New member introduction

Hi everyone. Thought, since I've seen it done on other groups, I'd
introduce myself. I do actually have a couple of questions, which perhaps
I should put first given the volume of traffic here recently.

Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall
wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging
the same puzzle pieces?

What are the main variations regarding the option that the Princes survived
Richard's reign? I'm aware of the Tyrell family tradition, the idea that
"Perkin Warbeck" might have been executed because he was who he pretended
to be, and the idea based on an analysis of Holbein's painting of More's
family, that the younger Prince became John Clement.

Well, back to me. I first became interested in Richard III after the US
broadcast of An Age of Kings in 1961 or so, & read Kendall's biography
shortly after. I then went on to challenge (unsuccessfully) my high school
history teacher who said believing in myths is okay. I've re-visited
Richard periodically through the years (& know, for instance, that the site
of the Battle of Bosworth seems to have been identified recently as not
quite where everyone had thought it was). On our trip to London in
December, my must-see's included the Handel House Museum, Handel's memorial
in Westminster Abbey, and the National Gallery for the portraits of
Whistlejacket (a magnificent painting by Stubbs of one of Ld Rockingham's
Thoroughbreds) and Richard III. I'm personally convinced Richard's
character has been & still is grossly mis-represented, but also believe,
that for the general public, it boils down to what happened to the Princes.
I myself have vacillated about what seems the most likely scenario, though
haven't really seriously looked at the possibility that at least one of the
Princes survived Richard's reign. All these what if's are so subjective as
we weigh them through the filters of our own personalities.

Finally, as a "just the facts ma'am" sort of person, I was quite surprised
to find myself thinking in the last few days that if anyone hasn't rested
quietly in his grave, it was the young man whose face & form were so
graphically revealed this week. I also found myself thinking that perhaps
Richard may not have wanted to be King, but once the Princes were made
illegitimate, there weren't a lot of options left open for him. Richard
had only to consider the example of Henry VI as someone who wasn't fit &
may have preferred a monastic life, for all the good it did him; there were
still plenty of folks who wanted to control, even possess, him for their
own purposes.

A J (Alice Jane) Hibbard
near Madison, Wisconsin (USA)

P S - I'm an active supporter of the Bloodlines website (Thoroughbred
history); my own slant is primarily on untangling female lines of descent
(very happy to start having the results of mtDNA testing to compare to the
historical records). I've been cluttering up their discussion list with
posts about Richard, so thought I might better take this enthusiasm
elsewhere.

Hi Alice...welcome Eileen

--- In , A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Hi everyone. Thought, since I've seen it done on other groups, I'd
> introduce myself. I do actually have a couple of questions, which perhaps
> I should put first given the volume of traffic here recently.
>
> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall
> wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging
> the same puzzle pieces?
>
> What are the main variations regarding the option that the Princes survived
> Richard's reign? I'm aware of the Tyrell family tradition, the idea that
> "Perkin Warbeck" might have been executed because he was who he pretended
> to be, and the idea based on an analysis of Holbein's painting of More's
> family, that the younger Prince became John Clement.
>
> Well, back to me. I first became interested in Richard III after the US
> broadcast of An Age of Kings in 1961 or so, & read Kendall's biography
> shortly after. I then went on to challenge (unsuccessfully) my high school
> history teacher who said believing in myths is okay. I've re-visited
> Richard periodically through the years (& know, for instance, that the site
> of the Battle of Bosworth seems to have been identified recently as not
> quite where everyone had thought it was). On our trip to London in
> December, my must-see's included the Handel House Museum, Handel's memorial
> in Westminster Abbey, and the National Gallery for the portraits of
> Whistlejacket (a magnificent painting by Stubbs of one of Ld Rockingham's
> Thoroughbreds) and Richard III. I'm personally convinced Richard's
> character has been & still is grossly mis-represented, but also believe,
> that for the general public, it boils down to what happened to the Princes.
> I myself have vacillated about what seems the most likely scenario, though
> haven't really seriously looked at the possibility that at least one of the
> Princes survived Richard's reign. All these what if's are so subjective as
> we weigh them through the filters of our own personalities.
>
> Finally, as a "just the facts ma'am" sort of person, I was quite surprised
> to find myself thinking in the last few days that if anyone hasn't rested
> quietly in his grave, it was the young man whose face & form were so
> graphically revealed this week. I also found myself thinking that perhaps
> Richard may not have wanted to be King, but once the Princes were made
> illegitimate, there weren't a lot of options left open for him. Richard
> had only to consider the example of Henry VI as someone who wasn't fit &
> may have preferred a monastic life, for all the good it did him; there were
> still plenty of folks who wanted to control, even possess, him for their
> own purposes.
>
> A J (Alice Jane) Hibbard
> near Madison, Wisconsin (USA)
>
> P S - I'm an active supporter of the Bloodlines website (Thoroughbred
> history); my own slant is primarily on untangling female lines of descent
> (very happy to start having the results of mtDNA testing to compare to the
> historical records). I've been cluttering up their discussion list with
> posts about Richard, so thought I might better take this enthusiasm
> elsewhere.
>
>
>
>

Hi, Alice! I'll let others fill you in on updates since I'm an amateur myself. But welcome aboard. Maire.

--- In , A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Hi everyone. Thought, since I've seen it done on other groups, I'd
> introduce myself. I do actually have a couple of questions, which perhaps
> I should put first given the volume of traffic here recently.
>
> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall
> wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging
> the same puzzle pieces?
>
> What are the main variations regarding the option that the Princes survived
> Richard's reign? I'm aware of the Tyrell family tradition, the idea that
> "Perkin Warbeck" might have been executed because he was who he pretended
> to be, and the idea based on an analysis of Holbein's painting of More's
> family, that the younger Prince became John Clement.
>
> Well, back to me. I first became interested in Richard III after the US
> broadcast of An Age of Kings in 1961 or so, & read Kendall's biography
> shortly after. I then went on to challenge (unsuccessfully) my high school
> history teacher who said believing in myths is okay. I've re-visited
> Richard periodically through the years (& know, for instance, that the site
> of the Battle of Bosworth seems to have been identified recently as not
> quite where everyone had thought it was). On our trip to London in
> December, my must-see's included the Handel House Museum, Handel's memorial
> in Westminster Abbey, and the National Gallery for the portraits of
> Whistlejacket (a magnificent painting by Stubbs of one of Ld Rockingham's
> Thoroughbreds) and Richard III. I'm personally convinced Richard's
> character has been & still is grossly mis-represented, but also believe,
> that for the general public, it boils down to what happened to the Princes.
> I myself have vacillated about what seems the most likely scenario, though
> haven't really seriously looked at the possibility that at least one of the
> Princes survived Richard's reign. All these what if's are so subjective as
> we weigh them through the filters of our own personalities.
>
> Finally, as a "just the facts ma'am" sort of person, I was quite surprised
> to find myself thinking in the last few days that if anyone hasn't rested
> quietly in his grave, it was the young man whose face & form were so
> graphically revealed this week. I also found myself thinking that perhaps
> Richard may not have wanted to be King, but once the Princes were made
> illegitimate, there weren't a lot of options left open for him. Richard
> had only to consider the example of Henry VI as someone who wasn't fit &
> may have preferred a monastic life, for all the good it did him; there were
> still plenty of folks who wanted to control, even possess, him for their
> own purposes.
>
> A J (Alice Jane) Hibbard
> near Madison, Wisconsin (USA)
>
> P S - I'm an active supporter of the Bloodlines website (Thoroughbred
> history); my own slant is primarily on untangling female lines of descent
> (very happy to start having the results of mtDNA testing to compare to the
> historical records). I've been cluttering up their discussion list with
> posts about Richard, so thought I might better take this enthusiasm
> elsewhere.
>
>
>
>

Yes, welcome! There are new facts being discovered all the time, but each one is small in itself and none have solved the mystery of the Princes. I'm sure you'll find new information if you stick around on the forum.
Marie

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Hi, Alice! I'll let others fill you in on updates since I'm an amateur myself. But welcome aboard. Maire.
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone. Thought, since I've seen it done on other groups, I'd
> > introduce myself. I do actually have a couple of questions, which perhaps
> > I should put first given the volume of traffic here recently.
> >
> > Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall
> > wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging
> > the same puzzle pieces?
> >
> > What are the main variations regarding the option that the Princes survived
> > Richard's reign? I'm aware of the Tyrell family tradition, the idea that
> > "Perkin Warbeck" might have been executed because he was who he pretended
> > to be, and the idea based on an analysis of Holbein's painting of More's
> > family, that the younger Prince became John Clement.
> >
> > Well, back to me. I first became interested in Richard III after the US
> > broadcast of An Age of Kings in 1961 or so, & read Kendall's biography
> > shortly after. I then went on to challenge (unsuccessfully) my high school
> > history teacher who said believing in myths is okay. I've re-visited
> > Richard periodically through the years (& know, for instance, that the site
> > of the Battle of Bosworth seems to have been identified recently as not
> > quite where everyone had thought it was). On our trip to London in
> > December, my must-see's included the Handel House Museum, Handel's memorial
> > in Westminster Abbey, and the National Gallery for the portraits of
> > Whistlejacket (a magnificent painting by Stubbs of one of Ld Rockingham's
> > Thoroughbreds) and Richard III. I'm personally convinced Richard's
> > character has been & still is grossly mis-represented, but also believe,
> > that for the general public, it boils down to what happened to the Princes.
> > I myself have vacillated about what seems the most likely scenario, though
> > haven't really seriously looked at the possibility that at least one of the
> > Princes survived Richard's reign. All these what if's are so subjective as
> > we weigh them through the filters of our own personalities.
> >
> > Finally, as a "just the facts ma'am" sort of person, I was quite surprised
> > to find myself thinking in the last few days that if anyone hasn't rested
> > quietly in his grave, it was the young man whose face & form were so
> > graphically revealed this week. I also found myself thinking that perhaps
> > Richard may not have wanted to be King, but once the Princes were made
> > illegitimate, there weren't a lot of options left open for him. Richard
> > had only to consider the example of Henry VI as someone who wasn't fit &
> > may have preferred a monastic life, for all the good it did him; there were
> > still plenty of folks who wanted to control, even possess, him for their
> > own purposes.
> >
> > A J (Alice Jane) Hibbard
> > near Madison, Wisconsin (USA)
> >
> > P S - I'm an active supporter of the Bloodlines website (Thoroughbred
> > history); my own slant is primarily on untangling female lines of descent
> > (very happy to start having the results of mtDNA testing to compare to the
> > historical records). I've been cluttering up their discussion list with
> > posts about Richard, so thought I might better take this enthusiasm
> > elsewhere.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

And I am like a toddler, arriving at Christmas. A whole lot of amazing happenings in a short time. Hang on, there is a whole lot to learn.

On Feb 10, 2013, at 5:03 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:



Hi, Alice! I'll let others fill you in on updates since I'm an amateur myself. But welcome aboard. Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Hi everyone. Thought, since I've seen it done on other groups, I'd
> introduce myself. I do actually have a couple of questions, which perhaps
> I should put first given the volume of traffic here recently.
>
> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall
> wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging
> the same puzzle pieces?
>
> What are the main variations regarding the option that the Princes survived
> Richard's reign? I'm aware of the Tyrell family tradition, the idea that
> "Perkin Warbeck" might have been executed because he was who he pretended
> to be, and the idea based on an analysis of Holbein's painting of More's
> family, that the younger Prince became John Clement.
>
> Well, back to me. I first became interested in Richard III after the US
> broadcast of An Age of Kings in 1961 or so, & read Kendall's biography
> shortly after. I then went on to challenge (unsuccessfully) my high school
> history teacher who said believing in myths is okay. I've re-visited
> Richard periodically through the years (& know, for instance, that the site
> of the Battle of Bosworth seems to have been identified recently as not
> quite where everyone had thought it was). On our trip to London in
> December, my must-see's included the Handel House Museum, Handel's memorial
> in Westminster Abbey, and the National Gallery for the portraits of
> Whistlejacket (a magnificent painting by Stubbs of one of Ld Rockingham's
> Thoroughbreds) and Richard III. I'm personally convinced Richard's
> character has been & still is grossly mis-represented, but also believe,
> that for the general public, it boils down to what happened to the Princes.
> I myself have vacillated about what seems the most likely scenario, though
> haven't really seriously looked at the possibility that at least one of the
> Princes survived Richard's reign. All these what if's are so subjective as
> we weigh them through the filters of our own personalities.
>
> Finally, as a "just the facts ma'am" sort of person, I was quite surprised
> to find myself thinking in the last few days that if anyone hasn't rested
> quietly in his grave, it was the young man whose face & form were so
> graphically revealed this week. I also found myself thinking that perhaps
> Richard may not have wanted to be King, but once the Princes were made
> illegitimate, there weren't a lot of options left open for him. Richard
> had only to consider the example of Henry VI as someone who wasn't fit &
> may have preferred a monastic life, for all the good it did him; there were
> still plenty of folks who wanted to control, even possess, him for their
> own purposes.
>
> A J (Alice Jane) Hibbard
> near Madison, Wisconsin (USA)
>
> P S - I'm an active supporter of the Bloodlines website (Thoroughbred
> history); my own slant is primarily on untangling female lines of descent
> (very happy to start having the results of mtDNA testing to compare to the
> historical records). I've been cluttering up their discussion list with
> posts about Richard, so thought I might better take this enthusiasm
> elsewhere.
>
>
>
>

Welcome Alice, you join at a very interesting time, I was unable to get to the computer for 4 days and found over 999 comments on this site, hope you have the time to spare.  I am fasinated by DNA and genetics but do not have a scientific bone in my body.  Hope you enjoy your time with us.
Marion




________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 22:59
Subject: New member introduction


 
Hi everyone. Thought, since I've seen it done on other groups, I'd
introduce myself. I do actually have a couple of questions, which perhaps
I should put first given the volume of traffic here recently.

Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall
wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging
the same puzzle pieces?

What are the main variations regarding the option that the Princes survived
Richard's reign? I'm aware of the Tyrell family tradition, the idea that
"Perkin Warbeck" might have been executed because he was who he pretended
to be, and the idea based on an analysis of Holbein's painting of More's
family, that the younger Prince became John Clement.

Well, back to me. I first became interested in Richard III after the US
broadcast of An Age of Kings in 1961 or so, & read Kendall's biography
shortly after. I then went on to challenge (unsuccessfully) my high school
history teacher who said believing in myths is okay. I've re-visited
Richard periodically through the years (& know, for instance, that the site
of the Battle of Bosworth seems to have been identified recently as not
quite where everyone had thought it was). On our trip to London in
December, my must-see's included the Handel House Museum, Handel's memorial
in Westminster Abbey, and the National Gallery for the portraits of
Whistlejacket (a magnificent painting by Stubbs of one of Ld Rockingham's
Thoroughbreds) and Richard III. I'm personally convinced Richard's
character has been & still is grossly mis-represented, but also believe,
that for the general public, it boils down to what happened to the Princes.
I myself have vacillated about what seems the most likely scenario, though
haven't really seriously looked at the possibility that at least one of the
Princes survived Richard's reign. All these what if's are so subjective as
we weigh them through the filters of our own personalities.

Finally, as a "just the facts ma'am" sort of person, I was quite surprised
to find myself thinking in the last few days that if anyone hasn't rested
quietly in his grave, it was the young man whose face & form were so
graphically revealed this week. I also found myself thinking that perhaps
Richard may not have wanted to be King, but once the Princes were made
illegitimate, there weren't a lot of options left open for him. Richard
had only to consider the example of Henry VI as someone who wasn't fit &
may have preferred a monastic life, for all the good it did him; there were
still plenty of folks who wanted to control, even possess, him for their
own purposes.

A J (Alice Jane) Hibbard
near Madison, Wisconsin (USA)

P S - I'm an active supporter of the Bloodlines website (Thoroughbred
history); my own slant is primarily on untangling female lines of descent
(very happy to start having the results of mtDNA testing to compare to the
historical records). I've been cluttering up their discussion list with
posts about Richard, so thought I might better take this enthusiasm
elsewhere.

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
[snip]
> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?

Carol responds:

Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.

BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.

Got to go.

Carol

.......... and JA-H on the pre-contract ...........

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: New member introduction



A J Hibbard wrote:
>
[snip]
> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?

Carol responds:

Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.

BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.

Got to go.

Carol

Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.


Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...

reference to one of our lottery draws :)

Aidan


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: New member introduction


 
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
[snip]
> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?

Carol responds:

Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.

BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.

Got to go.

Carol

Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
nowhere near Ambien Hill.
Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
Paul
On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
>
>
> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
>
> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> Subject: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> [snip]
>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> Carol responds:
>
> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
>
> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
>
> Got to go.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.


You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction


 
Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
nowhere near Ambien Hill.
Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
Paul
On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
>
>
> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
>
> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> Subject: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> [snip]
>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> Carol responds:
>
> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
>
> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
>
> Got to go.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Doh! forgot to link to the one seen on Wiki (I actually saw it a few days ago on a more reputable site, forgot to bookmark it and now I can't find it again)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bosworth_Field_-_Clash.svg


Aidan


________________________________
From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction


 
This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.

You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction


 
Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
nowhere near Ambien Hill.
Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
Paul
On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
>
>
> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
>
> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> Subject: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> [snip]
>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> Carol responds:
>
> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
>
> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
>
> Got to go.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Sorry Aidan but that map is way out of date!
Richard is now thought to have camped on a rise along the main road to
London that Tudor was marching along. It has been recently discovered
that at the time it was also called Ambien, and is a much more likely
place for an army to have camped than on the top of a hill, especially a
hill it would have no need to come down from when the enemy approached!
The main battle took place along the road with the two forces facing
each other across the road. The marsh is not the one Foss surmised it to
be but is the only one to have been found that was actually a marsh in
1485. They located a number this past year, one dating back to Roman
times that had dried up by the 15th century, another that only started
in the 1700s. All the positions on Foss map are wrong and the action
incorrect according to the latest, continuing archaeological evidence.
Nothing from the dig in Leicester affects the site of the battle.
Paul

On 11/02/2013 17:59, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
>
>
> You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> Paul
> On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
>> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
>>
>>
>> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
>>
>> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
>>
>> Aidan
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: New member introduction
>>
>>
>>
>> A J Hibbard wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
>> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
>>
>> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
>>
>> Got to go.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Again, totally wrong. The marsh was nothing like that size, or even in
that position. You have to move everything along and down to the left of
that map, and everyone forget totally about the Ambien the Battlefield
centre is now on.
And we still don't know if Thomas Stanley was anywhere near the place.
Paul
+
On 11/02/2013 18:03, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> Doh! forgot to link to the one seen on Wiki (I actually saw it a few days ago on a more reputable site, forgot to bookmark it and now I can't find it again)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bosworth_Field_-_Clash.svg
>
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
>
> You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> Paul
> On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
>> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
>>
>>
>> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
>>
>> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
>>
>> Aidan
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: New member introduction
>>
>>
>>
>> A J Hibbard wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
>> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
>>
>> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
>>
>> Got to go.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I also see that the R3 map shows the main battle being fought across the present road, shenton lane, which from google street view is flat ground , not the lower slope of the hill.

Any idea where I can view the latest map ? :\



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction


 
Sorry Aidan but that map is way out of date!
Richard is now thought to have camped on a rise along the main road to
London that Tudor was marching along. It has been recently discovered
that at the time it was also called Ambien, and is a much more likely
place for an army to have camped than on the top of a hill, especially a
hill it would have no need to come down from when the enemy approached!
The main battle took place along the road with the two forces facing
each other across the road. The marsh is not the one Foss surmised it to
be but is the only one to have been found that was actually a marsh in
1485. They located a number this past year, one dating back to Roman
times that had dried up by the 15th century, another that only started
in the 1700s. All the positions on Foss map are wrong and the action
incorrect according to the latest, continuing archaeological evidence.
Nothing from the dig in Leicester affects the site of the battle.
Paul

On 11/02/2013 17:59, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
>
>
> You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> Paul
> On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
>> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
>>
>>
>> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
>>
>> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
>>
>> Aidan
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: New member introduction
>>
>>
>>
>> A J Hibbard wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
>> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
>>
>> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
>>
>> Got to go.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi Paul
              Just to prevent more clutter on the forum. Sorry about the mix-up and thanks for the correction. You can see why I was confuzzled though from the maps.

If you can give me a better pointer I would be grateful (I will search more but it's almost 3am here so will have to do it when I get up) - the only candidates possible roads
I can see on google maps is the A444 or the A5

Regards

Aidan




________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction


 
Again, totally wrong. The marsh was nothing like that size, or even in
that position. You have to move everything along and down to the left of
that map, and everyone forget totally about the Ambien the Battlefield
centre is now on.
And we still don't know if Thomas Stanley was anywhere near the place.
Paul
+
On 11/02/2013 18:03, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> Doh! forgot to link to the one seen on Wiki (I actually saw it a few days ago on a more reputable site, forgot to bookmark it and now I can't find it again)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bosworth_Field_-_Clash.svg
>
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
>
> You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> Paul
> On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
>> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
>>
>>
>> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
>>
>> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
>>
>> Aidan
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: New member introduction
>>
>>
>>
>> A J Hibbard wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
>> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
>>
>> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
>>
>> Got to go.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Thanks much.

I've already found the suggestion to read Audrey Williamson's book & have pulled it out of my collection of un-read books about Richard. Very much enjoy (well not really, but it does illustrate what we're up against) her quote from Gairdner "I cannot but think the sceptical spirit a most fatal one in history."

A J

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
>
> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
>
> Got to go.
>
> Carol
>

I would say that, for Richard's reign, the best and most up-to-date source is Annette Carson's 'The Maligned King' (if you ignore that first chapter, about the possibility of the Woodvilles having poisoned Edward IV - just my opinion). So I would recommend getting the updated version when it comes out.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
>
> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
>
> Got to go.
>
> Carol
>

I have some rough ones, but as of yet I don't think anything has been
published as they don't want to commit themselves until totally certain
of all their facts.
Paul

On 11/02/2013 18:33, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> I also see that the R3 map shows the main battle being fought across the present road, shenton lane, which from google street view is flat ground , not the lower slope of the hill.
>
> Any idea where I can view the latest map ? :\
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 2:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> Sorry Aidan but that map is way out of date!
> Richard is now thought to have camped on a rise along the main road to
> London that Tudor was marching along. It has been recently discovered
> that at the time it was also called Ambien, and is a much more likely
> place for an army to have camped than on the top of a hill, especially a
> hill it would have no need to come down from when the enemy approached!
> The main battle took place along the road with the two forces facing
> each other across the road. The marsh is not the one Foss surmised it to
> be but is the only one to have been found that was actually a marsh in
> 1485. They located a number this past year, one dating back to Roman
> times that had dried up by the 15th century, another that only started
> in the 1700s. All the positions on Foss map are wrong and the action
> incorrect according to the latest, continuing archaeological evidence.
> Nothing from the dig in Leicester affects the site of the battle.
> Paul
>
> On 11/02/2013 17:59, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>> This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
>>
>>
>> You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
>> To:
>> Cc: paul.bale@...
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
>> nowhere near Ambien Hill.
>> Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
>> Paul
>> On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>>> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
>>> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
>>>
>>>
>>> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
>>>
>>> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
>>>
>>> Aidan
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
>>> Subject: Re: New member introduction
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A J Hibbard wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
>>> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
>>>
>>> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
>>>
>>> Got to go.
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Just looked at at the Wikipedia entry, and it seems to be based mainly on the Dadlington theory, with sttuff from even older books thrown in for goosd measure. That marsh that is now known not to have been there! The cannonshot was found right at the western edge of the area covered by the archaeological survey, on Fenn Lane Farm, if you can find that on a map. The relevant websites for some reason aren't making that clear - possibly to stop the fields being invaded by tourists.
Marie



--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> Paul
> On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> > Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> >
> >
> > Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> >
> > reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: New member introduction
> >
> >
> >
> > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> > Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> >
> > BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> >
> > Got to go.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

--- In , ajhibbard@... wrote:
>
> Thanks much.
>
> I've already found the suggestion to read Audrey Williamson's book & have pulled it out of my collection of un-read books about Richard. Very much enjoy (well not really, but it does illustrate what we're up against) her quote from Gairdner "I cannot but think the sceptical spirit a most fatal one in history."
>
> A J

Carol responds:

What's sad is that Gairdner started out believing in Richard's innocence. If only he had retained his skepticism regarding Tudor sources (it boggles the mind to think of a man of his intellect considering Shakespeare a source!), Ricardian studies would have been much further along. Instead, we had only Sir Clements Markham and Caroline Halstead (whose work was unfairly dismissed because of its Victorian "sentimentalism" but includes much original research) until Kendall came along in the 1950s.

I'm rereading Williamson's book, too. A shame it's not better known. And I do wish that the book designer hadn't chosen the Milais painting of the "princes" for the cover (at least of my edition).

Carol

Try the map here (click on it for bigger image) -- don't know about the article/book the author is referencing, if it's current:

http://www.r3.org/bosworth/texts/jones.html

It shows Fenn Lane, so perhaps it's the currently favored location?

~Weds

--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Just looked at at the Wikipedia entry, and it seems to be based mainly on the Dadlington theory, with sttuff from even older books thrown in for goosd measure. That marsh that is now known not to have been there! The cannonshot was found right at the western edge of the area covered by the archaeological survey, on Fenn Lane Farm, if you can find that on a map. The relevant websites for some reason aren't making that clear - possibly to stop the fields being invaded by tourists.
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> > nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> > Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> > Paul
> > On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> > > Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> > >
> > >
> > > Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> > >
> > > reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: New member introduction
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> > > Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> > >
> > > BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> > >
> > > Got to go.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

No, but it's not far away. This is Michael K Jones' suggested site for Richard's death, in his book written before the archaeological finds. It's almost a mile west of the finds, and the Dadlington site about the same distance to the east of them.
We don't necessarily know the full extent of the battlefield yet, though. The archaeology covered a certain area, and the cannonshot was found right at the end of it. They couldn't check for ferrous remains such as arrow heads, either, so we only know where the guns were aimed at.
Marie

--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Try the map here (click on it for bigger image) -- don't know about the article/book the author is referencing, if it's current:
>
> http://www.r3.org/bosworth/texts/jones.html
>
> It shows Fenn Lane, so perhaps it's the currently favored location?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Just looked at at the Wikipedia entry, and it seems to be based mainly on the Dadlington theory, with sttuff from even older books thrown in for goosd measure. That marsh that is now known not to have been there! The cannonshot was found right at the western edge of the area covered by the archaeological survey, on Fenn Lane Farm, if you can find that on a map. The relevant websites for some reason aren't making that clear - possibly to stop the fields being invaded by tourists.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> > > nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> > > Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> > > Paul
> > > On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> > > > Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> > > >
> > > > reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: New member introduction
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > >> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> > > > Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> > > >
> > > > Got to go.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>

Paul isn't the site you are describing near enough to the battle site that Michael Jones suggested? If it is, in Michael's scenario Northumberland appears to be on the road to London, could that be why he didn't take part in the battle because he was charged with ensuring that the Tudor wasn't able to get on to the road to London? Also we know that in the old Ambien Hill scenario the Tudor was in Atherstone on the day before the battle and from what I remember Atherstone was near to the London Rd. Why would he deliberately turn East for several miles to do battle with Richard when he could have nipped down the road to London. There must have been something stopping him.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Sorry Aidan but that map is way out of date!
> Richard is now thought to have camped on a rise along the main road to
> London that Tudor was marching along. It has been recently discovered
> that at the time it was also called Ambien, and is a much more likely
> place for an army to have camped than on the top of a hill, especially a
> hill it would have no need to come down from when the enemy approached!
> The main battle took place along the road with the two forces facing
> each other across the road. The marsh is not the one Foss surmised it to
> be but is the only one to have been found that was actually a marsh in
> 1485. They located a number this past year, one dating back to Roman
> times that had dried up by the 15th century, another that only started
> in the 1700s. All the positions on Foss map are wrong and the action
> incorrect according to the latest, continuing archaeological evidence.
> Nothing from the dig in Leicester affects the site of the battle.
> Paul
>
> On 11/02/2013 17:59, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
> >
> >
> > You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To:
> > Cc: paul.bale@...
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> > nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> > Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> > Paul
> > On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> >> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> >>
> >>
> >> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> >>
> >> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> >>
> >> Aidan
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> >> Subject: Re: New member introduction
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> >> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> >>
> >> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> >>
> >> Got to go.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

It's recently been suggested (not my idea so don't shoot me down in flames) that the battle might have been pre-arranged, with the site agreed by both sides.
Marie

--- In , "ricard1an" wrote:
>
> Paul isn't the site you are describing near enough to the battle site that Michael Jones suggested? If it is, in Michael's scenario Northumberland appears to be on the road to London, could that be why he didn't take part in the battle because he was charged with ensuring that the Tudor wasn't able to get on to the road to London? Also we know that in the old Ambien Hill scenario the Tudor was in Atherstone on the day before the battle and from what I remember Atherstone was near to the London Rd. Why would he deliberately turn East for several miles to do battle with Richard when he could have nipped down the road to London. There must have been something stopping him.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Sorry Aidan but that map is way out of date!
> > Richard is now thought to have camped on a rise along the main road to
> > London that Tudor was marching along. It has been recently discovered
> > that at the time it was also called Ambien, and is a much more likely
> > place for an army to have camped than on the top of a hill, especially a
> > hill it would have no need to come down from when the enemy approached!
> > The main battle took place along the road with the two forces facing
> > each other across the road. The marsh is not the one Foss surmised it to
> > be but is the only one to have been found that was actually a marsh in
> > 1485. They located a number this past year, one dating back to Roman
> > times that had dried up by the 15th century, another that only started
> > in the 1700s. All the positions on Foss map are wrong and the action
> > incorrect according to the latest, continuing archaeological evidence.
> > Nothing from the dig in Leicester affects the site of the battle.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 11/02/2013 17:59, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
> > >
> > >
> > > You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To:
> > > Cc: paul.bale@
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> > > nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> > > Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> > > Paul
> > > On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> > >> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> > >>
> > >> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> > >>
> > >> Aidan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@>
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: New member introduction
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> A J Hibbard wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> > >> Carol responds:
> > >>
> > >> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> > >> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> > >>
> > >> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> > >>
> > >> Got to go.
> > >>
> > >> Carol
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

No I cannot believe that it's just too much, perhaps they also met at the blue/white boar inn for a pint with a coin toss to decide who faces East?
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2013, at 7:29 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's recently been suggested (not my idea so don't shoot me down in flames) that the battle might have been pre-arranged, with the site agreed by both sides.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > Paul isn't the site you are describing near enough to the battle site that Michael Jones suggested? If it is, in Michael's scenario Northumberland appears to be on the road to London, could that be why he didn't take part in the battle because he was charged with ensuring that the Tudor wasn't able to get on to the road to London? Also we know that in the old Ambien Hill scenario the Tudor was in Atherstone on the day before the battle and from what I remember Atherstone was near to the London Rd. Why would he deliberately turn East for several miles to do battle with Richard when he could have nipped down the road to London. There must have been something stopping him.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry Aidan but that map is way out of date!
> > > Richard is now thought to have camped on a rise along the main road to
> > > London that Tudor was marching along. It has been recently discovered
> > > that at the time it was also called Ambien, and is a much more likely
> > > place for an army to have camped than on the top of a hill, especially a
> > > hill it would have no need to come down from when the enemy approached!
> > > The main battle took place along the road with the two forces facing
> > > each other across the road. The marsh is not the one Foss surmised it to
> > > be but is the only one to have been found that was actually a marsh in
> > > 1485. They located a number this past year, one dating back to Roman
> > > times that had dried up by the 15th century, another that only started
> > > in the 1700s. All the positions on Foss map are wrong and the action
> > > incorrect according to the latest, continuing archaeological evidence.
> > > Nothing from the dig in Leicester affects the site of the battle.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 11/02/2013 17:59, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > To:
> > > > Cc: paul.bale@
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> > > > nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> > > > Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> > > > Paul
> > > > On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> > > >> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> > > >>
> > > >> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> > > >>
> > > >> Aidan
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ________________________________
> > > >> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@>
> > > >> To:
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> > > >> Subject: Re: New member introduction
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > >> [snip]
> > > >>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> > > >> Carol responds:
> > > >>
> > > >> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> > > >> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> > > >>
> > > >> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> > > >>
> > > >> Got to go.
> > > >>
> > > >> Carol
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>

I found what seems to be the definitive location on the battlefield trust website - with full explanation here: 

http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=824

This map shows the position best.  http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/media/245.pdf

It shows the other two suggested locations, Ambion Hill (the original) , the location suggested by Ford in 2002 and the one where they retrieved artefacts proving the location, including the most artillery ammunition (Lead cannonballs and handgun shot) ever found on a battlefield of this date in europe. They also state that it is likely that Crown Hill, now on the immediate outskirts of Stoke Golding, but then likely a hill well outside the town a little south of the marsh.

Given the locations shown of Richard's, Henry's (or rather Oxford's) and Stanley's positions (between Dadlington and Dadling House Farm), the battle story we do have makes sense - at last.

Though I would be happier if they  were able to show Percy's position too as I suspect Richard's battle plan was to have Stanley connect to his left-wing and Percy on his right, so that whichever way Oxford moved his army to get around the marsh, he would have been bottled up by one or the other while the unengaged wing would be able to attack Oxford's rear. Given the expected loyalty of those two 'nobles' Stanley & Percy, the position taken by Richard is indeed a winner from a battle commanders perspective. He would have had every reason to be confident of crushing Oxford's force in short order.

But if they cannot determine where Percy was, then it's right they shouldn't speculate on the map, it must have been somewhere to the north, possibly a little south and west of Green Hill farm, as that was to the left-rear of Richard's forces (he had been posted as reserve), and close enough to be able to move against Stanley if necessary. That was his excuse to Richard which he seems to have accepted. Of course as we know he sat and watched the battle then marched off north.


It also shows , to my mind, that Richard's desparate appearing charge was not that desperate - if you follow the line Henry and his attendants would have to ride in order to get to Stanley, positioned just behind Dadlington Farm.

It shows that the battle was raging on the west side of the northernmost of the three marshes marked,  while Henry would have to have passed south of the south-east edge of that marsh (it's the biggest of the three). 
This makes him very exposed with around half a mile gap between the marsh and the left edge of Stanley's position. Richard's charge would then logically be between the edge of the marsh and Stanley's force. The calculated risk he took was that Stanley would stay where he was and not move to help Henry on seeing that Richard's charge was likely going to overwhelm Henry's small force of retainers. Stanley did move and therefore would have fallen on Richards left-rear flank and while fighting this threat Richard and his men were pushed west into the marsh edges.

Paul I want to thank you for pointing out the maps I thought were right, were not. :)


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction


 
I have some rough ones, but as of yet I don't think anything has been
published as they don't want to commit themselves until totally certain
of all their facts.
Paul

On 11/02/2013 18:33, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> I also see that the R3 map shows the main battle being fought across the present road, shenton lane, which from google street view is flat ground , not the lower slope of the hill.
>
> Any idea where I can view the latest map ? :\
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 2:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> Sorry Aidan but that map is way out of date!
> Richard is now thought to have camped on a rise along the main road to
> London that Tudor was marching along. It has been recently discovered
> that at the time it was also called Ambien, and is a much more likely
> place for an army to have camped than on the top of a hill, especially a
> hill it would have no need to come down from when the enemy approached!
> The main battle took place along the road with the two forces facing
> each other across the road. The marsh is not the one Foss surmised it to
> be but is the only one to have been found that was actually a marsh in
> 1485. They located a number this past year, one dating back to Roman
> times that had dried up by the 15th century, another that only started
> in the 1700s. All the positions on Foss map are wrong and the action
> incorrect according to the latest, continuing archaeological evidence.
> Nothing from the dig in Leicester affects the site of the battle.
> Paul
>
> On 11/02/2013 17:59, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>> This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
>>
>>
>> You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
>> To:
>> Cc: paul.bale@...
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
>> nowhere near Ambien Hill.
>> Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
>> Paul
>> On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>>> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
>>> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
>>>
>>>
>>> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
>>>
>>> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
>>>
>>> Aidan
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
>>> Subject: Re: New member introduction
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A J Hibbard wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
>>> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
>>>
>>> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
>>>
>>> Got to go.
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Fenn Lane farm is a good half mile in rear of the position shown for Henry/Oxford's initial position, the maps on the Battlefield trust site puts Stanley by Dadlington Farm and - from the website (2009 update)  :

The combined evidence proves that the battle was fought in the area
between the villages of Dadlington, Shenton, Upton and Stoke Golding 
in a location not previously suggested.  Currently we are not releasing
the exact location because we fear illicit treasure hunting, which has
caused so much damage on Towton battlefield. Though here they would be
sadly disappointed, for it has taken us thousands of man hours to
recover the small number of finds from the battle, but even if they
removed just a handful of finds from the site would destroy important
evidence.

So they provide incorrect maps ? argggh

Well ... while they might have moved everything north a mile or so, if they still depict the relative locations of the forces and the marshes correctly, then my battle analysis remains valid, which was what I was wanting.

If they need to do that to keep the scavengers off then ok - says me who removed artefacts from the battle area around the Hartenstein Museum in Oosterbeek (-where the British 1st airborne division held off two ss panzer divisions for 10 days during operation Market Garden in WWII (as in the film 'A bridge too far'). Except I did it with permission and gave them to the Pegasus club (comprised of veterans of the Normany airborne drop and the Arnhem/Oosterbeek drop).


Aidan


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: New member introduction


 
Just looked at at the Wikipedia entry, and it seems to be based mainly on the Dadlington theory, with sttuff from even older books thrown in for goosd measure. That marsh that is now known not to have been there! The cannonshot was found right at the western edge of the area covered by the archaeological survey, on Fenn Lane Farm, if you can find that on a map. The relevant websites for some reason aren't making that clear - possibly to stop the fields being invaded by tourists.
Marie

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> Paul
> On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> > Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> >
> >
> > Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> >
> > reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: New member introduction
> >
> >
> >
> > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> > Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> >
> > BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> >
> > Got to go.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Actually it is not unknown for a battle to be 'organised' like this. At the Battle of Edgehill in 1642 (first battle of the English Civil War), it was arranged via parley what time the battle would start. Cromwell thought badly of this and began it early if I recall correctly.

Aidan


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction


 
No I cannot believe that it's just too much, perhaps they also met at the blue/white boar inn for a pint with a coin toss to decide who faces East?
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2013, at 7:29 PM, mariewalsh2003 [email protected]> wrote:

> It's recently been suggested (not my idea so don't shoot me down in flames) that the battle might have been pre-arranged, with the site agreed by both sides.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > Paul isn't the site you are describing near enough to the battle site that Michael Jones suggested? If it is, in Michael's scenario Northumberland appears to be on the road to London, could that be why he didn't take part in the battle because he was charged with ensuring that the Tudor wasn't able to get on to the road to London? Also we know that in the old Ambien Hill scenario the Tudor was in Atherstone on the day before the battle and from what I remember Atherstone was near to the London Rd. Why would he deliberately turn East for several miles to do battle with Richard when he could have nipped down the road to London. There must have been something stopping him.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry Aidan but that map is way out of date!
> > > Richard is now thought to have camped on a rise along the main road to
> > > London that Tudor was marching along. It has been recently discovered
> > > that at the time it was also called Ambien, and is a much more likely
> > > place for an army to have camped than on the top of a hill, especially a
> > > hill it would have no need to come down from when the enemy approached!
> > > The main battle took place along the road with the two forces facing
> > > each other across the road. The marsh is not the one Foss surmised it to
> > > be but is the only one to have been found that was actually a marsh in
> > > 1485. They located a number this past year, one dating back to Roman
> > > times that had dried up by the 15th century, another that only started
> > > in the 1700s. All the positions on Foss map are wrong and the action
> > > incorrect according to the latest, continuing archaeological evidence.
> > > Nothing from the dig in Leicester affects the site of the battle.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 11/02/2013 17:59, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > To:
> > > > Cc: paul.bale@
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> > > > nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> > > > Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> > > > Paul
> > > > On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> > > >> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> > > >>
> > > >> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> > > >>
> > > >> Aidan
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ________________________________
> > > >> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@>
> > > >> To:
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> > > >> Subject: Re: New member introduction
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > >> [snip]
> > > >>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> > > >> Carol responds:
> > > >>
> > > >> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to
replace
> > > >> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> > > >>
> > > >> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> > > >>
> > > >> Got to go.
> > > >>
> > > >> Carol
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>

Smacks hand on four head !
Did they agree to stop for tea around 5:00 ish?


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...> wrote:

>
>
> Actually it is not unknown for a battle to be 'organised' like this. At the Battle of Edgehill in 1642 (first battle of the English Civil War), it was arranged via parley what time the battle would start. Cromwell thought badly of this and began it early if I recall correctly.
>
> Aidan
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> No I cannot believe that it's just too much, perhaps they also met at the blue/white boar inn for a pint with a coin toss to decide who faces East?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 7:29 PM, mariewalsh2003 [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It's recently been suggested (not my idea so don't shoot me down in flames) that the battle might have been pre-arranged, with the site agreed by both sides.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul isn't the site you are describing near enough to the battle site that Michael Jones suggested? If it is, in Michael's scenario Northumberland appears to be on the road to London, could that be why he didn't take part in the battle because he was charged with ensuring that the Tudor wasn't able to get on to the road to London? Also we know that in the old Ambien Hill scenario the Tudor was in Atherstone on the day before the battle and from what I remember Atherstone was near to the London Rd. Why would he deliberately turn East for several miles to do battle with Richard when he could have nipped down the road to London. There must have been something stopping him.
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Aidan but that map is way out of date!
> > > > Richard is now thought to have camped on a rise along the main road to
> > > > London that Tudor was marching along. It has been recently discovered
> > > > that at the time it was also called Ambien, and is a much more likely
> > > > place for an army to have camped than on the top of a hill, especially a
> > > > hill it would have no need to come down from when the enemy approached!
> > > > The main battle took place along the road with the two forces facing
> > > > each other across the road. The marsh is not the one Foss surmised it to
> > > > be but is the only one to have been found that was actually a marsh in
> > > > 1485. They located a number this past year, one dating back to Roman
> > > > times that had dried up by the 15th century, another that only started
> > > > in the 1700s. All the positions on Foss map are wrong and the action
> > > > incorrect according to the latest, continuing archaeological evidence.
> > > > Nothing from the dig in Leicester affects the site of the battle.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 11/02/2013 17:59, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Cc: paul.bale@
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> > > > > nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> > > > > Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > > On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> > > > >> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Aidan
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > >> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@>
> > > > >> To:
> > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> > > > >> Subject: Re: New member introduction
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > >> [snip]
> > > > >>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> > > > >> Carol responds:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to
> replace
> > > > >> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Got to go.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Carol
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

At that time the Parliamentarian forces were still running away :) - but guess this exchange is getting OT now :)

Aidan


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction


 
Smacks hand on four head !
Did they agree to stop for tea around 5:00 ish?

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...> wrote:

>
>
> Actually it is not unknown for a battle to be 'organised' like this. At the Battle of Edgehill in 1642 (first battle of the English Civil War), it was arranged via parley what time the battle would start. Cromwell thought badly of this and began it early if I recall correctly.
>
> Aidan
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>
> No I cannot believe that it's just too much, perhaps they also met at the blue/white boar inn for a pint with a coin toss to decide who faces East?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 7:29 PM, mariewalsh2003 [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It's recently been suggested (not my idea so don't shoot me down in flames) that the battle might have been pre-arranged, with the site agreed by both sides.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul isn't the site you are describing near enough to the battle site that Michael Jones suggested? If it is, in Michael's scenario Northumberland appears to be on the road to London, could that be why he didn't take part in the battle because he was charged with ensuring that the Tudor wasn't able to get on to the road to London? Also we know that in the old Ambien Hill scenario the Tudor was in Atherstone on the day before the battle and from what I remember Atherstone was near to the London Rd. Why would he deliberately turn East for several miles to do battle with Richard when he could have nipped down the road to London. There must have been something stopping him.
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Aidan but that map is way out of date!
> > > > Richard is now thought to have camped on a rise along the main road to
> > > > London that Tudor was marching along. It has been recently discovered
> > > > that at the time it was also called Ambien, and is a much more likely
> > > > place for an army to have camped than on the top of a hill, especially a
> > > > hill it would have no need to come down from when the enemy approached!
> > > > The main battle took place along the road with the two forces facing
> > > > each other across the road. The marsh is not the one Foss surmised it to
> > > > be but is the only one to have been found that was actually a marsh in
> > > > 1485. They located a number this past year, one dating back to Roman
> > > > times that had dried up by the 15th century, another that only started
> > > > in the 1700s. All the positions on Foss map are wrong and the action
> > > > incorrect according to the latest, continuing archaeological evidence.
> > > > Nothing from the dig in Leicester affects the site of the battle.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 11/02/2013 17:59, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Cc: paul.bale@
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> > > > > nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> > > > > Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > > On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> > > > >> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Aidan
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > >> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@>
> > > > >> To:
> > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> > > > >> Subject: Re: New member introduction
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > >> [snip]
> > > > >>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> > > > >> Carol responds:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to
> replace
> > > > >> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Got to go.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Carol
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

No. Michael's is too far west.
Paul

On 11/02/2013 23:44, ricard1an wrote:
> Paul isn't the site you are describing near enough to the battle site that Michael Jones suggested? If it is, in Michael's scenario Northumberland appears to be on the road to London, could that be why he didn't take part in the battle because he was charged with ensuring that the Tudor wasn't able to get on to the road to London? Also we know that in the old Ambien Hill scenario the Tudor was in Atherstone on the day before the battle and from what I remember Atherstone was near to the London Rd. Why would he deliberately turn East for several miles to do battle with Richard when he could have nipped down the road to London. There must have been something stopping him.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> Sorry Aidan but that map is way out of date!
>> Richard is now thought to have camped on a rise along the main road to
>> London that Tudor was marching along. It has been recently discovered
>> that at the time it was also called Ambien, and is a much more likely
>> place for an army to have camped than on the top of a hill, especially a
>> hill it would have no need to come down from when the enemy approached!
>> The main battle took place along the road with the two forces facing
>> each other across the road. The marsh is not the one Foss surmised it to
>> be but is the only one to have been found that was actually a marsh in
>> 1485. They located a number this past year, one dating back to Roman
>> times that had dried up by the 15th century, another that only started
>> in the 1700s. All the positions on Foss map are wrong and the action
>> incorrect according to the latest, continuing archaeological evidence.
>> Nothing from the dig in Leicester affects the site of the battle.
>> Paul
>>
>> On 11/02/2013 17:59, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>>> This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
>>>
>>>
>>> You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>> To:
>>> Cc: paul.bale@...
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
>>> nowhere near Ambien Hill.
>>> Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
>>> Paul
>>> On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>>>> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
>>>> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
>>>>
>>>> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
>>>>
>>>> Aidan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: New member introduction
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A J Hibbard wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>
>>>> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
>>>> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
>>>>
>>>> Got to go.
>>>>
>>>> Carol
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

As I said, it wasn't my idea. I think it was Anne Curry at the Society's Bosworth conference.
Marie


--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> No I cannot believe that it's just too much, perhaps they also met at the blue/white boar inn for a pint with a coin toss to decide who faces East?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 7:29 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > It's recently been suggested (not my idea so don't shoot me down in flames) that the battle might have been pre-arranged, with the site agreed by both sides.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul isn't the site you are describing near enough to the battle site that Michael Jones suggested? If it is, in Michael's scenario Northumberland appears to be on the road to London, could that be why he didn't take part in the battle because he was charged with ensuring that the Tudor wasn't able to get on to the road to London? Also we know that in the old Ambien Hill scenario the Tudor was in Atherstone on the day before the battle and from what I remember Atherstone was near to the London Rd. Why would he deliberately turn East for several miles to do battle with Richard when he could have nipped down the road to London. There must have been something stopping him.
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Aidan but that map is way out of date!
> > > > Richard is now thought to have camped on a rise along the main road to
> > > > London that Tudor was marching along. It has been recently discovered
> > > > that at the time it was also called Ambien, and is a much more likely
> > > > place for an army to have camped than on the top of a hill, especially a
> > > > hill it would have no need to come down from when the enemy approached!
> > > > The main battle took place along the road with the two forces facing
> > > > each other across the road. The marsh is not the one Foss surmised it to
> > > > be but is the only one to have been found that was actually a marsh in
> > > > 1485. They located a number this past year, one dating back to Roman
> > > > times that had dried up by the 15th century, another that only started
> > > > in the 1700s. All the positions on Foss map are wrong and the action
> > > > incorrect according to the latest, continuing archaeological evidence.
> > > > Nothing from the dig in Leicester affects the site of the battle.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 11/02/2013 17:59, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > This does not agree with you : http://www.r3.org/bosworth/map_foss1.html - which is essentially the same as the one on Wiki - and the wiki pages are pretty up to date including the events of last week.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You may be missing what I am saying - yes the final act was on the edge of the marsh and a fair distance from the hill, but the initial clash was on the southern slope according to both those maps
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Cc: paul.bale@
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:36 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: New member introduction
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> > > > > nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> > > > > Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > > On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >> Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> > > > >> Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Aidan
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > >> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@>
> > > > >> To:
> > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> > > > >> Subject: Re: New member introduction
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > >> [snip]
> > > > >>> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> > > > >> Carol responds:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> > > > >> Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Got to go.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Carol
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

That sounds very out of date - I think they need to update their website. They were totally convinced the battle was fought at Dadlington, and were still saying it was despite lack of finds, until right in the last corner of the search area they hit the marsh and the cannonshot.
Marie

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Fenn Lane farm is a good half mile in rear of the position shown for Henry/Oxford's initial position, the maps on the Battlefield trust site puts Stanley by Dadlington Farm and - from the website (2009 update)  :
>
> The combined evidence proves that the battle was fought in the area
> between the villages of Dadlington, Shenton, Upton and Stoke Golding â€"
> in a location not previously suggested.  Currently we are not releasing
> the exact location because we fear illicit treasure hunting, which has
> caused so much damage on Towton battlefield. Though here they would be
> sadly disappointed, for it has taken us thousands of man hours to
> recover the small number of finds from the battle, but even if they
> removed just a handful of finds from the site would destroy important
> evidence.
>
> So they provide incorrect maps ? argggh
>
> Well ... while they might have moved everything north a mile or so, if they still depict the relative locations of the forces and the marshes correctly, then my battle analysis remains valid, which was what I was wanting.
>
> If they need to do that to keep the scavengers off then ok - says me who removed artefacts from the battle area around the Hartenstein Museum in Oosterbeek (-where the British 1st airborne division held off two ss panzer divisions for 10 days during operation Market Garden in WWII (as in the film 'A bridge too far'). Except I did it with permission and gave them to the Pegasus club (comprised of veterans of the Normany airborne drop and the Arnhem/Oosterbeek drop).
>
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 4:50 AM
> Subject: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>  
> Just looked at at the Wikipedia entry, and it seems to be based mainly on the Dadlington theory, with sttuff from even older books thrown in for goosd measure. That marsh that is now known not to have been there! The cannonshot was found right at the western edge of the area covered by the archaeological survey, on Fenn Lane Farm, if you can find that on a map. The relevant websites for some reason aren't making that clear - possibly to stop the fields being invaded by tourists.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> > nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> > Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> > Paul
> > On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> > > Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> > >
> > >
> > > Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> > >
> > > reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: New member introduction
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> > > Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> > >
> > > BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> > >
> > > Got to go.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

PS. It is Fenn Lane Farm - a visit there was arranged for us as part of the 2010 Bosworth conference.
Marie

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Fenn Lane farm is a good half mile in rear of the position shown for Henry/Oxford's initial position, the maps on the Battlefield trust site puts Stanley by Dadlington Farm and - from the website (2009 update)  :
>
> The combined evidence proves that the battle was fought in the area
> between the villages of Dadlington, Shenton, Upton and Stoke Golding â€"
> in a location not previously suggested.  Currently we are not releasing
> the exact location because we fear illicit treasure hunting, which has
> caused so much damage on Towton battlefield. Though here they would be
> sadly disappointed, for it has taken us thousands of man hours to
> recover the small number of finds from the battle, but even if they
> removed just a handful of finds from the site would destroy important
> evidence.
>
> So they provide incorrect maps ? argggh
>
> Well ... while they might have moved everything north a mile or so, if they still depict the relative locations of the forces and the marshes correctly, then my battle analysis remains valid, which was what I was wanting.
>
> If they need to do that to keep the scavengers off then ok - says me who removed artefacts from the battle area around the Hartenstein Museum in Oosterbeek (-where the British 1st airborne division held off two ss panzer divisions for 10 days during operation Market Garden in WWII (as in the film 'A bridge too far'). Except I did it with permission and gave them to the Pegasus club (comprised of veterans of the Normany airborne drop and the Arnhem/Oosterbeek drop).
>
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 4:50 AM
> Subject: Re: New member introduction
>
>
>  
> Just looked at at the Wikipedia entry, and it seems to be based mainly on the Dadlington theory, with sttuff from even older books thrown in for goosd measure. That marsh that is now known not to have been there! The cannonshot was found right at the western edge of the area covered by the archaeological survey, on Fenn Lane Farm, if you can find that on a map. The relevant websites for some reason aren't making that clear - possibly to stop the fields being invaded by tourists.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Don't know which map you are looking at Aidan but the new location is
> > nowhere near Ambien Hill.
> > Doubt Wikipedia has the latest research at hand, or anything like it.
> > Paul
> > On 11/02/2013 17:31, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > Got this map off Wikipedia on how it is now thought the positions were - which shows that the initial battle took place close to where originally thought - just more on the south side of the hill than the west as originally though - having been to the battlefield I was always a bit doubtful of where they had Richard mounting his charge from.
> > > Given the new location of the final struggle makes a lot of sense, though given Percy's excuse, that he should stay in reserve to ensure no treachery from the Stanley's, that Percy would more logically have drawn up from the road just NW of the marsh on a roughly E-W axis. That would have put him in a position where he could, had he wanted to, indeed have moved on Stanley when Stanley moved against Richard... the position shown on the map would have meant he would have had to march around the marsh to get to Stanley.
> > >
> > >
> > > Would love to go back now - oh well, one power ball...
> > >
> > > reference to one of our lottery draws :)
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 12:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: New member introduction
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >> Are there any new facts that have been uncovered since Paul Murray Kendall wrote his biography of Richard? or is everyone still basically re-arranging the same puzzle pieces?
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Aside from the revelations and questions arising from the Leicester discoveries, we know for example that "Jane Shore" was really Elizabeth Lambert (called Mistress Shore by Richard because that was her married name), that she really did marry Thomas Lynom, and that Richard and Anne Neville really did have a papal dispensation to marry. There's a great deal of discussion on the site of Bosworth not being where historians thought it was (and on the details of the battle, especially Northumberland's role). And, of course, there's more scientific knowledge about the bones in the urn, which Kendall was sure belonged to the "princes." That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but, no. It's definitely not just rearranging the same puzzle pieces. More information is becoming available all the time. It's just not all accessible in one place. I love Kendall's biography, but we definitely need a new one that incorporates the new information to replace
> > > Ross's as the "definitive" R III biography. I expect a spate of new books, good and bad (by which I mean well-researched and well-written versus, well, Alison Weir and her ilk), favorable, unfavorable, and neutral. One thing these books (the good ones) will need to do is establish once and for all that scoliosis is not a hunchback.
> > >
> > > BTW, both Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill are planning revised editions of their books ("The Maligned King" and "Last Days of Richard III") to incorporate the new findings. I would highly recommend both books, even minus the revisions, as a quick way of learning what has happened since Kendall.
> > >
> > > Got to go.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>