Richard's Tomb

Some years after Richard's death Henry VII had a monument made for
his grave.

1. Is there a description or drawing ever made of that monument?

2. What led Henry VII to spend some money - though not that much I
believe - on a monument for Richard?

Helen

--- In , sweethelly2003
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Some years after Richard's death Henry VII had a monument made for
> his grave.
>
> 1. Is there a description or drawing ever made of that monument?
>
> 2. What led Henry VII to spend some money - though not that much I
> believe - on a monument for Richard?
>
> Helen

Hi Helen.

Another scurry down to find yet one more Ancient Ricardian (this one
vol III no 50, Sept 1975). This one has a short article by Rhoda
Edwards on Richard's tomb.

There are two conflicting documents relating to the tomb:

1) A document in the Public Record Office Early Chancery Proceeding
series dated 1 July 1496 [ref C1/206/69 if anyone wants to look it
up, but apparently it is very hard to decipher]. This shows that
Walter Hylton, a prominent Nottingham citizen, alderman and J.P.who
had been in the alabaster trade from before 1480 (Nottingham being
the national centre for alabaster work), was contracted to build the
tomb in July 1495, for a sum hard to read but probably £50, two be
paid in two installments: £20 up front and the rest on completion.
However, there was a complicated quadrupartite contract, and the
document relates to the case brought in 1496 by one of the four
parties claiming his name had been used without his knowledge and he
didn't like one of the other parties anyway.
2) an 18th century transcript of a household account book of 1495
(now lost) noting a payment in September 1495 to James Keyley of £10
1 shilling for King Richard's tomb.

Edwards seems to think there are two possible interpretations:
i) The payment to Keyley was Hylton's first instalment (even though
it's only just over half the amount in the contract)
ii) While the case was wrangling Henry found another contractor to do
the job on the cheap. I tend to go with this one.

I don't know why Henry bothered with a tomb at all. Perhaps people
thought it very bad form that he hadn't done something. Maybe they
remembered how Richard had Henry VI's body reinterred at Windsor and
made comparisons. It was ten years after Bosworth before he got round
to it so it doesn't seem to have been something he was particularly
eager to do.

I'm sure there is a verse said to have been inscribed on the tomb,
but I don't know where I read this - it was many years ago - or how
authentic it is.

Marie

--- In , sweethelly2003
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Some years after Richard's death Henry VII had a monument made for
> his grave.
>
> 1. Is there a description or drawing ever made of that monument?
>
> 2. What led Henry VII to spend some money - though not that much I
> believe - on a monument for Richard?
>
> Helen

Just to add to my earlier message, the article says that the 18th C
Leicestershire historian John Nichols described the tomb as having
been of "mingle coloured marble". Don't know how he knew this as it
had been destroyed 200 years earlier. But if this is correct it means
the tomb that was finally made was not alabaster, which supports the
idea that Keyley's payment represents a new, cheaper contract. If he
were paid in two instalments, as Hylton was to have been, then of
course the full cost is likely to have been £20 or £30. Perhaps he
said he'd do it for half of Hylton's quote - 25 quid.
Marie

--- In , sweethelly2003
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Some years after Richard's death Henry VII had a monument made for
> his grave.
>
> 1. Is there a description or drawing ever made of that monument?
>
> 2. What led Henry VII to spend some money - though not that much I
> believe - on a monument for Richard?
>
> Helen

A friend from the area where Richard was buried says after he was
disinterred his coffin was used locally as a horse trough. This
might explain how the kind of stone was known 200 years later.

I think this another one of the legends, and I read somewhere recently that
this had already been discounted.
Paul

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:09:29 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Tomb
>
> A friend from the area where Richard was buried says after he was
> disinterred his coffin was used locally as a horse trough.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> I think this another one of the legends, and I read somewhere
recently that
> this had already been discounted.
> Paul
>
>
Do you have any kind of reference for that Paul? My friend would be
interested. It's the sort of story that can so easily be created out
of nothing, so I should be interested in hard evidence one way or
the other. Something else I was wondering was just how widespread
was such desecration at the dissolution? War Richard singled out for
this treatment or was it common to destroy monastic tombs? It
occurred in France during the revolution, with numerous royal tombs
destroyed, but those were very different circumstances, involving
anti-royal feelings as they did.

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:02:38 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Tomb
>
> Do you have any kind of reference for that Paul?
I wish I could remember where I saw it but as with his life poor Richard has
had to put up with a lot of stories about him after his death. This is one
of them. I¹ll keep looking to see if I can find where I read it.
>My friend would be
> interested. It's the sort of story that can so easily be created out
> of nothing, so I should be interested in hard evidence one way or
> the other.
i think it is a part of the tales told about what happened to his bones.
>Something else I was wondering was just how widespread
> was such desecration at the dissolution? War Richard singled out for
> this treatment or was it common to destroy monastic tombs? It
> occurred in France during the revolution, with numerous royal tombs
> destroyed, but those were very different circumstances, involving
> anti-royal feelings as they did.
I think what happened to Richard¹s tomb was part of the general anti
clerical hysteria CromwellŒs agents fanned up, and all you have to do is
look at any one of the former religious houses to see the amount of
destruction and vandalism.
Of course Richard¹s tomb being destroyed doesn¹t necessarily mean his grave
was desecrated. Holinshed wrote that Henry VII ³caused a tomb to be set up
OVER the place where he was buried in the church of Grey Friars at
Leicester²
The Chamber of Accounts dated 11th September 1495 shows that James Keyley
was paid £10-0s-02p for King Richard¹s Tomb. Can¹t have been up to much can
it?
A manuscript in the College of Arms has an epitaph associated with the tomb.
³I who am beneath this marble stone,
Richard the Third, possessed the British Throne.²
(Yes it says British which makes me doubt it is authentic)
It goes on to mention
- the year thirteen hundred was and eighty four, the twenty first of August
so again I do wonder as such BIG mistakes having been on a memorial.
The prior of Grey Friars signed the deed of surrender of the Monastery on
10th November 1538. Over the next few years the buildings were demolished
slowly and used for other houses.
The first report of the desecration of the tomb wasn¹t until 1611, a long
time for tales to be invented. John Speed says his tomb was ³pulled down
and utterly defaced - his body (as tradition has it) was borne out of the
city and contemptuously bestowed under the end of Bow Bridge².
Then there came the story of the Dean of Westminster being shown in 1612
Richard¹s grave in the garden of a former mayor of Leicester marked by a
stone pillar.
There is no evidence to support the tradition that Richard¹s remains were
taken from the Grey Friars and thrown into the river Soar at the Bow Bridge.
It happens to be over half a mile between monastery and Bridge.
So all in all I would say that all we know for certain is that a tomb was
built OVER Richard¹s grave, and that the tomb was destroyed during the
Reformation.
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@y...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:02:38 -0000
> > To:

> I think what happened to Richard¹s tomb was part of the general
anti
> clerical hysteria CromwellŒs agents fanned up, and all you have to
do is
> look at any one of the former religious houses to see the amount of
> destruction and vandalism.

Ah but that is fairly different. Although Protestants like Cromwell
and his officers did not necessarily believe in prayers for the
dead, chantries and so on, they did believe in heaven and hell and
the importance of burial. So destroying a monastery, which
represenented despised beliefs, and destroying a tomb which did not,
were entirely different things. Then there is the issue of
deliberate vandalism and accidental, and that which is personal and
that which is general.

> Of course Richard¹s tomb being destroyed doesn¹t necessarily mean
his grave
> was desecrated.

Very true. It would be nice to believe that this may mean he still
lies safely where he was buried. It has been one of those things
which has caused me grief, that he has no tomb.

Holinshed wrote that Henry VII ³caused a tomb to be set up
> OVER the place where he was buried in the church of Grey Friars at
> Leicester²
> The Chamber of Accounts dated 11th September 1495 shows that James
Keyley
> was paid £10-0s-02p for King Richard¹s Tomb. Can¹t have been up to
much can
> it?

He always was a stingy cheapskate! ;-)

> A manuscript in the College of Arms has an epitaph associated with
the tomb.
> ³I who am beneath this marble stone,
> Richard the Third, possessed the British Throne.²
> (Yes it says British which makes me doubt it is authentic)
> It goes on to mention
> - the year thirteen hundred was and eighty four, the twenty first
of August
> so again I do wonder as such BIG mistakes having been on a
memorial.

Rather a lot of errors for such a short piece. Reminds me of the US
placard, which only had 3 words on it, and 2 of them were
grammatically wrong! ("You done good").

> The prior of Grey Friars signed the deed of surrender of the
Monastery on
> 10th November 1538. Over the next few years the buildings were
demolished
> slowly and used for other houses.
> The first report of the desecration of the tomb wasn¹t until 1611,
a long
> time for tales to be invented. John Speed says his tomb was
³pulled down
> and utterly defaced - his body (as tradition has it) was borne out
of the
> city and contemptuously bestowed under the end of Bow Bridge².

And there is no earlier reference to his body being removed? Has
anyone done an archaological dig on the supposed site?

> Then there came the story of the Dean of Westminster being shown
in 1612
> Richard¹s grave in the garden of a former mayor of Leicester
marked by a
> stone pillar.

Does the garden still exist? Any evidence for that stone having
existed?

> There is no evidence to support the tradition that Richard¹s
remains were
> taken from the Grey Friars and thrown into the river Soar at the
Bow Bridge.
> It happens to be over half a mile between monastery and Bridge.
> So all in all I would say that all we know for certain is that a
tomb was
> built OVER Richard¹s grave, and that the tomb was destroyed during
the
> Reformation.
> Paul

Then there is hope, perhaps. If this is not new, why has nothing
been done to try to find him?

Wrong Cromwell. I was talking of Thomas Cromwell Henry VIII¹s Chancellor who
was the instigator of the Reformation destruction.
Paul

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:50:03 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Tomb
>
> Although Protestants like Cromwell
> and his officers did not necessarily believe in prayers for the
> dead, chantries and so on, they did believe in heaven and hell and
> the importance of burial.

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:50:03 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Tomb
>
> Does the garden still exist? Any evidence for that stone having
> existed?
It¹s under a car Park and a multi storie in the centre of Leicester, and no,
nothing has been done to try and find him. Where would you start?
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Wrong Cromwell. I was talking of Thomas Cromwell Henry VIII¹s
Chancellor who
> was the instigator of the Reformation destruction.
> Paul
>

So was I. He was the instigator of the seizure of monastic wealth
nad closure of monasteries, not Reformation destruction, these are
two different things. The one did not necessarily have to follow the
other. The officers I referred to were Richard Leyton and Thomas
Legh.

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@y...>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:02:38 -0000
> > > To:
>

>
> Rather a lot of errors for such a short piece. Reminds me of the US
> placard, which only had 3 words on it, and 2 of them were
> grammatically wrong! ("You done good").

Speaking as an Amrican, I suspect there were actually three
grammatical errors in the three words.... "good" was meant in the
sense of "well". (I think it was a deliberate folksiness, though,
rather than true lack of proper fetchin' up.)
>

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@y...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:50:03 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Tomb
> >
> > Does the garden still exist? Any evidence for that stone having
> > existed?
> It¹s under a car Park and a multi storie in the centre of
Leicester, and no,
> nothing has been done to try and find him. Where would you start?
> Paul
It sems like everything worthwhile ends up under a parking lot
(American for car park)...there's a song with the line "They tore
down paradise And put up a parking lot..."

Katy

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:27:06 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Tomb
>
> So was I. He was the instigator of the seizure of monastic wealth
> nad closure of monasteries, not Reformation destruction, these are
> two different things.
Sorry. The way you phrased it ŒProtestant soldiers¹ I think you said, made
it sound like Civil war destruction. Don¹t see how you can divide the two
things though, seizing monastic wealth and Reformation destcrution seemed to
go hand in hand. But then this isn¹t really my period!
Paul

>>> Does the garden still exist? Any evidence for that stone having
>>> existed?
>> It¹s under a car Park and a multi storie in the centre of
> Leicester, and no,
>> nothing has been done to try and find him. Where would you start?
>> Paul
Katy wrote
> It sems like everything worthwhile ends up under a parking lot
> (American for car park)...there's a song with the line "They tore
> down paradise And put up a parking lot..."

And yet I believe there is still a small piece of one of the Grey Friars
walls in ŒNew Street¹ in Leicester, contains part of an arch if I remember
correctly.
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@y...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:02:38 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Tomb
> >
> > Do you have any kind of reference for that Paul?
> I wish I could remember where I saw it but as with his life poor
Richard has
> had to put up with a lot of stories about him after his death. This
is one
> of them. I¹ll keep looking to see if I can find where I read it.
> >My friend would be
> > interested. It's the sort of story that can so easily be created
out
> > of nothing, so I should be interested in hard evidence one way or
> > the other.
> i think it is a part of the tales told about what happened to his
bones.
> >Something else I was wondering was just how widespread
> > was such desecration at the dissolution? War Richard singled out
for
> > this treatment or was it common to destroy monastic tombs? It
> > occurred in France during the revolution, with numerous royal
tombs
> > destroyed, but those were very different circumstances, involving
> > anti-royal feelings as they did.
> I think what happened to Richard¹s tomb was part of the general anti
> clerical hysteria CromwellŒs agents fanned up, and all you have to
do is
> look at any one of the former religious houses to see the amount of
> destruction and vandalism.
> Of course Richard¹s tomb being destroyed doesn¹t necessarily mean
his grave
> was desecrated. Holinshed wrote that Henry VII ³caused a tomb to be
set up
> OVER the place where he was buried in the church of Grey Friars at
> Leicester²
> The Chamber of Accounts dated 11th September 1495 shows that James
Keyley
> was paid £10-0s-02p for King Richard¹s Tomb. Can¹t have been up to
much can
> it?
> A manuscript in the College of Arms has an epitaph associated with
the tomb.
> ³I who am beneath this marble stone,
> Richard the Third, possessed the British Throne.²
> (Yes it says British which makes me doubt it is authentic)
> It goes on to mention
> - the year thirteen hundred was and eighty four, the twenty first
of August
> so again I do wonder as such BIG mistakes having been on a memorial.

On the cost of the tomb, see my previous message.
The verse you quote is the one I was referring to in that message, so
thanks. I must admit I always thought it didn't sound authentic, but
I'm not so sure now because Hughes shows that the term 'British' was
actually revived during the reign of Edward IV. Part of his being the
second Arthur that his alchemically minded mentors were into. And of
course that theme was then transferred to Henry VII. So it isn't
impossible. Also, Henry did date the start of his reign to 21st
August. Could you possibly quote us the whole thing so that we can
all get a better feel for the language used? One of my main problems
is that I seem to remember that it was impossibly long for an
inscription on a tomb, and not really in keeping with anything I've
ever seen on a medieval tomb either.
Marie

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@y...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:27:06 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Tomb
> >
> > So was I. He was the instigator of the seizure of monastic wealth
> > nad closure of monasteries, not Reformation destruction, these
are
> > two different things.
> Sorry. The way you phrased it ŒProtestant soldiers¹ I think you
said, made
> it sound like Civil war destruction.

I actually referred to Protestant officers, not soldiers.

Don¹t see how you can divide the two
> things though, seizing monastic wealth and Reformation destcrution
seemed to
> go hand in hand.

They may have gone hand in hand in practice but it doesn't make them
the same thing, nor did they necessarily go together. The
instructions to Legh and Leyton and co said nothing of destruction,
but only of information gathering (on wealth and attitudes to the
king and supremacy). Destruction was often done by those who
purchased or received as patronage the buildings. They tore them
down to turn them into stately homes, or adapted the existed
building for the same purpose, and at least one was dismantled so
that the stone could be reused to build a royal fortification. The
destruction, therefore, was not Cromwell's doing but the
responibility of those who benefitted from Cromwell's closures.

>But then this isn¹t really my period!
> Paul

So I see.
Brunhild

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:33:04 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Tomb
>
> I actually referred to Protestant officers, not soldiers.
An officer is a soldier in medieval terms, hence my confusion.
I still blame Cromwell as he instigated the whole policy.
>They may have gone hand in hand in practice but it doesn't make them
>the same thing,
Don¹t see that.
>But then this isn¹t really my period!
>So I see.
Now now no need for feline remarks <V B G>!
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:

> >But then this isn¹t really my period!
> >So I see.
> Now now no need for feline remarks <V B G>!
> Paul

;-)
At least you realised that was my sense of humour!

In a message dated 7/9/2003 5:27:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
paultrevor@... writes:

> And yet I believe there is still a small piece of one of the Grey Friars
> walls in RNew Street¹ in Leicester, contains part of an arch if I remember
> correctly.
> Paul

I think there's a park...if I'm not mistaken, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey was
buried at the same abbey when he died on his way to the Tower to be executed for
treason. His grave can still be seen in the park
Victoria

{Loyaulté Me Lie{

--- In , sweethelly2003
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Some years after Richard's death Henry VII had a monument made for
> his grave.
>
> 1. Is there a description or drawing ever made of that monument?
>
> 2. What led Henry VII to spend some money - though not that much I
> believe - on a monument for Richard?
>
> Helen

Sorry to have to do this, but if anyone else would like the full text
of Richard's 'epitaph' from Paul I think they will need to put up
their own message (seems I really am sent to Coventry).

Pity, he's got some interesting info on Richard's burial, a subject I
know almost nothing about.

Marie

---
> Sorry to have to do this, but if anyone else would like the full
text
> of Richard's 'epitaph' from Paul I think they will need to put up
> their own message (seems I really am sent to Coventry).
>
> Pity, he's got some interesting info on Richard's burial, a subject
I
> know almost nothing about.
>
> Marie

Perhaps some Midol is in order.

Katy

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , sweethelly2003
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Some years after Richard's death Henry VII had a monument made
for
> > his grave.
> >
> > 1. Is there a description or drawing ever made of that monument?
> >
> > 2. What led Henry VII to spend some money - though not that much
I
> > believe - on a monument for Richard?
> >
> > Helen
>

There's an interesting collection of stuff at the back of Hutton's
_The Battle of Bosworth Field_, including an epitaph purported to
come from Heralds' College MSS vol. 1 p. 3

Epitaphium Regis Richardi Tertii,sepulti ad Leicestriam, jussu et
sumptibus Sti Regis Henrici Septimi.
Hic ego, quem vario tellus submarmore claudit,
Tertius a justa voce Richardus eram.
Tutor eram patriae, patrius pro jure nepotis;
Dirupta, tenui regna Britanna, fide.
Sexaginta dies binis duntaxat ademptis
AEstatesque tuli tunc mea septra duas.
Fortiter in bello certans desertus ab Anglis,
Rex Henrice, tibi, septime, succubui.
At sumptu, pius ipse, tuo,sic ossa dicaras,
Regam ilimque facis regis honore coli.
Quatuor exceptis jam tantum, quinque bis annis,
Acta trecenta quidem, lustra salutis erant.
Anteque Septembris undena luce kalendas,
Reddideram rubrae jura petita Rosae.
At mea, quisquis eris, propter cmmissa precare,
Sit minor ut precibus poena levata tuis.

I who am laid beneath this marble stone,
Richard the Third, possess'd the British Throne.
My Country's Guardian in my Nephew's claim,
By trust betrayd I to the Kingdom came.
Two years and sixty days, save two, I reign'd;
And bravely strove in fight; but, unsustain'd,
My English leftme in the luckless field,
Where I to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.
Yet at his cost my corse this Tomb obtains,
Who piously interr'd me, and ordains
That Regal honours wait a King's remains.
Th' year thirteen [sic] hundred 'twas and eighty-four
The twenty-first [sic] of August, when its power
And all its rights Idid to the Red Rose restore.
Reader, whoe'er thou art, thy prayers bestow,
T'atone my crimes, and ease my pains below.

I don't know if this is "Paul's epitaph" or not, or whether it is
genuine or spurious, but here it is.

(pp. 220-221 in the Alan Sutton reprint)

Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@...

--- In , "Laura Blanchard"
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , sweethelly2003
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > Some years after Richard's death Henry VII had a monument made
> for
> > > his grave.
> > >
> > > 1. Is there a description or drawing ever made of that monument?
> > >
> > > 2. What led Henry VII to spend some money - though not that
much
> I
> > > believe - on a monument for Richard?
> > >
> > > Helen
> >
>
> There's an interesting collection of stuff at the back of Hutton's
> _The Battle of Bosworth Field_, including an epitaph purported to
> come from Heralds' College MSS vol. 1 p. 3
>
> Epitaphium Regis Richardi Tertii,sepulti ad Leicestriam, jussu et
> sumptibus Sti Regis Henrici Septimi.
> Hic ego, quem vario tellus submarmore claudit,
> Tertius a justa voce Richardus eram.
> Tutor eram patriae, patrius pro jure nepotis;
> Dirupta, tenui regna Britanna, fide.
> Sexaginta dies binis duntaxat ademptis
> AEstatesque tuli tunc mea septra duas.
> Fortiter in bello certans desertus ab Anglis,
> Rex Henrice, tibi, septime, succubui.
> At sumptu, pius ipse, tuo,sic ossa dicaras,
> Regam ilimque facis regis honore coli.
> Quatuor exceptis jam tantum, quinque bis annis,
> Acta trecenta quidem, lustra salutis erant.
> Anteque Septembris undena luce kalendas,
> Reddideram rubrae jura petita Rosae.
> At mea, quisquis eris, propter cmmissa precare,
> Sit minor ut precibus poena levata tuis.
>
> I who am laid beneath this marble stone,
> Richard the Third, possess'd the British Throne.
> My Country's Guardian in my Nephew's claim,
> By trust betrayd I to the Kingdom came.
> Two years and sixty days, save two, I reign'd;
> And bravely strove in fight; but, unsustain'd,
> My English leftme in the luckless field,
> Where I to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.
> Yet at his cost my corse this Tomb obtains,
> Who piously interr'd me, and ordains
> That Regal honours wait a King's remains.
> Th' year thirteen [sic] hundred 'twas and eighty-four
> The twenty-first [sic] of August, when its power
> And all its rights Idid to the Red Rose restore.
> Reader, whoe'er thou art, thy prayers bestow,
> T'atone my crimes, and ease my pains below.
>
> I don't know if this is "Paul's epitaph" or not, or whether it is
> genuine or spurious, but here it is.
>
> (pp. 220-221 in the Alan Sutton reprint)
>
> Regards,
> Laura Blanchard
> lblanchard@r...

Thanks Laura! That definitely is the same one, but I'd never seen the
Latin version before. Thanks for your trouble. My first thought is
that if it was really written by the heralds at such an early date
they would have got the date of Bosworth right, as records of battles
were part of their job. They might also have managed a reference to
Richard's founding the College of Arms.
Then I noticed the Latin and the English aren't exactly the same
anyway.

A pity my Latin's no good. Does any of yas do Latin - pref. medieval
Latin - and can you tell us:

1. whether this is medieval Latin or not. It looks too classical to
me, but then I don't know

2. How the date of Bosworth is expressed in the Latin. In the bit
that gives the year I see both quattuor (4) and quinque (5)! and the
date I think is given as so many days before the start of September.

But it is interesting that it praises Henry VII for providing the
tomb. That seems a bit authentic. And it also refers to the tomb as
if it really was meant to be on it. I suppose it could have been
written by someone local for the stonemason to inscribe, hence all
the mistakes, but in that case the reference to British is a bit
surprising; also, it's not exactly a normal thing to have on a tomb
of that date, is it? Could it have sprung from one of Henry's
classically-read alchemist friends? they remembered Arthur as the
Emperor Arthur who conquered Rome as well as being King of Britain,
and were trying to restore a new Arthurian age with revival not only
of King Arthur but also of Roman ideas.
Or is it more likely that someone wrote it much later with an eye to
having it grace the ruins of the tomb before it finally disppeared
completely?

Marie

Sorry don¹t get the ³Paul¹s epitaph³ bit but that is the one I have seen
with it¹s wonderful collection of mistakes that make me think it is yet
another invention. Who before the 1700s would call England Britain?
Also the use of Red Rose and Wite Rose, plus the totally wrong dates. No,
sorry invention, I think.
Paul

> From: "Laura Blanchard" <lblanchard@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:43:49 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Tomb
>
> I who am laid beneath this marble stone,
> Richard the Third, possess'd the British Throne.
> My Country's Guardian in my Nephew's claim,
> By trust betrayd I to the Kingdom came.
> Two years and sixty days, save two, I reign'd;
> And bravely strove in fight; but, unsustain'd,
> My English leftme in the luckless field,
> Where I to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.
> Yet at his cost my corse this Tomb obtains,
> Who piously interr'd me, and ordains
> That Regal honours wait a King's remains.
> Th' year thirteen [sic] hundred 'twas and eighty-four
> The twenty-first [sic] of August, when its power
> And all its rights Idid to the Red Rose restore.
> Reader, whoe'er thou art, thy prayers bestow,
> T'atone my crimes, and ease my pains below.
>
> I don't know if this is "Paul's epitaph" or not, or whether it is
> genuine or spurious, but here it is.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Sorry don¹t get the ³Paul¹s epitaph³ bit

Someone mentioned an epitaph that you had seen. I didn't know whether
this was the same one or not, hence the "Paul's epitaph."

what a relief! Thought I¹d got killed in the fighting at Tewkesbury last
weekend and nobody had bothered to tell me!:-)

> From: "Laura Blanchard" <lblanchard@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:11:46 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Tomb
>
>> Sorry don¹t get the ³Paul¹s epitaph³ bit
>
> Someone mentioned an epitaph that you had seen. I didn't know whether
> this was the same one or not, hence the "Paul's epitaph."

> >
> > There's an interesting collection of stuff at the back of
Hutton's
> > _The Battle of Bosworth Field_, including an epitaph purported to
> > come from Heralds' College MSS vol. 1 p. 3
> >
> > Epitaphium Regis Richardi Tertii,sepulti ad Leicestriam, jussu et
> > sumptibus Sti Regis Henrici Septimi.
> > Hic ego, quem vario tellus submarmore claudit,
> > Tertius a justa voce Richardus eram.
> > Tutor eram patriae, patrius pro jure nepotis;
> > Dirupta, tenui regna Britanna, fide.
> > Sexaginta dies binis duntaxat ademptis
> > AEstatesque tuli tunc mea septra duas.
> > Fortiter in bello certans desertus ab Anglis,
> > Rex Henrice, tibi, septime, succubui.
> > At sumptu, pius ipse, tuo,sic ossa dicaras,
> > Regam ilimque facis regis honore coli.
> > Quatuor exceptis jam tantum, quinque bis annis,
> > Acta trecenta quidem, lustra salutis erant.
> > Anteque Septembris undena luce kalendas,
> > Reddideram rubrae jura petita Rosae.
> > At mea, quisquis eris, propter cmmissa precare,
> > Sit minor ut precibus poena levata tuis.
> >
> > I who am laid beneath this marble stone,
> > Richard the Third, possess'd the British Throne.
> > My Country's Guardian in my Nephew's claim,
> > By trust betrayd I to the Kingdom came.
> > Two years and sixty days, save two, I reign'd;
> > And bravely strove in fight; but, unsustain'd,
> > My English leftme in the luckless field,
> > Where I to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.
> > Yet at his cost my corse this Tomb obtains,
> > Who piously interr'd me, and ordains
> > That Regal honours wait a King's remains.
> > Th' year thirteen [sic] hundred 'twas and eighty-four
> > The twenty-first [sic] of August, when its power
> > And all its rights Idid to the Red Rose restore.
> > Reader, whoe'er thou art, thy prayers bestow,
> > T'atone my crimes, and ease my pains below.
> >
> > I don't know if this is "Paul's epitaph" or not, or whether it is
> > genuine or spurious, but here it is.
> >
> > (pp. 220-221 in the Alan Sutton reprint)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Laura Blanchard
> > lblanchard@r...
>
> Thanks Laura! That definitely is the same one, but I'd never seen
the
> Latin version before. Thanks for your trouble. My first thought is
> that if it was really written by the heralds at such an early date
> they would have got the date of Bosworth right, as records of
battles
> were part of their job. They might also have managed a reference to
> Richard's founding the College of Arms.
> Then I noticed the Latin and the English aren't exactly the same
> anyway.
>
> A pity my Latin's no good. Does any of yas do Latin - pref.
medieval
> Latin - and can you tell us:
>
> 1. whether this is medieval Latin or not. It looks too classical to
> me, but then I don't know
>
> 2. How the date of Bosworth is expressed in the Latin. In the bit
> that gives the year I see both quattuor (4) and quinque (5)! and
the
> date I think is given as so many days before the start of September.
>
> But it is interesting that it praises Henry VII for providing the
> tomb. That seems a bit authentic. And it also refers to the tomb as
> if it really was meant to be on it. I suppose it could have been
> written by someone local for the stonemason to inscribe, hence all
> the mistakes, but in that case the reference to British is a bit
> surprising; also, it's not exactly a normal thing to have on a tomb
> of that date, is it? Could it have sprung from one of Henry's
> classically-read alchemist friends? they remembered Arthur as the
> Emperor Arthur who conquered Rome as well as being King of Britain,
> and were trying to restore a new Arthurian age with revival not
only
> of King Arthur but also of Roman ideas.
> Or is it more likely that someone wrote it much later with an eye
to
> having it grace the ruins of the tomb before it finally disppeared
> completely?
>
> Marie

Did heralds know Latin? I imagine they were expeted to know Fench,
but Latin?

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > There's an interesting collection of stuff at the back of
> Hutton's
> > > _The Battle of Bosworth Field_, including an epitaph purported
to
> > > come from Heralds' College MSS vol. 1 p. 3
> > >
> > > Epitaphium Regis Richardi Tertii,sepulti ad Leicestriam, jussu
et
> > > sumptibus Sti Regis Henrici Septimi.
> > > Hic ego, quem vario tellus submarmore claudit,
> > > Tertius a justa voce Richardus eram.
> > > Tutor eram patriae, patrius pro jure nepotis;
> > > Dirupta, tenui regna Britanna, fide.
> > > Sexaginta dies binis duntaxat ademptis
> > > AEstatesque tuli tunc mea septra duas.
> > > Fortiter in bello certans desertus ab Anglis,
> > > Rex Henrice, tibi, septime, succubui.
> > > At sumptu, pius ipse, tuo,sic ossa dicaras,
> > > Regam ilimque facis regis honore coli.
> > > Quatuor exceptis jam tantum, quinque bis annis,
> > > Acta trecenta quidem, lustra salutis erant.
> > > Anteque Septembris undena luce kalendas,
> > > Reddideram rubrae jura petita Rosae.
> > > At mea, quisquis eris, propter cmmissa precare,
> > > Sit minor ut precibus poena levata tuis.
> > >
> > > I who am laid beneath this marble stone,
> > > Richard the Third, possess'd the British Throne.
> > > My Country's Guardian in my Nephew's claim,
> > > By trust betrayd I to the Kingdom came.
> > > Two years and sixty days, save two, I reign'd;
> > > And bravely strove in fight; but, unsustain'd,
> > > My English leftme in the luckless field,
> > > Where I to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.
> > > Yet at his cost my corse this Tomb obtains,
> > > Who piously interr'd me, and ordains
> > > That Regal honours wait a King's remains.
> > > Th' year thirteen [sic] hundred 'twas and eighty-four
> > > The twenty-first [sic] of August, when its power
> > > And all its rights Idid to the Red Rose restore.
> > > Reader, whoe'er thou art, thy prayers bestow,
> > > T'atone my crimes, and ease my pains below.
> > >
> > > I don't know if this is "Paul's epitaph" or not, or whether it
is
> > > genuine or spurious, but here it is.
> > >
> > > (pp. 220-221 in the Alan Sutton reprint)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Laura Blanchard
> > > lblanchard@r...
> >
> > Thanks Laura! That definitely is the same one, but I'd never seen
> the
> > Latin version before. Thanks for your trouble. My first thought
is
> > that if it was really written by the heralds at such an early
date
> > they would have got the date of Bosworth right, as records of
> battles
> > were part of their job. They might also have managed a reference
to
> > Richard's founding the College of Arms.
> > Then I noticed the Latin and the English aren't exactly the same
> > anyway.
> >
> > A pity my Latin's no good. Does any of yas do Latin - pref.
> medieval
> > Latin - and can you tell us:
> >
> > 1. whether this is medieval Latin or not. It looks too classical
to
> > me, but then I don't know
> >
> > 2. How the date of Bosworth is expressed in the Latin. In the bit
> > that gives the year I see both quattuor (4) and quinque (5)! and
> the
> > date I think is given as so many days before the start of
September.
> >
> > But it is interesting that it praises Henry VII for providing the
> > tomb. That seems a bit authentic. And it also refers to the tomb
as
> > if it really was meant to be on it. I suppose it could have been
> > written by someone local for the stonemason to inscribe, hence
all
> > the mistakes, but in that case the reference to British is a bit
> > surprising; also, it's not exactly a normal thing to have on a
tomb
> > of that date, is it? Could it have sprung from one of Henry's
> > classically-read alchemist friends? they remembered Arthur as the
> > Emperor Arthur who conquered Rome as well as being King of
Britain,
> > and were trying to restore a new Arthurian age with revival not
> only
> > of King Arthur but also of Roman ideas.
> > Or is it more likely that someone wrote it much later with an eye
> to
> > having it grace the ruins of the tomb before it finally
disppeared
> > completely?
> >
> > Marie
>
> Did heralds know Latin? I imagine they were expeted to know Fench,
> but Latin?
>
> Katy

In the 15th century everyone who went to school learned Latin. But
then we really don't know when this was written, do we?

Marie