Identity of Crowland

I was interested to read above that many historians now take the view
that Bishop Russell was not the author of Crowland. I thought he
fitted the bill nicely - Doctor of Canon Law, and actually at
Crowland in April 1486 when the second continuation was actually
written, plus no mention of Russell at all in the document (which is
surprising considering he was R III's Chancellor) and would be
particularly surprising if someone other than Russell wrote it. I
certainly haven't come across other candidates mentioned other than
Morton, (rather unlikely). Who are these other candidates that have
been suggested and what is the evidence for them?

And Jen - I agree that Weir's book presents a one-sided view although
after reading widely on this subject I do believe that, on the
balance of probabilities, R III did order the Prince's death.

--- In , ludbrook2000
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I was interested to read above that many historians now take the
view
> that Bishop Russell was not the author of Crowland. I thought he
> fitted the bill nicely - Doctor of Canon Law, and actually at
> Crowland in April 1486 when the second continuation was actually
> written, plus no mention of Russell at all in the document (which
is
> surprising considering he was R III's Chancellor) and would be
> particularly surprising if someone other than Russell wrote it.

This is Weir's argument. Could you please explain it to me? I'm dense.

I
> certainly haven't come across other candidates mentioned other than
> Morton, (rather unlikely). Who are these other candidates that have
> been suggested and what is the evidence for them?

Very surprised you haven't read about aother candidates. Probably
nbot fair of me to say that Russell's been ruled out, far from it,
but he's been only one of a list of candidates for the last 2 decades
or more. Henry Sharp and Richard Lavender have both been seriously
argued (you would probably find something in back numbers of The
Ricardian). More recently, there is an argument in favour of John
Gunthorpe in David Baldwin's biography of Elizabeth Woodville. He
does mark the various candidates (also including Piers Curteys)
against a list of criteria. Bishop Russell comes out very well on
points, but was crucially more in the know during Richard's reign
than the Continuator appears to have been, and was also crucially
absent from the 1475 expedition to France.
>
> And Jen - I agree that Weir's book presents a one-sided view
although
> after reading widely on this subject I do believe that, on the
> balance of probabilities, R III did order the Prince's death.

Okay, we all have our gut feelings, but it probably doesn't help Jen
to bombard her with them at a point when she has no tools to assess
them with. I think she deserves the chance to make her own mind up.
Which is why I'm trying to confine myself to a critique of Weir's
book. Perhaps we can also think of other books or articles she might
read.

By the by, Jen, you asked for the Society's view. It might surprise
you to learn (after reading Alison Weir), that we starry-eyed
whitewashers don't have one other than the mission statement (see
left). We hopefully exist to encourage genuine open-minded research.