Re: Buckingham

Hello Paul!

You asked: Did I miss someone suggesting Margaret had
the bastards done away with?
***

That might be me. I have this notion that Margaret
Beaufort, Bishop Morton, Henry Tudor and Buckingham
were trying to eliminate Richardýs nephews by remote
control. They were using Richard as a tool to
eliminate his nephews. Once that was done, they
overthrow Richard and get to look like heroes.
***

You wrote: Geoffrey Richardson's theory apart that
is.
**

I don't know Richardson's theory. Can you tell me
more?
***

You wrote: I don't rate it myself, If she had been a
part of any conspiracy to muder them Henry would have
known and the pretenders would not have caused him so
much anguish and paranoia.
***

True. But if Richard and his supporters successfully
smuggled the nephews to Gipping Hall, none of them
would have known where the nephews were.

***
A couple of other points from this thread.
Henry Tudor's branch of the line, i.e. the Beauforts
were excluded from
The throne when legitamised by Richard II. Now this
could have been later overturned, but never was, so
legally he had no rights, hence his claim of King by
conquest alone, and his reluctance to rule by right of
his wife of York, thus the delay in the marriage.
***

So Henry got away with breaking the rules of
inheritance. Is that right?
***


Buckingham I have always thought was after the main
chance for himself.
His only problem was he wasn't as clever as he thought
he was.
***

I think itýs possible that Margaret Beaufort, Bishop
Morton and Henry Tudor were using Buckingham, and
Buckingham didn't realize it.
***

I think Shakespeare's Richard was in fact Buckingham,
always thinking about getting himsef into a position
where he could take the throne himself. After all the
house of York had not been kind to him (as he may have
thought) keeping him from anything but ceremonial
duties and the postitions he saw his family as having
the right to. Also they pushed a Woodville bride onto
him at a young age.
What is it some say? my two penny worth!
***

That makes sense to me.

Marion








__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 17:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: RE: Buckingham
>
> I don't know Richardson's theory. Can you tell me
> more?
It was a plot between Margaret Beaufort and Morton who had the boys done in
then buried in the Tower. 'The Deceivers' is his book.
I don't buy into it myself. Interesting but has a few too many holes for me.
Paul

Marie wrote: But would Buckingham have been trying to
kill them on Richard's
orders or not? (I know we're all Ricardians, but does
the evidence
help us either way?)

Brunhilde wrote: Hmmm, but in that case it seriously
begs the question of Buckingham's motive. It would
surely have had to be one of two things: to help
Richard be free of threat (which I doubt); or to get a
step nearer the crown himself. In which case I don't
think he would have had any compunction about killing
both, godson or not.

However I do think Buckingham has something to do with
whatever happened to the princes if only because the
rumours seem to spring up wherever Morton goes, and
Morton spent time with the duke before fleeing. He
would no doubt have found it easy to worm information
out of him if the duke had done anything with the boys
or - and here I speak heresy - if he knew Richard had
(which I don't believe for a moment, of course!).

***

I'm still puzzling over the decision to send Morton to
Brecnock with Buckingham.

Who decided that Buckingham's residence was the best
place to imprison Morton? Did Buckingham volunteer to
keep Morton? Or did Richard ask him to keep Morton?
Or did someone else suggest sending Morton to Brecnock
with Buckingham? If that someone else was Stanley,
could his wife, Margaret Beaufort, have had anything
to do with it?

I've read that Morton escaped from the Tower in 1461.
That might explain why he wasn't imprisoned in the
Tower in 1483.

But it doesn't explain why Buckingham took Morton
"home" with him. Are there other examples of
prisoners going "home" with high government officials
in this way? If not, why is Morton such an exception?

Marion



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Brunhilde wrote: rumours seem to spring up wherever
Morton goes

***

Morton spent time in Margaret of Anjou's court during
the 1460s. I haven't found a detailed accounting for
that time. So it's tempting to speculate that Morton
spent some of that time studying Louis XI's
disinformation tactics.

I've said before that I think Morton was too shrewd to
leave a paper trail. So there's no way of knowing who
he might have met in France that inspired him to new
depths of creative rumor-mongering. It's also
possible that he didn't need the help. Perhaps he
taught Louis XI's disinformation team a few things.

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

> But it doesn't explain why Buckingham took Morton
> "home" with him. Are there other examples of
> prisoners going "home" with high government officials
> in this way? If not, why is Morton such an exception?
>
> Marion

Nicholas Jennings (vagrant) but I don't supose that counts! Maybe he
got preferential treatment as a churchman like MB did as a woman,
and the duchess of York was under a kind of house arrest with a
duchess and the duke of Buckingham, wasn't she? Slightly different I
know, but similar vein.
B

>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com

Warren: you asked why Edward of Warwick wasn't Edward IV's heir after Stillington's revelations. This is because Clarence was attainted - his descendants could not inherit a title or claim to the throne from him.

Richard was the next in line once the illegitimacy of Edward IV's children was established. His "Titulus Regius" of 1484 proclaimed their illegitimacy so they were no threat to him.
However, Henry VII repealed this TR so they would have been a threat after this. He married their legitimised sister and used her claim to bolster his - so he needed them to be thought of as dead.

The attainder could have been overturned. Lots were.

Karen

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:15:00 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Buckingham






Warren: you asked why Edward of Warwick wasn't Edward IV's heir after
Stillington's revelations. This is because Clarence was attainted - his
descendants could not inherit a title or claim to the throne from him.

Richard was the next in line once the illegitimacy of Edward IV's children
was established. His "Titulus Regius" of 1484 proclaimed their illegitimacy
so they were no threat to him.
However, Henry VII repealed this TR so they would have been a threat after
this. He married their legitimised sister and used her claim to bolster his
- so he needed them to be thought of as dead.

I'm always amazed at the wonderful, open conversations happening here, and wish I'd had access to them years ago, when I went back to writing the play. Don't know what he was called by his intimates in the day, but in the play he's Harry.

I've never doubted that Harry's response to knowledge of EIV's death was to rush pell-mell to Richard. How he got the information I've never considered before - but he was married to the Queen's sister, and it would seem that EW's first act was to let every member of her family know, by swift messenger, exactly what had happened and that Richard was now Protector of the realm.

I've never imagined that Harry liked any of the lot - he was four when Richard and George came to live briefly with his family, just the right age to follow them like a puppy, enthralled. I'm guessing both the brothers made a grand impression on him and, in considering their characters, he got a bit more attention from seven-year-old Richard than self-absorbed George. Whatever the distance between them as they grew up, they were Family, as his wife's family would never be, to him. He cannot have been happy to be commanded to sit in Richard's stead while EIV, himself, acted as Prosecutor against George. He may well have been deeply angry at the Woodvilles because, except for his marriage, even though his was the second peerage in the kingdom, all of his in-laws had received honors that might have been his.

Finding out that Richard was the designated Man of the Moment, it makes perfect sense that he would rush straight to his closest blood cousin, and offer his help, knowing that at last he'd be able to get some of his own. Nor is it surprising that, seeing a chance to rise even higher, overriding common sense, he jumped for the gold ring and so spectacularly missed.

This thread has also reminded me that I'm pretty sure none of the present Grand Poobahs of the Society are members here, or it would have been cited as a stellar appendage long ago, instead of suffering the recent ax. Hopefully, someone will rethink the decision in the future. Since the group name can't be changed - they are kind of stuck with its existence (though we're now about as easy to find as Diagon Alley) - I'm holding the thought that the decision will be reevaluated. Eventually.