Re: Starkey (Does the link work now???)

Yes, I watched Starkey. In mitigation, he was trying to explain some very complicated events and relationships in a limited time to an audience with no prior knowledge. However, describing Edward, George & Richard as "three brutal brothers" while omitting to mention what had happened to their father and brother Edmund, ignoring the Woodville plot of 1483, and not mentioning Buckingham at all, was a very cursory skate through the period.

Incidentally, have any of the people who insist that Richard would have done away with his nephews on the grounds that they posed a threat to him, ever come up with a reason why, if that was so, he left his other nephew Edward Earl of Warwick at liberty ? Apart from the Woodvilles, anyone else who favoured replacing him on the throne could have just as easily used Warwick as a candidate, as indeed was recognised by Henry the Weasel by imprisoning him for the rest of his life and finally executing him on a trumped-up charge to encourage the Spanish to permit the marriage of their princess to his son. The argument that the legitimate Warwick was barred from reinstatement in the line of succession by his father's attainder, when the publicly-declared illegitimate sons of Edward IV could have been reinstated, does not hold water to me.

Richard G

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> BTW, did anyone see the Starkey program immediately following the
> documentary? What an awkward, ironic juxtaposition!
>
> Carol
>

Excellent points.... Could it even be that a Tudor sympathizer did away with the boys to start this nefarious plot line?

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 7, 2013, at 12:07 PM, "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...<mailto:RSG_Corris@...>> wrote:



Yes, I watched Starkey. In mitigation, he was trying to explain some very complicated events and relationships in a limited time to an audience with no prior knowledge. However, describing Edward, George & Richard as "three brutal brothers" while omitting to mention what had happened to their father and brother Edmund, ignoring the Woodville plot of 1483, and not mentioning Buckingham at all, was a very cursory skate through the period.

Incidentally, have any of the people who insist that Richard would have done away with his nephews on the grounds that they posed a threat to him, ever come up with a reason why, if that was so, he left his other nephew Edward Earl of Warwick at liberty ? Apart from the Woodvilles, anyone else who favoured replacing him on the throne could have just as easily used Warwick as a candidate, as indeed was recognised by Henry the Weasel by imprisoning him for the rest of his life and finally executing him on a trumped-up charge to encourage the Spanish to permit the marriage of their princess to his son. The argument that the legitimate Warwick was barred from reinstatement in the line of succession by his father's attainder, when the publicly-declared illegitimate sons of Edward IV could have been reinstated, does not hold water to me.

Richard G

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> BTW, did anyone see the Starkey program immediately following the
> documentary? What an awkward, ironic juxtaposition!
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "Richard" wrote:
.
.
.
> Incidentally, have any of the people who insist that Richard would have done away with his nephews on the grounds that they posed a threat to him, ever come up with a reason why, if that was so, he left his other nephew Edward Earl of Warwick at liberty ?


Weds writes:

Richard left 20-something heirs to the throne alive. I'm sure someone here can outline who they were and who died when, but I believe they were all executed under either H7 or H8?

Quite a few were:
Clarence's two healthy children, a grandson and a great-grandson disappeared whilst imprisoned - I don't count Thomas Stafford because he actually rebelled and after H8's death.
Elizabeth of Suffolk's son and another disappeared whilst imprisoned.
Others took holy orders (and couldn't then reproduce - social sterilisation)

The policy was a failure because a lot were missed. After 1542, Thomas Stafford was the only victim - two or three Poles were imprisoned under Elizabeth but not harmed.

----- Original Message -----
From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Starkey (Does the link work now???)



--- In , "Richard" wrote:
.
.
.
> Incidentally, have any of the people who insist that Richard would have done away with his nephews on the grounds that they posed a threat to him, ever come up with a reason why, if that was so, he left his other nephew Edward Earl of Warwick at liberty ?

Weds writes:

Richard left 20-something heirs to the throne alive. I'm sure someone here can outline who they were and who died when, but I believe they were all executed under either H7 or H8?

Weds wrote:
>
> Richard left 20-something heirs to the throne alive. I'm sure someone here can outline who they were and who died when, but I believe they were all executed under either H7 or H8?

Carol responds:

Richard's illegitimate son, John of Gloucester, was executed by Henry VII. Both of George of Clarence's children were executed, his son Edward Earl of Warwick (after prolonged imprisonment in the Tower) by Henry VII and his daughter, Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, as a woman in her sixties, by Henry VII. (The Poles remained Catholic, which did not endear them to Henry VIII). At least one of her sons was executed with her. Another, a cardinal named Reginald, escaped, and yet another turned state's evidence against his mother and brothers to escape execution. We can if you like count Perkin Warbeck as a possible son of Edward IV. Richard's sister Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, was childless, but she supported various pretenders against Henry VII; his eldest sister, Anne, Duchess of Exeter, had only daughters (one of whom died young; the other survived to pass on her mitochondrial DNA to a chain of female descendants. Another sister, Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk, produced a large number of children, the de la Poles (not to be confused with the Poles mentioned earlier). The eldest son, John, Earl of Lincoln (one of Richard's key supporters), died rebelling against Henry VII in the Battle of Stoke. His younger brother, Edmund, was one of the "pretenders" who plagued Henry VII's reign. (Sir James Tyrell was executed for supporting him. the charges that he murdered the "Princes in the Tower" were trumped up after his death.) Edmund was tricked into surrendering to Henry VII, who imprisoned him. Henry VIII executed him soon after his father's death. Another of the de la Poles, Richard ("the White Rose"), was also a "pretender," but he escaped to Europe and died there. Here's where it gets foggy. Another de la Pole brother, William (IIRC), was imprisoned in the Tower and died there. Another son, Edward, became a priest. A daughter, Anne, became a nun. There were other de la Poles, but I don't know their fates. Thomas Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham (yep, the son of *that* Buckingham) wasn't a Yorkist heir, but he was executed because he was too close to the throne and ostensibly bragged about it (true son of his father, evidently).

Of Elizabeth of York's sisters, one, Bridget, became a nun or was at least placed in a convent at a young age. Mary died at fourteen. Cecily was at first married to one of Richard's supporters but Henry had that annulled and married her to one of *his* supporters. After he died, she made a love match to a commoner and was exiled from the court. Sharon Kay Penman says that she had two children, named Margaret and *Richard*, but I can find no confirmation for that lovely rumor. Anne was married to Thomas Howard, son of the Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, who had fought for Richard at Bosworth. (Henry had made sure to bring the boy up at court so that he would be a staunch Tudor supporter; he was only twelve when Richard died.) Someone else may know what happened to their son, another Thomas. Catherine married William Courtenay, later the Earl of Devon, who was accused of corresponding with Richard's nephew Edmund de la Pole and thrown in the Tower by Henry VII. He was released by Henry VIII and died shortly afterward. He and Catherine had two sons and a daughter. One of their sons, Edward, Marquess of Exeter, was executed for his involvement in the rebellion of Cardinal Pole (George of Clarence's grandson). He was attainted and stripped of his earldom, and his son and his Catholic wife were imprisoned in the Tower.

Okay, I can see that this post has gotten way out of hand. Short list:
John of Gloucester, Edward of Warwick, and Perkin Warbeck executed by Henry VII; Edmund de la Pole, Margaret Pole, Henry Pole, Thomas Stafford, and Edward Courtenay executed by Henry VIII.

That's not counting those who died in battle or in the Tower. If I missed anybody or got any details wrong, feel free to correct me. It's at least comforting to know that not all the Yorkist heirs accepted the Tudor takeover. And if Cecily really named her son Richard, what better evidence could we ask for that she believed him innocent of her brother's deaths?

Carol

You have to write a book.....

On Feb 7, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Weds wrote:
>
> Richard left 20-something heirs to the throne alive. I'm sure someone here can outline who they were and who died when, but I believe they were all executed under either H7 or H8?

Carol responds:

Richard's illegitimate son, John of Gloucester, was executed by Henry VII. Both of George of Clarence's children were executed, his son Edward Earl of Warwick (after prolonged imprisonment in the Tower) by Henry VII and his daughter, Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, as a woman in her sixties, by Henry VII. (The Poles remained Catholic, which did not endear them to Henry VIII). At least one of her sons was executed with her. Another, a cardinal named Reginald, escaped, and yet another turned state's evidence against his mother and brothers to escape execution. We can if you like count Perkin Warbeck as a possible son of Edward IV. Richard's sister Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, was childless, but she supported various pretenders against Henry VII; his eldest sister, Anne, Duchess of Exeter, had only daughters (one of whom died young; the other survived to pass on her mitochondrial DNA to a chain of female descendants. Another sister, Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk, produced a large number of children, the de la Poles (not to be confused with the Poles mentioned earlier). The eldest son, John, Earl of Lincoln (one of Richard's key supporters), died rebelling against Henry VII in the Battle of Stoke. His younger brother, Edmund, was one of the "pretenders" who plagued Henry VII's reign. (Sir James Tyrell was executed for supporting him. the charges that he murdered the "Princes in the Tower" were trumped up after his death.) Edmund was tricked into surrendering to Henry VII, who imprisoned him. Henry VIII executed him soon after his father's death. Another of the de la Poles, Richard ("the White Rose"), was also a "pretender," but he escaped to Europe and died there. Here's where it gets foggy. Another de la Pole brother, William (IIRC), was imprisoned in the Tower and died there. Another son, Edward, became a priest. A daughter, Anne, became a nun. There were other de la Poles, but I don't know their fates. Thomas Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham (yep, the son of *that* Buckingham) wasn't a Yorkist heir, but he was executed because he was too close to the throne and ostensibly bragged about it (true son of his father, evidently).

Of Elizabeth of York's sisters, one, Bridget, became a nun or was at least placed in a convent at a young age. Mary died at fourteen. Cecily was at first married to one of Richard's supporters but Henry had that annulled and married her to one of *his* supporters. After he died, she made a love match to a commoner and was exiled from the court. Sharon Kay Penman says that she had two children, named Margaret and *Richard*, but I can find no confirmation for that lovely rumor. Anne was married to Thomas Howard, son of the Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, who had fought for Richard at Bosworth. (Henry had made sure to bring the boy up at court so that he would be a staunch Tudor supporter; he was only twelve when Richard died.) Someone else may know what happened to their son, another Thomas. Catherine married William Courtenay, later the Earl of Devon, who was accused of corresponding with Richard's nephew Edmund de la Pole and thrown in the Tower by Henry VII. He was released by Henry VIII and died shortly afterward. He and Catherine had two sons and a daughter. One of their sons, Edward, Marquess of Exeter, was executed for his involvement in the rebellion of Cardinal Pole (George of Clarence's grandson). He was attainted and stripped of his earldom, and his son and his Catholic wife were imprisoned in the Tower.

Okay, I can see that this post has gotten way out of hand. Short list:
John of Gloucester, Edward of Warwick, and Perkin Warbeck executed by Henry VII; Edmund de la Pole, Margaret Pole, Henry Pole, Thomas Stafford, and Edward Courtenay executed by Henry VIII.

That's not counting those who died in battle or in the Tower. If I missed anybody or got any details wrong, feel free to correct me. It's at least comforting to know that not all the Yorkist heirs accepted the Tudor takeover. And if Cecily really named her son Richard, what better evidence could we ask for that she believed him innocent of her brother's deaths?

Carol

Carol responds:

Richard's illegitimate son, John of Gloucester, was executed by Henry VII.
Both of George of Clarence's children were executed, his son Edward Earl of
Warwick (after prolonged imprisonment in the Tower) by Henry VII and his
daughter, Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, as a woman in her sixties,
by Henry VII. (The Poles remained Catholic, which did not endear them to
Henry VIII). At least one of her sons was executed with her. Another, a
cardinal named Reginald, escaped, and yet another turned state's evidence
against his mother and brothers to escape execution. We can if you like
count Perkin Warbeck as a possible son of Edward IV. Richard's sister
Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, was childless, but she supported various
pretenders against Henry VII; his eldest sister, Anne, Duchess of Exeter,
had only daughters (one of whom died young; the other survived to pass on
her mitochondrial DNA to a chain of female descendants. Another sister,
Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk, produced a large number of children, the de
la Poles (not to be confused with the Poles mentioned earlier). The eldest
son, John, Earl of Lincoln (one of Richard's key supporters), died rebelling
against Henry VII in the Battle of Stoke. His younger brother, Edmund, was
one of the "pretenders" who plagued Henry VII's reign. (Sir James
Tyrell was executed for supporting him. the charges that he murdered the
"Princes in the Tower" were trumped up after his death.) Edmund was tricked
into surrendering to Henry VII, who imprisoned him. Henry VIII executed him
soon after his father's death. Another of the de la Poles, Richard ("the
White Rose"), was also a "pretender," but he escaped to Europe and died
there. Here's where it gets foggy. Another de la Pole brother, William
(IIRC), was imprisoned in the Tower and died there. Another son, Edward,
became a priest. A daughter, Anne, became a nun. There were other de la
Poles, but I don't know their fates. Thomas Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham
(yep, the son of *that* Buckingham) wasn't a Yorkist heir, but he was
executed because he was too close to the throne and ostensibly bragged about
it (true son of his father, evidently).

Great account of the Tudors butchery Carol, and these Tudor fanatics think
Richard was a mass murderer? Just for the record, Buckingham's son was
Edward, not Thomas. He had plenty of royal blood, if you look back he had 3
lines of descent from Edward III, and a couple of others further back.
Apparently after Henry VII took the throne on a weaker claim than Richard
III he and the Tudors feared others w/ more royal blood. Edward Stafford
had plenty and wasn't smart enough to keep his mouth shut about it.

What many fail to realize is that strict rules of inheritance weren't really
well established at the time. The only previous time the throne passed thru
a female was Matilda and there was a war over that. Henry IV dethroning his
cousin Richard II threw it all into chaos for many years, esp. when it was
followed by the insanity and misgovernment under Henry VI. When Henry IV
took the throne he was actually 5th in line. I know it's the dreaded
wikipedia, but they do a good job on this-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_line_of_succession

Hopefully this is a diversion for those so upset by comments on the recent
events.

We should be happy Richard was found. I understand fussing over details,
but this is something absolutely remarkable that has happened in our
lifetimes. Try to enjoy it and time is on our side after this remarkable
find, I'm sure!

T

Only one error in that list: Thomas Stafford was the third Duke of Buckingham's grandson, also of the Countess of Salisbury, executed in 1557.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: Starkey (Does the link work now???)



Weds wrote:
>
> Richard left 20-something heirs to the throne alive. I'm sure someone here can outline who they were and who died when, but I believe they were all executed under either H7 or H8?

Carol responds:

Richard's illegitimate son, John of Gloucester, was executed by Henry VII. Both of George of Clarence's children were executed, his son Edward Earl of Warwick (after prolonged imprisonment in the Tower) by Henry VII and his daughter, Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, as a woman in her sixties, by Henry VII. (The Poles remained Catholic, which did not endear them to Henry VIII). At least one of her sons was executed with her. Another, a cardinal named Reginald, escaped, and yet another turned state's evidence against his mother and brothers to escape execution. We can if you like count Perkin Warbeck as a possible son of Edward IV. Richard's sister Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, was childless, but she supported various pretenders against Henry VII; his eldest sister, Anne, Duchess of Exeter, had only daughters (one of whom died young; the other survived to pass on her mitochondrial DNA to a chain of female descendants. Another sister, Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk, produced a large number of children, the de la Poles (not to be confused with the Poles mentioned earlier). The eldest son, John, Earl of Lincoln (one of Richard's key supporters), died rebelling against Henry VII in the Battle of Stoke. His younger brother, Edmund, was one of the "pretenders" who plagued Henry VII's reign. (Sir James Tyrell was executed for supporting him. the charges that he murdered the "Princes in the Tower" were trumped up after his death.) Edmund was tricked into surrendering to Henry VII, who imprisoned him. Henry VIII executed him soon after his father's death. Another of the de la Poles, Richard ("the White Rose"), was also a "pretender," but he escaped to Europe and died there. Here's where it gets foggy. Another de la Pole brother, William (IIRC), was imprisoned in the Tower and died there. Another son, Edward, became a priest. A daughter, Anne, became a nun. There were other de la Poles, but I don't know their fates. Thomas Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham (yep, the son of *that* Buckingham) wasn't a Yorkist heir, but he was executed because he was too close to the throne and ostensibly bragged about it (true son of his father, evidently).

Of Elizabeth of York's sisters, one, Bridget, became a nun or was at least placed in a convent at a young age. Mary died at fourteen. Cecily was at first married to one of Richard's supporters but Henry had that annulled and married her to one of *his* supporters. After he died, she made a love match to a commoner and was exiled from the court. Sharon Kay Penman says that she had two children, named Margaret and *Richard*, but I can find no confirmation for that lovely rumor. Anne was married to Thomas Howard, son of the Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, who had fought for Richard at Bosworth. (Henry had made sure to bring the boy up at court so that he would be a staunch Tudor supporter; he was only twelve when Richard died.) Someone else may know what happened to their son, another Thomas. Catherine married William Courtenay, later the Earl of Devon, who was accused of corresponding with Richard's nephew Edmund de la Pole and thrown in the Tower by Henry VII. He was released by Henry VIII and died shortly afterward. He and Catherine had two sons and a daughter. One of their sons, Edward, Marquess of Exeter, was executed for his involvement in the rebellion of Cardinal Pole (George of Clarence's grandson). He was attainted and stripped of his earldom, and his son and his Catholic wife were imprisoned in the Tower.

Okay, I can see that this post has gotten way out of hand. Short list:
John of Gloucester, Edward of Warwick, and Perkin Warbeck executed by Henry VII; Edmund de la Pole, Margaret Pole, Henry Pole, Thomas Stafford, and Edward Courtenay executed by Henry VIII.

That's not counting those who died in battle or in the Tower. If I missed anybody or got any details wrong, feel free to correct me. It's at least comforting to know that not all the Yorkist heirs accepted the Tudor takeover. And if Cecily really named her son Richard, what better evidence could we ask for that she believed him innocent of her brother's deaths?

Carol

"Terry Buckaloo" wrote:


> Great account of the Tudors butchery Carol, and these Tudor fanatics think Richard was a mass murderer? Just for the record, Buckingham's son was Edward, not Thomas. He had plenty of royal blood, if you look back he had 3 lines of descent from Edward III, and a couple of others further back.

Carol responds:

Sorry about that. I think someone else had just mentioned Thomas Stafford so that name was still in my head and my fingers typed it. I did know that his name was Edward. [Snipping your excellent response to and development of the Edward Stafford matter.]

By the way, it would help if you changed "Carol responds" (which is how I always introduce my posts) to "Carol wrote" and then put quotation marks around my words to distinguish my words from yours. Yahoo, unfortunately, doesn't provide a good system for quoting and responding to posts so we have to improvise around here.

I completely agree with what you said about the Tudor butchery and fears. Contrast Richard quite calmly keeping Edward of Warwick alive and in John Earl of Lincoln's protection.

Carol

Hi
"There was not one left to piss against the wall"

Do you know of the cynical comment by Sir Thomas Craig on the
systematic elimination of the Plantagenet line by the first two Tudor monarchs. "There was not one left to piss against the wall".
Both H7 and H8 made sure to protect their thrones and the succession by acting ruthlessly with the systematic elimination/execution of those with Plantagenet blood i.e those with a better, more justifiable claim than the illegal seizure carried out by the Tudors. The argument sometimes made that H7 only did it out of necessity is a smokescreen an he was capable as acting as ruthlessly as his son.

On doing a bit of digging, I have found a reference in the Bible

"And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends." ( I Kings 16:11)
Comment
Consider that many Christians tell us to believe all of the Bible, must we also include this vulgar language as the inspiration of God?
(See also I Kings 14:10, 21:21; II Kings 9:8.)
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible4.htm#piss-crimes

Elaine

--- In , "Terry Buckaloo" wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Richard's illegitimate son, John of Gloucester, was executed by Henry VII.
> Both of George of Clarence's children were executed, his son Edward Earl of
> Warwick (after prolonged imprisonment in the Tower) by Henry VII and his
> daughter, Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, as a woman in her sixties,
> by Henry VII. (The Poles remained Catholic, which did not endear them to
> Henry VIII). At least one of her sons was executed with her. Another, a
> cardinal named Reginald, escaped, and yet another turned state's evidence
> against his mother and brothers to escape execution. We can if you like
> count Perkin Warbeck as a possible son of Edward IV. Richard's sister
> Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, was childless, but she supported various
> pretenders against Henry VII; his eldest sister, Anne, Duchess of Exeter,
> had only daughters (one of whom died young; the other survived to pass on
> her mitochondrial DNA to a chain of female descendants. Another sister,
> Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk, produced a large number of children, the de
> la Poles (not to be confused with the Poles mentioned earlier). The eldest
> son, John, Earl of Lincoln (one of Richard's key supporters), died rebelling
> against Henry VII in the Battle of Stoke. His younger brother, Edmund, was
> one of the "pretenders" who plagued Henry VII's reign. (Sir James
> Tyrell was executed for supporting him. the charges that he murdered the
> "Princes in the Tower" were trumped up after his death.) Edmund was tricked
> into surrendering to Henry VII, who imprisoned him. Henry VIII executed him
> soon after his father's death. Another of the de la Poles, Richard ("the
> White Rose"), was also a "pretender," but he escaped to Europe and died
> there. Here's where it gets foggy. Another de la Pole brother, William
> (IIRC), was imprisoned in the Tower and died there. Another son, Edward,
> became a priest. A daughter, Anne, became a nun. There were other de la
> Poles, but I don't know their fates. Thomas Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham
> (yep, the son of *that* Buckingham) wasn't a Yorkist heir, but he was
> executed because he was too close to the throne and ostensibly bragged about
> it (true son of his father, evidently).
>
> Great account of the Tudors butchery Carol, and these Tudor fanatics think
> Richard was a mass murderer? Just for the record, Buckingham's son was
> Edward, not Thomas. He had plenty of royal blood, if you look back he had 3
> lines of descent from Edward III, and a couple of others further back.
> Apparently after Henry VII took the throne on a weaker claim than Richard
> III he and the Tudors feared others w/ more royal blood. Edward Stafford
> had plenty and wasn't smart enough to keep his mouth shut about it.
>
> What many fail to realize is that strict rules of inheritance weren't really
> well established at the time. The only previous time the throne passed thru
> a female was Matilda and there was a war over that. Henry IV dethroning his
> cousin Richard II threw it all into chaos for many years, esp. when it was
> followed by the insanity and misgovernment under Henry VI. When Henry IV
> took the throne he was actually 5th in line. I know it's the dreaded
> wikipedia, but they do a good job on this-
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_line_of_succession
>
> Hopefully this is a diversion for those so upset by comments on the recent
> events.
>
> We should be happy Richard was found. I understand fussing over details,
> but this is something absolutely remarkable that has happened in our
> lifetimes. Try to enjoy it and time is on our side after this remarkable
> find, I'm sure!
>
> T
>
>
>
>

"ellrosa1452" wrote:
>
> Hi
> "There was not one left to piss against the wall"

Carol responds:

It only means (with a clear reference to the biblical passage) not one male was left, in this case, not one male Yorkist heir. The expression wasn't considered vulgar in those days, just a fact of life in the days before modern plumbing and Victorian notions of propriety.

Carol

In comparison to all the Tudors the York brothers were angelic!!

--- In , "Richard" wrote:
>
> Yes, I watched Starkey. In mitigation, he was trying to explain some very complicated events and relationships in a limited time to an audience with no prior knowledge. However, describing Edward, George & Richard as "three brutal brothers" while omitting to mention what had happened to their father and brother Edmund, ignoring the Woodville plot of 1483, and not mentioning Buckingham at all, was a very cursory skate through the period.
>
> Incidentally, have any of the people who insist that Richard would have done away with his nephews on the grounds that they posed a threat to him, ever come up with a reason why, if that was so, he left his other nephew Edward Earl of Warwick at liberty ? Apart from the Woodvilles, anyone else who favoured replacing him on the throne could have just as easily used Warwick as a candidate, as indeed was recognised by Henry the Weasel by imprisoning him for the rest of his life and finally executing him on a trumped-up charge to encourage the Spanish to permit the marriage of their princess to his son. The argument that the legitimate Warwick was barred from reinstatement in the line of succession by his father's attainder, when the publicly-declared illegitimate sons of Edward IV could have been reinstated, does not hold water to me.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > BTW, did anyone see the Starkey program immediately following the
> > documentary? What an awkward, ironic juxtaposition!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>