners) was generally regarded as doing the job. Richard
> put forward an hereditary claim, which you can accept or dismiss,
but
> there is no doubt that his claim was, at least AT THE TIME, accepted
> by the people in London. People in the North, of course, very
clearly
> supported him to the end.
> I contend that Richard's realy crime was far as history is concerned
> is that, unlike the Tudors, he was not sufficiently ruthless in
> holding on to power. It was his death at Bosworth by a man dependent
> on the claims of Edward IV's that made the destruction of his
> reputation inevitable.
>
> I don't find anything admirable in this, no more
> > than I do in British Prime Ministers who claim to be Christian,
> which
> > carries views like 'Love you enemy' & 'turn the other cheek' and,
> > then, ignoring International law, they sanction the invasion of
> other
> > sovereign powers with massive loss of life, probably for economic
> > gain.
> >
> > I do think that Richard was a clever and astute politician and
able
> > administrator and moderately able military commander who was very
> much
> > into the survival game, but Richard of course had learned from his
> > Father and brothers Clarence & E4 that politics is a dirty
ruthless
> > game and I see and I think his path to the crown was legal
> bullshite,
> > about as moral as the Nuremberg laws against Jews!
>
> Now, David, that's just ridiculous.
> Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , "lpickering2"
> > <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > > Continuing with a response to yr post, David:
> > >
> > > <So you think t Stillington told Richard the pre-contract story
> only
> > > > when Edward died. >
> > >
> > > Still w. Stillington, it's interesting that one of the
> commentators
> > > bring up Stliington's bastard son being put forward as a
possible
> > > match for the King's daughter. Why on earth did the commentator
> > > treat this seriously, why did Stillers think his plan had an
> earthly
> > > chance of succeeding? He did apparently have a bastard son - he
> is
> > > reported to have died abroad and penniless - in Paris, IIRC. If
> > this
> > > audacious plan is true - and remember we cannot possibly blame
> > > Richard for this one, as he was dead by the time Commines and
the
> > > others were writing their memoirs - doesn't it suggest he knew
> > > something pretty important about E4, that he at least thought he
> had
> > > some sort of hold over him, enough to propose his bastard son
for
> > > what most assumed to be E4's legitimate daughter, someone from
> birth
> > > expected to marry nothing less than Royalty herself? Doesn't it
> > make
> > > a partial sense of the twice Stillington was imprisoned on the
> > > vaguest of charges, that of uttering words 'prejudicial' to the
> king
> > > (both in E4's time, and in H7's? Doesn't it make sense of
> > Clarence's
> > > behaviour? Doesn't it also fit Grande Dame' Cecily's hissy fit
> > (tho'
> > > admittedly marrying beneath him even for the first time could
> just
> > > have easily ruffled *that* one's feathers, I agree <g>. I think
> > > there's a lot to be said for the precontract story. I wish more
> was
> > > actually known about it, but with just the few bits of evidence
> we
> > > have, I think there's enough to suggest that it wasn't Richard
> > making
> > > the whole thing up, and enough to suggest it may even have been
> > > true. We could also introduce the reactions of Eleanor Butler's
> > > sister Elizabeth Mowbray here. She was given a huge sum of
money
> > > (£20) from E4 just to accompany his sister margaret to Burgundy
> for
> > > her marriage to Charles the Bold. Later Elizabeth Mowbray and a
> > > handful of her servants were imprisoned - like Stillington, on
> the
> > > vaguest of charges. Reading about the incident, it smacked to
me
> at
> > > the time of E4 issuing a warning. But what about? She'd just
> been
> > > given a fortune a scant few weeks previously! Her daughter
> > > subseqently gets to marry E4's youngest son - obviously Anne
> > > Mowbray's inheritance was a major factor from E4's POV - but was
> > > there more to it? Of themselves perhaps not very much, but all
> the
> > > same, food for thought...
> > >
> > > <But if Edward's children were bastards this was
> > > important had Edward lived. >
> > >
> > > Yes, it was important, if one was going to stick to the truth of
> the
> > > situation, but who actually knew? It's possible that not even
> Eliz
> > > Wydeville knew, or Hastings, for that matter.
> > >
> > > <Many think the pre-contract tale was an
> > > excuse to take the crown, as you know. >
> > >
> > > I know, but many think that Richard was a humpty backed child
> > > murdering despot, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I
> try
> > to
> > > let it all wash over me, myself <g>.
> > >
> > > <There is also the fact that Richard recognized Edward's
children
> as
> > > legitimate and swore fealty to Edward V as King, which could be
> seen
> > > as a legitimization act. >
> > >
> > > Er - no it couldn't. Men can't be bound by oaths they made in
> good
> > > faith if these subsequently prove to be unfounded. See Prof
> richard
> > > Helmholtz's articles on this very point in various old
Ricardians
> > and
> > > in his own works on the subject. The Borthwick Institute in
York
> is
> > > full of similar volumes by other writers who all say the same.
> This
> > > is precisely why one of the first things R3 does is write to
> Calais
> > > releasing the blokes there from their oath of fealty to E5 - and
> > IIRC
> > > he even makes the point that their oaths had been made in good
> faith
> > > but had subsequently been found to be in error for the reasons
> given
> > > in the attached sheet (now no longer extant, but thought to be a
> > > variation of Titulus Regius, since it makes the point pretty
> well,
> > > and sums up the new situation Richard himself and everyone else
> had
> > > found themselves in).
> > >
> > > < However, as was pointed out, the woman involved in the
> > pre-contract
> > > story died before the birth of Edward V, only Elizabeth would've
> > been
> > > born illegitimate and, if there was any question of
illegitimacy,
> > > Edward, not naïve, easily could've solemnized his marriage to
> > > Elizabeth Wydeville. >
> > >
> > > I can't remember the whys and wherefores of Helmholz's
assessment
> of
> > > the canonical argument now, and he is one the leading experts in
> the
> > > field, but I don't think it was as simple as that. He could
have
> > > solemized his marriage later on. we don't think he did so as
> there
> > > is no record of it. He was definitely daft to marry in secret
> and
> > > one wonders why he did so, anyway, if he was young, free and
> single.
> >
> > > He could have done so and told Warwick to go hang - as he had to
> do
> > 6
> > > months later anyhow, nd be prepared for the subsequent fall-out.

> > > maybe he was just a giddy goat madly in love and desperate to
bed
> a
> > > lady that wouldn't give in any other way. I really don't know
> why
> > > Edward married Elizabeth the way he did. It suggests that he
may
> > > have done similar before ever meeting EW, though I'm not one of
> > those
> > > who think that just because someone is caught out doing
something
> > > stupid they must have a built-in predilication for it. I hate
> the
> > > precontract. It makes my head spin. I firmly believe Richard
> > > believed it to be true *precisely* because the whole story
sounds
> so
> > > ridiculous! If Richard had the time to come up with the
> precontract
> > > merely as a 'connivance', then I'd argue that he had the time to
> > come
> > > up with something better and more plausible. The fact that he
> > didn't,
> > > leads me to accept that he himself must have been convinced by
> > > Stillington's revelations and 'proofs' that were later shown to
> > those
> > > in a position of canonical authority.
> > >
> > > < But Richard was as bad...he makes a big thing about the
> > precontract
> > > > story which paves the way to the crown, >
> > >
> > > No he doesn't - it is others that 'makes the big thing'! Let's
> see,
> > > the rump of the 3 Estaes present in London in 1483, Buckingham,
> > > Stillington, those proctors he consulted and Russell. Richard
> > > accepts the story, yes, but it's entirely wrong to say he makes
a
> > big
> > > thing out of it. He responds to others' reactions to it.
That's
> > > what he does, and it is proffered as reason in his official
title
> to
> > > the Crown in front of Parliament. As documents go, this is a
> more
> > > detailed description to his Right than the one proffered by
> Tudor,
> > > that wittered on in vague terms. At least no-one in R3's time
> was
> > > left in any doubt as to why he was where he was, however
> bewildering
> > > that may have been for some. Tudor just fudged his claim,
> > basically,
> > > and, furthermore, sought to stamp out R3's Right by ordering
> copies
> > > of it to be destroyed. at least Richard dealt with the issue
> head
> > on.
> > >
> > > <but nicely ignores legal procedure - a trial - when disposing
of
> > his
> > > erstwhile friend & leading light of Edward's government:
Hastings!
> >
> > >
> > > Well, quite apart from trying to compare apples and oranges,
> there's
> > > no proof that Hastings and Richard were 'friends'. In fact
> there's
> > > more evidence that he was friendlier with Jack Howard.
> > >
> > > So Richard didn't always follow accepted procedure? So what?
Nor
> > did
> > > E4, nor did Tudor. No-one's saying he was a nice lad all the
> time.
> >
> > > None of them were exactly consistent. But I do think R3 tried
> to
> > do
> > > the right thing most of the time, rather than just on the odd
> > > occasion when it suited, and the local records are where this is
> > > borne out, as I have found outduring my research for the Work in
> > > Progress. As whoever it was said (Thos Cromwell? Francis
> Bacon?);
> > > though he was a bad un, in his time 'many good Actes were made'
> (I
> > > paraphrase).
> > >
> > > <Richard was Edward's right hand man and BROTHER, while Edward
> lived
> > > and slagged him off, through authorization of Titulus Regius and
> > > other acts, when the poor man had died!>
> > >
> > > Well, as I mentioned earlier, this was standard practice. I
> don't
> > > know how many more times I can say this and how may times you'll
> > just
> > > ignore it, but there it is. we can't alter the MO of the age.
> As I
> > > said, family and previous relationships didn't count when the
> point
> > > being made was to emphasise the new regime and set a distance
> from
> > > the old. Richard wasn't the first to do it, he wasn't the last.
> > >
> > > <Richard in Titulus Regius does spell out the general moral
> decline
> > > of Edward, which Edward would've taken personally, if Richard
> > didn't
> > > think it was!>
> > >
> > > He could take it as personally as any dead man could, I suppose,
> but
> > > the fact remains that *Titulus Regius* spells it out, Russell
> spells
> > > it out, and it was TRUE. What Richard thought about it is
> > > irrelevant, really as roughly similar drafts would have been
> written
> > > had E5 ascended the throne!
> > >
> > > <Richard may've expressed reservations about the French
> Expedition
> > of
> > > 75, the Scottish Truce and Clarence, but he carefully avoided
> > falling
> > > > out with Edward over these issues! >
> > >
> > > Actually, no he didn't. And I see you don't mention the
Scottish
> > > Truce incident which I also mentioned, leading me to think you
> don't
> > > know about that. well, let me tell you, he fell out big style
> with
> > > E4 over that one. Pollard mentions the incident in his book on
> the
> > > Princes. Apparently Richard's behaviour nearly scuppered the
> > > Scottish Truce. The Scots complained to Edward who reprimanded
> > > Richard most severely - and Richard IGNORED him, and continued
> > > harrying the Scots vessels that sailed too close to Richard's
> base
> > at
> > > Scarborough. This was massive defiance at a very delicate stage
> of
> > > the negotiations. Edward was actually livid. So was Richard.
> > >
> > > No hypocrisy there at all. Just straightforward falling out
> between
> > > brothers.
> > >
> > > <The evidence suggests that Richard was a timeserver. >
> > >
> > > Bollocks!
> > >
> > > (Apols to the delicate, but I did warn I might not be able to
> > > refrain...).
> > >
> > > Regards - Lorraine

Hi David

<Lorraine explained the Scottish incident, which seems to have been a
minor altercation about military tactics with Edward acting as a
backseat military commander. >

No it wasn't. Suggest you read up about it.

<Perhaps, he'd just finished vomiting from the use of emetics or had
spent the night three to a bed with himself, Jane Shore & Lord
Hastings?>

Unlikely, since the incident seems to have predated Ms Shore's
ascendancy.

< I doubt if Richard's refusal to comply with his brother who was
possibly hung over was quite on the scale of Clarence's fallouts with
Edward, as Lorraine implies.>

No I didn't. I mentioned the incident in greater detail as you
clearly didn't know about it. I was making the point that Richard
did not play safe with Edward. That this incident could have led to
the collapse of truce talks with a neighbouring country. That these
two brothers fell out. I did not compare - or mean to compare or
intend to compare - the Clarence/E4 situation with this one. I was
using this as a stand-alone example (or lumping it in with the stand
he took in France if you really want to compare it with something).

< Lorraine, possibly joking, found Richard sexually attractive as a
reason for her interest. >

What a peculiar statement. Fancying someone who's been dead over 500
years is a bit left-field, even for me. I don't know where this idea
came from, but if, for instance, you are referring to my off-the-cuff
remark several weeks ago about Richard having a nice bum, then yes of
course I was joking. Did anyone seriously think otherwise?

Lorraine

Exits Left muttering: I haven't even seen a painting of his bum!
(Nor, I suspect, has anyone else!).

Well, it's not worth getting too excited about. He's been dead a
long time. Perhaps, he was sorted out 'on the other side.'

I certainly don't think he was a moral exemplar, but fairly par for
the course with his highly dubius brothers: Edward & Clarence. I
wouldn't have bought a second hand car from any of them!

As for Richard's bum, I don't know if he ever had it painted. One
coat or two? Perhaps, someone can research this?



--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi David
>
> <Lorraine explained the Scottish incident, which seems to have been
a
> minor altercation about military tactics with Edward acting as a
> backseat military commander. >
>
> No it wasn't. Suggest you read up about it.
>
> <Perhaps, he'd just finished vomiting from the use of emetics or
had
> spent the night three to a bed with himself, Jane Shore & Lord
> Hastings?>
>
> Unlikely, since the incident seems to have predated Ms Shore's
> ascendancy.
>
> < I doubt if Richard's refusal to comply with his brother who was
> possibly hung over was quite on the scale of Clarence's fallouts
with
> Edward, as Lorraine implies.>
>
> No I didn't. I mentioned the incident in greater detail as you
> clearly didn't know about it. I was making the point that Richard
> did not play safe with Edward. That this incident could have led to
> the collapse of truce talks with a neighbouring country. That these
> two brothers fell out. I did not compare - or mean to compare or
> intend to compare - the Clarence/E4 situation with this one. I was
> using this as a stand-alone example (or lumping it in with the stand
> he took in France if you really want to compare it with something).
>
> < Lorraine, possibly joking, found Richard sexually attractive as a
> reason for her interest. >
>
> What a peculiar statement. Fancying someone who's been dead over
500
> years is a bit left-field, even for me. I don't know where this
idea
> came from, but if, for instance, you are referring to my
off-the-cuff
> remark several weeks ago about Richard having a nice bum, then yes
of
> course I was joking. Did anyone seriously think otherwise?
>
> Lorraine
>
> Exits Left muttering: I haven't even seen a painting of his bum!
> (Nor, I suspect, has anyone else!).

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Lorraine explained the Scottish incident, which seems to have been
a
> minor altercation about military tactics with Edward acting as a
> backseat military commander. Perhaps, he'd just finished vomiting
> from the use of emetics or had spent the night three to a bed with
> himself, Jane Shore & Lord Hastings? And wasn't at his best. I
doubt
> if Richard's refusal to comply with his brother who was possibly
hung
> over was quite on the scale of Clarence's fallouts with Edward, as
> Lorraine implies.
So?
>
> You point out that there were many usurpers, i.e. brutal
dictators.

I don't think this is the dictionary definition of usurper. Also,
does this mean you have suddenly gone off Henry VII?

> True. But what irritates me is the premise that somehow they were
> acting morally & legally when it was fairly obvious that they were
> acting out of self interest for power & greed, whether for lands or
> oil!!!
>
> Richard was elected, but with military power to back him up.
> He'd been fairly ruthless with Hastings, Rivers & Edward V, was
with
> Buckingham and would've been with Tudor!

Poor Buckingham! What had he done to deserve it? You also assume
Rivers and Hastings had done nothing, but Edward's letter to Lord
Neville sounds genuinely frightened to me. And we don't know what
happened to Edward V. I seem to think there were significantly more
folks than this killed at Mortimer's Cross & Towton to establish
Edward IV on the throne.
>
> Lorraine, possibly joking, found Richard sexually attractive as a
> reason for her interest. As I'm not into male on male
relationships,
> I can't share that view, but do feel a general disdain for ego
maniac,
> power grabbing, greedy politicians who pretend some type of
> moral/legal superiority, like those who accuse others of being
brutal
> dictators & then use virtually every weapon in their arsenal to do
> exactly the same! The only monarch who had a religious bent was
Henry
> VI & look what happened to him? He was generally seen as insane &
> probably murdered.
>
> You may see Richard as a fluffy, pretty possum, but I see him as a
> self centred rogue & he may've been both!

David, you are fantasising about myself and Lorraine, now, aren't
you? You don't know who I see as a fluffy pretty possum (or should
that be 'whom'?). I assume since your 'arguments' have descended to
this, we must have won.
Marie
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "David"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > You'll be upsetting Paul again with the use of bad language.
> > >
> > > I wonder how upset Edward was over the Scottish incident?
Richard
> > > didn't go down the Clarence route over it.
> >
> > What do you mean ny the 'Scottish incident'? That the English had
> > always thought Berwick important can be seen by the fact that,
> > although on the north side of Tweed, they had held it for so
long -
> > only losing it when Margaret of Anjou gave it away in return for
> > military aid. It was crucial to the defence of the East Marches,
as
> > well as being a prosperous port. Any study of English Border
history
> > will tell you that. Prior to Richard's campaign, James III had
been
> > launching raids into English territory, no doubt using Berwick as
a
> > base. Richard securedBerwick and Croyland was no expert onthe
> > problems of the northern borders and probably didn't care much.
> >
> > It wasn't a great outcome for an expensive war, and in my view
> > Richard's restraint was probably rewarded in the long term only
by
> > the enmity of the humiliated James III .Hwever, given the
> > circumstances it is difficult to see what else he could have
> > done,other than pillage Edinburgh before he left in order to
recoup
> > some of the financial loss, but this would have caused even more
ill
> > feeling in the long term, as well as inevitably leading to the
death
> > of innocent women and children, a point Edward IV made in his
letter
> > to the Pope responding to James III's complaint to him about
> > England's behaviour.
> >
> >
> > > There were developments during Richard's reign: legal changes.
> But
> > by
> > > your own admission, these may've come from others in his
> > government,
> > > as with Titulus Regius. I say this tongue in cheek because I'm
> > sure
> > > he authorised anything like this. You could've mentioned the
> > College
> > > of Arms, interesting for those enthusiastic about heraldic
> devices.
> >
> > Quite a good list for such a short reign, I think. I don't think
you
> > wil find a comparable achievement for the first two years of any
> > other reign of the period.
> > >
> > > The difference between you and I is the analysis of where
Richard
> > was
> > > coming from. Titulus Regius and the high moral tone of
Richard's
> > > communications would have us believe that he was predominantly
a
> > moral
> > > philosopher or monk like theologian and politician second. But
> his
> > > experience through much of his life was as a political figure
of
> > very
> > > considerable power and someone interested in accumulating
wealth,
> > > which is the stock in trade for members of the Royal Family of
> that
> > > period.
> > >
> > > There are different perceptions of Richard, but, based on what
he
> > did
> > > in life, as opposed to what he said, I'd say he was mainly
> > interested
> > > in the retention of power and wealth and the moral/legal
position
> > was
> > > crass propaganda.
> >
> > Well, we've just established he did rather a lot that was good.
So
> > much so that anti-Ricardians have traditionally fallen back on
the
> > excuse of hypocrisy. I find it amusing that, of the seven
monarchs
> > from Henry IV to Henry VII, no less than three were 'usurpers'
(ie
> > Henry IV, Edward IV and Richard III) in that they took the throne
> > from an existing monarch. Yet it is only Richard III who is ever
> > utterly condemned on this account. In fact, his position was
better
> > than those of Henry IV and Henry VII in that Edward V had not
been
> > crowned and anointed. As to legalities, there were different
strands
> > of thought and tradition surrounding the succession - something
> > combining hereditary and elective principles was the established
> > reality on the ground. Of course, they did not hold elections
such
> as
> > we would understand it, but the acclamation of the people on the
> spot
> > (ie the Londoners) was generally regarded as doing the job.
Richard
> > put forward an hereditary claim, which you can accept or dismiss,
> but
> > there is no doubt that his claim was, at least AT THE TIME,
accepted
> > by the people in London. People in the North, of course, very
> clearly
> > supported him to the end.
> > I contend that Richard's realy crime was far as history is
concerned
> > is that, unlike the Tudors, he was not sufficiently ruthless in
> > holding on to power. It was his death at Bosworth by a man
dependent
> > on the claims of Edward IV's that made the destruction of his
> > reputation inevitable.
> >
> > I don't find anything admirable in this, no more
> > > than I do in British Prime Ministers who claim to be Christian,
> > which
> > > carries views like 'Love you enemy' & 'turn the other cheek'
and,
> > > then, ignoring International law, they sanction the invasion of
> > other
> > > sovereign powers with massive loss of life, probably for
economic
> > > gain.
> > >
> > > I do think that Richard was a clever and astute politician and
> able
> > > administrator and moderately able military commander who was
very
> > much
> > > into the survival game, but Richard of course had learned from
his
> > > Father and brothers Clarence & E4 that politics is a dirty
> ruthless
> > > game and I see and I think his path to the crown was legal
> > bullshite,
> > > about as moral as the Nuremberg laws against Jews!
> >
> > Now, David, that's just ridiculous.
> > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "lpickering2"
> > > <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > > > Continuing with a response to yr post, David:
> > > >
> > > > <So you think t Stillington told Richard the pre-contract
story
> > only
> > > > > when Edward died. >
> > > >
> > > > Still w. Stillington, it's interesting that one of the
> > commentators
> > > > bring up Stliington's bastard son being put forward as a
> possible
> > > > match for the King's daughter. Why on earth did the
commentator
> > > > treat this seriously, why did Stillers think his plan had an
> > earthly
> > > > chance of succeeding? He did apparently have a bastard son -
he
> > is
> > > > reported to have died abroad and penniless - in Paris, IIRC.
If
> > > this
> > > > audacious plan is true - and remember we cannot possibly
blame
> > > > Richard for this one, as he was dead by the time Commines and
> the
> > > > others were writing their memoirs - doesn't it suggest he
knew
> > > > something pretty important about E4, that he at least thought
he
> > had
> > > > some sort of hold over him, enough to propose his bastard son
> for
> > > > what most assumed to be E4's legitimate daughter, someone
from
> > birth
> > > > expected to marry nothing less than Royalty herself? Doesn't
it
> > > make
> > > > a partial sense of the twice Stillington was imprisoned on
the
> > > > vaguest of charges, that of uttering words 'prejudicial' to
the
> > king
> > > > (both in E4's time, and in H7's? Doesn't it make sense of
> > > Clarence's
> > > > behaviour? Doesn't it also fit Grande Dame' Cecily's hissy
fit
> > > (tho'
> > > > admittedly marrying beneath him even for the first time could
> > just
> > > > have easily ruffled *that* one's feathers, I agree <g>. I
think
> > > > there's a lot to be said for the precontract story. I wish
more
> > was
> > > > actually known about it, but with just the few bits of
evidence
> > we
> > > > have, I think there's enough to suggest that it wasn't
Richard
> > > making
> > > > the whole thing up, and enough to suggest it may even have
been
> > > > true. We could also introduce the reactions of Eleanor
Butler's
> > > > sister Elizabeth Mowbray here. She was given a huge sum of
> money
> > > > (£20) from E4 just to accompany his sister margaret to
Burgundy
> > for
> > > > her marriage to Charles the Bold. Later Elizabeth Mowbray
and a
> > > > handful of her servants were imprisoned - like Stillington,
on
> > the
> > > > vaguest of charges. Reading about the incident, it smacked
to
> me
> > at
> > > > the time of E4 issuing a warning. But what about? She'd
just
> > been
> > > > given a fortune a scant few weeks previously! Her daughter
> > > > subseqently gets to marry E4's youngest son - obviously Anne
> > > > Mowbray's inheritance was a major factor from E4's POV - but
was
> > > > there more to it? Of themselves perhaps not very much, but
all
> > the
> > > > same, food for thought...
> > > >
> > > > <But if Edward's children were bastards this was
> > > > important had Edward lived. >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it was important, if one was going to stick to the truth
of
> > the
> > > > situation, but who actually knew? It's possible that not
even
> > Eliz
> > > > Wydeville knew, or Hastings, for that matter.
> > > >
> > > > <Many think the pre-contract tale was an
> > > > excuse to take the crown, as you know. >
> > > >
> > > > I know, but many think that Richard was a humpty backed child
> > > > murdering despot, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I
> > try
> > > to
> > > > let it all wash over me, myself <g>.
> > > >
> > > > <There is also the fact that Richard recognized Edward's
> children
> > as
> > > > legitimate and swore fealty to Edward V as King, which could
be
> > seen
> > > > as a legitimization act. >
> > > >
> > > > Er - no it couldn't. Men can't be bound by oaths they made
in
> > good
> > > > faith if these subsequently prove to be unfounded. See Prof
> > richard
> > > > Helmholtz's articles on this very point in various old
> Ricardians
> > > and
> > > > in his own works on the subject. The Borthwick Institute in
> York
> > is
> > > > full of similar volumes by other writers who all say the
same.
> > This
> > > > is precisely why one of the first things R3 does is write to
> > Calais
> > > > releasing the blokes there from their oath of fealty to E5 -
and
> > > IIRC
> > > > he even makes the point that their oaths had been made in
good
> > faith
> > > > but had subsequently been found to be in error for the
reasons
> > given
> > > > in the attached sheet (now no longer extant, but thought to
be a
> > > > variation of Titulus Regius, since it makes the point pretty
> > well,
> > > > and sums up the new situation Richard himself and everyone
else
> > had
> > > > found themselves in).
> > > >
> > > > < However, as was pointed out, the woman involved in the
> > > pre-contract
> > > > story died before the birth of Edward V, only Elizabeth
would've
> > > been
> > > > born illegitimate and, if there was any question of
> illegitimacy,
> > > > Edward, not naïve, easily could've solemnized his marriage to
> > > > Elizabeth Wydeville. >
> > > >
> > > > I can't remember the whys and wherefores of Helmholz's
> assessment
> > of
> > > > the canonical argument now, and he is one the leading experts
in
> > the
> > > > field, but I don't think it was as simple as that. He could
> have
> > > > solemized his marriage later on. we don't think he did so as
> > there
> > > > is no record of it. He was definitely daft to marry in
secret
> > and
> > > > one wonders why he did so, anyway, if he was young, free and
> > single.
> > >
> > > > He could have done so and told Warwick to go hang - as he had
to
> > do
> > > 6
> > > > months later anyhow, nd be prepared for the subsequent fall-
out.
>
> > > > maybe he was just a giddy goat madly in love and desperate to
> bed
> > a
> > > > lady that wouldn't give in any other way. I really don't
know
> > why
> > > > Edward married Elizabeth the way he did. It suggests that he
> may
> > > > have done similar before ever meeting EW, though I'm not one
of
> > > those
> > > > who think that just because someone is caught out doing
> something
> > > > stupid they must have a built-in predilication for it. I
hate
> > the
> > > > precontract. It makes my head spin. I firmly believe
Richard
> > > > believed it to be true *precisely* because the whole story
> sounds
> > so
> > > > ridiculous! If Richard had the time to come up with the
> > precontract
> > > > merely as a 'connivance', then I'd argue that he had the time
to
> > > come
> > > > up with something better and more plausible. The fact that
he
> > > didn't,
> > > > leads me to accept that he himself must have been convinced
by
> > > > Stillington's revelations and 'proofs' that were later shown
to
> > > those
> > > > in a position of canonical authority.
> > > >
> > > > < But Richard was as bad...he makes a big thing about the
> > > precontract
> > > > > story which paves the way to the crown, >
> > > >
> > > > No he doesn't - it is others that 'makes the big thing'!
Let's
> > see,
> > > > the rump of the 3 Estaes present in London in 1483,
Buckingham,
> > > > Stillington, those proctors he consulted and Russell.
Richard
> > > > accepts the story, yes, but it's entirely wrong to say he
makes
> a
> > > big
> > > > thing out of it. He responds to others' reactions to it.
> That's
> > > > what he does, and it is proffered as reason in his official
> title
> > to
> > > > the Crown in front of Parliament. As documents go, this is a
> > more
> > > > detailed description to his Right than the one proffered by
> > Tudor,
> > > > that wittered on in vague terms. At least no-one in R3's
time
> > was
> > > > left in any doubt as to why he was where he was, however
> > bewildering
> > > > that may have been for some. Tudor just fudged his claim,
> > > basically,
> > > > and, furthermore, sought to stamp out R3's Right by ordering
> > copies
> > > > of it to be destroyed. at least Richard dealt with the issue
> > head
> > > on.
> > > >
> > > > <but nicely ignores legal procedure - a trial - when
disposing
> of
> > > his
> > > > erstwhile friend & leading light of Edward's government:
> Hastings!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, quite apart from trying to compare apples and oranges,
> > there's
> > > > no proof that Hastings and Richard were 'friends'. In fact
> > there's
> > > > more evidence that he was friendlier with Jack Howard.
> > > >
> > > > So Richard didn't always follow accepted procedure? So what?
> Nor
> > > did
> > > > E4, nor did Tudor. No-one's saying he was a nice lad all the
> > time.
> > >
> > > > None of them were exactly consistent. But I do think R3
tried
> > to
> > > do
> > > > the right thing most of the time, rather than just on the odd
> > > > occasion when it suited, and the local records are where this
is
> > > > borne out, as I have found outduring my research for the Work
in
> > > > Progress. As whoever it was said (Thos Cromwell? Francis
> > Bacon?);
> > > > though he was a bad un, in his time 'many good Actes were
made'
> > (I
> > > > paraphrase).
> > > >
> > > > <Richard was Edward's right hand man and BROTHER, while
Edward
> > lived
> > > > and slagged him off, through authorization of Titulus Regius
and
> > > > other acts, when the poor man had died!>
> > > >
> > > > Well, as I mentioned earlier, this was standard practice. I
> > don't
> > > > know how many more times I can say this and how may times
you'll
> > > just
> > > > ignore it, but there it is. we can't alter the MO of the
age.
> > As I
> > > > said, family and previous relationships didn't count when the
> > point
> > > > being made was to emphasise the new regime and set a distance
> > from
> > > > the old. Richard wasn't the first to do it, he wasn't the
last.
> > > >
> > > > <Richard in Titulus Regius does spell out the general moral
> > decline
> > > > of Edward, which Edward would've taken personally, if
Richard
> > > didn't
> > > > think it was!>
> > > >
> > > > He could take it as personally as any dead man could, I
suppose,
> > but
> > > > the fact remains that *Titulus Regius* spells it out, Russell
> > spells
> > > > it out, and it was TRUE. What Richard thought about it is
> > > > irrelevant, really as roughly similar drafts would have been
> > written
> > > > had E5 ascended the throne!
> > > >
> > > > <Richard may've expressed reservations about the French
> > Expedition
> > > of
> > > > 75, the Scottish Truce and Clarence, but he carefully avoided
> > > falling
> > > > > out with Edward over these issues! >
> > > >
> > > > Actually, no he didn't. And I see you don't mention the
> Scottish
> > > > Truce incident which I also mentioned, leading me to think
you
> > don't
> > > > know about that. well, let me tell you, he fell out big
style
> > with
> > > > E4 over that one. Pollard mentions the incident in his book
on
> > the
> > > > Princes. Apparently Richard's behaviour nearly scuppered the
> > > > Scottish Truce. The Scots complained to Edward who
reprimanded
> > > > Richard most severely - and Richard IGNORED him, and
continued
> > > > harrying the Scots vessels that sailed too close to Richard's
> > base
> > > at
> > > > Scarborough. This was massive defiance at a very delicate
stage
> > of
> > > > the negotiations. Edward was actually livid. So was
Richard.
> > > >
> > > > No hypocrisy there at all. Just straightforward falling out
> > between
> > > > brothers.
> > > >
> > > > <The evidence suggests that Richard was a timeserver. >
> > > >
> > > > Bollocks!
> > > >
> > > > (Apols to the delicate, but I did warn I might not be able to
> > > > refrain...).
> > > >
> > > > Regards - Lorraine

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi David
>
> <Lorraine explained the Scottish incident, which seems to have been
a
> minor altercation about military tactics with Edward acting as a
> backseat military commander. >
>
> No it wasn't. Suggest you read up about it.
>
> <Perhaps, he'd just finished vomiting from the use of emetics or
had
> spent the night three to a bed with himself, Jane Shore & Lord
> Hastings?>
>
> Unlikely, since the incident seems to have predated Ms Shore's
> ascendancy.
>
> < I doubt if Richard's refusal to comply with his brother who was
> possibly hung over was quite on the scale of Clarence's fallouts
with
> Edward, as Lorraine implies.>
>
> No I didn't. I mentioned the incident in greater detail as you
> clearly didn't know about it. I was making the point that Richard
> did not play safe with Edward. That this incident could have led
to
> the collapse of truce talks with a neighbouring country. That
these
> two brothers fell out. I did not compare - or mean to compare or
> intend to compare - the Clarence/E4 situation with this one. I was
> using this as a stand-alone example (or lumping it in with the
stand
> he took in France if you really want to compare it with something).

Yes, Lorraine, I'd forgotten this incident but have just looked it up
again in my copy of Pollard's book. Also, there is at least one
other, described in Michael Jones' 'Bosworth'. That is Richard's
insistence on supporting the Harringtons in their opposition to
Stanley oppression (the Stanleys had literally kidnapped the young
Harrington heiresses and forcibly married them to their own
supporters in order to gain the Harrington lands), against Edward's
wishes. At one point Richard was actually in arms with the
Harringtons in defiance of his brother's policy. It seems to have
culminated in a deal which involved "a property exchange between him
[Richard] and Sir William Stanley, allowing the Stanleys to
strengthen their position in North Wales..." . I assume Jones is
referring to the Skipton-Chirk swap, which I mentioned in an earlier
message.
Marie

>
> < Lorraine, possibly joking, found Richard sexually attractive as a
> reason for her interest. >
>
> What a peculiar statement. Fancying someone who's been dead over
500
> years is a bit left-field, even for me. I don't know where this
idea
> came from, but if, for instance, you are referring to my off-the-
cuff
> remark several weeks ago about Richard having a nice bum, then yes
of
> course I was joking. Did anyone seriously think otherwise?
>
> Lorraine
>
> Exits Left muttering: I haven't even seen a painting of his bum!
> (Nor, I suspect, has anyone else!).

In reply, despite chronic fatigue syndrome from repeating myself to
some extent:

Usurpers may not all be brutal dictators, like some of the
totalitarian & democratic ones around these days, but many were:
killing people by different means is fairly brutal if you're on the
receiving end.

I'm not sure that I ever went on Henry VII, who was an efficient king,
but on a personal level he seems to have been a miserable bore.

Alas, you seem to dislike brutal dictators, but you gloss over
Richard's penchant for executing people without trial: Hastings,
Rivers…. Again, I would point out that having someone's head cut off
was 'brutal,' unless you think it a good idea? Certainly, worse than
any trip to the dentist's.

We don't know for sure what happened to Edward V, but most people make
a reasonable guess. We do know he was stripped of his titles &
freedom. We do know that the pre-contract story which bastardized
Edward was never thoroughly examined by an ecclesiastical court & who
was going to argue with Richard's military might at that time anyway?
The time for debate had ended as with Bush & Sadaam currently!

Your point about people being killed to establish monarchs is what it
was all about: military might to establish political power & economic
interest and not some facile consideration of moral and legal issues,
which were more suitable for some college than politics. Law is a
very flexible friend to politicians, e.g. Hitler.

I wasn't fantasizing about you and Lorraine, I was joking! Lorraine
brought up her jokey interest in Richard's anal region, so I
responded. It may've been a Freudian slip on her part, but I don't
have you or Lorraine on the couch to check that one out, not that I've
the time anyway!

I doubt if I could ever win arguments over you & Lorraine regarding
Richard. It would be like trying to get Beatle fans to admit that
apart from being reasonable musicians they were also junkies who
encouraged the appalling use of LSD & Heroin!

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "lpickering2"
> <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > Hi David
> >
> > <Lorraine explained the Scottish incident, which seems to have
been
> a
> > minor altercation about military tactics with Edward acting as a
> > backseat military commander. >
> >
> > No it wasn't. Suggest you read up about it.
> >
> > <Perhaps, he'd just finished vomiting from the use of emetics or
> had
> > spent the night three to a bed with himself, Jane Shore & Lord
> > Hastings?>
> >
> > Unlikely, since the incident seems to have predated Ms Shore's
> > ascendancy.
> >
> > < I doubt if Richard's refusal to comply with his brother who was
> > possibly hung over was quite on the scale of Clarence's fallouts
> with
> > Edward, as Lorraine implies.>
> >
> > No I didn't. I mentioned the incident in greater detail as you
> > clearly didn't know about it. I was making the point that Richard
> > did not play safe with Edward. That this incident could have led
> to
> > the collapse of truce talks with a neighbouring country. That
> these
> > two brothers fell out. I did not compare - or mean to compare or
> > intend to compare - the Clarence/E4 situation with this one. I
was
> > using this as a stand-alone example (or lumping it in with the
> stand
> > he took in France if you really want to compare it with
something).
>
> Yes, Lorraine, I'd forgotten this incident but have just looked it
up
> again in my copy of Pollard's book. Also, there is at least one
> other, described in Michael Jones' 'Bosworth'. That is Richard's
> insistence on supporting the Harringtons in their opposition to
> Stanley oppression (the Stanleys had literally kidnapped the young
> Harrington heiresses and forcibly married them to their own
> supporters in order to gain the Harrington lands), against Edward's
> wishes. At one point Richard was actually in arms with the
> Harringtons in defiance of his brother's policy. It seems to have
> culminated in a deal which involved "a property exchange between him
> [Richard] and Sir William Stanley, allowing the Stanleys to
> strengthen their position in North Wales..." . I assume Jones is
> referring to the Skipton-Chirk swap, which I mentioned in an earlier
> message.
> Marie
>
> >
> > < Lorraine, possibly joking, found Richard sexually attractive as
a
> > reason for her interest. >
> >
> > What a peculiar statement. Fancying someone who's been dead over
> 500
> > years is a bit left-field, even for me. I don't know where this
> idea
> > came from, but if, for instance, you are referring to my off-the-
> cuff
> > remark several weeks ago about Richard having a nice bum, then yes
> of
> > course I was joking. Did anyone seriously think otherwise?
> >
> > Lorraine
> >
> > Exits Left muttering: I haven't even seen a painting of his bum!
> > (Nor, I suspect, has anyone else!).

< Alas, you seem to dislike brutal dictators, but you gloss over
> Richard's penchant for executing people without trial: Hastings,
> Rivers…. >

Rivers had a trial - read Rous who quite emphatically says so.
Furthermore he even tells you who presided over the trial - it was
Henry Percy, a fellow Earl.

So not only did he and his chums of lesser rank have a trial, it was
in front of his Peer-ly Peers (or at least one of them, that much is
certain), as was proper practice at the time. Rous writes in Latin
and uses the very specific word for 'judge' which totally escapes me
now ('uxor' or summat very much like it). Clements Markham quotes
the exact job description from rous in his biog of R3 if you've not
got a copy of the original to hand, David...

One final point - Richard was still just a member of the Council at
the time the order for the execution headed north. No particular
urgency appears to have been part of the informant's brief on this
occasion (unlike the Ratcliffe gallop London-York at the time of the
Hastings/Wydeville/Morton/Beaufort/Stanley plottage earlier that
month. One could therefore assume the warrant for the executions
preceded the younger Prince's leaving Sanctuary, and, I suggest, that
it was a collective decision by the Council, given how they'd blocked
the whole idea of executing Rivers & co. a few weeks earlier when
Richard had pushed for it.

Remember, it's quite clear that, contrary to popular belief, the
Council wasn't actually top-heavy with Wydevilles. I think it was
Sir John Fortesque earlier in the century who had recommended the
King's Council should consist of at least 2 dozen councillors. Even
if everyone of the Queen's immediate family plus in-laws had a place
(and they didn't), it would still leave an awful lot of folk who
weren't associated closely with the Wydevilles. It also left an
awful lot who had to weigh up which side to support during the power
vacuum created by Edward's death and the prospect of a minor on the
throne.

Given all the above, whatever the morality of the decision, I tend to
think that the decision to execute Rivers at all was the
responsibility of the Council as a whole, and not just down to
Richard. No doubt Richard got the result he wanted, I'm not
disputing that, but the Council has to shoulder its share of the
blame for this.

<We do know he was stripped of his titles &
freedom.>

We don't know he was stripped of his freedom. The Tower was both a
Prison and a Royal Lodging. The fact of the matter is we don't KNOW
how long he was in the Tower, if he left and resided elsewhere (at
Sheriff Hutton or even at Tyrrell's house in Gipping. Snippets we do
have, including Mancini, just don't give us enough info, but there's
at least three notable records that could refer to Edward V's
movements up to and including 1485. That's 1485.

But in any case, it's worth mentioning that at that time, even
bonafide prisoners at the Tower had the freedom to purchase pies and
stuff and wander with a degree of freedom in the grounds.

(Not summat Mancini would have known about, I expect, which is why he
doesn't mention it).

So let's not get carried away Arguably, the last we hear about E5,
he's in the Tower, which was a Royal Palace, and his quarters appear
to have changed from those he'd occupied earlier in the summer.
(Itself hardly surprising, considering the stink of a London summer,
the risk of plague etc). Before his change of accommodation, he and
his brother had been spotted many times in the open practising their
archery skills. Hardly shankled at the ankles on basic rations and 5
floggings a day, is it?

<We do know that the pre-contract story which bastardized
Edward was never thoroughly examined by an ecclesiastical court >

Well, at the risk of repeating myself, this seems to have been
examined by proctors, as More confirms. More was a secular lawyer,
but you'd expect him to have a bit of cross-over knowledge on the
matter. But it's irrelevant anyway, as proctors in the 15thC
certainly had the authority to pronounce judgements in ecclesiastical
courts. This is quite clear from the works of Prof Richard Helmholtz
(ex-Borthwick Institute), who I already quoted as an authority on
this topic, but Spelman, another august authority, agrees.
Furthermore the University of Paris backs this up too, I've been told.

Another thing it appears you don't know about - in law atthe time it
was not actually up to Richard to put the matter to a Canon Court.
Technically, only the 'wronged' party, ie. EW or her children, were
entitled to to request an investigation of this type.

And one other point. Richard, in E5's name, sends an urgent note to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, referring to a matter of national
importance, and requesting the Bishop convenes an urgent Convocation
to discuss these issues.

Rosemay Horrox, in her 'Study of Service' suggests this may have been
an apeeal for money, which he was certainly entitled to do, but in
fact, the requests for cash always followed strict guidelines, with
the wording laid down centuries before. The request was always very
specifically worded, be it for a Southern or Northern See
Convocation, and the response back was always very specifically
worded too. The Letter of 1483 does not follow this convention at
all, so it's logical to assume the Convocation was ordered fr
something else other than for financial reasons. (Info on the
specific wording of these documents is in a Surtees Society document
regarding Northern Convocations, if anyone fancies looking further
into this. Richard's letter to Bourchier is in Harley 433, IIRC).

< I wasn't fantasizing about you and Lorraine, I was joking!
Lorraine brought up her jokey interest in Richard's anal region, so I
responded. It may've been a Freudian slip on her part, >

Nope - just jokey comment. I knew exactly what I meant at the time.
Nowt Freudian about it.

< I doubt if I could ever win arguments over you & Lorraine regarding
> Richard. It would be like trying to get Beatle fans to admit that
> apart from being reasonable musicians they were also junkies who
> encouraged the appalling use of LSD & Heroin!>

The Beatles are a bit before my time, and aren't particular
favourites of mine, but if you really think 'The Beatles' as
individuals were 'junkies', then it shows how little you know

a) of them as individual musicians and personages, and
b) of Drug-Related Slang 1963-2003.

Lorraine

At least we've moved from possums to kangaroos.

Rous isn't my favorite source for this period. He's the one who said
that Richard was born with teeth and feet first in one of his versions
of his 'history.'

Percy was Richard's man & wasn't going to find in favour of Rivers!
That's a bit like Bush letting Sadaam off the hook now.

I'm sure the Council did agree to anything Richard suggested. Richard
had that month had a leading member summarily executed.

Of course, our notion of a proper trial & democracy had not evolved at
that time. Our system is far from perfect anyway. There's have been
unsound judgements & verdicts and democracy can allow countries to use
superior weapons to go after the resources of other countries without
international legal backing.

An important question is: does morality count or are we type of
organism wallowing in a cesspool? Did Richard care about morality &
Law or was this a fig leaf for his political and economic interests?

The mystery of what happened to Edward V & his 9 year old brother may
remain a mystery. Alas, many people then & now expected the worst
happened to them, given Richard's motive, opportunity & record of
killing threats!

It's gratifying to know that prisoners could buy pies in the Tower, so
long as they had heads with which to eat them!

People will argue about the pre-contract story which bastardized
Edward V in regard to whether Richard use a bit of kangaroo law here.
About as fair & transparent as the trial of Ann Boleyn, who was framed
!!!!

I doubt if Elizabeth Woodville was in any position to take Richard to
any type of court over the pre-contract. Hadn't she been threatened
over the production of her second son or Richard's men would've
invaded Sanctuary, just as Sanctuary was violated in Tewkesbury in
1471. Richard again!

The pre-contract story is one of those accusations very difficult to
prove or disprove. That Edward promised marriage to a lady of higher
status to have his way & then he dumped her. It's like me accusing
you of beating your dog 15 years ago and producing some guy to say you
did & you would deny it & produce another guy to say you didn't. It
seems thin to imagine that Edward IV would've jeopardized his
succession: he'd had a large family with Elizabeth, over such a
fleeting affair. Edward had many faults, but he wasn't an idiot.

The point about Freud is that we don't always know what we mean, but
enough said about that.

The Beatles are also a bit before my time and I'm not a fan, but I do
know that they widely publicized their collective use of a class A
drug LSD in the 60s & Lennon had major problems with Heroin. Sounds
like a junkie image to me and consider how many fans copied them &
ended up prematurely dead or with lives ruined?

David

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> < Alas, you seem to dislike brutal dictators, but you gloss over
> > Richard's penchant for executing people without trial: Hastings,
> > Rivers…. >
>
> Rivers had a trial - read Rous who quite emphatically says so.
> Furthermore he even tells you who presided over the trial - it was
> Henry Percy, a fellow Earl.
>
> So not only did he and his chums of lesser rank have a trial, it was
> in front of his Peer-ly Peers (or at least one of them, that much is
> certain), as was proper practice at the time. Rous writes in Latin
> and uses the very specific word for 'judge' which totally escapes me
> now ('uxor' or summat very much like it). Clements Markham quotes
> the exact job description from rous in his biog of R3 if you've not
> got a copy of the original to hand, David...
>
> One final point - Richard was still just a member of the Council at
> the time the order for the execution headed north. No particular
> urgency appears to have been part of the informant's brief on this
> occasion (unlike the Ratcliffe gallop London-York at the time of the
> Hastings/Wydeville/Morton/Beaufort/Stanley plottage earlier that
> month. One could therefore assume the warrant for the executions
> preceded the younger Prince's leaving Sanctuary, and, I suggest,
that
> it was a collective decision by the Council, given how they'd
blocked
> the whole idea of executing Rivers & co. a few weeks earlier when
> Richard had pushed for it.
>
> Remember, it's quite clear that, contrary to popular belief, the
> Council wasn't actually top-heavy with Wydevilles. I think it was
> Sir John Fortesque earlier in the century who had recommended the
> King's Council should consist of at least 2 dozen councillors. Even
> if everyone of the Queen's immediate family plus in-laws had a place
> (and they didn't), it would still leave an awful lot of folk who
> weren't associated closely with the Wydevilles. It also left an
> awful lot who had to weigh up which side to support during the power
> vacuum created by Edward's death and the prospect of a minor on the
> throne.
>
> Given all the above, whatever the morality of the decision, I tend
to
> think that the decision to execute Rivers at all was the
> responsibility of the Council as a whole, and not just down to
> Richard. No doubt Richard got the result he wanted, I'm not
> disputing that, but the Council has to shoulder its share of the
> blame for this.
>
> <We do know he was stripped of his titles &
> freedom.>
>
> We don't know he was stripped of his freedom. The Tower was both a
> Prison and a Royal Lodging. The fact of the matter is we don't KNOW
> how long he was in the Tower, if he left and resided elsewhere (at
> Sheriff Hutton or even at Tyrrell's house in Gipping. Snippets we
do
> have, including Mancini, just don't give us enough info, but there's
> at least three notable records that could refer to Edward V's
> movements up to and including 1485. That's 1485.
>
> But in any case, it's worth mentioning that at that time, even
> bonafide prisoners at the Tower had the freedom to purchase pies and
> stuff and wander with a degree of freedom in the grounds.
>
> (Not summat Mancini would have known about, I expect, which is why
he
> doesn't mention it).
>
> So let's not get carried away Arguably, the last we hear about E5,
> he's in the Tower, which was a Royal Palace, and his quarters appear
> to have changed from those he'd occupied earlier in the summer.
> (Itself hardly surprising, considering the stink of a London summer,
> the risk of plague etc). Before his change of accommodation, he and
> his brother had been spotted many times in the open practising their
> archery skills. Hardly shankled at the ankles on basic rations and
5
> floggings a day, is it?
>
> <We do know that the pre-contract story which bastardized
> Edward was never thoroughly examined by an ecclesiastical court >
>
> Well, at the risk of repeating myself, this seems to have been
> examined by proctors, as More confirms. More was a secular lawyer,
> but you'd expect him to have a bit of cross-over knowledge on the
> matter. But it's irrelevant anyway, as proctors in the 15thC
> certainly had the authority to pronounce judgements in
ecclesiastical
> courts. This is quite clear from the works of Prof Richard
Helmholtz
> (ex-Borthwick Institute), who I already quoted as an authority on
> this topic, but Spelman, another august authority, agrees.
> Furthermore the University of Paris backs this up too, I've been
told.
>
> Another thing it appears you don't know about - in law atthe time it
> was not actually up to Richard to put the matter to a Canon Court.
> Technically, only the 'wronged' party, ie. EW or her children, were
> entitled to to request an investigation of this type.
>
> And one other point. Richard, in E5's name, sends an urgent note to
> the Archbishop of Canterbury, referring to a matter of national
> importance, and requesting the Bishop convenes an urgent Convocation
> to discuss these issues.
>
> Rosemay Horrox, in her 'Study of Service' suggests this may have
been
> an apeeal for money, which he was certainly entitled to do, but in
> fact, the requests for cash always followed strict guidelines, with
> the wording laid down centuries before. The request was always very
> specifically worded, be it for a Southern or Northern See
> Convocation, and the response back was always very specifically
> worded too. The Letter of 1483 does not follow this convention at
> all, so it's logical to assume the Convocation was ordered fr
> something else other than for financial reasons. (Info on the
> specific wording of these documents is in a Surtees Society document
> regarding Northern Convocations, if anyone fancies looking further
> into this. Richard's letter to Bourchier is in Harley 433, IIRC).
>
> < I wasn't fantasizing about you and Lorraine, I was joking!
> Lorraine brought up her jokey interest in Richard's anal region, so
I
> responded. It may've been a Freudian slip on her part, >
>
> Nope - just jokey comment. I knew exactly what I meant at the time.

> Nowt Freudian about it.
>
> < I doubt if I could ever win arguments over you & Lorraine
regarding
> > Richard. It would be like trying to get Beatle fans to admit that
> > apart from being reasonable musicians they were also junkies who
> > encouraged the appalling use of LSD & Heroin!>
>
> The Beatles are a bit before my time, and aren't particular
> favourites of mine, but if you really think 'The Beatles' as
> individuals were 'junkies', then it shows how little you know
>
> a) of them as individual musicians and personages, and
> b) of Drug-Related Slang 1963-2003.
>
> Lorraine

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> At least we've moved from possums to kangaroos.
>
> Rous isn't my favorite source for this period. He's the one who
said
> that Richard was born with teeth and feet first in one of his
versions
> of his 'history.'
>
> Percy was Richard's man & wasn't going to find in favour of
Rivers!
> That's a bit like Bush letting Sadaam off the hook now.

>
> I'm sure the Council did agree to anything Richard suggested.
Richard
> had that month had a leading member summarily executed.

David, there appear to be no grounds for supposing Rivers, Vaughan &
Grey to have been executed without trial. If you believe this to be
the case then it is up to you to prove that case. Bringing in Saddam
Hussein (note double d, pronounced as such), George Bush and the
Beatles isn't going to help. And you can always make the argument
that the judiciary are part of the Establishment and therefore not
truly independent.
Hastings is another matter, I grant you. What exactly went on in the
Tower that morning that culminated in his death is of course hard to
ascertain, as his his involvement or otherwise in any plots. Killing
him in cold blood without trial, however, is indefensible. But it
would be wrong to extrapolate from that any executed enemy of
Richard's must have been some sort of innocent victim.


>
> Of course, our notion of a proper trial & democracy had not evolved
at
> that time. Our system is far from perfect anyway. There's have
been
> unsound judgements & verdicts and democracy can allow countries to
use
> superior weapons to go after the resources of other countries
without
> international legal backing.
>
> An important question is: does morality count or are we type of
> organism wallowing in a cesspool? Did Richard care about morality
&
> Law or was this a fig leaf for his political and economic interests?
>
> The mystery of what happened to Edward V & his 9 year old brother
may
> remain a mystery. Alas, many people then & now expected the worst
> happened to them, given Richard's motive, opportunity & record of
> killing threats!
>
What record of killing threats? Richard's record on executions was
pretty tame for the period, and he had never threatened children.

> It's gratifying to know that prisoners could buy pies in the Tower,
so
> long as they had heads with which to eat them!

This seems to be an anachronistic reference to the goings-on in Tudor
times. Without boring you with the details of the Tower's history as
a prison in the 15th century, suffice it to say that so far as I'm
aaware no prisoners were executed out of the Tower in this period.
The royal apartments were in a separate enclosure from the rest of
the inner court. This is quite clearly where the boys were lodged at
first. The tower next to the garden where they were seen playing was
no doubt the Lanthorn Tower, next to the royal garden, not the Garden
Tower (later named the Bloody Tower), which was next to the
Constable's Garden - the Constable's Garden would not have been
visible to the general public, but the royal garden, which was formed
from part of the outer court, would. The Lanthorn Tower had been used
by other monarchs in the same period.
The inner apartements to which they were moved may either have been
areas of the royal apartments further from the curtain wall or the
old royal apartments in the White Tower. These had been used to house
prisoners in more recent times, but only the more important ones who
needed plush accommodation (such as James I of Scotland, Charles of
Orleans and the Duke of Somerset). If in the White Tower, the
children might be regarded either as well-treated prisoners or as
persons under protection from would-be conspirators; one's politicial
viewpoint would colour how one saw this, but it is worth bearing in
mind that the Tower did also have a history of being used as a refuge.


>
> People will argue about the pre-contract story which bastardized
> Edward V in regard to whether Richard use a bit of kangaroo law
here.
> About as fair & transparent as the trial of Ann Boleyn, who was
framed
> !!!!


>
> I doubt if Elizabeth Woodville was in any position to take Richard
to
> any type of court over the pre-contract. Hadn't she been
threatened
> over the production of her second son or Richard's men would've
> invaded Sanctuary, just as Sanctuary was violated in Tewkesbury in
> 1471. Richard again!
>
> The pre-contract story is one of those accusations very difficult
to
> prove or disprove. That Edward promised marriage to a lady of
higher
> status to have his way & then he dumped her. It's like me accusing
> you of beating your dog 15 years ago and producing some guy to say
you
> did & you would deny it & produce another guy to say you didn't.
It
> seems thin to imagine that Edward IV would've jeopardized his
> succession: he'd had a large family with Elizabeth, over such a
> fleeting affair. Edward had many faults, but he wasn't an idiot.

Firstly, you assume that at the time in question Edward knew he was
going to be king, or that he was one day to have a large family with
another woman. I don't know if you're familiar with the law regarding
marriage at that time, but as I understand it it only needed for a
guy who wanted to get a girl to sleep with him to promise he would
marry her, then sleep with her.... and they were technically wed. It
happened all the time, and was a huge problem. Hardwicke's Marriage
Act in the late 1700s finally came in to deal with the problem, but
that was a long way off. The circumstantial evidence, viz Edward and
Henry's treatment of Stillington, his failure to be rewarded by
Richard, etc, all seems to point to there having been something in
the tale. I notice Jonathan Hughes, no supporter of richard, refers
in his new book to the precontract with Eleanor Butler as a given.
I think strory highly plausible, but the point is perhaps it was
possible to bring this up but not necessary. It was such a common
occurrence that most people would view such precontracts as a
technicality that could be used to dissolve a later marriage if so
desired but could equally easily be left to rest (unless of course
there had been children born).
As for Edward's not being that stupid, I think we have to ask
ourselves why he married Elizabeth Woodville secretly, and kept the
fact secret for three months (until, in fact, it was evident that
Elizabeth was pregnant), all the time allowing Warwick to go on with
his foreign marriage negotiations. The only conclusion I can draw is
that he was toying with the very same idea at that time.
>
> The point about Freud is that we don't always know what we mean,
but
> enough said about that.
>
> The Beatles are also a bit before my time and I'm not a fan, but I
do
> know that they widely publicized their collective use of a class A
> drug LSD in the 60s & Lennon had major problems with Heroin.
Sounds
> like a junkie image to me and consider how many fans copied them &
> ended up prematurely dead or with lives ruined?

By the way, as regards Lorraine and myself being like Beatles fans, I
can only say that if your analysis of Richard's character is anything
like as accurate as this, well. . . .
>
> David
>
> --- In , "lpickering2"
> <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > < Alas, you seem to dislike brutal dictators, but you gloss over
> > > Richard's penchant for executing people without trial:
Hastings,
> > > Rivers…. >
> >
> > Rivers had a trial - read Rous who quite emphatically says so.
> > Furthermore he even tells you who presided over the trial - it
was
> > Henry Percy, a fellow Earl.
> >
> > So not only did he and his chums of lesser rank have a trial, it
was
> > in front of his Peer-ly Peers (or at least one of them, that much
is
> > certain), as was proper practice at the time. Rous writes in
Latin
> > and uses the very specific word for 'judge' which totally escapes
me
> > now ('uxor' or summat very much like it). Clements Markham
quotes
> > the exact job description from rous in his biog of R3 if you've
not
> > got a copy of the original to hand, David...
> >
> > One final point - Richard was still just a member of the Council
at
> > the time the order for the execution headed north. No particular
> > urgency appears to have been part of the informant's brief on
this
> > occasion (unlike the Ratcliffe gallop London-York at the time of
the
> > Hastings/Wydeville/Morton/Beaufort/Stanley plottage earlier that
> > month. One could therefore assume the warrant for the executions
> > preceded the younger Prince's leaving Sanctuary, and, I suggest,
> that
> > it was a collective decision by the Council, given how they'd
> blocked
> > the whole idea of executing Rivers & co. a few weeks earlier when
> > Richard had pushed for it.
> >
> > Remember, it's quite clear that, contrary to popular belief, the
> > Council wasn't actually top-heavy with Wydevilles. I think it
was
> > Sir John Fortesque earlier in the century who had recommended the
> > King's Council should consist of at least 2 dozen councillors.
Even
> > if everyone of the Queen's immediate family plus in-laws had a
place
> > (and they didn't), it would still leave an awful lot of folk who
> > weren't associated closely with the Wydevilles. It also left an
> > awful lot who had to weigh up which side to support during the
power
> > vacuum created by Edward's death and the prospect of a minor on
the
> > throne.
> >
> > Given all the above, whatever the morality of the decision, I
tend
> to
> > think that the decision to execute Rivers at all was the
> > responsibility of the Council as a whole, and not just down to
> > Richard. No doubt Richard got the result he wanted, I'm not
> > disputing that, but the Council has to shoulder its share of the
> > blame for this.
> >
> > <We do know he was stripped of his titles &
> > freedom.>
> >
> > We don't know he was stripped of his freedom. The Tower was both
a
> > Prison and a Royal Lodging. The fact of the matter is we don't
KNOW
> > how long he was in the Tower, if he left and resided elsewhere
(at
> > Sheriff Hutton or even at Tyrrell's house in Gipping. Snippets
we
> do
> > have, including Mancini, just don't give us enough info, but
there's
> > at least three notable records that could refer to Edward V's
> > movements up to and including 1485. That's 1485.
> >
> > But in any case, it's worth mentioning that at that time, even
> > bonafide prisoners at the Tower had the freedom to purchase pies
and
> > stuff and wander with a degree of freedom in the grounds.
> >
> > (Not summat Mancini would have known about, I expect, which is
why
> he
> > doesn't mention it).
> >
> > So let's not get carried away Arguably, the last we hear about
E5,
> > he's in the Tower, which was a Royal Palace, and his quarters
appear
> > to have changed from those he'd occupied earlier in the summer.
> > (Itself hardly surprising, considering the stink of a London
summer,
> > the risk of plague etc). Before his change of accommodation, he
and
> > his brother had been spotted many times in the open practising
their
> > archery skills. Hardly shankled at the ankles on basic rations
and
> 5
> > floggings a day, is it?
> >
> > <We do know that the pre-contract story which bastardized
> > Edward was never thoroughly examined by an ecclesiastical court >
> >
> > Well, at the risk of repeating myself, this seems to have been
> > examined by proctors, as More confirms. More was a secular
lawyer,
> > but you'd expect him to have a bit of cross-over knowledge on the
> > matter. But it's irrelevant anyway, as proctors in the 15thC
> > certainly had the authority to pronounce judgements in
> ecclesiastical
> > courts. This is quite clear from the works of Prof Richard
> Helmholtz
> > (ex-Borthwick Institute), who I already quoted as an authority on
> > this topic, but Spelman, another august authority, agrees.
> > Furthermore the University of Paris backs this up too, I've been
> told.
> >
> > Another thing it appears you don't know about - in law atthe time
it
> > was not actually up to Richard to put the matter to a Canon
Court.
> > Technically, only the 'wronged' party, ie. EW or her children,
were
> > entitled to to request an investigation of this type.
> >
> > And one other point. Richard, in E5's name, sends an urgent note
to
> > the Archbishop of Canterbury, referring to a matter of national
> > importance, and requesting the Bishop convenes an urgent
Convocation
> > to discuss these issues.
> >
> > Rosemay Horrox, in her 'Study of Service' suggests this may have
> been
> > an apeeal for money, which he was certainly entitled to do, but
in
> > fact, the requests for cash always followed strict guidelines,
with
> > the wording laid down centuries before. The request was always
very
> > specifically worded, be it for a Southern or Northern See
> > Convocation, and the response back was always very specifically
> > worded too. The Letter of 1483 does not follow this convention
at
> > all, so it's logical to assume the Convocation was ordered fr
> > something else other than for financial reasons. (Info on the
> > specific wording of these documents is in a Surtees Society
document
> > regarding Northern Convocations, if anyone fancies looking
further
> > into this. Richard's letter to Bourchier is in Harley 433,
IIRC).
> >
> > < I wasn't fantasizing about you and Lorraine, I was joking!
> > Lorraine brought up her jokey interest in Richard's anal region,
so
> I
> > responded. It may've been a Freudian slip on her part, >
> >
> > Nope - just jokey comment. I knew exactly what I meant at the
time.
>
> > Nowt Freudian about it.
> >
> > < I doubt if I could ever win arguments over you & Lorraine
> regarding
> > > Richard. It would be like trying to get Beatle fans to admit
that
> > > apart from being reasonable musicians they were also junkies
who
> > > encouraged the appalling use of LSD & Heroin!>
> >
> > The Beatles are a bit before my time, and aren't particular
> > favourites of mine, but if you really think 'The Beatles' as
> > individuals were 'junkies', then it shows how little you know
> >
> > a) of them as individual musicians and personages, and
> > b) of Drug-Related Slang 1963-2003.
> >
> > Lorraine

I've never said that Rivers or Grey or Hastings were innocent, but
they all happened to be obstacles to Richard's self obsessed path to
the crown. Why was a former friend of Richard's: Hastings, suddenly
plotting against him? Not over jealousy over lack of power (he'd got
plenty of that,) but because of his view of Richard's ambition!
>
'What record of killing threats?'

MARIE, Rivers, Grey, Hastings, Buckingham, would've been Tudor!

' Richard's record on executions was pretty tame for the period, and
he had never threatened children.'

Not tame if you were on the receiving end of one of his killings!
These children were his political rivals for supreme power and the
tradition, of which Richard was very much a part, was to bump them
off!

You say no prisoners were killed in the Tower. What about Henry VI in
the Wakefield Tower in 1471? I know you will deny or question this,
but MOST people believed him murdered there by a regime of which
Richard was a leading part!

The princes were recorded as playing in the garden at one time, then
they were withdrawn into closer confinement, when Richard usurped the
crown, and then they 'disappeared.' People may deduce what they can
or will from this and we know, with Richard's tendency to kill
enemies, what they have deduced over time!

I know that pre-contract was seen as wedlock if any woman was foolish
enough to fall for that. Whether Eleanor Butler of quite a high-class
family was, is debatable. But Edward was already in a very high
position as monarch: King in 1461. Edward wasn't a clot. If his
marriage to Elizabeth was doubtful with such a large brood reproduced,
he could've re-married Elizabeth, Eleanor had died after the birth of
Edward's oldest daughter. There were enough snide remarks flying
around from Warwick & Clarence to remind Edward that his succession
was threatened.

Your devotion to Richard is fan like. It's possible you also appear
on an Adolf Hitler forum saying he wasn't really a bad guy. Himmler
was the real pain. Hitler spent most of his days in the Berghof,
sleeping late with his mistress and enjoying jolly films. He gave the
occasional rallying speech and that was that! Politics isn't like
that. Hitler, like Richard, knew roughly what was what. Richard
wanted the crown to protect himself and out of ambition, so he carved
a path to it!

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "David"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > At least we've moved from possums to kangaroos.
> >
> > Rous isn't my favorite source for this period. He's the one who
> said
> > that Richard was born with teeth and feet first in one of his
> versions
> > of his 'history.'
> >
> > Percy was Richard's man & wasn't going to find in favour of
> Rivers!
> > That's a bit like Bush letting Sadaam off the hook now.
>
> >
> > I'm sure the Council did agree to anything Richard suggested.
> Richard
> > had that month had a leading member summarily executed.
>
> David, there appear to be no grounds for supposing Rivers, Vaughan &
> Grey to have been executed without trial. If you believe this to be
> the case then it is up to you to prove that case. Bringing in
Saddam
> Hussein (note double d, pronounced as such), George Bush and the
> Beatles isn't going to help. And you can always make the argument
> that the judiciary are part of the Establishment and therefore not
> truly independent.
> Hastings is another matter, I grant you. What exactly went on in the
> Tower that morning that culminated in his death is of course hard to
> ascertain, as his his involvement or otherwise in any plots. Killing
> him in cold blood without trial, however, is indefensible. But it
> would be wrong to extrapolate from that any executed enemy of
> Richard's must have been some sort of innocent victim.
>
>
> >
> > Of course, our notion of a proper trial & democracy had not
evolved
> at
> > that time. Our system is far from perfect anyway. There's have
> been
> > unsound judgements & verdicts and democracy can allow countries to
> use
> > superior weapons to go after the resources of other countries
> without
> > international legal backing.
> >
> > An important question is: does morality count or are we type of
> > organism wallowing in a cesspool? Did Richard care about morality
> &
> > Law or was this a fig leaf for his political and economic
interests?
> >
> > The mystery of what happened to Edward V & his 9 year old brother
> may
> > remain a mystery. Alas, many people then & now expected the worst
> > happened to them, given Richard's motive, opportunity & record of
> > killing threats!
> >
> What record of killing threats? Richard's record on executions was
> pretty tame for the period, and he had never threatened children.
>
> > It's gratifying to know that prisoners could buy pies in the
Tower,
> so
> > long as they had heads with which to eat them!
>
> This seems to be an anachronistic reference to the goings-on in
Tudor
> times. Without boring you with the details of the Tower's history as
> a prison in the 15th century, suffice it to say that so far as I'm
> aaware no prisoners were executed out of the Tower in this period.
> The royal apartments were in a separate enclosure from the rest of
> the inner court. This is quite clearly where the boys were lodged at
> first. The tower next to the garden where they were seen playing was
> no doubt the Lanthorn Tower, next to the royal garden, not the
Garden
> Tower (later named the Bloody Tower), which was next to the
> Constable's Garden - the Constable's Garden would not have been
> visible to the general public, but the royal garden, which was
formed
> from part of the outer court, would. The Lanthorn Tower had been
used
> by other monarchs in the same period.
> The inner apartements to which they were moved may either have been
> areas of the royal apartments further from the curtain wall or the
> old royal apartments in the White Tower. These had been used to
house
> prisoners in more recent times, but only the more important ones who
> needed plush accommodation (such as James I of Scotland, Charles of
> Orleans and the Duke of Somerset). If in the White Tower, the
> children might be regarded either as well-treated prisoners or as
> persons under protection from would-be conspirators; one's
politicial
> viewpoint would colour how one saw this, but it is worth bearing in
> mind that the Tower did also have a history of being used as a
refuge.
>
>
> >
> > People will argue about the pre-contract story which bastardized
> > Edward V in regard to whether Richard use a bit of kangaroo law
> here.
> > About as fair & transparent as the trial of Ann Boleyn, who was
> framed
> > !!!!
>
>
> >
> > I doubt if Elizabeth Woodville was in any position to take Richard
> to
> > any type of court over the pre-contract. Hadn't she been
> threatened
> > over the production of her second son or Richard's men would've
> > invaded Sanctuary, just as Sanctuary was violated in Tewkesbury in
> > 1471. Richard again!
> >
> > The pre-contract story is one of those accusations very difficult
> to
> > prove or disprove. That Edward promised marriage to a lady of
> higher
> > status to have his way & then he dumped her. It's like me
accusing
> > you of beating your dog 15 years ago and producing some guy to say
> you
> > did & you would deny it & produce another guy to say you didn't.
> It
> > seems thin to imagine that Edward IV would've jeopardized his
> > succession: he'd had a large family with Elizabeth, over such a
> > fleeting affair. Edward had many faults, but he wasn't an idiot.
>
> Firstly, you assume that at the time in question Edward knew he was
> going to be king, or that he was one day to have a large family with
> another woman. I don't know if you're familiar with the law
regarding
> marriage at that time, but as I understand it it only needed for a
> guy who wanted to get a girl to sleep with him to promise he would
> marry her, then sleep with her.... and they were technically wed. It
> happened all the time, and was a huge problem. Hardwicke's Marriage
> Act in the late 1700s finally came in to deal with the problem, but
> that was a long way off. The circumstantial evidence, viz Edward and
> Henry's treatment of Stillington, his failure to be rewarded by
> Richard, etc, all seems to point to there having been something in
> the tale. I notice Jonathan Hughes, no supporter of richard, refers
> in his new book to the precontract with Eleanor Butler as a given.
> I think strory highly plausible, but the point is perhaps it was
> possible to bring this up but not necessary. It was such a common
> occurrence that most people would view such precontracts as a
> technicality that could be used to dissolve a later marriage if so
> desired but could equally easily be left to rest (unless of course
> there had been children born).
> As for Edward's not being that stupid, I think we have to ask
> ourselves why he married Elizabeth Woodville secretly, and kept the
> fact secret for three months (until, in fact, it was evident that
> Elizabeth was pregnant), all the time allowing Warwick to go on with
> his foreign marriage negotiations. The only conclusion I can draw is
> that he was toying with the very same idea at that time.
> >
> > The point about Freud is that we don't always know what we mean,
> but
> > enough said about that.
> >
> > The Beatles are also a bit before my time and I'm not a fan, but I
> do
> > know that they widely publicized their collective use of a class A
> > drug LSD in the 60s & Lennon had major problems with Heroin.
> Sounds
> > like a junkie image to me and consider how many fans copied them &
> > ended up prematurely dead or with lives ruined?
>
> By the way, as regards Lorraine and myself being like Beatles fans,
I
> can only say that if your analysis of Richard's character is
anything
> like as accurate as this, well. . . .
> >
> > David
> >
> > --- In , "lpickering2"
> > <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > > < Alas, you seem to dislike brutal dictators, but you gloss over
> > > > Richard's penchant for executing people without trial:
> Hastings,
> > > > Rivers…. >
> > >
> > > Rivers had a trial - read Rous who quite emphatically says so.
> > > Furthermore he even tells you who presided over the trial - it
> was
> > > Henry Percy, a fellow Earl.
> > >
> > > So not only did he and his chums of lesser rank have a trial, it
> was
> > > in front of his Peer-ly Peers (or at least one of them, that
much
> is
> > > certain), as was proper practice at the time. Rous writes in
> Latin
> > > and uses the very specific word for 'judge' which totally
escapes
> me
> > > now ('uxor' or summat very much like it). Clements Markham
> quotes
> > > the exact job description from rous in his biog of R3 if you've
> not
> > > got a copy of the original to hand, David...
> > >
> > > One final point - Richard was still just a member of the Council
> at
> > > the time the order for the execution headed north. No
particular
> > > urgency appears to have been part of the informant's brief on
> this
> > > occasion (unlike the Ratcliffe gallop London-York at the time of
> the
> > > Hastings/Wydeville/Morton/Beaufort/Stanley plottage earlier that
> > > month. One could therefore assume the warrant for the
executions
> > > preceded the younger Prince's leaving Sanctuary, and, I suggest,
> > that
> > > it was a collective decision by the Council, given how they'd
> > blocked
> > > the whole idea of executing Rivers & co. a few weeks earlier
when
> > > Richard had pushed for it.
> > >
> > > Remember, it's quite clear that, contrary to popular belief, the
> > > Council wasn't actually top-heavy with Wydevilles. I think it
> was
> > > Sir John Fortesque earlier in the century who had recommended
the
> > > King's Council should consist of at least 2 dozen councillors.
> Even
> > > if everyone of the Queen's immediate family plus in-laws had a
> place
> > > (and they didn't), it would still leave an awful lot of folk who
> > > weren't associated closely with the Wydevilles. It also left an
> > > awful lot who had to weigh up which side to support during the
> power
> > > vacuum created by Edward's death and the prospect of a minor on
> the
> > > throne.
> > >
> > > Given all the above, whatever the morality of the decision, I
> tend
> > to
> > > think that the decision to execute Rivers at all was the
> > > responsibility of the Council as a whole, and not just down to
> > > Richard. No doubt Richard got the result he wanted, I'm not
> > > disputing that, but the Council has to shoulder its share of the
> > > blame for this.
> > >
> > > <We do know he was stripped of his titles &
> > > freedom.>
> > >
> > > We don't know he was stripped of his freedom. The Tower was
both
> a
> > > Prison and a Royal Lodging. The fact of the matter is we don't
> KNOW
> > > how long he was in the Tower, if he left and resided elsewhere
> (at
> > > Sheriff Hutton or even at Tyrrell's house in Gipping. Snippets
> we
> > do
> > > have, including Mancini, just don't give us enough info, but
> there's
> > > at least three notable records that could refer to Edward V's
> > > movements up to and including 1485. That's 1485.
> > >
> > > But in any case, it's worth mentioning that at that time, even
> > > bonafide prisoners at the Tower had the freedom to purchase pies
> and
> > > stuff and wander with a degree of freedom in the grounds.
> > >
> > > (Not summat Mancini would have known about, I expect, which is
> why
> > he
> > > doesn't mention it).
> > >
> > > So let's not get carried away Arguably, the last we hear about
> E5,
> > > he's in the Tower, which was a Royal Palace, and his quarters
> appear
> > > to have changed from those he'd occupied earlier in the summer.

> > > (Itself hardly surprising, considering the stink of a London
> summer,
> > > the risk of plague etc). Before his change of accommodation, he
> and
> > > his brother had been spotted many times in the open practising
> their
> > > archery skills. Hardly shankled at the ankles on basic rations
> and
> > 5
> > > floggings a day, is it?
> > >
> > > <We do know that the pre-contract story which bastardized
> > > Edward was never thoroughly examined by an ecclesiastical court
>
> > >
> > > Well, at the risk of repeating myself, this seems to have been
> > > examined by proctors, as More confirms. More was a secular
> lawyer,
> > > but you'd expect him to have a bit of cross-over knowledge on
the
> > > matter. But it's irrelevant anyway, as proctors in the 15thC
> > > certainly had the authority to pronounce judgements in
> > ecclesiastical
> > > courts. This is quite clear from the works of Prof Richard
> > Helmholtz
> > > (ex-Borthwick Institute), who I already quoted as an authority
on
> > > this topic, but Spelman, another august authority, agrees.
> > > Furthermore the University of Paris backs this up too, I've been
> > told.
> > >
> > > Another thing it appears you don't know about - in law atthe
time
> it
> > > was not actually up to Richard to put the matter to a Canon
> Court.
> > > Technically, only the 'wronged' party, ie. EW or her children,
> were
> > > entitled to to request an investigation of this type.
> > >
> > > And one other point. Richard, in E5's name, sends an urgent
note
> to
> > > the Archbishop of Canterbury, referring to a matter of national
> > > importance, and requesting the Bishop convenes an urgent
> Convocation
> > > to discuss these issues.
> > >
> > > Rosemay Horrox, in her 'Study of Service' suggests this may have
> > been
> > > an apeeal for money, which he was certainly entitled to do, but
> in
> > > fact, the requests for cash always followed strict guidelines,
> with
> > > the wording laid down centuries before. The request was always
> very
> > > specifically worded, be it for a Southern or Northern See
> > > Convocation, and the response back was always very specifically
> > > worded too. The Letter of 1483 does not follow this convention
> at
> > > all, so it's logical to assume the Convocation was ordered fr
> > > something else other than for financial reasons. (Info on the
> > > specific wording of these documents is in a Surtees Society
> document
> > > regarding Northern Convocations, if anyone fancies looking
> further
> > > into this. Richard's letter to Bourchier is in Harley 433,
> IIRC).
> > >
> > > < I wasn't fantasizing about you and Lorraine, I was joking!
> > > Lorraine brought up her jokey interest in Richard's anal region,
> so
> > I
> > > responded. It may've been a Freudian slip on her part, >
> > >
> > > Nope - just jokey comment. I knew exactly what I meant at the
> time.
> >
> > > Nowt Freudian about it.
> > >
> > > < I doubt if I could ever win arguments over you & Lorraine
> > regarding
> > > > Richard. It would be like trying to get Beatle fans to admit
> that
> > > > apart from being reasonable musicians they were also junkies
> who
> > > > encouraged the appalling use of LSD & Heroin!>
> > >
> > > The Beatles are a bit before my time, and aren't particular
> > > favourites of mine, but if you really think 'The Beatles' as
> > > individuals were 'junkies', then it shows how little you know
> > >
> > > a) of them as individual musicians and personages, and
> > > b) of Drug-Related Slang 1963-2003.
> > >
> > > Lorraine

< I doubt if Elizabeth Woodville was in any position to take Richard
to any type of court over the pre-contract. >

You misunderstand the procedure. she couldn't take RICHARD to Court
over the pre-conract, even if she had been out of Sanctuary, and he'd
been on a boat to China. The issue technically hadn't anything to do
with him, is the point. She had to argue STILLINGTON's proofs were
to be examined, if anything. Something she could have done once she
was out of sanctuary. Young Elizabeth or her other daughters could
also have brought a case, IIRC. Helmholtz is no fool - he is the
leading authority on the matter, and is not a R3 supporter AFAIK,
though he, like Pollard and Hicks, has contributed to R3 Soc
publications. You aren't the only one to point out EW may not have
felt able to gainsay Richard's story, given the circumstances she
found herself in, and I agree it would have been tricky. My point
was that Richard is often accused of not bringing it before Church
Courts, and the truth of the matter is he simply wasn't *entitled*,
in canon law in situ at the time, to actually do this. It was up to
E4's wife and/or offspring to bring the matter to the Church Courts
for thorough investigation. Richard, IMHO, did the next best thing,
which was to allow Stillington, or Stillington just went ahead
anyway, to discuss the matter and present his 'proofs' in front of
the proctors, and possibly, if that summons to Archbishop Bourchier
is what I think it is, since it can't be to raise the 'tenths'
(financial aid) referred to in my last note, to discuss the matter in
Convocation. Any advice subseqently offered would have a reasonable
legal standing as far as the Church was concerned, and all that
remained was some sort of acclamation, which subseqently followed.
So, yes, You make a fair point, but you clearly don't understand what
the actual procedure was at the time. One last point on this - there
was not 'cut-off' point for bringing such cases to Church Courts so
actually EW could have brought the matter up in Church Court right up
until her death - as could Elizabeth of York, as her daughter.
Richard was safely dead after 1485 and if the Court had found in
their favour, it still wouldn't have affected Tudor's Crown, all it
would have meant was that EW and E4 had been truly wed and her son's
bastardy was not the case, and Richard therefore had not been
entitled to rule. EW would have known this, any original clerical
supporters of R3 were replaced by those favoured by Tudor and his
mother, so it's a fairly safe bet that a Court would have found in
favour of the Queen and her Mum against the wicked usurping uncle
killed in battle by the Monarch who ruled by right of Conquest.

So it's pretty telling to me, even if EW was failing, ailing and not
always in Tudor's good books, that this matter wasn't pursued
further. Maybe she felt it was something her husband was perfectly
capable of doing, since he'd married her secretly also?

< Edward had many faults, but he wasn't an idiot.>

He was once 18, 19 years old, however, when most of us go through a
giddy goat stage - AND he married EW in spectacularly idiotic
circumstances, so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on his not being
an idiot if I were you!

<The point about Freud is that we don't always know what we mean, but
enough said about that.>

Well, you brought him up, in rather bizarre circumstances. I know
all Freud as amongst my many talents <g> I have a Psychology A Level.
I don't like him or his style, but that's way off OT.

<Lennon had major problems with Heroin. Sounds like a junkie image
to me>

Yes, but you called them all junkies, and they weren't. To be
pedantic about it, 'junk' is the slang term for heroin, therfore
heroin users are known as 'junkies'. Most of the band avoided heroin,
so shouldn't be called 'junkies'. Half the band is still alive and
shouldn't be referred to in those terms at all anyway on the Internet!

<and consider how many fans copied them &
ended up prematurely dead or with lives ruined?>

Whyever should I do that? It's got sod-all to do with me what
Beatles fans do or don't do, and sod-all to do with Richard III.
And there's sod-all I can do about the plight of Beatles fans with a
penchant for self-destruction, anyway...

What an odd little fellow you are, sometimes, David...

Lorraine
[Exits left muttering: I wonder if contributing to this Forum is
anything at all like being on drugs...?].

< Your devotion to Richard is fan like. It's possible you also
appear on an Adolf Hitler forum saying he wasn't really a bad guy.>

What?????????????????????Is this place moderated? This is off-topic
and completely out of order. I'm not even Marie, yet I find this jibe
offensive, even for you, and your increasingly desperate attempts to
wind us up!

I do hope you apologise for getting so carried away as to write such
a stupid and unneccessary remark, and try to refrain from similar in
future. We can surely discuss Richard and his life and times without
recourse to this!

And please don't be be small-minded enough to retort that this is
just like me calling you an odd little man sometimes, or saying you
and Tim talk bollocks, because it's not, and you know it's not.
Admiring Hitler has the most frightful connotations that any right-
minded persona would want to distance themselves from.

Enough is enough.

I'm really cross you thought that was worth posing on a Public Forum,
David.

You really have lost the plot big-time, pal.

Believe it or not, I have mostly enjoyed our little discussions up to
now. I have been amused and exasperated in turns many times, but
right now I just think you're disgusting and you can think what you
like about that. I have no wish to debate any further with you on
this - or any other subject - until I see you post an apology to
Marie.

Sorry to all my List colleagues. But sometimes you just can't let
things wash over you. Marie has always tried to be informative to
David's musings, and remains much more polite to him than I - and I
can't for the life of me see what she posted to deserve this as part
of his response. How he thinks he can talk about anybody else's
morality and/or psychological make-up after this, is beyond me...

I won't be responding to any subsequent postings on this particular
topic.

Lorraine

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> I've never said that Rivers or Grey or Hastings were innocent, but
> they all happened to be obstacles to Richard's self obsessed path
to
> the crown. Why was a former friend of Richard's: Hastings,
suddenly
> plotting against him? Not over jealousy over lack of power (he'd
got
> plenty of that,) but because of his view of Richard's ambition!
> >
> 'What record of killing threats?'
>
> MARIE, Rivers, Grey, Hastings, Buckingham, would've been Tudor!
Cut me off mid flow ouit of context. Also, David, you take everything
right out of the context of the period, of which you don't seem to
have a very deep knowledge.

>
> ' Richard's record on executions was pretty tame for the period,
and
> he had never threatened children.'
>
> Not tame if you were on the receiving end of one of his killings!
> These children were his political rivals for supreme power and the
> tradition, of which Richard was very much a part, was to bump them
> off!
Richard hadn't yet claimed the throne.

>
> You say no prisoners were killed in the Tower. What about Henry VI
in
> the Wakefield Tower in 1471?

I think I said no prisoners were exectured out of the Tower. Of
course, I was forgetting Henry Vi's murder and Clarence's private
execution, which I admit severely weakens my argument. However, the
overwhelming majority of prisoners in the Tower in the 15th century
walked out again.
I know you will deny or question this,
> but MOST people believed him murdered there by a regime of which
> Richard was a leading part!
I haven't denied that Henry was murdered by the Yorkist regime. It is
only yourself, David, who insists all the time in defending an
extreme position and will never give an inch even when your arguments
are shredded around you.
>
> The princes were recorded as playing in the garden at one time,
then
> they were withdrawn into closer confinement, when Richard usurped
the
> crown, and then they 'disappeared.' People may deduce what they
can
> or will from this and we know, with Richard's tendency to kill
> enemies, what they have deduced over time!
This is just what I've just discussed, isn't it? I've shown that the
first lodging was actually the Lanthorn Tower, which formed the
King's private apartments at that period. Your words 'closer
confinement' are tendencious. The first position was certainly not
one of confinement. It is the only place Edward would have been
during the period coming up to his coronation. Whether the second
accommodation further into the Tower was a situation of confinement
is, as I tried to show, ambiguous since we do not know where it was
or what the boys' situation was in there. That is not me being a fan,
David. These are the facts. Whether they died there, and their bodies
are those discovered in Charles II's reign, or whether they were
secretly removed to another location, we also cannot know. I
personally think the evidence is conflicting in that:
a) the finding of skeletal remains of two children of roughly
(perhaps too roughly) the right ages in a spot between the royal
apartments and the White Tower is too coincidental to be dismissed
b) it has often been remarked that Henry Tudor's silence in the face
of pretenders indicates that he did not know what had become of the
Princes. I tend to agree with this. But I find it hard to believe
that if they had died IN THE TOWER Henry could not have discovered
this.
c) The same argument applies to Richard III. What on earth was the
point of killing the Princes and then allowing people to believe they
were still alive & could be reinstated?
d) Unlike some, I can't happily square Elizabeth Woodville's
behaviour with her belief that Richard had killed her sons.
Perhaps we need to think of explanations that satisfy all the above.

>
> I know that pre-contract was seen as wedlock if any woman was
foolish
> enough to fall for that. Whether Eleanor Butler of quite a high-
class
> family was, is debatable. But Edward was already in a very high
> position as monarch: King in 1461. Edward wasn't a clot. If his
> marriage to Elizabeth was doubtful with such a large brood
reproduced,
> he could've re-married Elizabeth, Eleanor had died after the birth
of
> Edward's oldest daughter. There were enough snide remarks flying
> around from Warwick & Clarence to remind Edward that his succession
> was threatened.

We do NOT know that the precontract toook place after 1461. And there
were as far as we know, no snide remarks at that time regarding the
precontract, only regarding Edward's own legitimacy. I personally
think it unlikely that Edward would have risked telling his wife
about his former liaison at that time. And, of course, Elizabeth
Woodville was also relatively high-born and she went for a secret
marriage.
>
> Your devotion to Richard is fan like. It's possible you also
appear
> on an Adolf Hitler forum saying he wasn't really a bad guy.
Himmler
> was the real pain. Hitler spent most of his days in the Berghof,
> sleeping late with his mistress and enjoying jolly films. He gave
the
> occasional rallying speech and that was that! Politics isn't like
> that. Hitler, like Richard, knew roughly what was what. Richard
> wanted the crown to protect himself and out of ambition, so he
carved
> a path to it!

Don't you think you're funny? My fanlike devotion to Richard is a
product of your own rather fevered imagination, which seems to see
the entire world as composed of saints and villains. You have just
let slip that Richard wanted the crown to protect himself. And no
doubt he was ambitious too. But one has to weigh up the relative
importance of the need to protect versus the ambition as a motivating
factor in the ddeaths you are so keen to harp on about.
By the by, did you know that the saintly Henry VI signed his name to
many a gruesome document, including one reproduced in Lander's old
book, dictating where the quarters of a particular executed traitor
were to be sent and nailed up?
I won't even dignify the Adolf Hitler remarks with an answer.

I think, despite having CFS before I even start, I have had to repeat
myself to you several times explaining that I believe there to have
been circumstances that caused ALL parties in 1483 to feel extremely
insecure. If that is insane fanlike devotion, then I'm a fluffy
possum (and you're the reincarnation of Eva Braun)!
Marie
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "David"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > At least we've moved from possums to kangaroos.
> > >
> > > Rous isn't my favorite source for this period. He's the one
who
> > said
> > > that Richard was born with teeth and feet first in one of his
> > versions
> > > of his 'history.'
> > >
> > > Percy was Richard's man & wasn't going to find in favour of
> > Rivers!
> > > That's a bit like Bush letting Sadaam off the hook now.
> >
> > >
> > > I'm sure the Council did agree to anything Richard suggested.
> > Richard
> > > had that month had a leading member summarily executed.
> >
> > David, there appear to be no grounds for supposing Rivers,
Vaughan &
> > Grey to have been executed without trial. If you believe this to
be
> > the case then it is up to you to prove that case. Bringing in
> Saddam
> > Hussein (note double d, pronounced as such), George Bush and the
> > Beatles isn't going to help. And you can always make the argument
> > that the judiciary are part of the Establishment and therefore
not
> > truly independent.
> > Hastings is another matter, I grant you. What exactly went on in
the
> > Tower that morning that culminated in his death is of course hard
to
> > ascertain, as his his involvement or otherwise in any plots.
Killing
> > him in cold blood without trial, however, is indefensible. But it
> > would be wrong to extrapolate from that any executed enemy of
> > Richard's must have been some sort of innocent victim.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Of course, our notion of a proper trial & democracy had not
> evolved
> > at
> > > that time. Our system is far from perfect anyway. There's
have
> > been
> > > unsound judgements & verdicts and democracy can allow countries
to
> > use
> > > superior weapons to go after the resources of other countries
> > without
> > > international legal backing.
> > >
> > > An important question is: does morality count or are we type of
> > > organism wallowing in a cesspool? Did Richard care about
morality
> > &
> > > Law or was this a fig leaf for his political and economic
> interests?
> > >
> > > The mystery of what happened to Edward V & his 9 year old
brother
> > may
> > > remain a mystery. Alas, many people then & now expected the
worst
> > > happened to them, given Richard's motive, opportunity & record
of
> > > killing threats!
> > >
> > What record of killing threats? Richard's record on executions
was
> > pretty tame for the period, and he had never threatened children.
> >
> > > It's gratifying to know that prisoners could buy pies in the
> Tower,
> > so
> > > long as they had heads with which to eat them!
> >
> > This seems to be an anachronistic reference to the goings-on in
> Tudor
> > times. Without boring you with the details of the Tower's history
as
> > a prison in the 15th century, suffice it to say that so far as
I'm
> > aaware no prisoners were executed out of the Tower in this
period.
> > The royal apartments were in a separate enclosure from the rest
of
> > the inner court. This is quite clearly where the boys were lodged
at
> > first. The tower next to the garden where they were seen playing
was
> > no doubt the Lanthorn Tower, next to the royal garden, not the
> Garden
> > Tower (later named the Bloody Tower), which was next to the
> > Constable's Garden - the Constable's Garden would not have been
> > visible to the general public, but the royal garden, which was
> formed
> > from part of the outer court, would. The Lanthorn Tower had been
> used
> > by other monarchs in the same period.
> > The inner apartements to which they were moved may either have
been
> > areas of the royal apartments further from the curtain wall or
the
> > old royal apartments in the White Tower. These had been used to
> house
> > prisoners in more recent times, but only the more important ones
who
> > needed plush accommodation (such as James I of Scotland, Charles
of
> > Orleans and the Duke of Somerset). If in the White Tower, the
> > children might be regarded either as well-treated prisoners or as
> > persons under protection from would-be conspirators; one's
> politicial
> > viewpoint would colour how one saw this, but it is worth bearing
in
> > mind that the Tower did also have a history of being used as a
> refuge.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > People will argue about the pre-contract story which
bastardized
> > > Edward V in regard to whether Richard use a bit of kangaroo law
> > here.
> > > About as fair & transparent as the trial of Ann Boleyn, who was
> > framed
> > > !!!!
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I doubt if Elizabeth Woodville was in any position to take
Richard
> > to
> > > any type of court over the pre-contract. Hadn't she been
> > threatened
> > > over the production of her second son or Richard's men would've
> > > invaded Sanctuary, just as Sanctuary was violated in Tewkesbury
in
> > > 1471. Richard again!
> > >
> > > The pre-contract story is one of those accusations very
difficult
> > to
> > > prove or disprove. That Edward promised marriage to a lady of
> > higher
> > > status to have his way & then he dumped her. It's like me
> accusing
> > > you of beating your dog 15 years ago and producing some guy to
say
> > you
> > > did & you would deny it & produce another guy to say you
didn't.
> > It
> > > seems thin to imagine that Edward IV would've jeopardized his
> > > succession: he'd had a large family with Elizabeth, over such a
> > > fleeting affair. Edward had many faults, but he wasn't an
idiot.
> >
> > Firstly, you assume that at the time in question Edward knew he
was
> > going to be king, or that he was one day to have a large family
with
> > another woman. I don't know if you're familiar with the law
> regarding
> > marriage at that time, but as I understand it it only needed for
a
> > guy who wanted to get a girl to sleep with him to promise he
would
> > marry her, then sleep with her.... and they were technically wed.
It
> > happened all the time, and was a huge problem. Hardwicke's
Marriage
> > Act in the late 1700s finally came in to deal with the problem,
but
> > that was a long way off. The circumstantial evidence, viz Edward
and
> > Henry's treatment of Stillington, his failure to be rewarded by
> > Richard, etc, all seems to point to there having been something
in
> > the tale. I notice Jonathan Hughes, no supporter of richard,
refers
> > in his new book to the precontract with Eleanor Butler as a
given.
> > I think strory highly plausible, but the point is perhaps it was
> > possible to bring this up but not necessary. It was such a common
> > occurrence that most people would view such precontracts as a
> > technicality that could be used to dissolve a later marriage if
so
> > desired but could equally easily be left to rest (unless of
course
> > there had been children born).
> > As for Edward's not being that stupid, I think we have to ask
> > ourselves why he married Elizabeth Woodville secretly, and kept
the
> > fact secret for three months (until, in fact, it was evident that
> > Elizabeth was pregnant), all the time allowing Warwick to go on
with
> > his foreign marriage negotiations. The only conclusion I can draw
is
> > that he was toying with the very same idea at that time.
> > >
> > > The point about Freud is that we don't always know what we
mean,
> > but
> > > enough said about that.
> > >
> > > The Beatles are also a bit before my time and I'm not a fan,
but I
> > do
> > > know that they widely publicized their collective use of a
class A
> > > drug LSD in the 60s & Lennon had major problems with Heroin.
> > Sounds
> > > like a junkie image to me and consider how many fans copied
them &
> > > ended up prematurely dead or with lives ruined?
> >
> > By the way, as regards Lorraine and myself being like Beatles
fans,
> I
> > can only say that if your analysis of Richard's character is
> anything
> > like as accurate as this, well. . . .
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > --- In , "lpickering2"
> > > <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > > > < Alas, you seem to dislike brutal dictators, but you gloss
over
> > > > > Richard's penchant for executing people without trial:
> > Hastings,
> > > > > Rivers…. >
> > > >
> > > > Rivers had a trial - read Rous who quite emphatically says
so.
> > > > Furthermore he even tells you who presided over the trial -
it
> > was
> > > > Henry Percy, a fellow Earl.
> > > >
> > > > So not only did he and his chums of lesser rank have a trial,
it
> > was
> > > > in front of his Peer-ly Peers (or at least one of them, that
> much
> > is
> > > > certain), as was proper practice at the time. Rous writes in
> > Latin
> > > > and uses the very specific word for 'judge' which totally
> escapes
> > me
> > > > now ('uxor' or summat very much like it). Clements Markham
> > quotes
> > > > the exact job description from rous in his biog of R3 if
you've
> > not
> > > > got a copy of the original to hand, David...
> > > >
> > > > One final point - Richard was still just a member of the
Council
> > at
> > > > the time the order for the execution headed north. No
> particular
> > > > urgency appears to have been part of the informant's brief on
> > this
> > > > occasion (unlike the Ratcliffe gallop London-York at the time
of
> > the
> > > > Hastings/Wydeville/Morton/Beaufort/Stanley plottage earlier
that
> > > > month. One could therefore assume the warrant for the
> executions
> > > > preceded the younger Prince's leaving Sanctuary, and, I
suggest,
> > > that
> > > > it was a collective decision by the Council, given how they'd
> > > blocked
> > > > the whole idea of executing Rivers & co. a few weeks earlier
> when
> > > > Richard had pushed for it.
> > > >
> > > > Remember, it's quite clear that, contrary to popular belief,
the
> > > > Council wasn't actually top-heavy with Wydevilles. I think
it
> > was
> > > > Sir John Fortesque earlier in the century who had recommended
> the
> > > > King's Council should consist of at least 2 dozen
councillors.
> > Even
> > > > if everyone of the Queen's immediate family plus in-laws had
a
> > place
> > > > (and they didn't), it would still leave an awful lot of folk
who
> > > > weren't associated closely with the Wydevilles. It also left
an
> > > > awful lot who had to weigh up which side to support during
the
> > power
> > > > vacuum created by Edward's death and the prospect of a minor
on
> > the
> > > > throne.
> > > >
> > > > Given all the above, whatever the morality of the decision, I
> > tend
> > > to
> > > > think that the decision to execute Rivers at all was the
> > > > responsibility of the Council as a whole, and not just down
to
> > > > Richard. No doubt Richard got the result he wanted, I'm not
> > > > disputing that, but the Council has to shoulder its share of
the
> > > > blame for this.
> > > >
> > > > <We do know he was stripped of his titles &
> > > > freedom.>
> > > >
> > > > We don't know he was stripped of his freedom. The Tower was
> both
> > a
> > > > Prison and a Royal Lodging. The fact of the matter is we
don't
> > KNOW
> > > > how long he was in the Tower, if he left and resided
elsewhere
> > (at
> > > > Sheriff Hutton or even at Tyrrell's house in Gipping.
Snippets
> > we
> > > do
> > > > have, including Mancini, just don't give us enough info, but
> > there's
> > > > at least three notable records that could refer to Edward V's
> > > > movements up to and including 1485. That's 1485.
> > > >
> > > > But in any case, it's worth mentioning that at that time,
even
> > > > bonafide prisoners at the Tower had the freedom to purchase
pies
> > and
> > > > stuff and wander with a degree of freedom in the grounds.
> > > >
> > > > (Not summat Mancini would have known about, I expect, which
is
> > why
> > > he
> > > > doesn't mention it).
> > > >
> > > > So let's not get carried away Arguably, the last we hear
about
> > E5,
> > > > he's in the Tower, which was a Royal Palace, and his quarters
> > appear
> > > > to have changed from those he'd occupied earlier in the
summer.
>
> > > > (Itself hardly surprising, considering the stink of a London
> > summer,
> > > > the risk of plague etc). Before his change of accommodation,
he
> > and
> > > > his brother had been spotted many times in the open
practising
> > their
> > > > archery skills. Hardly shankled at the ankles on basic
rations
> > and
> > > 5
> > > > floggings a day, is it?
> > > >
> > > > <We do know that the pre-contract story which bastardized
> > > > Edward was never thoroughly examined by an ecclesiastical
court
> >
> > > >
> > > > Well, at the risk of repeating myself, this seems to have
been
> > > > examined by proctors, as More confirms. More was a secular
> > lawyer,
> > > > but you'd expect him to have a bit of cross-over knowledge on
> the
> > > > matter. But it's irrelevant anyway, as proctors in the 15thC
> > > > certainly had the authority to pronounce judgements in
> > > ecclesiastical
> > > > courts. This is quite clear from the works of Prof Richard
> > > Helmholtz
> > > > (ex-Borthwick Institute), who I already quoted as an
authority
> on
> > > > this topic, but Spelman, another august authority, agrees.
> > > > Furthermore the University of Paris backs this up too, I've
been
> > > told.
> > > >
> > > > Another thing it appears you don't know about - in law atthe
> time
> > it
> > > > was not actually up to Richard to put the matter to a Canon
> > Court.
> > > > Technically, only the 'wronged' party, ie. EW or her
children,
> > were
> > > > entitled to to request an investigation of this type.
> > > >
> > > > And one other point. Richard, in E5's name, sends an urgent
> note
> > to
> > > > the Archbishop of Canterbury, referring to a matter of
national
> > > > importance, and requesting the Bishop convenes an urgent
> > Convocation
> > > > to discuss these issues.
> > > >
> > > > Rosemay Horrox, in her 'Study of Service' suggests this may
have
> > > been
> > > > an apeeal for money, which he was certainly entitled to do,
but
> > in
> > > > fact, the requests for cash always followed strict
guidelines,
> > with
> > > > the wording laid down centuries before. The request was
always
> > very
> > > > specifically worded, be it for a Southern or Northern See
> > > > Convocation, and the response back was always very
specifically
> > > > worded too. The Letter of 1483 does not follow this
convention
> > at
> > > > all, so it's logical to assume the Convocation was ordered fr
> > > > something else other than for financial reasons. (Info on
the
> > > > specific wording of these documents is in a Surtees Society
> > document
> > > > regarding Northern Convocations, if anyone fancies looking
> > further
> > > > into this. Richard's letter to Bourchier is in Harley 433,
> > IIRC).
> > > >
> > > > < I wasn't fantasizing about you and Lorraine, I was joking!
> > > > Lorraine brought up her jokey interest in Richard's anal
region,
> > so
> > > I
> > > > responded. It may've been a Freudian slip on her part, >
> > > >
> > > > Nope - just jokey comment. I knew exactly what I meant at
the
> > time.
> > >
> > > > Nowt Freudian about it.
> > > >
> > > > < I doubt if I could ever win arguments over you & Lorraine
> > > regarding
> > > > > Richard. It would be like trying to get Beatle fans to
admit
> > that
> > > > > apart from being reasonable musicians they were also
junkies
> > who
> > > > > encouraged the appalling use of LSD & Heroin!>
> > > >
> > > > The Beatles are a bit before my time, and aren't particular
> > > > favourites of mine, but if you really think 'The Beatles' as
> > > > individuals were 'junkies', then it shows how little you know
> > > >
> > > > a) of them as individual musicians and personages, and
> > > > b) of Drug-Related Slang 1963-2003.
> > > >
> > > > Lorraine

Hi Marie

<It's gratifying to know that prisoners could buy pies in the Tower,
> so long as they had heads with which to eat them!
>
> This seems to be an anachronistic reference to the goings-on in
Tudor times.>

It was me that introduced the idea of pies in the Tower. I madmit I
may be wrong about the pies, but back home I have a source note
somewhere that provisions and ale could be purchased by prisoners, as
well as others, who were in residence there, and in pre-Tudor times,
although I've no idea how truly accurate that info is. Certainly when
Malory was imprisoned in E4's time he was allowed to finish off his
Morte D'Arthur work, and purchased the necessary as and when. But
IIRC he was a Fleet resident, rather than a Tower one.

The point I'd originally intended making was similar to your thorough
post about the Princes' situation. in a nutshell: a change of rooms
was nothing to get worked up about, Mancini clearly didn't understand
the Tower's operation as a Royal residence, and NO_ONE knows what
happened to the lads, whether or not 'most' people 'think' they 'know'!

Lorraine

hi Marie

< Yes, Lorraine, I'd forgotten this incident but have just looked it up
> again in my copy of Pollard's book. Also, there is at least one
> other, described in Michael Jones' 'Bosworth'. That is Richard's
> insistence on supporting the Harringtons in their opposition to
> Stanley oppression (the Stanleys had literally kidnapped the young
> Harrington heiresses and forcibly married them to their own
> supporters in order to gain the Harrington lands), against Edward's
> wishes. At one point Richard was actually in arms with the
> Harringtons in defiance of his brother's policy. It seems to have
> culminated in a deal which involved "a property exchange between him
> [Richard] and Sir William Stanley, allowing the Stanleys to
> strengthen their position in North Wales..." . I assume Jones is
> referring to the Skipton-Chirk swap, which I mentioned in an earlier
> message.>

Yes, the Harrington dispute was interesting as it establishes that
Richard and the Stanleys weren't exactly the best of pals from early
on in Richard's career. He was quite young when the famous face-off
on the road with Thos Stanley took place as well, wasn't he?

And he certainly didn't endear himself to Edward during the Countess
of Oxford incident, when E4 personally warned Richard's potential
buyer of the London end of the property deal not to touch the place
with a bargepole!

Lorraine

> >
> > < Lorraine, possibly joking, found Richard sexually attractive as a
> > reason for her interest. >
> >
> > What a peculiar statement. Fancying someone who's been dead over
> 500
> > years is a bit left-field, even for me. I don't know where this
> idea
> > came from, but if, for instance, you are referring to my off-the-
> cuff
> > remark several weeks ago about Richard having a nice bum, then yes
> of
> > course I was joking. Did anyone seriously think otherwise?
> >
> > Lorraine
> >
> > Exits Left muttering: I haven't even seen a painting of his bum!
> > (Nor, I suspect, has anyone else!).

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie
>
> <It's gratifying to know that prisoners could buy pies in the
Tower,
> > so long as they had heads with which to eat them!
> >
> > This seems to be an anachronistic reference to the goings-on in
> Tudor times.>
>
> It was me that introduced the idea of pies in the Tower. I madmit I
> may be wrong about the pies, but back home I have a source note
> somewhere that provisions and ale could be purchased by prisoners,
as
> well as others, who were in residence there, and in pre-Tudor times,
> although I've no idea how truly accurate that info is. Certainly
when
> Malory was imprisoned in E4's time he was allowed to finish off his
> Morte D'Arthur work, and purchased the necessary as and when. But
> IIRC he was a Fleet resident, rather than a Tower one.


Don't worry, lorraine. My comment referred to David's quip about
people having heads to eat them with.
I'm sure prisoners could purchase things. As I understand from what
I've read on the Tower, it worked pretty much like so. The passageway
between the two concentric sets of walls was public space during the
daytime. There was even a tavern there. The area inside the inner
wall was private. Part of that again was walled off with its own
internal gateway, and held the royal apartments (that part was known
as Coldharbour). There would certainly have been street sellers in
the passage between the walls that ran alongside the Thames - I think
it was known as Water Lane. Certainly prisoners could have sent out
their servants, if they had them, to purchase pies, or if they were
in towers built into the southern wall they might I suppose have been
able to do it through a window; I imagine it is quite plausible that
they could have been allowed out under guard to purchase them. But it
shows the security problem with keeping the Princes in the Lanthorn
Tower, which was built into the wall and overlooked Water Lane, once
Richard had taken the throne. Also, of course, this was the King's
apartment and was no longer the appropriate place even if they were
to stay in the royal apartments.

Actually, Malory was held in the Tower on more than one occasion. He
was a prisoner in the Marshalsea and the Tower for much of the 1450s,
apparently largely due to the machinations of 'Good' Duke Humphrey of
Buckingham in making sure there was never a jury present when his
trial came up. They tended to move him into the Tower whenever it
looked as though the Yorkists were getting the upper hand. I'd love
to know what that was really all about. I'm quite sure he was working
on the Morte d'Arthur most of that time. It's sometimes said he wrote
it all during that last imprisonment, but I doubt this personally,
both because it's just such a huge work (mostly a translation from
French texts) - would have taken ages - and also because of internal
evidence. Different stories seem to have resonances with specific
periods, as I read them at any rate.
Marie
>
> The point I'd originally intended making was similar to your
thorough
> post about the Princes' situation. in a nutshell: a change of
rooms
> was nothing to get worked up about, Mancini clearly didn't
understand
> the Tower's operation as a Royal residence, and NO_ONE knows what
> happened to the lads, whether or not 'most' people 'think'
they 'know'!
>
> Lorraine